“As of July 1, 2019, the Library’s Open Access Publishing Fund has been repurposed as an Open Access Investment Fund. We feel that by shifting our focus toward the long-term transformation of the scholarly publication ecosystem, we can accelerate the progress of the global open access movement.
From 2014 to 2019, the Library was able to offer direct support to UA-affiliated authors in the form of subsidies to cover the article processing charges for open access publications. While this funding model helped support open access publication of almost 300 articles, it was not a sustainable or scalable model for changing the landscape of scholarly publication.
The current ecosystem of scholarly publication, largely dominated by commercial publishers and dependent upon rapidly rising costs for accessing content, is not sustainable. Transitioning expenditures from “pay to read” (traditional licensing agreements) to “pay to publish” (payment of article processing charges) does little to transform the current ecosystem or stem the flow of increasing amounts of money into the system. Disrupting the traditional scholarly publication system will take more than merely subsidizing a small, finite number of scholarly publications in academic journals. True and lasting change requires investment in new infrastructure models and a commitment to new community-based models of scholarly publishing.
The Library’s Open Access Investment Fund has a twofold purpose:
Support of UA-affiliated author publication costs: The Library will continue to support UA-affiliated authors who publish in open access journals, though in a more indirect way. Through the Library’s institutional memberships with specific publishers, UA authors benefit from pre-arranged discounts on article processing charges.
Support of initiatives and projects that advance open access: The Library will commit funding in memberships and initiatives that have wide potential global impact, such as projects that develop open publication infrastructure or that convert portfolios of subscription-based peer-reviewed journals to open access.
Transitioning the UA Library’s Open Publishing Fund away from its previous internal focus toward a more global focus has the potential for much greater impact in changing the landscape of scholarly publication. The University of Arizona Library remains committed to supporting open access to both scholarship globally and to the published work of the UA campus community….”
“The University of California, Davis supports its researchers in making their research more widely available. As part of this support, UC Davis Library has entered an institutional agreement with Frontiers. Under the terms of this agreement, UC Davis-affiliated corresponding authors will benefit from a 7.5% membership discount on article processing charges (APCs) when publishing in any of Frontiers’ open access journals, irrespective of what fund covers the APC….”
“TOME (Toward an Open Monograph Ecosystem) advances the wide dissemination of scholarship by humanities and humanistic social sciences faculty members through open access editions of peer-reviewed and professionally edited monographs.
“This model is an extension of what is known as the “consortial membership” model to fund Open Access publishing without author-facing charges. The descriptions are made general (and maybe even abstract) on purpose to allow for maximum flexibility, creativity and innovation from all participants….”
“This Executive Summary accompanies a Pathways to OA document (“Pathways document”) prepared ursuant to the Council of University Librarian’s (CoUL)1 3 August 2017 charging statement. In the Pathways document, our Working Group2 analyzes the various approaches to or models for achieving open access (Green, Gold-APC, Gold-non-APC), and the actionable strategies that exist to implement each approach (e.g., for Gold OA APC-based approach, one strategy is library subvention funding). Our Pathways document is intended to assist campus libraries and the California Digital Library (CDL) with individual and, where appropriate, collective decision-making about which OA strategies, possible next steps, or experiments to pursue in order to achieve large-scale transition to OA….”
“Some open-access publishers offer institutional memberships, whereby a fixed annual fee, often based on the size of faculty or expected number of submitted articles, covers all or a percentage of article-processing fees for the institution for the year.
The issue of OA publisher memberships is interesting and fraught. Harvard University is not currently a member of any of the major OA publishers—BioMed Central, Hindawi, or Public Library of Science. (Actually, Harvard Medical School is a PLoS member.) I’m not involved in Harvard’s decisions about institutional memberships, although I am not a fan of memberships in general, as you will see. I’ll explain my own view of the difficulty with memberships in terms of the market design for publisher services, and then talk about what alternatives there are….”
“After a month of intense conversations and negotiations, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC) will bring the ‘Fair Access to Science and Technology Research (FASTR) Act’ up for mark-up on Wednesday, July 29th. The language that will be considered is an amended version of FASTR, officially known as the ‘Johnson-Carper Substitute Amendment,’ which was officially filed by the HSGAC leadership late on Friday afternoon, per committee rules. There are two major changes from the original bill language to be particularly aware of. Specifically, the amendment Replaces the six month embargo period with ‘no later than 12 months, but preferably sooner’ as anticipated; and Provides a mechanism for stakeholders to petition federal agencies to ‘adjust’ the embargo period if the12 months does not serve ‘the public, industries, and the scientific community.’ We understand that these modifications were made in order accomplish a number of things: Satisfy the requirement of a number of Members of HSGAC that the language more closely track that of the OSTP Directive; Meet the preference of the major U.S. higher education associations for a maximum 12 month embargo; Ensure that, for the first time, a number of scientific societies will drop their opposition for the bill; and Ensure that any petition process an agency may enable is focused on serving the interests of the public and the scientific community …”
“Impact is multi-dimensional, the routes by which impact occur are different across disciplines and sectors, and impact changes over time. Jane Tinkler argues that if institutions like HEFCE specify a narrow set of impact metrics, more harm than good would come to universities forced to limit their understanding of how research is making a difference. But qualitative and quantitative indicators continue to be an incredible source of learning for how impact works in each of our disciplines, locations or sectors.”