The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (GBMF) was interested in understanding the potential effects of requiring that grantees publish their peer-reviewed research in open access journals.
We collected data on more than 2,000 publications in over 500 journals that were generated by GBMF grantees since 2001. We then examined the journal policies to establish how two possible open access policies might have affected grantee publishing habits.
We found that 99.3% of the articles published by grantees would have complied with a policy that requires open access within 12 months of publication. We also estimated the maximum annual costs to GBMF for covering fees associated with “gold open access” to be between $400,000 and $2,600,000 annually.
Authors : Crystal Hampson, Elizabeth Stregger
Libraries frequently support their open access (OA) fund using money from their collections budget. Interest in assessment of OA funds is arising. Cost per use is a common method to assess library collections expenditures.
OA article processing charges (APCs) are a one-time cost for global, perpetual use. Article level metrics provide data on global, cumulative article level usage. This article examines a method and discusses the limitations and implications of using article level metrics to calculate cost per use for OA APCs.
Using different APC models from two publishers, PLOS and BioMed Central, this article presents a cost per use formula for each model.
The formula for each model is demonstrated with available data. The examples suggest a very low cost per use for OA APCs after only three years.
Several limitations exist to obtaining article level data currently, including the nature of open access and accessibility of the data. OA articles’ usage levels are high and include use from altruistic access. Cost per use comparison with traditional publishing models is possible; however, comparison between different OA expenditures with very low costs per use may not be helpful.
Article level metrics can provide a means to measure cost per use of OA APCs. Libraries need increased access to article level usage data. They will also need to develop new benchmarks and expectations to evaluate APC payments, given higher usage levels for OA articles and considering altruistic access.
URL : Measuring Cost per Use of Library-Funded Open Access Article Processing Charges: Examination and Implications of One Method
DOI : http://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2182
Authors : Heidi Zuniga, Lilian Hoffecker
The authors describe the process and results of an ongoing Open Access Fund program at the Health Sciences Library of the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus. The fund has helped students and other early career researchers pay for the article processing charge or APC to publish their articles in an OA journal since 2013.
In the three years since, the fund has paid the APC for 39 applicants with a total expenditure of $37,576. Most applicants were students as intended, however the fund supported a surprisingly large number of medical residents and junior faculty.
Individuals associated with the School of Medicine overwhelmingly represented the awardees compared to other units, and the Public Library of Science (PLoS) journals were the most common journal they published in.
While acknowledging the undeniable benefit of the fund to the awardees, the authors also pose challenging questions about the future role of libraries in subsidizing open access journals.
URL : Managing an Open Access Fund: Tips from the Trenches and Questions for the Future
Alternative location : https://www.jcel-pub.org/index.php/jcel/article/view/5920
The benefits, pitfalls, and sustainability of open access publishing are hotly debated. Commercial publishers dominate the marketplace and oppose alternative publishing models that threaten their bottom line. Scholars’ use of open access remains relatively limited due to awareness and perceived benefits to their professional goals.
Readership of open access publications is generally strong, but some people disagree that more readers leads to increased citations and research impact. Libraries have grown their influence by supporting and promoting open access, but these efforts come with significant financial costs.
Today, open access has flourished most significantly as a philosophy: the belief that the world’s scholarship should be freely available to readers and that publicly funded research, in particular, should be accessible to the taxpayers who paid for it.
Transforming a moral good into a sustainable publishing model rests with lawmakers, scholars, and institutions of higher education. Without laws designed to ensure participation by authors and publishers, Green Open Access cannot effectively replace journal subscriptions.
Scholars need to call upon each other to archive their work, utilize open access repository web sites to find quality content, and embrace Gold Open Access journals as a professionally beneficial publishing venue.
Institutions must allocate additional internal resources to spur more and better institutional and disciplinary archives, new Gold Open Access journals, and myriad other professional, technical, and financial services necessary to promote open access as a fiscally and academically sustainable publishing solution.
URL : http://cedar.wwu.edu/jec/vol10/iss1/5/
As the open access movement has fostered a shift from subscriber-funded journals to author-pays models, scholars seek funding for the dissemination of their research. In response to this need, some libraries have established open access funds at their institutions. This paper presents an evaluation of an open access fund at a comprehensive university.
Description of program/service
Wanting to learn how faculty have benefitted from an open access publishing fund, Grand Valley State University Libraries surveyed recipients of the fund. The survey asked authors why they chose an open access publishing option and whether the fund influenced this decision. Authors were also asked whether they perceived that selecting an open access option broadened exposure to their work and about their likelihood of choosing open access in the future.
This article shares the results of this small survey and explores next steps in promoting and evaluating the fund and opportunities for focusing educational efforts across campus.
URL : Evaluating an Open Access Publishing Fund at a Comprehensive University
DOI : http://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.1204
« As a result of changes in scholarly communication created by the open access movement, some academic libraries established open access (OA) publishing funds. OA funds are monies set aside at an institution to fund open access publishing of the results of scholarly research. OA funds are a recent innovation in the type of services offered by academic libraries. Adoption of an innovation can be examined in the light of established theories of innovation adoption among social systems. To examine academic libraries’ responses to OA publishing charges, this article explores the adoption of OA funds among Canadian academic research libraries from 2008 to 2012 by analyzing results from a series of previously published surveys. The findings are then examined in light of Everett Rogers’ Innovation Diffusion Theory (IDT) to consider the question of whether or not OA funds are becoming a standard service in Canadian academic research institutions. Adoption in Canada is briefly compared to that in the United States and United Kingdom. The paper concludes that, as of 2012, OA funds were becoming common but were not a standard service in Canadian academic research libraries and that libraries were actively participating in the development of OA funding models. Given the current Canadian context, the need of researchers for OA publishing support is likely to create pressure for continued adoption of OA funds among Canadian academic research institutions. However, assessment of existing OA funds is needed. »
URL : The Adoption of Open Access Funds Among Canadian Academic Research Libraries, 2008-2012
Alternative URL : https://journal.lib.uoguelph.ca/index.php/perj/article/view/3115
« The UK Research Councils (RCUK) introduced an open access policy, and accompanying funding for Article Processing Charges (APCs), in April 2013. This article describes University College London (UCL)’s experience of managing its institutional, RCUK, and Wellcome Trust open access funds, and highlights its success in exceeding the RCUK target in the first year of the policy. A large institution, processing around 1,770 APCs in 2013–2014, UCL has established a dedicated Open Access Funding Team. As well as advising authors on funders’ and publishers’ requirements, managing payments, and liaising with publishers, the Team delivers a comprehensive open access advocacy programme throughout the institution. Researchers who have used the Team’s services show astonishing levels of enthusiasm for open access, and for UCL’s approach to supporting them. »
URL : http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2014.954298