The 12-month embargo has lost its public defence

When Canada's federal research funders asked whether publicly funded journal articles should still wait a year behind a paywall, the response wasn't ambiguous. The consultation summary released for the 2026 Tri-Agency Open Access Policy review shows researchers and librarians, with many university administrators in the same camp, converging on one answer: the waiting period should go.

The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) published the summary alongside the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC). The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) completed the agency group behind Canada's main public research grants. Since 2015, their shared policy has allowed grant recipients to keep peer-reviewed journal articles locked up for a maximum of 12 months, so long as a copy ends up free through an institutional or disciplinary repository or the publisher's own site.

That compromise satisfied almost nobody by the time the review began. The consultation responses describe the embargo as a subsidy to subscription publishers, a barrier for clinicians and small businesses, and a reason Canadian taxpayers pay twice. The agencies have published the public argument for ending the old rule, while the final policy text is still to come.

What the consultation actually heard

The feedback splits less on whether open access should happen than on how it should be paid for and where the final copy should live. University libraries pushed hardest for immediate open access and for repositories to remain the default route. They weren't asking for a publisher-mediated pay-per-article system. Researchers asked for speed, but many worried about what happens to the grant budget if the author must find article processing charges (APCs), the per-article fees many publishers charge for immediate open access, for every output.

Publishers and scholarly societies took a more defensive line. Small society journals, in particular, argued that removing the 12-month delay would accelerate cancellations and force them to replace subscription income with author fees they can't all charge. Some commercial publishers supported immediate open access on the condition that the policy allows funding to flow into transformative agreements, the read-and-publish deals that convert library subscription payments into APC credits.

The strongest consensus in the consultation is narrow: a 12-month embargo for publicly funded work has no principled defender left. The policy question beyond that is whether Canada will adopt immediate access through author-pays routes, repository deposit, or some blend of the two. That is where the consultation gets less tidy.

Here's the catch

The catch is that removing the embargo doesn't remove the paywall; it just moves the invoice. A researcher without an APC budget can meet an immediate-access requirement by paying out of pocket or choosing a lower-tier journal. A university can sign a read-and-publish deal and call the same problem solved, while the library budget grows to cover both reading and publishing. The consultation feedback is blunt about this double payment, even if the summary tries to keep the language calm.

Article processing charges are not a rounding error. In some fields, a standard APC is several thousand dollars per paper; large multi-author outputs over a three-year grant can consume a meaningful share of the research budget. The consultation asked whether the agencies should fund APCs directly. The answers diverged sharply. Some wanted a central APC fund. Others said a central fund would reward the most expensive journals and punish disciplines with low publication costs, like much of the humanities and social sciences.

The agencies have published the background for the current policy on the federal science portal. Library groups, including the Canadian Association of Research Libraries, have followed the review closely because the final choice on APC funding will shape library budgets for years.

Reality check on the 2026 promise

An immediate-access policy sounds like the end of the paywall. It isn't, by itself. If the final rule permits researchers to comply by paying an APC in a hybrid journal, the same article is both openly licensed and inside a subscription package that libraries keep buying. That is not open access; it is two revenue streams for one article. The consultation's library respondents made that exact point with more patience than it deserves.

Canada's approach also lags the rights-retention model used elsewhere. The European Research Council's mandate has forced the same conversation about what grantees must retain and what publishers may charge. The UK's running contract dispute with Elsevier shows what happens when universities try to cap APC costs and subscription fees at once. Canada's Tri-Agency could avoid replaying those fights by putting the accepted manuscript in a repository at acceptance, with no APC owed. The consultation feedback suggests many researchers would accept that route. The publishers would not.

For Canadian academics, the stakes are practical. A postdoc whose supervisor lacks APC money may watch grant-funded work sit behind a 12-month wall under the old rule, then face a new rule that pushes the cost elsewhere. Early-career researchers on the job market need publication access and clean CVs; the policy shapes both. A winning academic CV lists articles, but hiring committees increasingly expect funded authors to explain how they made work public without burning the lab budget.

What universities and researchers should watch before 2026

University administrators should read the consultation summary as a pricing signal, not a policy change. If Canada follows the most common immediate-access route, expect publishers to expand APC-based agreements with Canadian institutions. The negotiation will then be over what the library can cancel to pay for those credits. Anyone in a research office should be asking now what the institution's APC fund covers and who decides between a $1,000 society journal and a $5,000 commercial option.

Researchers should check their current grant terms for how the Tri-Agency defines compliance. The existing 12-month rule allows repository deposit of the final peer-reviewed manuscript, not the publisher's typeset PDF. New policy may make that deposit immediate or may ask for the version of record. That distinction matters more than the headline date. A policy that requires the version of record can force an APC; a policy that accepts the accepted manuscript costs the author nothing.

The consultation makes one thing clearer than any agency press release: the old policy was never a failure of technology or author willingness. It was a failure of defaults. The default remained publisher-controlled access unless someone acted. Changing the default to immediate repository deposit would cost the least and reach the most. Whether the final 2026 policy chooses that route is the one line worth waiting for.

One researcher's submission to the consultation put the issue with less diplomacy than the summary: the public already paid for the research and the peer review, plus the university's infrastructure. Making readers wait another year doesn't protect scholarship; it protects a billing model. That observation, not the publisher counterarguments, should be the sentence the agencies remember when they write the final rule.

Photo by engin akyurt on Unsplash