Sustainability – the funding model of DOAJ

OpenAIRE workshop: Legal and Sustainability issues, November 5th 2013,

VilniusLars Bjørnshauge

lars@doaj.org

Brief Background

• Founded 2003 at Lund University – launched May 2003 with 300 journals

• Initially funded by minor project grants from SPARC and Open Society Institute.

• Additional grants from among others SPARC Europe, INASP and OpenAccess.se.

• Membership and Sponsor funding model introduced 2006.

Higher expectations

• Situation 2010/2011:• Increasing expectations as OA gets momentum.• Difficulties in getting resources as expectations grow.• As OA matures demands from funders and libraries

increase and become more differentiated and advanced.

• Increasing backlog and lack of curation of the collection.

www.is4oa.orgFounded by

Caroline Sutton, Alma Swan &

Lars Bjørnshauge

Improvements

• New platform launched• Facets search:– language– publication year– license– business model (APCs or not)

• Very good feedback!

Streamlining back office

• Journals added Jan-Oct 2013: 2007• (Journals added 2012): 1248

• We are removing journals as well:

• August 1st – October 31st 2013:• Journals added: 485• Journals removed: 481

Staffing

• Staff:• 5 part time – 3 FTE• Maintenance & development outsourced to

Sempertool (www.sempertool.dk)

• Working from Copenhagen, Malmö & Stockholm

• Memberships– Academic Libraries £ 400/year– Library Consortia £ 4000/year– Aggregators £ 5000/year

• Sponsors £ 1500-10000/year

• Donations (anything)

Current funding model

• Expected turnover 2013: £ 200.000

• Income: • Libraries & Library Consortia: 63%• Commercial aggregators: 10%• Sponsors: 25%• Various 2%

The funding model, works – more or less - so far, but….

There is much more work to be done!

• Implementation of new tighter criteria• Facilitating uptake of persistent identifiers• Facilitating archiving solutions• Facilitating contributions from the community

– ”associate editors”

Why thighter criteria?

• Better opportunities for funders, universities, libraries and authors to determine whether a journal lives up to standards – transparency!

• Enable the community to monitor compliance• Addressing the issue of fake publishers or

publishers not living up to reasonable standards both in terms of content and of business behavior.

• DOAJ SEAL – promote best practice

New criteria

• New tighter criteria will address:• “Quality”• “Openness”• “the delivery”• They will be more detailed• Publishers will have to do more to be included

The long tail

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 430

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Number of journalsResponses

Promoting DOIs

• Discussions with – OASPA– INASP– PKP– Redalyc

• as to how to work together on this and with CrossRef for efficient and affordable arrangements

The challenge related to archiving

• Many, many journals – lack the financial & technical resources to go

beyond just publishing the content.– haven´t adressed the archiving issue yet, but

would like to do so, provided smart and cheap solutions are available.

• Discussions with OASPA, INASP, PKP, Redalyc, CLOCKSS, Keepers Registry and approached by Portico

- more than a list!

• Going beyond being a list of OA-journals and a hub for article level metadata

• Engaging with the community to assist OA-journals to enter the mainstream– Archiving, persistent identifiers etc

• Opening up for crowd sourcing of the editorial work

Requires probably 50% increase in funding –

this should be possible during 2014

-

• Would like to become part of a OA-infrastructure package

• But have to continue and develop the current funding while waiting for the global OA-infrastructure committee to emerge and generate results – we will contribute to this process

Thank you for your attention!

lars@doaj.org