November 11, 2025
Samuel Moore, Ross Mounce, Sally Rumsey, Niamh Tumelty
Slides (CC BY 4.0) https://tinyurl.com/leeds-eglen25.
Quarto Format from Grant McDermott.
I have been a long-term proponent of open research, sharing code and data relating to research projects. Why should published articles be any different?
I work in STEM (computational neuroscience) in a maths department (i.e. arXiv friendly). Attitudes vary among scientists; situation likely different in Arts.
I started researching “rights retention” in the days recovering from first Covid injection, early 2021.
Rights retention: author gets to retain rights over their “author accepted manuscript” (not final published version, often termed “version of record”).
Rights retention strategy developed by “coalition S”, a body of funders, who wished articles resulting from projects they funded, to be immediately available under open licence (CC BY).
There are two forms . . .
Author can assert their rights by adding following into acknowledgements of their manuscript):
For the purpose of open access, the author has applied a CreativeCommons Attribution (CC BY) licence to any Author’s Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission.
Life cycle of a manuscript
(Also called “Self-publishing policy”)
An academic institution can impose conditions on their staff/students, e.g. such that the institution has the non-exclusive right to deposit author-accepted manuscripts without embargo into suitable open repositories.
As of Nov 2025, at least 55 UK institutions have insitutional policies.
Not a silver bullet. There is a “golden window” (if you forgive the pun) of opportunity whilst many journals are still hybrid.
| Title | Status | APC (£) |
|---|---|---|
| Nature | Hybrid | 9,390 |
| Nature Neuroscience | Hybrid | 9,390 |
| Nature Communications | Gold | 5,490 |
| Neuroinformatics | Hybrid | 3,190 |