Blog post by Deborah De Angelis
On 16 September 2025, the European Commission, represented by Commissioner Zaharieva, responded to a written questionsubmitted by a group of Members of the European Parliament on 11 July 2025, concerning the possible introduction of a harmonised secondary publishing right (SPR) across the Union. The question drew attention to the fragmented state of current national regulations, to the need for clarity on embargo periods, and to the sustainability of Open Access infrastructures beyond project-based funding.
What the Commission Restated
The Commission’s reply restated well-known elements of its Open Science policy: immediate Open Access through trusted repositories is already required for Horizon Europe beneficiaries, who must retain sufficient rights to comply with this obligation; several non-profit infrastructures, such as DIAMAS, CRAFT-OA, and Open Research Europe (ORE) receive financial support; and six Member States have already enacted national SPR provisions. Furthermore, the Commission recalled its studies – one concluded in 2024, and another on economic impacts to be delivered in 2026 – which explore the policy options available, including an EU-wide SPR.
What’s Missing in the Reply
However, the response remains incomplete. On the central question, whether the Commission intends to legislate for a Union-wide secondary publishing right, and with what embargo parameters, it offered no firm commitment. Nor did it provide a timeline for possible legislative action. Instead, the answer situates the matter within the framework of ongoing analysis under the European Research Area (ERA) policy agenda, deferring substantive clarification until the results of the economic study become available.
In sum, the Commission confirmed the relevance of SPR and the existence of policy reflection at Union level, but left unresolved the most pressing issue: how it intends to act to prevent persistent asymmetries between national systems. The emphasis on infrastructures such as ORE is commendable, yet without a common legal baseline, researchers remain vulnerable in the face of publisher practices and jurisdictional fragmentation.
KR21’s Take
The Commission’s reply illustrates a cautious, procedural approach: acknowledgement of the debate, reference to studies, reinforcement of existing funding mechanisms, but no normative initiative.
For the research community, this means at least another year of uncertainty before any proposal for binding law can be expected. In the absence of EU-wide legislation, secondary publication rights are only available to some, and even then not in any consistent way. If the Union aims to realise the promise of Open Science, a clear legislative commitment to harmonised secondary publication rights and rights retention policy is indispensable..
23 September 2025
