IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jpubli/v11y2023i2p28-d1145126.html

The Politics of Rights Retention

Author

Listed:
  • Samuel A. Moore

    (Cambridge University Libraries and Homerton College, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1TN, UK)

Abstract

This article presents a commentary on the recent resurgence of interest in the practice of rights retention in scholarly publishing. Led in part by the evolving European policy landscape, rights retention seeks to ensure immediate access to accepted manuscripts uploaded to repositories. The article identifies a trajectory in the development of rights retention from something that publishers could previously ignore to a practice they are now forced to confront. Despite being couched in the neoliberal logic of market-centric policymaking, I argue that rights retention represents a more combative approach to publisher power by institutions and funders that could yield significant benefits for a more equitable system of open access publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Samuel A. Moore, 2023. "The Politics of Rights Retention," Publications, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-9, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:11:y:2023:i:2:p:28-:d:1145126
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/11/2/28/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/11/2/28/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vincent Larivière & Stefanie Haustein & Philippe Mongeon, 2015. "The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-15, June.
    2. Lin Zhang & Yahui Wei & Ying Huang & Gunnar Sivertsen, 2022. "Should open access lead to closed research? The trends towards paying to perform research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 7653-7679, December.
    3. Cameron Neylon, 2012. "Open access must enable open use," Nature, Nature, vol. 492(7429), pages 348-349, December.
    4. Julie Baldwin & Stephen Pinfield, 2018. "The UK Scholarly Communication Licence: Attempting to Cut through the Gordian Knot of the Complexities of Funder Mandates, Publisher Embargoes and Researcher Caution in Achieving Open Access," Publications, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-28, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fei Shu & Vincent Larivière, 2024. "The oligopoly of open access publishing," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(1), pages 519-536, January.
    2. de Oliveira, Thaiane Moreira & de Albuquerque, Sofia & Toth, Janderson Pereira & Bello, Debora Zava, 2018. "International cooperation networks of the BRICS bloc," SocArXiv b6x43, Center for Open Science.
    3. Alex Huang, 2026. "Journal Impact Factor and Federal Reserve Monetary Policy: An Econometric Analysis Based on 1975-2026," Papers 2601.09618, arXiv.org.
    4. Jesse L. Reynolds & Edward A. Parson, 2020. "Nonstate governance of solar geoengineering research," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 160(2), pages 323-342, May.
    5. Marcel Knöchelmann, 2019. "Open Science in the Humanities, or: Open Humanities?," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-17, November.
    6. You, Taekho & Park, Jinseo & Lee, June Young & Yun, Jinhyuk & Jung, Woo-Sung, 2022. "Disturbance of questionable publishing to academia," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    7. Stephan Puehringer & Johanna Rath & Teresa Griesebner, 2021. "The political economy of academic publishing: On the commodification of a public good," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(6), pages 1-21, June.
    8. Xinyi Chen, 2024. "Interactions of Publication Volume, Journal Impact, and Article Processing Charges: Comparative Study of China and Global Practices in Nature Portfolio," Publications, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-17, December.
    9. María Bordons & Borja González-Albo & Luz Moreno-Solano, 2023. "Improving our understanding of open access: how it relates to funding, internationality of research and scientific leadership," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(8), pages 4651-4676, August.
    10. Julien Vastenaekels, 2023. "Degrowth and Capital: Assembling a Power-Centred Theory of Change," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/362596, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    11. Korytkowski, Przemyslaw & Kulczycki, Emanuel, 2021. "The gap between Plan S requirements and grantees’ publication practices," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2).
    12. Najko Jahn & Lisa Matthias & Mikael Laakso, 2022. "Toward transparency of hybrid open access through publisher‐provided metadata: An article‐level study of Elsevier," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 73(1), pages 104-118, January.
    13. Sandra Miguel & Claudia M. González & Zaida Chinchilla-Rodríguez, 2024. "Towards a new approach to analyzing the geographical scope of national research. An exploratory analysis at the country level," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(7), pages 3659-3679, July.
    14. Müge Akbulut, 2026. "The Transformative Agreement paradox: A game theory analysis of large scholarly publishers and library negotiation strategies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 131(1), pages 647-664, January.
    15. Yurij L. Katchanov & Yulia V. Markova, 2017. "The “space of physics journals”: topological structure and the Journal Impact Factor," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 313-333, October.
    16. Xiaoting Chen & Abdelghani Maddi & Yanyan Wang, 2025. "How China Governs Open Science: Policies, Priorities, and Structural Imbalances," Publications, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-24, June.
    17. Bo-Christer Björk, 2017. "Scholarly journal publishing in transition- from restricted to open access," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 27(2), pages 101-109, May.
    18. Giuseppe Pernagallo, 2025. "Too much science," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 469-490, December.
    19. Lina Xu & Steven Dellaportas & Jin Wang, 2022. "A study of interdisciplinary accounting research: analysing the diversity of cited references," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(2), pages 2131-2162, June.
    20. Maier, Gunther, 2025. "Gutenberg 2.0 − Academic publishing in the digital world," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:11:y:2023:i:2:p:28-:d:1145126. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.