How to Handle Article Processing Charges: Funding for Article Fees
15
Funding for Article Fees: Earnest Conversations Barbara DeFelice Director, Digital Resources & Scholarly Communication Programs Dartmouth College Library Lively Lunch: How to Handle APCs Charleston Conference 11/6/2014
Barbara DeFeliceDirector, Digital Resources & Scholarly Communication ProgramsDartmouth College Library
Lively Lunch:How to Handle APCsCharleston Conference11/6/2014
Presenter
Presentation Notes
I will give a brief overview of the nature of our OA fund, how we manage it, how it deepens our experience with staffing and workflows for managing open access content, and how it extends our conversations with faculty, students, and administrators about open access.
Undergraduate liberal arts education“very high research activity” Sponsored research FY’ 13: $199 million
Presenter
Presentation Notes
You will see that the size of an institution and its research environment impact decisions about having and implementing OA funds, so here is Dartmouth by the numbers. About Dartmouth Total: 589 tenured and tenure track, 1,045 total faculty Research Classified by the Carnegie Foundation as a “research university with very high research activity.”�Sponsored research attracted, FY 2013: $199 million Enrollment (Fall 2013) Undergraduate: 4,276 Graduate/professional: 2,066 Total enrollment head count: 6,342 (3,378 men, 2,964 women)
Growth of North American OA Funds
North American Campus-Based Open Access Funds: A Five-Year Progress Report; SPARC/Tananbaum
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Dartmouth is one of many North American institutions with Open Access funds. The details of these funds vary-some cover hybrid journal OA fees, some pay the author directly, some pay the publisher directly, and details of how the funds are managed vary quite a bit. So I refer you to two recent reports for SPARC by Greg Tananbaum. This graph is from a report on the last five years of OA funds in NA. The other key report is “Open Access Funds in Action”, which includes information about the significant increase in funds committed, papers submitted and authors supported. Back to the Dartmouth story- So.. what happened in 2009, the starting point of this graph?
News Flash! “On September 14, 2009, Harvard joined Cornell, Dartmouth, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the University of California, Berkeley, in formalizing a commitment to open-access publication.”
Compact for Open Access Publication Equity (COPE)• Increases incentives for authors to choose an
open access journal• Increases incentives for publishers to try
different business models
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Dartmouth has been funding open access article publishing fees since 2009 with the goals of supporting authors publishing in OA journals and publishers using an OA business model. COPE’s requirements: "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.“
Who is eligible to receive funding?Dartmouth faculty, graduate students, undergraduate students & staff. Fund of last resort-no grants to pay fees.
What publications are eligible?• Scholarly open access journals that do not charge any fees to
readers or to institutions in exchange for access to peer-reviewed articles
• Be listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)• Be a member of the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association
OASPA Members or adhere to its Code of Conduct • OR• Be a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics• Make their standard fee schedules publicly accessible• By policy, waive their fees in cases of financial hardship
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Here are some key details of the COPE model and Dartmouth’s implementation. The COPE model does not include funding hybrid OA fees. This is a fund of last resort so only if other sources are not available. The intent is NOT to take on funding all OA articles published- that has long been handled by research funders, whether the granting agencies and foundations or the institutional academic departments. Because we review requests based on the journal and publisher, this program gives us an opportunity to engage in conversations about the open access publishing landscape. To illustrate that it really is a fund of last resort, for example, in Web of Science for 2014 I can find 137 papers with at least one Dartmouth author that is published in an open access journal, and the Dartmouth Open Access fund supported 15 open access articles in the same time period (WoS does not include every field equally well, nor every journal in the fields it covers.)
Given that this is a fund of last resort, By the numbers since inception- # Articles Approved: 31 # Articles Reimbursed: 31 # Unique Submitting Authors: 25 # Unique Departments: 10 # Unique Journals: 22 # Unique Publishers: 12
How is it done?Scholarly Communication Program Director:• Develop outreach & education; forms, FAQ etc.• Determine eligibility of journal and requestor• Engage in conversations!
Education and outreach is critical; it’s hard to reach people at the critical point in their publishing decisions, as that happens all year round; quite different from E&O for library involvement in courses, when we know the term schedule and can plan outreach for that. We use OA Week, meetings, include info. in lists and handouts of publishing support, include the fund in timelines that list Dartmouth support for Open Access, use it as conversation openers, and include in workshops on copyright and author rights. Just processing a request is an opportunity for conversations about publisher or journal quality, costs, hybrid vs gold OA, green OA options and more. The steps include: Receives the web form application; Respond-congrats, what will happen next; Determine eligibility of journal and requestor; Receive publisher’s invoice from corresponding author; Determine amount Dartmouth will pay; Ask author about fee waivers for co-authors Write news notes, issue updates & requests and make proposals for changes to the policy- for example, added Undergrads and forwarded a post-doc and faculty request that we cover the OA data deposit fees when associated with an OA article that we fund, following Emory’s example.
How is it done?
Acquisitions:• Set up bibliographic records using publisher as
title=“Vendor Name”• Set up order records – track spending and generate
financial reports• Key invoices to send payment to Accounts Payable
with “terms immediate”• Set up chart strings to assign payments to broad
subject areas• Provide fund reports
Presenter
Presentation Notes
We pay the publisher directly and that is work typically done in Acquisitions for other kinds of content, so our Acquisitions department set up the records and workflows. We see this as an example of mainstreaming the work of managing open access content. As Acquisitions is shifting to handling open access content, they see that some of the work is similar in some ways to handling digital resources in that it requires developing new workflows. It also requires workarounds when using the ILS structure of ‘bibliographic , order records, items records,”. Getting good fund reports is a result of our workflow. (AP would usually pay 30 days from invoice date, so the “terms immediate” is an additional piece of information to communicate. )
Workflows for Acquisitions: the same, different?• Same: Setting up order and bibliographic records;
handling payments using EDI and working with Accounts Payable
• Different: invoice information makes it difficult to process and to track; each one is a bit different
Publishers and Invoices:• Fee waivers on part of publishers- inconsistent in how
these are applied• The invoice does not describe the prorated fee due to a
waiver • Timing of payments: although listed as “30 days”, the
publisher often sends the author frequent reminders.
Presenter
Presentation Notes
What is similar to existing workflows? Setting up order and bibliographic records in Millennium and handling payments by working with Dartmouth’s Accounts Payable. As for other workflows, Acquisitions has tried different models to see what works most efficiently. At first, we paid only the Dartmouth portion of the invoice, but that payment did not match the invoice and the publisher kept telling the corresponding author that the fee had not been paid in full. Now we pay the whole invoice and get reimbursed from the co-authors if the Dartmouth author is sharing that with the co-authors. What is different? The invoice information makes it difficult to process- the author’s name rather than the institution is the “bill to”. Publishers are inconsistent in how they handle fee waivers due to need or country of the author. Each author should be eligible for the fee waiver for it to be meaningful, but some publishers only consider the country of origin of the corresponding author. The invoice ideally should be clear that it is for a prorated fee due to a waiver but that is not common. The timing-although listed as “30 days”, the publisher often sends the author frequent reminders. These invoices have to be annotated to make it possible to track them in case of questions. Acquisitions has developed new complex workflows and ways of managing digital resources. New processes and workflows to manage open access content are a natural evolution.
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Example of an Iivoice annotated so we know what it is actually for. Then we have to transfer this data into Bib and Order records
Bibliographic record for COPE payments to BMC
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Example of an bibliographic record for a COPE payments to BMC
• Open access• How the institution is supporting open access• Publishing choices• “Author’s Choice” options and why we do not fund
those • The wide range of OA journals, since we evaluate each
request and consider the standing of the journal in doing that
• Publishing workflows- we learn what the faculty actually experience in completing the process of publishing their work
• Staffing and workflows needed to manage open access content
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Conversations are initiated by discussing the OA fund but extend into many directions. All that work- it IS worth it!
Questions for YOU!
Does your institution fund APCs?
If not, why not?
If so, what are YOUR key concerns?
If so, what is the best thing about funding APCs at your institution?
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Questions for you! Looking forward to discussing these later. Thank you.
AcknowledgementsFrom the Dartmouth College Library:Eliz Kirk, Associate Librarian for Information ResourcesJudy Maynes, Head of AcquisitionsJames Fein, Collection Assessment & Analysis LibrarianJamie Dalton, Vendor Relations Specialist, AcquisitionsBarbara Sterling, Acquisitions Assistant
Colleagues on the OACompact listservGreg Tananbaum, ScholarNext
ReferencesNorth American Campus-Based Open Access Funds: A Five-Year Progress Report, prepared for SPARC by Greg Tananbaum, Fall 2014
Open Access Funds in Action, prepared for SPARC by Greg Tananbaum, updated October 1, 2014
