The Budapest Open Access Initiative after 10 years
years ago the Budapest Open Access Initiative launched a worldwide campaign for
open access (OA) to all new peer-reviewed research. It didn’t invent the idea
of OA. On the contrary, it deliberately drew together existing projects to
explore how they might “work together to achieve broader, deeper, and faster
success.” But the BOAI was the first initiative to use the term “open access”
for this purpose, the first to articulate a public definition, the first to
propose complementary strategies for realizing OA, the first to generalize the
call for OA to all disciplines and countries, and the first to be accompanied
by significant funding.
we’re no longer at the beginning of this worldwide campaign, and not yet at the
end. We’re solidly in the middle, and draw upon a decade of experience in order
to make new recommendations for the next ten years.
reaffirm the BOAI “statement of principle,...statement of strategy,
and...statement of commitment.” We reaffirm the aspiration to achieve this
“unprecedented public good” and to “accelerate research, enrich education,
share the learning of the rich with the poor and the poor with the rich, make
this literature as useful as it can be, and lay the foundation for uniting
humanity in a common intellectual conversation and quest for knowledge.”
reaffirm our confidence that “the goal is attainable and not merely preferable
or utopian.” Nothing from the last ten years has made the goal less attainable.
On the contrary, OA is well-established and growing in every field. We have
more than a decade’s worth of practical wisdom on how to implement OA. The
technical, economic, and legal feasibility of OA are well-tested and
in the last ten years makes OA less necessary or less opportune. On the
contrary, it remains the case that “scientists and scholars...publish the
fruits of their research in scholarly journals without payment” and “without
expectation of payment.” In addition, scholars typically participate in peer
review as referees and editors without expectation of payment. Yet more often
than not, access barriers to peer-reviewed research literature remain firmly in
place, for the benefit of intermediaries rather than authors, referees, or
editors, and at the expense of research, researchers, and research
nothing from the last ten years suggests that the goal is less valuable or
worth attaining. On the contrary, the imperative to make knowledge available to
everyone who can make use of it, apply it, or build on it is more pressing than
reaffirm the two primary strategies put forward in the BOAI: OA through
repositories (also called “green OA”) and OA through journals (also called
“gold OA”). Ten years of experience lead us to reaffirm that green and gold OA
“are not only direct and effective means to this end, they are within the reach
of scholars themselves, immediately, and need not wait on changes brought about
by markets or legislation.”
years of experience lead us to reaffirm the definition of OA introduced in the
By “open access” to [peer-reviewed
research literature], we mean its free availability on the public internet,
permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link
to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data
to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial,
legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access
to the internet itself. The only constraint on reproduction and distribution,
and the only role for copyright in this domain, should be to give authors
control over the integrity of their work and the right to be properly
acknowledged and cited.
problems that previously held up the adoption and implementation of OA are
solved, and the solutions are spreading. But until OA spreads further, the
problems for which OA is a solution will remain largely unsolved. In this
statement, we reaffirm the ends and means of the original BOAI, and recommit
ourselves to make progress. But in addition, we specifically set the new goal
that within the next ten years, OA will become the default method for
distributing new peer-reviewed research in every field and country.
Recommendations for the next 10 years
1. On policy
1.1. Every institution of higher education should have a policy
assuring that peer-reviewed versions of all future scholarly articles by
faculty members are deposited in the institution’s designated repository. (See
recommendation 3.1 on institutional repositories.)
- Deposits should be made as
early as possible, ideally at the time of acceptance, and no later than the
date of formal publication.
- University policies should
respect faculty freedom to submit new work to the journals of their choice.
- University policies should
encourage but not require publication in OA journals, and should help faculty
understand the difference between depositing in an OA repository and publishing
in an OA journal.
- When possible, university
policies should be adopted by faculty vote, should require immediate OA, and
should welcome repository deposits even when not required (e.g. datasets,
conference presentations, books or book chapters, work published before the
policy's adoption, and so on).
- When publishers will not
allow OA on the university’s preferred terms, we recommend either of two
courses. The policy may require dark or non-OA deposit in the institutional
repository until permission for OA can be obtained. Or the policy may grant the
institution a nonexclusive right to make future faculty research articles OA
through the institutional repository (with or without the option for faculty to
waive this grant of rights for any given publication).
1.2. Every institution of higher education offering advanced
degrees should have a policy assuring that future theses and dissertations are
deposited upon acceptance in the institution's OA repository. At the request of
students who want to publish their work, or seek a patent on a patentable
discovery, policies should grant reasonable delays rather than permanent
1.3. Every research funding agency, public or private, should
have a policy assuring that peer-reviewed versions of all future scholarly
articles reporting funded research are deposited in a suitable repository and
made OA as soon as practicable.
- Deposits should be made as
early as possible, ideally at the time of acceptance, and no later than the
date of formal publication.
- When publishers will not
allow OA on the funder’s terms, funder policies should require grantees to seek
- If funder policies allow
embargoes before new work becomes OA, the embargoes should not exceed six
months. Policies should allow no embargoes at all for uncopyrightable work.
- Funders should treat
publication costs as research costs, and should help grantees pay reasonable
publication fees at fee-based OA journals.
- When possible, funder
policies should require libre OA, preferably under a CC-BY license or
- A repository is suitable for
this purpose when it provides OA, supports interoperability with other
repositories, and take steps toward long-term preservation. The funder’s choice
should be determined by ongoing research into questions such as which choice
best fosters the deposit of covered articles, the utility of deposits, the
convenience of funders and authors, and incentives for the further growth of
1.4. All university and funder OA policies should require
deposit in a suitable OA repository between the date of acceptance and the date
of publication. The metadata should be deposited as soon as it is available and
should be OA from the moment of deposit. The full-text should be made OA as
soon as the repository has permission to make it OA.
1.5. We discourage the use of journal impact factors as
surrogates for the quality of journals, articles, or authors. We encourage the
development of alternative metrics for impact and quality which are less
simplistic, more reliable, and entirely open for use and reuse.
- Insofar as universities, funding agencies, and research
assessment programs need to measure the impact of individual articles, they
should use article-level metrics, not journal-level metrics.
- We encourage research on the accuracy of the new metrics. As the
research shows them to be useful and trustworthy, we encourage their use by
universities (when evaluating faculty for promotion and tenure), funding
agencies (when evaluating applicants for funding), research assessment programs
(when assessing research impact), and publishers (when promoting their
- We encourage the development of materials to explain how journal
impact factors have been misused, and how alternative metrics can better serve
the purposes for which most institutions have previously used impact factors.
- As impact metrics improve, we encourage further study into the
question whether OA and OA policies increase research impact.
1.6. Universities with institutional repositories should require
deposit in the repository for all research articles to be considered for
promotion, tenure, or other forms of internal assessment and review.
- Similarly, governments performing research assessment should
require deposit in OA repositories for all research articles to be reviewed for
national assessment purposes.
- Neither policy should be construed to limit the review of other
sorts of evidence, or to alter the standards of review.
Publishers who do not provide OA should at least permit it through their formal
should refrain from lobbying against governments acting in the public interest,
and refrain from lobbying against research institutions acting in the interests
of researchers and research. Publishers should disavow lobbying campaigns
carried out in their name by their professional or trade associations against
the public interest and the interests of researchers and research.
minority of subscription-based publishers who do not yet allow author-initiated
green OA, without payment or embargo, should adopt the majority position.
remind researchers that they need not work as authors, editors, or referees for
publishers who act against their interests.
2. On licensing and reuse
2.1. We recommend CC-BY or an equivalent license as the optimal
license for the publication, distribution, use, and reuse of scholarly work.
- OA repositories typically depend on permissions from others,
such as authors or publishers, and are rarely in a position to require open
licenses. However, policy makers in a position to direct deposits into
repositories should require open licenses, preferably CC-BY, when they can.
- OA journals are always in a position to require open licenses,
yet most of them do not yet take advantage of the opportunity. We recommend
CC-BY for all OA journals.
- In developing strategy and setting priorities, we recognize that
gratis access is better than priced access, libre access is better than gratis
access, and libre under CC-BY or the equivalent is better than libre under more
restrictive open licenses. We should achieve what we can when we can. We should
not delay achieving gratis in order to achieve libre, and we should not stop
with gratis when we can achieve libre.
3. On infrastructure and sustainability
3.1. Every institution of higher education should have an OA
repository, participate in a consortium with a consortial OA repository, or
arrange to outsource OA repository services.
3.2. Every publishing scholar in every field and country,
including those not affiliated with institutions of higher education, should
have deposit rights in an OA repository.
- This will require more institutional repositories or more
disciplinary repositories, or both. It may also require, at least in the short
term, more universal repositories or repositories of last resort for scholars
who don’t have an OA repository in their institution or field. The interface
text in these universal repositories should be available in several languages.
3.3. OA repositories should acquire the means to harvest from
and re-deposit to other OA repositories.
- Researchers who have reason to deposit into more than one
repository should only have to deposit once. When possible, institutional
repositories should offer to re-deposit articles in disciplinary repositories
requested by authors (e.g. arXiv, PubMed Central, SSRN), and should harvest or
download copies of faculty publications deposited in disciplinary repositories.
3.4. OA repositories should make download, usage, and citation
data available to their authors, and make these data available to the tools
computing alternative impact metrics. Journal publishers should do the same,
whether or not their journals are OA.
- Repositories should share these data with one another in
standard formats, making it possible (for example) for authors to learn the total
downloads for an article on deposit in multiple repositories. No author and no
repository should have interest in blocking re-deposit in an additional
repository simply to preserve an accurate measure of traffic.
3.5. Universities and funding agencies should help authors pay
reasonable publication fees at fee-based OA journals, and find comparable ways
to support or subsidize no-fee OA journals.
- In both cases, they should require libre OA under open licenses,
preferably CC-BY licenses or the equivalent, as a condition of their financial
- Supporting peer-reviewed OA journals in these ways should be a
top priority for any money saved from the cancellation or conversion of
- Supporting peer-reviewed OA journals can be particularly
important for journals with a more limited audience, such as journals focusing
on national law in smaller countries or journals published in a local language,
and for journals where publication fees are inappropriate, such as review
journals which solicit review articles from authors.
When subscription-based or non-OA journals permit any kind of self-archiving,
or deposit into OA repositories, they should describe what they permit in
precise human-readable and machine-readable terms, under an open standard.
These descriptions should include at least the version that may be deposited,
the timing of deposits, and the licenses that could be attached to deposited
3.7. OA repositories should provide tools, already available at
no charge, to convert deposits made in PDF format into machine-readable formats
such as XML.
3.8. Research institutions, including research funders, should
support the development and maintenance of the tools, directories, and
resources essential to the progress and sustainability of OA.
- The list of essential tools will evolve over time, but includes
OA repositories and journals, free and open-source repository software, free
and open-source journal management software, tools for text- and data-mining,
directories of OA journals and repositories, directories of university and
funder policies, providers of open licenses, digital preservation services,
current awareness services, services for cross-linking and persistent URLs, and
- Research institutions should also support the establishment of
worldwide, open standards for metadata and querying that publishers and
repositories could implement to make OA research more discoverable,
retrievable, and useful.
3.9. We should improve and apply the tools necessary to harvest
the references or bibliographic citations from published literature. The facts
about who cited whom are in the public domain, and should be OA in standard
formats for use, reuse, and analysis. This will assist researchers and research
institutions in knowing what literature exists, even if they don’t have access
to it, and in the development of new metrics for access and impact.
- We urge all publishers to cooperate with this effort.
- We recommend the development of infrastructure where reference
data may be deposited by publishers, authors, volunteers, third-party
entrepreneurs, or software, and where the reference data may be hosted for OA
3.10. We should assist in the gathering, organizing, and
disseminating of OA metadata in standard formats for all new and old
publications, including non-OA publications.
3.11. Scholarly publishers need infrastructure for cross-linking
and persistent URLs based on open standards, available at no charge, and
supporting linking and attribution at arbitrary levels of granularity, such as
paragraph-level, image-level, and assertion-level identification.
encourage the further development of open standards for interoperability, and
tools to implement those standards in OA journals and repositories.
encourage experiments with different methods of post-publication review, and
research into their effectiveness.
- OA through repositories, OA through journals, and OA through
books are all compatible with every kind of traditional pre-publication peer
review, and OA does not presuppose any particular form of peer review. We
recommend experiments with post-publication peer review not because it will be
superior, although it might, but because it would reduce delays before new work
becomes OA and could reduce first-copy costs.
3.14. We encourage experiments with new forms of the scholarly
research “article” and “book” in which texts are integrated in useful ways with
underlying data, multimedia elements, executable code, related literature, and
- We encourage experiments to take better advantage of the digital
medium, and digital networks, for the benefit of research.
- We encourage experiments to take better advantage of the ways in
which OA articles remove access barriers for machines, and not just for human
- We encourage the use of open standards and formats to foster
these uses, and research on their effectiveness.
4. On advocacy and coordination
should do more to make publishers, editors, referees and researchers aware of
standards of professional conduct for OA publishing, for example on licensing,
editorial process, soliciting submissions, disclosing ownership, and the
handling of publication fees. Editors, referees and researchers should evaluate
opportunities to engage with publishers and journals on the basis of these
standards of professional conduct. Where publishers are not meeting these
standards we should help them improve as a first step.
- As one means for evaluating a new or unknown OA publisher or OA
journal, we recommend that researchers consult the Open Access Scholarly
Publishers Association (OASPA) and its code of conduct. Members of the
association are screened according to this code. Complaints about OASPA-member
publishers and suggestions for improving the code of conduct should be sent to
- We encourage all OA publishers and OA journals to apply best
practices recommended by OASPA or to seek membership in the association, which
would entail a review of their practices and an opportunity to amend these
4.2. We should develop guidelines to universities and funding
agencies considering OA policies, including recommended policy terms, best
practices, and answers to frequently asked questions.
4.3. We encourage development of a consolidated resource where
it is easy to follow the progress of OA through the most relevant numbers and
graphics. Each bit of information should be updated regularly, and its
provenance or method of computation clearly indicated.
4.4. The OA community should act in concert more often. Wherever
possible, OA organizations and activists should look for ways to coordinate
their activities and communications in order to make better use of their
resources, minimize duplication of effort, strengthen the message, and
- We should create better mechanisms for communicating and
coordinating with one another.
- We should reach out to our academic colleagues, to the academic
press, and the mainstream non-academic press. The academic and non-academic media
are better informed about OA, and more interested in it, than at any time in
our history. This is an opportunity for helping to educate all stakeholder
groups about OA and new proposals to advance it.
4.5. The worldwide campaign for OA to research articles should
work more closely with the worldwide campaigns for OA to books, theses and
dissertations, research data, government data, educational resources, and
- We should coordinate with kindred efforts less directly
concerned with access to research, such as copyright reform, orphan works,
digital preservation, digitizing print literature, evidence-based
policy-making, the freedom of speech, and the evolution of libraries,
publishing, peer review, and social media.
- We should look for ways to amplify our separate voices when
defending common principles.
4.6. We need to articulate more clearly, with more evidence, and
to more stakeholder groups the following truths about OA:
- OA benefits research and researchers, and the lack of OA impedes
- OA for publicly-funded research benefits taxpayers and increases
the return on their investment in research. It has economic benefits as well as
academic or scholarly benefits.
- OA amplifies the social value of research, and OA policies
amplify the social value of funding agencies and research institutions.
- The costs of OA can be
recovered without adding more money to the current system of scholarly
- OA is consistent with copyright law everywhere in the world, and
gives both authors and readers more rights than they have under conventional
- OA is consistent with the highest standards of quality.
September 12, 2012