, Volume 99, Issue 2, pp 475–494 | Cite as

Green open access policies of scholarly journal publishers: a study of what, when, and where self-archiving is allowed

  • Mikael LaaksoEmail author


The degree to which scholarly journal articles published in subscription-based journals could be provided open access (OA) through publisher-permitted uploading to freely accessible web locations, so called green OA, is an underexplored area of research. This study combines article volume data originating from the Scopus bibliographic database with manually coded publisher policies of the 100 largest journal publishers measured by article output volume for the year 2010. Of the 1.1 million articles included in the analysis, 80.4 % could be uploaded either as an accepted manuscript or publisher version to an institutional or subject repository after one year of publication. Publishers were found to be substantially more permissive with allowing accepted manuscripts on personal webpages (78.1 % of articles) or in institutional repositories (79.9 %) compared to subject repositories (32.8 %). With previous studies suggesting realized green OA to be around 12 % of total annual articles the results highlight the substantial unused potential for green OA.


Open access Self-archiving Scientific publishing Science policy 


  1. Antelman, K. (2006). Self-archiving practice and the influence of publisher policies in the social sciences. Learned Publishing, 19(2), 85–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Björk, B. C., Laakso, M., Welling, P., & Paetau, P. (2014). Anatomy of green open access. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. In Press. doi:  10.1002/asi.22963.
  3. Covey, D. T. (2009). Self-archiving journal articles: A case study of faculty practice and missed opportunity. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 9(2), 223–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Creaser, C., Fry, J., Greenwood, H., Oppenheim, C., Probets, S., Spezi, V., et al. (2010). Authors’ awareness and attitudes toward open access repositories. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 16(Sup1), 145–161. doi: 10.1080/13614533.2010.518851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. DOAJ. (2013). Directory of open access journals.
  6. Elsevier. (2013a). What does it cover? Content coverage guide for SciVerse/Scopus. Retrieved from
  7. Finch, J. (2012). Accessibility, sustainability, excellence: How to expand access to research publications, p.140.
  8. Finch, J. (2013). Accessibility, sustainability, excellence: How to expand access to research publications—A review of progress in implementing the recommendations of the Finch report, p.74.
  9. Gadd, E., Oppenheim, C., & Probets, S. (2003). RoMEO studies 4: An analysis of journal publishers’ copyright agreements. Learned Publishing, 16(4), 293–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hansen, D. (2012). Understanding and making use of academic authors’ open access rights. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication, 1(2), eP1050. doi: 10.7710/2162-3309.1050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Harnad, S., Brody, T., Vallieres, F., Carr, L., Hitchcock, S., Gingras, Y., et al. (2004). The access/impact problem and the green and gold roads to open access. Serials Review, 30(4), 310–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Laakso, M., & Björk, B. C. (2012). Anatomy of open access publishing: A study of longitudinal development and internal structure. BMC Medicine, 10, 124. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-10-124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Laakso, M., & Björk, B. C. (2013). Delayed open access: An overlooked high-impact category of openly available scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 64(7), 1323–1329. doi: 10.1002/asi.22856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Larsen, P. O., & Ins, M. (2010). The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by science citation index. Scientometrics, 84(3), 575–603. doi: 10.1007/s11192-010-0202-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Miguel, S., Chinchilla-Rodriguez, Z., & de Moya-Anegón, F. (2011). Open access and scopus: A new approach to scientific visibility from the standpoint of access. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(6), 1130–1145. doi: 10.1002/asi.21532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Morris, S. (2009). Journal authors’ rights: Perception and reality (PRC Summary Paper 5).
  17. (2013). Understanding CHORUS.
  18. Rowlands, I., & Nicholas, D. (2005). Scholarly communication in the digital environment: The 2005 survey of journal author behaviour and attitudes. Aslib Proceedings, 57(6), 481–497. doi: 10.1108/00012530510634226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. SCIMago. (2007). SJR–SCImago journal & country rank. Retrieved from
  20. Scopus. (2013). The Scopus bibliographic database.
  21. SHERPA/RoMEO. (2013). SHERPA/RoMEO: Publisher copyright policies & self-archiving.
  22. SHERPA/RoMEO Statistics. (2013). SHERPA/RoMEO statistics.|&mode=simple.Google Scholar
  23. Solomon, D. J., Laakso, M., & Björk, B. C. (2013). A longitudinal comparison of citation rates and growth among open access journals. Journal of Informetrics, 7(3), 642–650. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2013.03.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Spezi, V., Fry, J., Creaser, C., Probets, S., & White, S. (2013). Researchers’ green open access practice: A cross-disciplinary analysis. Journal of Documentation, 69(3), 334–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Swan, A., & Brown, S. (2005). Open access self-archiving: An author study. Key Perspectives Report, p. 97.
  26. Tenopir, C., Volentine, R., & King, D. W. (2013). Social media and scholarly reading. Online Information Review, 37(2), 193–216. doi: 10.1108/OIR-04-2012-0062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. UlrichsWeb. (2013). UlrichsWeb serials solutions.
  28. Web of Knowledge. (2013). Thomson reuters web of knowledge.
  29. (2013). Memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies.

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Information Systems Science, Department of Management and OrganisationHanken School of EconomicsHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations