Open Access Funding – A Canadian Library Survey

Open Access Funds: A Canadian Library Survey

Leila Fernandez
Associate Librarian
Steacie Science and Engineering Library
York University
leilaf@yorku.ca

Rajiv Nariani
Assistant Librarian
Steacie Science and Engineering Library
York University
rajivn@yorku.ca

Abstract

A survey of Canadian research libraries was conducted to determine the extent of funding support for open access publications in these institutions. Results indicate that there is substantial support for open access publishing, and a diversity of approaches is being used to fund open access resources. Twelve of eighteen respondents indicate that their libraries have dedicated open access funds with nine institutions covering author fees. The reasons for funding support along with policy and promotional issues are explored. The broader implications of funding open access are discussed in the context of a changing scholarly publishing landscape. This paper will be especially relevant to Canadian academic libraries that are exploring options for funding open access publications.

Keywords

open access funds; Canadian research libraries; open access funding policies; online survey

Introduction

In 2002, the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) recognized the need for providing open access to research by embracing two modes of publishing, namely: self-archiving of peer-reviewed articles or publishing in an open access (OA) journal. BOAI defines open access to research literature as:

"free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. The only constraint on reproduction and distribution, and the only role for copyright in this domain, should be to give authors control over the integrity of their work and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited." (Budapest Open Access Initiative).

Publishing in open access journals is commonly referred to as gold OA in contrast to green OA which embraces self-archiving of final peer-reviewed manuscripts in an institutional or disciplinary repository. As of June 8th, 2011 there were 1,972 repositories registered in the Directory of Open Access Repositories (OpenDOAR) and 6,576 journals in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ).

Open access publishing is not without costs. Many OA journal publishers defray these costs through article processing fees instead of subscription charges. Some of the best known OA publishers such as BioMed Central (BMC), Public Library of Science (PLoS) and Hindawi adopt the article processing fees model to provide open access. More recently, both scholarly society publishers and commercial publishers are entering the field with one or more open access journals charging article processing fees. Subscription publishers may provide the option of making individual articles open access on payment of a fee: a practice commonly referred to as a hybrid publishing model. A study by Suber and Sutton has indicated that a majority of OA journals do not charge fees. Article processing charges, or author fees, are only one of the many ways that sustain open access publishing. According to Willinsky there are ten flavours of open access (Willinsky 212). The Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) has a website and guide for publishers and libraries providing a comprehensive overview of income models currently used to support open access (Income Models for Supporting Open Access).

In recent years, libraries have been active supporters of open access (OA) to research. This has included advocacy for public access mandates to funded research as well as the provision of infrastructure for institutional repositories and open access journals. Financial support for publishing in open access journals has lagged behind other forms of library support for scholarly publishing. According to Shieber of the Harvard Office for Scholarly Communication, institutions and funding agencies already underwrite the costs of publishing in traditional journals through subscriptions. Extending financial support to open access publishers would create a more level playing field and make open access publishing more sustainable (Shieber 1).

An open-access fund is defined as: "a pool of money set aside by an institution to support publication models that enable free, immediate, online distribution of, and access to, scholarly research". The Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) has a website devoted to campus-based open access publishing funds with resources for libraries planning to introduce these funds (Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition). The Open Access Directory lists 44 institutions worldwide that have author funds (OA journal funds). In 2009, a new initiative called Compact for Open-Access Publishing Equity (COPE) was introduced. Each participating institution was asked to sign a commitment to "the timely establishment of durable mechanisms for underwriting reasonable publication charges for articles written by its faculty and published in fee-based open-access journals and for which other institutions would not be expected to provide funds". Three Canadian libraries are signatories of COPE. They are the University of Calgary, the University of Ottawa and Simon Fraser University (Compact for OA Publishing Equity).

The library at York University has long extended support for open access publishers as part of a broader strategy to support alternative scholarly publishing models. Institutional membership in BioMed Central was initiated in 2005, while membership in PLoS and Hindawi are more recent endeavours. The library, however, is facing operational issues with membership. The inability to predict the allocation of funds from the collections budget towards author fees is problematic as uptake fluctuates from year to year. In order to fully understand how other Canadian research libraries are tackling these issues, we decided to survey members of the Canadian Association of Research Libraries (CARL) to determine the extent of financial support for open access publishing. There have been other investigations of open access support by Canadian institutions (Morrison et al. 486-90). Our survey adopted a more granular approach with the object of highlighting the details involved in developing a policy for open access author funding. We believe that an exploration of these issues may be helpful to other libraries considering author funding for open access.

Literature Review

A survey of the literature reveals a growing trend in library support of open access. The open access publishing landscape is now international in scope and encompasses many approaches. Funding of OA initiatives is becoming increasingly important to libraries and has relevance for changing librarian roles. Bailey, in a 2007 article, discussed the implications of open access on libraries and librarians, and provided situations where the move to open access could generate potential savings in collection development costs and in serials management (Bailey 368-371). However, a survey of academic librarians' attitudes towards open access in 2009 showed that the level of support for open access behaviours dropped significantly when behaviours included a commitment of personnel and/or funds (Palmer 325). In a recent article on the Berkeley Research Impact Initiative, Eckman and Weil argued for more library involvement in author funding. This initiative provides Berkeley researchers with funds to encourage the use of new and innovative scholarly publishing outlets and supports researchers who would like to publish open-access articles but for whom cost is a barrier. While questioning the extensive financial and human resource investments required by the traditional subscription model, they suggest that this is the time to support alternative scholarly communication models (Eckman and Weil 2). Borchert and Cleary, at the Queensland University of Technology in Australia, reported on the successes and challenges faced in supporting "true" open access publishers. They describe publisher selection criteria, journal uptake by their faculty and promotional strategies to researchers. This initiative is directed at supporting transformation of scholarly publishing from "gated" access to open access (Borchert and Cleary). In a document posted at the ARL/SPARC website, Greg Tananbaum highlighted the issues involved in instituting and implementing author funds (Campus-Based Open-Access Publishing Funds). Pinfield, of the University of Nottingham, surveyed UK library directors and found few had "an institutionally coordinated approach to payment of per-article OA fees (such as a central fund)". He concluded that there is a need for institutions to pay author fees so that publishing open access is a "realistic possibility". He recommended key practical considerations for institutions that are developing policies and procedures on this issue. Pinfield also suggested that libraries review their funding policies on a regular basis, looking for ways to streamline administration of funds (Pinfield 45-47).

Sustainability of funding is an important issue for libraries, especially if demand outstrips funds. COPE signatories have posted their institutional OA funding policies on the COPE website (Compact for OA Publishing Equity). In a recent blog posting, Shieber estimated that the approximate cost per faculty member is minimal based on statistics of OA fund expenditures from COPE signatories (How Much Does a Cope-Compliant Open-Access Fund Cost). A different approach has been suggested by King. He has indicated that there are potential savings to be obtained in the scholarly publishing system by moving to 100% federal funding of articles by US scientists (King n. pag.). Studies by Houghton and Swan also show that there will be cost benefits in research and higher education in the UK if there is a flip to OA in the scholarly publishing system (Houghton and Oppenheim 41-54, Swan n. pag.)

In a 2010 article in D-Lib Magazine, Stevan Harnad advised against the use of precious library funds by institutions providing author funding support. He argues for self-archiving mandates as a transition to full open access and believes that the cancellation of subscriptions will then make open access journal publishing support viable (Harnad n.pag.). Some COPE signatories, such as Harvard and MIT, have self-archiving mandates in addition to funding open access journal publishing, thus providing a more balanced approach. Publishers such as Oxford University Press (OUP) and Springer are experimenting with both the open and hybrid publishing models. OUP goes a step further by reducing institutional pricing for its hybrid journals based on the number of open access articles in these journals. These are the types of initiatives by publishers that can help a transition to open access.

There are specific examples in which library support for open access is being sought at an international level. The Sponsoring Consortium for Open Access Publishing in Particle Physics (SCOAP3) initiative coordinated by the European Centre for Nuclear Research (CERN) is an attempt to provide open access to peer-reviewed research in high energy physics (HEP) arising from international collaboration (Sponsoring Consortium for Open Access Publishing in Particle Physics). As part of this initiative, libraries and research institutions have agreed to redirect monies being paid for existing subscription-based journals which cover the area of high energy physics toward providing open access to this research. This will be done by asking for tenders from existing publishers or others who are willing to work with SCOAP3 to achieve these ends. The Canadian Research Knowledge Network (CRKN) and Canada Institute for Scientific and Technical Information (CISTI) have signed expressions of interest as members of the consortium. Another important collaboration is the physics arXiv which is being hosted by Cornell University Library and supported financially by institutions worldwide that are the most active users of this resource. So far, contributions have been received from 122 of the 200 targeted institutions, showing that the collaborative approach can be sustainable (Rieger and Warner 18).

The Canadian context has been explored in an early article by Morrison and Waller covering library leadership in promoting open access. The Canadian Library Association's position statement on open access and the advocacy of other library organizations such as the Canadian Association of Research Libraries (CARL) have been responsible for many strategic open access initiatives being undertaken by libraries in Canada (Morrison and Waller 486-487). Jennifer Richard and co-authors have also emphasized the role of librarians and libraries in supporting open access publishing. Under collections support they have mentioned how libraries are taking steps to support new types of collections and rethink the financial models required to make them work. In this context they have cited the example of the Open Access Authors Fund at the University of Calgary (Richard, Koufogiannakis, and Ryan 35-37). Shearer has done an environmental scan of the Canadian scholarly publishing landscape to identify new models of peer-reviewed scholarly publishing. She has stated that several university libraries in Canada have recently launched open access funds that enable their authors to publish in fee-based open access journals (Shearer n. pag.). Morrison and co-authors, using a wider lens covering all libraries that are members of CRKN as well as Canadian university presses, have surveyed these organizations to determine support for open access journals. Preliminary results indicate that the majority of respondents in this pan-Canadian survey are involved in scholarly journal publishing with more planning to get involved. According to these authors there is a strong trend towards preferential support for open access publishing, and any model for OA transition would receive some level of support from a majority of libraries. Economic support for open access is indicated by an overall willingness to consider many transitional models, as well as the desirability of library consortial coordination (Open Access Journals Support in Canada). It may be worth mentioning that the 2010-2012 strategic plan of CRKN states that there is an intent to "Find practical ways to incorporate open access into content agreements with appropriate due diligence" (CRKN Strategic Plan 2010-2012).

Canadian research libraries are participants in many of the initiatives described earlier in this section. Library funding for these initiatives is important and will need to be factored into any long-term planning for open access support. Surveying Canadian libraries may be the first step in determining the extent of their financial commitment to open access. Practical considerations are important in understanding how they plan to sustain this commitment. To date, the Canadian context has been little explored, and reasons for institutional support and details of funding policies are not clearly understood. Our OA funding survey of CARL members was designed to provide insight into these issues.

Method

A survey on open access funding was developed using the online survey tool SurveyMonkey. The survey was sent out to Associate University Librarians and scholarly communication coordinators belonging to CARL who have responsibility for open access funding at their institutions. The list of libraries was obtained from the CARL website, and a total of 29 libraries were contacted. CISTI-NRC, Library and Archives Canada and Library of Parliament were not included in the survey. The survey was kept active from November 2010 to January 2011. The list of survey questions has been included as an appendix.

We did not do an ethics review as this was a practice-based library survey and individual opinions were not solicited. In our invitation to participate we clearly stated that we would share the results with all participants. While reporting the results in this paper we have taken care to remove any references to individual libraries unless the information is publicly available.

Results

Background Questions (Section 1)

Of the 29 libraries contacted, 18 responded to the survey giving a response rate of 62%. Respondents belonged to small (5), medium (9) and large (4) universities as determined by full-time equivalents (FTE) ranging from 10K to 20K, 20K to 30K and greater than 30K respectively. Twelve of the eighteen respondents had dedicated OA funds with nine covering author fees and twelve providing OA sponsorship support for publishers. Some respondents commented that library sponsorship support for OA included support for the Open Journal Systems OA Publishing Platform, an Eprints OA Research Repository and a digitization program, the results of which are openly accessible. One participant mentioned that the library is a node in the Synergies project which has an OA element. Another mentioned payments to SPARC and BioMed Central and still another indicated library support for the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy through the Council of Atlantic University Libraries consortium.

Open Access Funding Policies (Section 2)

Participants were asked whether they had a formal open access support policy. Four respondents said that they had a formal policy, while five mentioned that this was under review (Figure 1). The remaining seven indicated they had no OA policy, while two did not answer the question. When asked about the types of publications covered, a majority of respondents mentioned that their policy supported journals listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals or open access journals available through institutional memberships.

Figure 1: Do you have a formal policy for OA funding?

Reasons for instituting OA funding (Section 2)

We asked participants why they support open access and provided them with a list of possible responses. Options included faculty requests, providing incentives for authors, support of alternative publishing models, part of campus OA strategy, ways to maximize research impact, support of public access policies and a way to foster experimentation. Responses were evenly distributed among all options with a slightly higher response showing support for alternative models of scholarly publishing. Results have been summarized below (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Can you share with us your reasons for instituting OA funding?

Exclusions (Section 3)

Four participants indicated that author funding policies exclude grant-funded authors and one excludes previous applicants within a specified period. Other exclusions include non-peer reviewed articles and peer-reviewed research outputs that are not research articles. As expected most policies do not support authors from other institutions.

Eligibility for OA funding (Section 4)

We next asked who was eligible for OA funding. Participants were offered a number of options as shown in Figure 3. In the results, faculty and graduate students came out ahead as compared to other categories. One respondent mentioned that they had not yet decided who would be eligible but that they would start with faculty. Another mentioned that they did not have a formal policy but were just starting, so could only presume as it was not yet tested or challenged. Although some institutions support contract faculty, visiting faculty are not eligible for funding.

Figure 3: Who is eligible to receive OA author funding?

With respect to the extent of author funding, eight responses mentioned full funding and three mentioned partial funding. Of these responses, two provide both full and partial funding, which may indicate different publisher agreements. We also asked about pro-rating which is based on sharing of article processing costs among co-authors. This option was not selected by any of the participants.

Source of OA funds (Section 5)

Nine respondents indicated that the collections budget was the main source of funds for open access publishing (Figure 4). One of the respondents mentioned that funding is in the planning stage, and another mentioned that they are working towards partnerships with others. When asked about support from other units, one respondent said:

The library is footing the bill right now. We hope to engage other campus partners, including the office of research. An OA author's fund is currently under discussion.

Grants and departmental funds were also mentioned. According to one respondent:

Our Author Fund is supported by all of our faculties (with one exception). So, all faculties provided financial support to the Fund and then our central administration matched what we were able to collect from the faculties.

Another response indicated that financial support includes seeding of peer-reviewed journals created or edited at the University using an Office of Research Services, University Advancement Special Purpose Fund.

Figure 4: Where do these funds originate?

Amount of Funds Allocated (Section 5)

One of the survey questions pertained to the dollar value of funding, and participants were asked to choose a range of funding amounts. Results indicated that funding allocations ranged from less than $10,000 to greater than $50,000 (Figure 5), with more respondents indicating a median amount between $10,000 and $50,000. None of the respondents selected an amount over $100,000 or a variable amount, which were other options provided.

Figure 5: What is the amount allocated to the fund?

When asked how often the fund was reviewed, seven respondents indicated that the policy is reviewed annually, and one said they do this semi-annually. One of the respondents commented that they address issues at various times as needed within the year. Another mentioned that it was a pilot project, and this had not yet been determined. Still another said they look at this regularly as expenditures appear in the acquisitions budget.

List of publishers supported (Section 6)

Participants were asked to indicate which open access publishers were supported by library funding. A list of open access publications was offered, and participants were asked to identify additional options. BioMed Central had the largest number of supporters, followed by PLoS and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Hybrid journals had the least support (Figure 6). These are subscription journals providing an OA option on payment of a fee. One library respondent included the physics e-print repository, arXiv, as an example of other publishers being supported. Another respondent chose a broad selection of options with a comment that there was more to come.

Figure 6: Please specify the publishers supported by your OA funds/memberships.

Promotion of OA funds – (Section 7)

Promotion is considered important in creating awareness of OA funding within the academic community. With this in mind, our survey participants were asked who is responsible for promoting OA funds on campus. Results indicate that liaison librarians play a prominent role in promotion. The fund coordinator, publishers, research officers and associate university librarian-IT were also mentioned by our respondents (Figure 7).

Figure 7: Who is responsible for promoting OA funds at your institution?

Finally, we asked about the methods used to promote open access funds. Respondents use a variety of methods to promote open access including Open Access Week, faculty newsletters, promotional pamphlets, instructional sessions and the Office for Research Services webpage (Figure 8). We also asked participants if they would like to share any promotional material and website information that was publicly available. Three respondents provided web links to these resources. These were from Simon Fraser University, University of Calgary and University of Guelph.

Figure 8: How is funding promoted?

Discussion

Results from our survey of Canadian libraries on institutional support for open access reveal both the current status and future intentions of these libraries regarding open access publishing funds. The response rate of 62% is fairly high for this type of survey. We are also aware that there may be an inherent bias in that institutions that have responded may already have some stake in open access. It is possible that others that have little experience with open access may have decided not to participate. Our survey indicates that twelve of the respondents are from institutions that have dedicated funds for support of open access publishing. This is encouraging and provides evidence that open access is becoming an accepted part of research dissemination activities in libraries. The results also indicate that Canadian research libraries use a variety of approaches in supporting open access, ranging from support for open access journals to preprint repositories to encouraging campus publishing. Although our intent was to assess library commitment to author funding, we were also able to determine other types of open access support by libraries.

Our survey results show that six of the responding institutions do not have dedicated funds supporting open access. Three of these are from institutions in the small FTE category (10-20,000) and one is from a medium sized institution (20-30,000 FTE). Could this reflect smaller budgets or a hesitation to support untested methods, or could they be supporting other forms of OA such as an institutional repository? Since our survey did not specifically ask about institutional repositories we have no way of knowing how many respondents offer this type of OA support. Another respondent to our survey, although in the small FTE category, provides substantial support for OA in sponsorship and author fees; however, this institution does not have a dedicated fund or policy. One other participant mentioned that they had a policy not to support author funding for open access.

Sustainability is a concern for many libraries with open access funding support for campus authors. Budgetary flexibility may be necessary, particularly in the early stages of the transition to open access. Simon Fraser University indicated that as demand outstripped the funding for their BMC membership they were forced to limit funding but have now reverted to full prepay membership with some restrictions (Simon Fraser University 2010). Eckman and Weil from the Berkeley Research Impact Initiative have shown that less than 1% of what the library invests in traditional subscription journals is directed at an open access fund and that their approach is sustainable (Eckman and Weil n. pag.). Shieber, after examining the experiences of some members of COPE, indicated that the financial commitment per faculty member is minimal. Respondents in our survey have indicated varying amounts, ranging from less than $10,000 to between $50,000 and $100,000 in support of campus open access, including open access author funding. Three of the fourteen current members of COPE are Canadian libraries. Their experiences with author funding will be looked at closely by other Canadian libraries considering a larger commitment to open access.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which is a dynamically updated scholarly reference work providing open access, uses member subscriptions and grants to create an endowment. Our survey results indicate a number of libraries subscribe to this resource. At least one respondent mentions getting access to this resource through a consortium. Cooperative support by institutions has been mentioned by Willinsky as one of the many flavours of open access (Willinsky 212). One respondent in our survey results indicated that the library was directing financial support toward arXiv, which is based on a co-operative support model. The broad-based support for open access being undertaken by Canadian libraries and consortia bodes well for the future of open access in Canada.

Tananbaum has listed promotion among campus authors to be an essential aspect of OA author funds. In our survey, liaison librarians have been identified as primary promoters of open access funds. Libraries are also participants in Open Access Week, an international effort to advocate for open access at the institutional level. As seen in our survey results, websites are being used to convey information on open access strategies at the campus level, and librarians are participating in workshops and information sessions to promote library initiatives in open access. In the United States some librarian job descriptions are being redefined to include scholarly communication as part of their responsibilities (Williams 3-8). Cryer and Collins provide a number of examples on how librarians can introduce OA concepts into their daily activities (Cryer and Collins 103-5). These are encouraging signs that point to liaison librarians assuming new roles in creating change in publishing practices on campus.

Review of Funding Policies

An examination of funding policies by COPE members can help demonstrate how funds are being spent and exclusions that can be applied for more efficient use of funds. Policies show variation in coverage and amounts provided to authors. Grant-funded authors have been excluded in open access policies from seven COPE signatories (Compact for Open-Access Publishing Equity). In addition, almost half of COPE signatories do not support hybrid open access which has been called "double-dipping". The Berkeley Research Impact Initiative justifies the support of hybrid journal author fees by saying that it ensured administrative and academic approval of the initiative. It also allows more faculty members to engage in a form of OA publishing and enables Berkeley to go back to the publisher and ask for reduced subscription fees in acknowledgement of paid access. They extend to these authors up to half the amount ($1500) of the capped limit they provide for open access journals and look at this as an opportunity to engage campus authors in discussions surrounding open access (Institutional Open Access Funds: Now is the Time). Some institutions already have arrangements with subscription publishers to enable more flexibility with regard to author rights to self-archive their work. These agreements may also include support for author fees. The licensing agreements by Springer with the University of California are a case in point (Duranceau 35). Some fund policies, such as those from Harvard and MIT, will not extend funds to publishers that do not waive fees in cases of financial hardship. This shows particular sensitivity to the needs of authors from developing countries who may not be able to afford article processing charges for publishing in open access journals. It is interesting that a recent report from the Royal Society highlights the global nature of science and, in a section on opening access, calls for some mechanism to assist authors in developing countries to pay for open access charges (The Royal Society).

In comparing the responses on policy issues obtained from our survey to those in the preceding examples we note that four of the nine survey participants that provide author funding reveal that grant-funded authors are not eligible for funding. Although most responses indicated that funding is extended to both faculty and graduate students, visiting faculty are excluded from utilizing these funds by all the responding libraries. In addition, a majority of responses to our survey indicate no support for publishing open access in hybrid journals. One of our survey respondents mentioned that their funding policy includes support for selected hybrid journals only. A mix of full and partial funding of author fees is also indicated by respondents, with two libraries supporting both methods. This situation is similar to our library where full membership support for BMC and Hindawi and a subsidy for publishing in PLoS are presently available. Prorating of funds among co-authors was not selected as an option by our respondents although many libraries elsewhere adopt this approach. BMC has a new model of shared support membership whereby article processing costs can be shared by author and institution. This can help a dedicated fund go a long way. In the future it may be interesting to see how many libraries subscribe to this approach. At York University, better reporting of fund utilization and the checking of institutional affiliation by publishers is needed. In the interest of sustainability it will be necessary for library administration to formulate a policy for disbursement of funds or fine-tune existing arrangements to limit funds.

Concluding comments

Our survey was designed to ascertain the extent of author funding for open access and if there were existing OA funding policies at libraries belonging to CARL. Twelve of eighteen respondents indicate that their libraries have dedicated open access funds with nine institutions covering author fees. Nine of eighteen responding libraries are committing a portion of their collections budget towards funding open access. Four institutions have clearly defined policies for OA author funding, with five under review. These libraries are showing leadership in the transition from subscription access to unfettered access to research results.

Morrison and colleagues indicate a willingness among libraries to consider many transitional models for open access and the desirability of library consortial coordination (Morrison and Waller 486-90). Building more flexibility into consortial licensing to allow more possibilities for open access can promote the open access publishing model as well as help publishers transition into a new publishing environment. CRKN and CARL can play an important role in this regard. It is encouraging that a joint CRKN-CARL Open Access Committee is being created to establish Terms of Reference defining how both organizations can leverage their efforts in this area. This augurs well for the future of open access in Canada.

Works Cited

Association of Research Libraries. "Campus-Based Open-Access Publishing Funds" (SPARC). (2010): n. pag. 23 Mar. 2011. Web.

Budapest Open Access Initiative. "Budapest Open Access Initiative". (2002): n. pag. 29 Mar. 2011. Web.

Bailey, Charles W. "Open Access and Libraries." Collection Management 32. 3/4 (2007): 351-383. 27 Feb. 2011. Web.

BioMed Central. "BioMed Central Shared Support Membership." (2011): n. pag. 29 Mar. 2011. Web. <http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/sharedsupportmembership>.

Borchert, Martin and Colleen Cleary. Support for gold open access publishing strategies at QUT. ALIA 15th Conference and Exhibition: Information Online 1/3 (2011): n. pag. 27 May. 2011. Web.

Canadian Research Knowledge Network. "CRKN Strategic Plan 2010-2012." 27 May. 2011. Web.

Compact for OA Publishing Equity. "Compact for Open-Access Publishing Equity". 29 Mar 2011. Web.

Cryer, Emma and Maria Collins. "Incorporating Open Access into Libraries." Serials Review 37.2 (2011): 103-7. Print.

Duranceau, E. "Author-Rights Language in Library Content Licenses". Research Library Issues. 263. 2009. 29 Mar. 2011. Web.

Eckman, C.D., and B.T. Weil. "Institutional Open Access Funds: Now Is the Time." PLoS Biology 8.5 (2010): n. pag. 20 Feb. 2011. Web.

Harnad, Stevan. "No-Fault Referring Fees: The Price of Selectivity Need Not Be Access Denied or Delayed." D-Lib Magazine 16.7/8 (2010): n. pag. 29 Mar. 2011. Web.

Houghton, John and Charles Oppenheim. "The economic implications of alternative publishing models." Prometheus: Critical Studies in Innovation. 28.1 (2010): 41-54. 27 May. 2011. Web.

King, Donald. "An Approach to Open Access Author Payment." D-Lib Magazine 16. 3/4 (2010) : n. pag. 27 May. 2011. Web.

Lund University Libraries. "Directory of Open Access Journals". 29 Mar. 2011. Web.

Morrison, Heather and Andrew Waller. "Open Access and Evolving Scholarly Communication." College & Research Libraries News 69.8 (2008): 486-90. Print.

Morrison, Heather, Brian Owen, Donald Taylor, Andrew.Waller, and Kumiko Vezina. "Open Access Journals Support in Canada." SFU Institutional Repository: Open Access Journals Support in Canada. 2010. 19 Mar. 2011. Web. <http://ir.lib.sfu.ca/handle/1892/10882>.

Open Access Directory. "OA Journal funds - OAD." (2011): n. pag.. 29 Mar. 2011. Web.

"OpenDOAR – Open Access Repositories". (2011): n. pag. 29 Mar. 2011. Web.

Palmer, Kristi L., Emily Dill, and Charlene Christie. "Where There's a Will There's a Way?: Survey of Academic Librarian Attitudes about Open Access." College & Research Libraries 70.4 (2009): 315-335. 27 Mar. 2011. Web.

Pinfield, S. "Paying for Open Access? Institutional Funding Streams and OA Publication Charges." Learned Publishing 23.1 (2010): 39-52. Print.

Richard, Jennifer, D. Koufogiannakis, and P. Ryan. "Librarians and Libraries Supporting Open Access Publishing." The Canadian Journal of Higher Education 39.3 (2009): 33-48. 27 Mar. 2011. Web.

Rieger, Oya, and Simeon Warner. "Developing Sustainability Strategies for arXiv." Information Standards Quarterly 22.4 (2010):17-18 10 Mar. 2011. Web. <http://www.niso.org/publications/isq/free/OP_Rieger_Warner_arXiv_isqv22no4.pdf >.

Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition. "Income Models for Supporting Open Access" 27 May. 2011. Web.

SCOAP3. "Sponsoring Consortium for Open Access Publishing in Particle Physics." 27 Mar. 2011. Web.

Shearer, Kathleen. "A Review of Emerging Models in Canadian Academic Publishing." 2010. 10 Mar. 2011. Web. <https://circle.ubc.ca/bitstream/handle/2429/24008/Shearer_Canadian_Academic_Publishing.pdf?sequence=1>.

Shieber, Stuart. "Equity for Open-Access Journal Publishing." PLoS Biology 7.8 (2009): n. pag. 10 Jan 2011. Web.

Shieber, Stuart. "How Much Does a Cope-Compliant Open-Access Fund Cost?" The Occasional Pamphlet (2010): n. pag. 10 Mar. 2011. Web.

<http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2010/08/06/how-much-does-a-cope-compliant-open-access-fund-cost/>.

Simon Fraser University. "Removing Barriers: Open Access strategy at the SFU Library." 2010 Web 28 Mar. 2011. http://www.lib.sfu.ca/sites/default/files/8537/OA%20Support%20Final.pdf

Stanford University. "Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy." 2011 28 Mar. 2011. Web.

Suber, Peter and Caroline Sutton. "Society Publishers with Open Access Journals" (2007): n. pag. 27 May. 2011. Web. http://www.arl.org/sparc/publications/articles/society-publishers-with-o.shtml

Swan Alma. "Modelling scholarly communication options: Costs and benefits for universities," (2010) : n. pag. 27 May. 2011. Web. <http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/18584/1/Modelling_scholarly_communication_report_final.pdf >.

Tananbaum, G. "Campus-based Open-access Publishing Funds: A Practical Guide to Design and Implementation (SPARC)." (2010): n. pag. 19 Mar. 2011. Web. <http://www.arl.org/sparc/openaccess/funds/guide.shtml>.

The Royal Society. "Knowledge, Networks and Nations: Global scientific collaborations in the 21st century." (2011): n. pag. 29 Mar. 2011. Web. http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/Influencing_Policy/Reports/2011-03-28-Knowledge-networks-nations.pdf

University of Calgary. "Open Access Authors Fund." (2010): n. pag. 29 Mar. 2011. Web. <http://library.ucalgary.ca/services/-faculty/open-access/open-access-authors-fund-0>.

University of Guelph. "Open Access Support." 2011. 29 Mar. 2011. Web. http://www.lib.uoguelph.ca/services/information_resources/open_access_support.cfm.

Williams, Karen. "A Framework for Articulating New Library Roles." Research Libary Issues. 263. 2009. 29 Mar. 2011. Web. <http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/rli-265-williams.pdf>.

Willinsky, John. The Access Principle: The Case for Open Access to Research and Scholarship. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2006. Print.

Appendix

Open Access Funding Survey

OA Survey

This survey will provide insight into the present and future intentions of CARL library respondents in regard to financial support for Open Access publishing. This could include institutional memberships or sponsorship of OA publishers. Questions cover reasons for instituting funding, policy details with exclusions, eligibility criteria, fund details and promotion and advocacy for fund utilization.

Section 1. Background Information

1. Please provide the approximate FTE at your university

  • 10,000-20,000
  • 20,000-30,000
  • >30,000

2. Does the library in your institution have dedicated funds for supporting open access publication?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Under consideration
  • Discontinued

3. What type of OA funding support does the library provide?

  • Author fees
  • Sponsorship support for OA publisher
  • Not Applicable

4. If support is provided by any other unit or department on campus please provide the name of dept/unit and the type of funding support.

OA Survey

Section 2. Policy for Author Support

  1. Do you have a formal policy for OA funding?
  • Yes
  • No
  • Under Review
  • Other (please specify)
  1. If you have a formal policy for author support, what types of publications does it cover? Please check all that apply.
  • All peer-reviewed open access journals
  • Open access journals from the Directory of Open Access journals
  • OA journals from specific publishers through institutional memberships
  • Subscription journals offering open access options (hybrid)
  • Not applicable
  • Other forms of OA publication
  • (Please specify)
  1. Can you share with us your reasons for instituting OA funding? Please check all that apply.
  • Faculty requests
  • Provides incentives for authors to publish open access
  • Supports alternative models of scholarly publishing
  • Part of campus-wide strategy to promote OA
  • Maximises the impact of institution's research
  • Fosters experimentation with new initiatives
  • Supports public access policies
  • Not Applicable

Section 3. Exclusions

  1. Are there any policy exclusions? Please check all that apply.
  • Grant funded authors
  • Previous applicants who have received OA funds during the specified period
  • Authors from other institutions
  • Non peer-reviewed articles
  • Peer-reviewed research outputs that are not research articles
  • Not applicable

Section 4. Eligibility

  1. Who is eligible to receive OA author funding? Check all that apply
  • Faculty
  • Graduate students
  • Visiting faculty
  • Contract faculty
  • Post-doctoral researchers
  • Research staff
  • All affiliated researchers
  • Not Applicable
  • Other (please specify)
  1. How is author funding allocated?
  • Full funding
  • Partly funded
  • Pro-rated
  • Not Applicable

Section 5. Fund details

  1. Where do these funds originate?
  • Library collections budget
  • University central funds
  • Indirect costs of research
  • Departmental research funds
  • Grants
  • Not applicable
  • Other (please specify)
  1. What is the amount allocated to the fund?
  • <10,000
  • 10,000-50,000
  • 50,000-100,000
  • >100,000
  • Variable
  • Not Applicable
  • Other (please specify)
  1. How often is the fund reviewed?
  • Annually
  • Semi-annually
  • Multiple year cycle
  • Other (please specify)

Section 6. Publisher Information Survey

  1. Please specify the publishers supported by your OA funds/memberships? Please check all that apply.
  • BioMed Central
  • Public Library of Science
  • Hindawi Publishers
  • Bentham Science
  • Nucleic Acids Research (OUP)
  • Open Medicine
  • Copernicus Publications
  • Hybrid Open Access
  • Bioline International
  • Directory of Open Access Journals
  • Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
  • Not Applicable
  • Other (please specify)
  1. How do supported publishers verify institutional affiliations of authors?
  • IP address
  • E-mail communications with institutions
  • Checking institutional directories

Section 7. Promotion and Advocacy

1. Who is responsible for promoting OA funds at your institution? Please check all that apply.

  • Liaison librarians
  • Publishers
  • Fund Coordinator or Responsible Individual
  • Research Officers
  • Advisory Committee
  • Not Applicable
  • Other (please specify)

2. How is funding promoted? Please check all that apply.

  • Faculty Newsletters
  • Promotional Pamphlets
  • Instructional Sessions
  • Open Access Week
  • Not Applicable

3. Please include links to the following information if available

  • OA Fund Policy documents
  • Supporting websites showing funding details
  • Sample of promotional material advertising funds
  • Campus Newsletters promoting funds

4. Is there anything else you would like to add?



Partnership: the Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research (ISSN: 1911-9593)