Rights Retention Starter Kit

When you write an article you, as the author, or your employer (if the work is produced as part of your duties) automatically owns the copyright in the manuscript. University Intellectual Property (IP) policies allow authors to enter into publication agreements without the need for asking permission to do this. When a manuscript is accepted by a publisher, the author is asked to sign a publishing agreement.

Commercial publishing agreements usually ask the author to either assign the entire copyright to the publisher or grant the publisher an exclusive licence to all rights under copyright. (see CTA and ELA in glossary). Whether expressed as an assignment or an exclusive licence, the legal outcome is that the publisher alone thereafter controls how the work can be accessed (as a book; part of a journal subscription or shared online) for the life of the copyright, which is normally the right of the author plus seventy years. You, though the author, are thereafter prevented from dealing with the work without obtaining the publisher’s permission. The publisher profits from entering into licences for future uses of the work eg. by fees paid to use publications in teaching or through library subscriptions. The publisher can also licence the works to third parties such as AI developers without asking you or remove the work from circulation that are no longer considered commercially relevant.

Rights retention is the legal mechanism that allows authors and their employers to keep sufficient rights to make the work publicly accessible (open access) through a copy of the work deposited in a disciplinary or institutional repository without embargoes or paying open access fees. The publisher still gets a licence to the final version of the work.

By retaining copyright, authors and universities can ensure there that the author’s final version of the work remains accessible, on terms set out in an open licence. This is usually one of the Creative Commons (CC) licences, such as an attribution licence (CC BY) that allows anyone to copy, distribute, adapt, or build upon a copyrighted work so long as the author is acknowledged.

Copyright is automatically owned by the author/s of a work as soon as it is written. If there are multiple authors, copyright is owned jointly by all authors.

However, if you are employed to research and write, usually the employment contract and university IP Policy determines what rights authors retain. Copyright ownership may also be addressed in related policies such as an open access policy, authorship policy, publication policy or research policy.

Students and researchers who are not employed by the university such as visitors usually own the copyright in their work, unless there is an alternative agreement in writing.

Increasingly universities are adopting ICIP protocols and policies that can alter IP practices with respect to research involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander authors and collaborators. Usually there is a need for a separate agreement about copyright ownership and the appropriate access conditions that should be applied for this content.

Some policies also exempt creative works from employer copyright ownership claims and open access mandates.

Some university IP policies include clauses assigning or licensing copyright in scholarly outputs to research staff without securing rights retention. If this occurs, commercial publication agreements will normally override open access policies and rights retention statements included at time of submission.

If you have already signed a publisher agreement transferring copyright, then the publisher owns it.

Some funder policies such as the NHMRC/MRFF Open Science Policy (2025) and the ARC Open Access Policy (2026) suggests authors attach a rights retention statement at point of submission of a manuscript or preprint. A rights retention statement (RRS) is a prior notification to a publisher that the author or university intends to retain their copyright and apply a Creative Commons licence to the accepted manuscript (AAM). 

Example:

“For the purposes of open access, the author has applied a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript (AAM) version arising from this submission.”

A RRS may also indicate compliance with a funder or institutional policy.

Examples:

‘This research was funded in whole or part by The Australian Research Council [grant identification number and DOI]. For the purposes of compliance with the funder’s open access policy, the author has applied a CC BY licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission’.

“This research was produced in whole or part by UNSW Sydney researchers and is subject to the UNSW Intellectual property policy. For the purposes of Open Access, the author has applied a Creative Commons Attribution CC-BY licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript (AAM) version arising from this submission”.

If the university IP Policy provides for effective rights retention there is no legal need for employee authors to include a rights retention statement. The IP Policy operates to protect the author and institution so that a copy can be held in the institutional repository.

If you are submitting your article to a publisher that does not require copyright transfer or an exclusive licence such as many community or discipline run Diamond Open Access journals, then a RRS is not relevant.

If you are intending to publish open access and pay an APC or are relying on a read & publish agreement to make work open access, there is a need to consider the contractual terms. Some commercial publishers include terms that would not comply with sector understandings of open access or as defined in Creative Commons licences, such as open access being conditional on renewal of a read and publish agreement.

Rights retention statements need to be included when the university IP policy does not protect rights retention with an appropriate clause, such as the following:

Ownership of IP generated by Staff

In accordance with general law principles, the University as an employer owns all scholarly works created by senior staff, academic and professional staff members in the course of their employment. Intellectual property created in pursuance of or incidental to the performance of a staff member’s employment contract is considered to have been created in the course of employment whether or not a staff member’s express duties include a duty to develop intellectual property.

Licence in scholarly works

The University grants each staff member a non-exclusive, royalty free, perpetual, irrevocable, world-wide transferable right to reproduce, publish, perform, communicate, adapt or modify their scholarly works. The university consents to staff members entering into publication agreements without requiring further permission.

If rights retention statements need to be used, they should be included at the point of submission, e.g. in a cover letter. It can also be added to the acknowledgements section of your manuscript.

Follow the guidelines given by your university or research funder and see “What is a Rights Retention Statement?” (above FAQ).

Yes, a RRS should be included with each manuscript submission if it is needed. See “Do I need a rights retention statement?”.

Theoretically RR could be used in any situation where you are agreeing to copyright transfer or licencing. Currently ARC and NHMRC/MRFF and universities do not mandate immediate open access for chapters and monographs in their OA policies, however they do recommend it, along with CC BY licences.

Royalty payments may also be a consideration for monograph publishing agreements, so review the agreements and negotiate if necessary before committing to a publication.

If the university IP policy has effective rights retention clauses, then a contradictory agreement signed by an author with a publisher such as through a click-through contract which assigns to the commercial publisher all rights, will likely not be enforceable by the publisher against the author or university.

Unfortunately some publishers are unclear and insist on rights transfer and/or an embargo. cOAlition S have created pre-submission letter templates and submission cover letter templates to help authors ask for clarity. (Pre-submission & covering letter templates).

Rights retention practices have been utilised internationally for many years. It is highly unlikely that a publisher will pursue legal action against either a university or individual researcher due to their own reputational risk.

Publishers could decide to reject a manuscript with a RRS, however there have been no documented cases of this occurring and it is highly unlikely that desk rejection would be based on the inclusion of a RRS. 

Rights retention was first adopted at Harvard University in 2008 and their researchers have not struggled to get their papers published in a journal of their choice. Since 2020 many UK and EU universities have adopted rights retention. The open access directory (OAD) maintains a world-wide list of over 900 university rights retention policies.

Publishers have the right to reject a submission if it includes a Rights Retention statement, however in practice this is unlikely to happen, especially if you are following a policy of your funder or institution.

If you are a staff member at an Australian university, you can tell the publisher you do not own the copyright under the Copyright Act s35(6) and therefore cannot assign it to them.

If a publisher persists you may need to consider choosing an alternative publisher with a compatible open access policy.

Yes, but this is often not possible due to the way submission processes are automated. Journal editors cannot usually assist authors with modifying licence terms as it is the publisher that determines mandatory contractual terms. You can include an author addendum when you sign your publisher agreement. But note these can be difficult to enforce.

If you have included a RR statement with your submission, there should be no need to negotiate with a publisher.

If you have published in a subscription journal you can share your Author Accepted Manuscript (AAM), the final version after peer-review, but before publisher typesetting and formatting.

If your article is published open access with a CC licence, you can share the publisher version (VoR).

Deposit your work in your university institutional repository. Contact your university library for help if needed.

Rights retention allows authors to share their work as soon as it is finalised, usually immediately after the final version is published.

If you have retained your rights you do not need to wait for an embargo period.

Your choice of Creative Commons licence depends on the type of work and what permissions you want to give to users. CC BY is recommended / preferred by most funders as it is the most open, allowing for maximum reuse and adaptation.

Other open licences include CC BY NC (Non Commercial) that grants the public permission to copy, distribute, adapt, and build upon a work provided credit is given and the use is strictly for non-commercial purposes; CC BY ND (No Derivatives) which requires credit and users can share, copy, and redistribute the work in its exact, original form but they may not alter or make adaptations without permission; or the most restrictive open licence CC BY NC ND (Non Commercial No Derivatives) which requires credit, reuse only of the exact original form, and reuse to be for non commercial purposes.

If your work includes material that should not be altered or modified without permission, then a CC BY ND licence may be more appropriate. Examples include works containing Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property or Mātauranga Māori.

You might say something like this:

“Rights retention is about making sure you keep enough control over your own articles so you can actually use them, in your teaching, future research, collaborations, and public engagement, instead of handing all those rights to the publisher.

Normally, publisher agreements ask you to transfer copyright or give them an exclusive licence. That can mean you technically need their permission to:

• upload your accepted manuscript to the institutional repository
• use your own figures or text in a new article, chapter or report
• share the paper with collaborators, industry partners or on a course site
• include it in course readers, LMS sites or open educational resources

With rights retention, you tell the publisher up front that you are keeping key rights. You still let them publish the article, but you also keep the right to:

• deposit the Author Accepted Manuscript openly in the university repository (usually immediately)
• apply a Creative Commons licence (often CC BY) so others can reuse and cite it
• reuse your own work in teaching materials and future publications without extra permission
• meet funder and institutional open access requirements without relying on publisher embargoes

In short: you still publish in the same journal, but you avoid being locked out of your own work and you make sure it can be shared and reused the way you need.”

Librarians can watch for a few recurring misconceptions:

1. “If I use a rights retention statement, the journal will automatically reject my paper.”
2. “Rights retention is only for people with lawyers or big legal teams.”
3. “If I pay an APC, I must automatically keep all my rights anyway.”
4. “Rights retention conflicts with my funder or institutional policy.”
5. “Using a repository or Creative Commons licence is ‘piracy’ or legally risky.”

You can counter these by explaining that:

1. Most journals do not desk-reject solely because a standard rights retention statement is included, especially where it follows funder or institutional guidance; in practice, rejections on this basis are rare.
2. Rights retention is designed to be used by ordinary researchers and librarians, using short, standard wording, not by lawyers; your role is to provide simple templates and examples they can reuse.
3. APCs usually pay for open access to the published Version of Record under specified terms, but do not automatically grant authors broad reuse rights, so a rights retention approach can still be important.
4. Many funders and institutions now explicitly support or require immediate open access and are compatible with rights retention; using their recommended wording helps ensure alignment rather than conflict.
5. Depositing an accepted manuscript in a repository and applying an appropriate Creative Commons licence is a legitimate, policy-driven practice, not piracy, as long as it follows the author’s retained rights and institutional or funder policies.

For anxious researchers, focus on reassurance and options:

• Explain that there is very little evidence of papers being rejected solely because a rights retention statement was included, especially where it aligns with funder or institutional policy.
• Emphasise that the statement is a prior notification, not a legal threat, and is now a normal part of some funder policies.
• Encourage them to use recommended wording from their funder or institution rather than inventing their own.
• Suggest they keep email records and, if a publisher queries the statement, respond with a standard explanation or template letter.
• Remind them that they can choose alternative journals with more supportive copyright and open access policies if a publisher refuses to engage constructively.

You can usually handle basic queries in the library, but advise legal or specialist advice when:

• the publisher’s contract appears to contradict the university’s IP policy or an existing employment agreement
• there are complex co-authorship or multi-institution arrangements, especially where different institutions have different OA or IP policies
• the work contains significant third-party material or Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property (ICIP) or Mātauranga Māori that needs special treatment
• a publisher threatens or implies legal action over repository deposit, rights retention, or reuse of the author’s own work
• a researcher wants to negotiate substantial changes to a standard publishing agreement beyond the scope of a simple author addendum

Direct them first to internal university services (legal, research office, or central copyright/copyright advisory team) and escalate externally only if needed.

You can assemble a small toolkit for your institution by:

• using funder-provided wording, for example rights retention text recommended by major funders or consortia such as cOAlition S
• checking whether your university already has preferred RRS wording on library, research or open access policy pages
• maintaining a local guidance page that provides a default RRS text for staff and students, shows where to include it, and links out to external examples and FAQs
• creating short, discipline-friendly examples you can paste into emails or LibGuides

To support researchers quickly, you can:

• look up the journal in a copyright/open access policy database, for example the Sherpa Services portal or an equivalent tool your institution uses
• review the journal’s own “Instructions for authors”, “Copyright” or “Open access” pages to check whether they require copyright transfer or an exclusive licence
• check what they allow for AAM deposit, including version, timing and licence
• download or preview the copyright transfer agreement or licence-to-publish form to see the exact wording around reuse and archiving
• check any institutional guides your library maintains that summarise common publisher policies for local researchers

Rights retention helps researchers meet open access requirements even when publisher policies are slow or restrictive.

• By keeping key reuse and sharing rights, researchers can deposit the Author Accepted Manuscript in an open repository on the timetable the funder requires, not just when publisher embargoes expire.
• Using a rights retention statement aligned with funder wording makes it clear to publishers from the start that the article must be made openly available under specified conditions.
• It reduces the risk that a later copyright transfer agreement will prevent compliance with grant conditions on openness, licensing or reuse.
• It gives institutions and libraries a clearer basis to support deposit, apply appropriate licences and report on compliance for funded outputs.
• Overall, rights retention allows researchers to choose suitable journals while still honouring their obligations to make publicly funded research openly available.

Institutional and funder policies often point in the same direction but use different levers.

• Funder policies usually attach conditions to research grants, requiring outputs to be made open access within a set timeframe, sometimes under a specific licence such as CC BY.
• Institutional policies typically apply to all staff and students, setting a default expectation that accepted manuscripts will be deposited in the institutional repository and sometimes including standard rights retention wording.
• Funder rights retention language may be more specific about timing, licensing and which version of the work must be accessible to meet compliance.
• Institutional policies often focus on workflows, support and infrastructure, explaining how the university will help authors implement rights retention in practice.
• In many cases, researchers are covered by both: the funder sets the minimum open access requirements, and the institution’s policy and services help them achieve and document compliance.

If the agreement is already signed, the options are more limited but there are still steps you can take.

• Ask the researcher to share the signed agreement so you can check exactly what rights were transferred or licensed and what, if any, self-archiving is allowed.
• Look for clauses that permit deposit of the accepted manuscript after an embargo or that allow limited reuse in teaching or future works.
• If necessary, encourage the researcher to contact the publisher to request written permission for repository deposit or specific reuse, explaining any funder or institutional requirements.
• Where future outputs are planned, help the researcher adopt rights retention language or an author addendum before signing any new agreements.
• Use the case as a teaching moment in your training or guidance, highlighting the importance of considering rights retention before signing publisher contracts.

Disagreements between co-authors are common, especially when people are new to rights retention.

• Encourage an early conversation among all authors about open access expectations, funder obligations and how the article will be shared and reused.
• Clarify which authors are bound by funder or institutional policies that require some form of rights retention or open access.
• Offer neutral information and examples so the debate is based on facts rather than assumptions about risk or journal reactions.
• Where possible, suggest a compromise, such as using recommended rights retention wording while also choosing a journal with relatively permissive self-archiving policies.
• If disagreement persists, advise the lead or corresponding author to document the decision and consider whether a different venue or future project might better align with everyone’s preferences.

When publishers respond strongly or negatively, it helps to stay calm, consistent and documented.

• Encourage researchers to keep all correspondence and to share it with the library or relevant institutional team so responses can be coordinated.
• Reply using clear, standard wording that explains the basis for rights retention, such as funder conditions or institutional policy, rather than engaging in personalised argument.
• Where a publisher refuses to accept rights retention terms, discuss alternative options with the researcher, including different journals or open access routes.
• If a publisher hints at legal action or sends formal notices, advise the researcher to pause and seek advice from institutional legal or research governance services before responding.
• Use patterns of aggressive pushback to inform local guidance, so you can proactively prepare researchers who are considering those publishers or journals.

An institutional rights retention policy is a university-level commitment that ensures researchers and their institution keep enough rights in their publications to make the author accepted manuscript (AAM) openly available, usually in the institutional repository under a Creative Commons licence, even when the work is published in a subscription or hybrid journal.

In the Australian and Aotearoa New Zealand context, it is best understood as one part of a broader open access framework that may also include institutional repositories, open access policies, copyright guidance, and funder requirements. It helps institutions support open access while still allowing researchers to publish in their journals of choice.

At a high level, a rights retention policy typically does three things:

• Clarifies rights
  • States that authors retain copyright in their work.
  • Grants the university a non-exclusive licence to archive and make the AAM openly available via the institutional repository.
  • Specifies the licence that will normally be applied, such as CC BY, and explains how this supports reuse and compliance.
• Defines how and when open access happens
  • Specifies which version must be deposited, usually the AAM.
  • Explains when deposit should occur, for example on acceptance or at publication.
  • Shows how this route works alongside other pathways such as fully open access publishing or read-and-publish agreements.
• Connects to local funder and sector expectations
  • Links the policy to funder requirements such as ARC, NHMRC/MRFF, MBIE.
  • Supports expectations around public access to publicly funded research.
  • Frames rights retention as a practical way to avoid renegotiating rights one paper at a time.

Universities in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand are using, or considering, several different models for rights retention. These models vary in how strongly the institution directs author behaviour, but they all aim to ensure that researchers retain enough rights to make their work openly available.

The main approaches are:

• Mandatory or default model
  • The policy applies automatically to covered outputs unless an exception or waiver is approved.
  • The institution exercises a non-exclusive licence to make the accepted manuscript open access.
  • This model provides the clearest and most consistent basis for compliance and institutional action.
• Opt-in model
  • Researchers can choose to use a rights retention route, often by following institutional guidance or using recommended wording at submission.
  • This model can be easier to introduce where institutional consensus is still developing.
  • It may, however, lead to inconsistent uptake across faculties or disciplines.
  • A rights retention statement at submission is not legally binding and does not override a contract signed later.
• Recommended or guidance-based model
  • The institution may not have a formal rights retention clause, but strongly encourages researchers to retain copyright, deposit accepted manuscripts, and use repository-based open access.
  • This model often appears through library guidance, repository workflows, and author rights information rather than through a stand-alone policy.
  • It is common in institutions that are building awareness before moving to a more formal approach.

In practice, institutions may move through these stages over time, beginning with guidance, then offering an opt-in route, and later adopting a more formal default approach if funder requirements and institutional readiness support it.

Examples from Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand often appear not only as stand-alone “rights retention policies” but also through open access policies, repository expectations, and copyright guidance that support authors to retain enough rights to share their work openly.

For examples see Case Studies and the Directory.

These examples show that, in the AU/NZ context, rights retention is often embedded in a wider institutional open access strategy rather than always being presented as a separate named policy.

A rights retention-enabled policy in Australia or Aotearoa New Zealand needs to be clear, practical, and aligned with both local institutional settings and funder requirements. It should tell researchers exactly what the institution expects, what rights are being retained, and what support is available.

Key components usually include:

• Scope
  • Which outputs are covered, such as peer-reviewed journal articles and conference papers.
  • Whether the policy applies to staff only, or also to HDR candidates and affiliates.
  • Whether any output types are excluded or handled separately.
  • What provisions are being applied to recognise Indigenous Data Sovereignty and Governance over Indigenous research and knowledges.
• Rights and licensing
  • A statement that authors retain copyright in their work.
  • A non-exclusive licence granted to the university to make the AAM open access.
  • The licence that will normally be applied to repository versions, such as CC BY (unless more restrictive licenses are required for ICIP).
• Deposit and timing requirements
  • What version must be deposited.
  • When it must be deposited, for example on acceptance.
  • When it is expected to become openly available, ideally in line with immediate access requirements where relevant.
• Alignment with funders and sector expectations
  • Clear explanation of how the policy supports funder expectations.
  • Reference to institutional commitments to open scholarship and responsible research dissemination.
• Support, exceptions, and review
  • The support services available to researchers.
  • Any exemption or waiver process.
  • How the policy will be monitored and reviewed over time.

A good policy should be legally sound, easy to understand, and realistic for researchers to follow in everyday publishing workflows.

Developing a rights retention policy should be a collaborative institutional process rather than the responsibility of one unit alone. In Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand, successful policy development usually depends on bringing together policy expertise, legal knowledge, repository operations, and academic leadership.

The following groups should normally be involved:

• Library and scholarly communications teams
  • Provide expertise in open access, repositories, licensing, and publisher practices.
  • Often lead on policy drafting and researcher guidance.
• Research office
  • Ensures alignment with funder requirements and institutional research strategy.
  • Connects the policy to grants, reporting, and compliance processes.
• Legal, contracts, or IP specialists
  • Advise on copyright, licensing, and compatibility with institutional IP settings.
  • Help ensure policy wording is enforceable and low-risk.
• Aboriginal, Torres Strait Islander and Māori community and governance organisations
  • To ensure ICIP or Mātauranga Māori is appropriately recognised and that the provisions they determine are applied if it appears in the policy’s scope.
• Academic leadership and governance
  • PVC/DVC Research, academic boards, research committees, or senate-level bodies help provide institutional authority and oversight.
  • Academic leaders are also important for securing trust and buy-in.
• Repository, systems, and IT teams
  • Ensure that deposit, metadata, and reporting systems can support the policy in practice.
• Researchers and HDR representatives
  • Provide discipline-specific perspectives and identify practical concerns early.
  • Help ensure the policy is workable for end users, not just administratively sound.

Bringing these groups together early helps avoid a policy that is theoretically strong but difficult to implement.

Rights retention aligns closely with current Australian funder expectations because it gives authors and institutions a practical way to make accepted manuscripts openly available even when publisher contracts are restrictive. It is particularly relevant where immediate open access is expected and where repository deposit remains an important compliance pathway.

In practical terms, rights retention supports compliance by:

• Preserving a compliant open access route
  • Authors and institutions keep enough rights to deposit the accepted manuscript in a repository.
  • This is useful when the published version is not openly accessible through the journal itself or is subject to an embargo.
• Supporting immediate or timely access
  • Rights retention helps institutions meet expectations that outputs be openly available without long embargoes.
  • This is increasingly important under Australian funder policy settings.
• Reducing case-by-case negotiation
  • Instead of asking each author to negotiate rights separately with each publisher, the institution provides a clearer framework that supports consistent practice.

Even where the policy principle is clear, implementation can be challenging because rights retention sits at the intersection of copyright, publishing practice, researcher behaviour, and institutional systems. In Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand, the practical barriers are often less about the idea itself and more about confidence, workflows, and consistency.

Common challenges include:

• Researcher uncertainty
  • Many researchers are unsure what rights they already hold or what they are signing away in publisher agreements.
  • Some worry that using rights retention language could affect acceptance by journals.
• Publisher variability
  • Publisher responses can differ, creating uncertainty for both authors and support staff.
  • Journal-specific workflows and contracts can complicate otherwise clear policy messages.
• Co-authorship and collaboration
  • Multi-author and multi-institution papers raise questions about which institution’s policy applies and who is responsible for deposit.
  • International collaboration can add another layer of complexity.
• Systems and workflow issues
  • Repository and research management systems may not be set up to capture all the information needed.
  • Deposit processes may feel separate from existing publication reporting or grant workflows.
• Edge cases
  • Outputs with third-party copyright, confidential material, or culturally sensitive content may need different treatment.

These challenges do not make rights retention unworkable, but they do mean that implementation needs planning, communication, and ongoing support.

A rights retention approach will only work if researchers are given practical support that fits normal publishing behaviour. Institutions need to make the process simple, predictable, and easy to understand.

Useful support usually includes:

• Clear written guidance
  • FAQs, web pages, decision trees, and examples written in plain language.
  • Explanations of how rights retention fits with open access, copyright, and funder compliance.
• Model wording
  • Suggested wording that researchers can use in manuscript submissions or publication workflows.
  • Template explanations for common publisher scenarios.
• Repository support
  • Straightforward deposit processes.
  • Clear instructions on what version to deposit and when.
  • Staff help when authors are uncertain.
• Training and outreach
  • Sessions for researchers, HDR candidates, and professional staff.
  • Integration into grant development, induction, and researcher development programmes.
• Expert advice
  • A clear point of contact in the library or research office.
  • Access to legal or policy support when unusual issues arise.

The more normal and supported the process feels, the more likely researchers are to participate confidently.

Institutions need to know not only whether a rights retention approach exists on paper, but whether it is actually improving access to research outputs and supporting compliance. In Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand, measures of success are likely to draw on repository, funder, and internal reporting data already collected by universities.

Useful indicators include:

• Deposit and access measures
  • The proportion of eligible outputs deposited in the institutional repository.
  • The proportion of outputs made openly available through that route.
  • The timeliness of deposit and open availability.
• Funder compliance
  • Whether outputs are meeting institutional and funder expectations for open access.
  • Whether the policy reduces the risk of non-compliance.
• Engagement and behaviour
  • Use of rights retention guidance and support services.
  • Attendance at training sessions and uptake of resources.
  • Patterns of researcher questions or recurring difficulties.
• Policy effectiveness over time
  • Whether workflows are improving.
  • Whether more outputs are becoming openly available.
  • Whether the institution needs to revise the policy, guidance, or systems.

Success should be measured not only by formal compliance, but also by whether the institution is making open access easier and more routine for its researchers.

A rights retention policy gives the institution and its researchers a simple, reliable way to make publications openly available without having to renegotiate rights on a case‑by‑case basis. It helps meet funder and sector expectations, reduces reliance on article processing charges, and signals that the institution takes stewardship of its research outputs seriously.

Overseas and local experience shows that rights retention leads to higher rates of repository deposit, more immediate open access, and better compliance with open access policies. Institutions that support rights retention also report fewer problems with publisher contracts and more consistent workflows for making publicly funded research available.

By ensuring the author accepted manuscript can be shared openly, rights retention makes it easier for people to read, reuse, and cite research, including those without subscription access. This matters across Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand, where research should be accessible to the communities, organisations, and peoples whose lives and interests it reflects, not just those with institutional database subscriptions.

Across Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand, institutions are updating open access policies, investing in repositories, and exploring rights retention as part of a broader shift towards open research. Some universities are piloting rights retention language in policies and guidance, while others are watching early adopters and sector initiatives to learn what works before formalising their own approach. For specific examples see Case Studies and the Directory.

Rights retention can be described simply as a way for the university to keep enough rights in its own research so it can be shared openly, rather than giving all control to publishers. It is a governance and risk issue as much as a publishing one: rights retention protects the institution’s ability to deliver on its commitments to open knowledge, community engagement, and public benefit.

Implementing rights retention primarily involves policy development, communication, and support rather than large new expenditures. Over time it can reduce pressure on library and research budgets by lessening dependence on paid open access options, supporting better value from existing subscriptions and read‑and‑publish agreements, and avoiding the need to “buy back” access to the institution’s own research.

Rights retention directly supports common strategic goals such as increasing research visibility and impact, strengthening partnerships with government, industry, and communities, and demonstrating responsible use of public funds. It can also align with commitments to Indigenous Data Sovereignty and Governance, because it keeps control of key rights closer to the institution and the communities it serves rather than outsourcing control to publishers.

The return on investment is realised through higher open access rates, better compliance with funder requirements, more efficient use of existing infrastructure, and stronger reputation for research leadership. A relatively modest investment in policy and support can unlock long‑term benefits in visibility, citation, community engagement, and reduced administrative friction around rights and contracts.

Rights retention is designed to preserve, not restrict, publishing choices by working alongside existing journal submission and review processes. International experience shows that researchers continue to publish in prestigious journals while using rights retention to ensure their accepted manuscripts can also be made openly available.

A well‑designed rights retention approach puts most of the complexity into institutional systems, policies, and guidance rather than onto individual researchers. The goal is to give researchers simple, clear steps, such as deposit upon acceptance, supported by the library and research office, so open access becomes part of normal practice rather than an extra chore.

Many publishers already allow deposit of author accepted manuscripts, and rights retention builds on that by clarifying the rights that authors and institutions are keeping from the outset. While some publishers may push back initially, sector‑wide experience shows that clear policies backed by institutions and funders can shift publisher practice over time.

Most of the required capabilities, repositories, policy frameworks, copyright advice, and research management systems, already exist in our universities. Rights retention is about using those resources more strategically and coordinating policy, guidance, and workflows, rather than creating entirely new structures.

Rights retention is closely tied to core priorities such as research excellence, impact, student experience, and community and industry engagement. By making it easier for others to access and build on the institution’s research, rights retention amplifies the value of work already being done, rather than competing with other strategic initiatives.

Grassroots support grows when researchers see rights retention as something that makes their lives easier and their work more visible. Practical steps include working with champions in key disciplines, embedding author rights discussions into existing forums (such as departmental seminars and HDR training), and highlighting concrete benefits like increased readership, easier compliance, and fewer contract headaches.

Key stakeholders include library and scholarly communication teams, the research office, legal and contracts staff, academic leadership, repository and IT teams, Aboriginal, Torres Strait Islander and Māori community and governance organisations, and researcher and HDR representatives. Involving these groups early helps surface risks, improve the policy design, and build a shared sense of ownership.

Implementation can be staged by starting with clear guidance and voluntary uptake, followed by pilots in specific schools or disciplines, and only then moving toward a broader institutional policy once there is experience and evidence to draw on. Phasing in expectations, providing generous lead times, and offering opt‑out or exception mechanisms reduces resistance and builds trust.

Quick wins might include improving repository deposit workflows, creating simple template wording for researchers to use, showcasing case studies from within the institution, and aligning rights retention messaging with upcoming funding rounds or strategy launches. Demonstrating early, visible benefits, such as a noticeable increase in open access outputs or reduced confusion around publisher agreements, helps build the case for further investment and policy development.