Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› pnasnexus-openaccess
pnasnexus-openaccess
GitHub用于处理PNAS Nexus的开放获取决策，确认APC费用、豁免资格（低收入国家、机构协议等）及许可证选择。纠正关于成员投稿的特权误解，确保符合资助方要求。
Trigger Scenarios
作者询问费用或申请豁免
资助方要求特定开放获取许可
成员误以为可通讯投稿
提交前确认APC和许可证
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill pnasnexus-openaccess -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "pnasnexus-openaccess",
"description": "Use to settle PNAS Nexus's open-access decisions — confirm the gold-OA model and the article processing charge (APC), check eligibility for waivers\/discounts (low-\/middle-income countries, Read & Publish, membership) and funder compliance, and choose the license (CC BY vs CC BY-NC). This is PNAS Nexus's signature pre-submission decision; it replaces flagship PNAS's Direct\/Contributed track choice (PNAS Nexus has no such track)."
}
Open Access, APC & License (pnasnexus-openaccess)
Why this skill exists
PNAS Nexus is fully gold open access: every published article is free to read, and there is no subscription or hybrid option. That means an article processing charge (APC) and a license choice are part of the submission, not an afterthought. This is the PNAS-Nexus-specific decision that has no analogue at flagship PNAS — and it takes the slot that the Direct/Contributed track choice occupies in the pnas-skills pack. Settle it right after pnasnexus-fit, because funding and eligibility can affect whether and how you submit.
There is no Direct vs Contributed track at PNAS Nexus. Unlike flagship PNAS, an NAS member cannot "contribute" a paper, and there is no prearranged-editor route. All submissions go through standard editor-assigned peer review (assigned to an Editorial Board member, then a handling/guest editor, with ≥2 independent reviews). If someone expects to use a member-communicated track, correct that expectation here.
When to trigger
- Before submitting, to confirm the APC, funding, and license.
- The author asks "how much does this cost?" or "can we get a waiver?"
- A funder (NIH, Wellcome, UKRI, Gates, an ERC/Plan-S grant) requires open access with a specific license.
- A co-author who is an NAS member assumes they can communicate the paper (they cannot — see above).
The gold-OA model and the APC
- Gold OA, mandatory. Every article is OA on publication under a Creative Commons license; authors retain copyright. The journal states it "complies with all major funder mandates."
- An APC applies, but OUP publishes no fixed figure. OUP prices the APC through a region/category-personalized calculator on the author-instructions page, so the amount billed depends on article category, the corresponding author's region/country, and any membership/institutional discount, and LMIC waivers or Read & Publish can reduce or eliminate it. Public trackers disagree on the headline number (DOAJ ≈US$4,202 vs ≈US$2,200 elsewhere), and neither is confirmable on the live calculator — so treat the APC as indicative only (roughly US$2,200–4,200) and confirm the exact amount live in the OUP calculator at submission.
- No separate submission/editorial fee is documented — the APC is the only charge (confirm at submission).
Ways the APC can be reduced or waived (check all that apply)
| Mechanism | Who it helps |
|---|---|
| Low-income-country full waiver | Corresponding authors based in countries in OUP's low-income tier — fees fully waived. |
| Middle-income-country discount | Corresponding authors in OUP's middle-income tier — reduced APC (applied before other discounts). |
| Read & Publish / transformative agreements | Authors at institutions with an OUP agreement — the institution covers the charge. Note: you may not switch the corresponding author just to access this funding. |
| Membership discount | A membership-discount option exists in the calculator; the exact eligibility/amount is 待核实 — confirm. |
| Discretionary waiver | Authors without sufficient funds may request a waiver at submission (historically via openaccess@oup.com) — confirm the current route. |
Eligibility usually hinges on the corresponding author's affiliation/region. Decide who the corresponding author is before you price the APC — and never reassign corresponding authorship purely to capture Read & Publish funding.
Choosing the license: CC BY vs CC BY-NC
PNAS Nexus offers two Creative Commons licenses (as of the February-2024 change, CC BY-NC-ND is no longer offered):
| License | What it allows | Choose it when |
|---|---|---|
| CC BY 4.0 | Anyone may reuse, including commercially, with attribution. | Your funder requires CC BY (Plan S / cOAlition S, Wellcome, UKRI, Gates, NIH 2025 public-access expectations). The safe default for compliance. |
| CC BY-NC 4.0 | Reuse with attribution, non-commercial only. | You specifically want to restrict commercial reuse and no funder mandate forbids NC. |
- If a funder mandates open access, default to CC BY — many mandates do not accept NC or ND. Confirm against your grant's policy.
- The named technical default on the journal page is 待核实; do not assert which is pre-selected — make the choice deliberately.
Funder-compliance quick check
- Plan S / cOAlition S: a fully-OA journal with a CC BY route satisfies the route; confirm the journal/your route in the Journal Checker Tool if your grant requires it.
- NIH / Wellcome / UKRI / Gates: all accept publication in a fully gold-OA journal under CC BY. Pick CC BY and deposit as the funder requires (PMC etc.).
- The journal claims compliance with "all major funder mandates," but per-funder confirmation is your responsibility — match the license to the strictest mandate on the author team.
Eligibility & decision checklist
- Confirmed PNAS Nexus is fully gold OA and an APC applies (no hybrid/subscription escape).
- Corresponding author decided (drives waiver/discount eligibility) and not reassigned just for funding.
- APC figure obtained live from the OUP calculator for this article category + region (not from memory or a third-party tracker).
- Waiver/discount checked: LMIC waiver/discount? Read & Publish? membership? discretionary waiver?
- License chosen deliberately — CC BY if any funder mandate applies; CC BY-NC only with a clear reason and no conflicting mandate.
- Funder open-access requirements (license + deposit) satisfied by the chosen route.
- (Reminder) no Contributed/Direct track — standard editor-assigned review for everyone.
Output format
【OA model】 gold OA confirmed (no hybrid/subscription option)
【APC】 confirm-live via OUP calculator (category + region) — figure NOT asserted from memory
【Waiver/discount path】 LMIC full-waiver / LMIC discount / Read&Publish / membership / discretionary / none
【Corresponding author】 ___ (drives eligibility; not reassigned for funding)
【License】 CC BY 4.0 / CC BY-NC 4.0 + one-line reason
【Funder mandate】 funder(s): ___ → license/deposit requirement satisfied? yes/no
【Track reminder】 no Direct/Contributed track — standard editor-assigned review
【Next】 pnasnexus-writing
Anti-patterns
- Do not treat any APC figure (trackers disagree, ≈US$2,200–4,200) as the final amount — OUP publishes no fixed figure; it is region/category-personalized and may be waived/discounted; confirm it live in the OUP calculator.
- Do not assume there is a subscription/non-OA way to avoid the APC — there isn't.
- Do not pick CC BY-NC when a funder requires CC BY — it can break compliance.
- Do not reassign the corresponding author solely to capture Read & Publish funding (not permitted).
- Do not tell an NAS-member co-author they can "contribute" or "communicate" the paper — PNAS Nexus has no such track.
- Do not leave the OA/APC/license decision to the final upload; it gates submission.
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 14:10
