Research Article
Researchers’ Perceptions and
Experiences with an Open Access Subvention Fund
Jylisa Doney
Social Sciences Librarian
University of Idaho Library
Moscow, Idaho, United States
of America
Email: jylisadoney@uidaho.edu
Jeremy Kenyon
Research Librarian
University of Idaho Library
Moscow, Idaho, United States
of America
Email: jkenyon@uidaho.edu
Received: 29 July 2021 Accepted: 20 Jan. 2022
2022 Doney and Kenyon. This is an Open Access article distributed under
the terms of the Creative Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 4.0
International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.
DOI: 10.18438/eblip30015
Abstract
Objective – This study
investigated researchers’ perceptions of open access publishing and the ways in
which the university’s open access subvention fund could evolve to meet the
campus community’s needs.
Methods – In spring
2021, two librarians conducted an anonymous survey using a convenience sample
to recruit participants. The survey was directly distributed to 113 University
of Idaho (U of I) affiliates who had received funding from, or expressed
interest in, the open access subvention fund during the previous three years
(FY 2019 to FY 2021). Other U of I affiliates were also offered the opportunity
to participate in the survey via a link shared in the U of I’s daily email
newsletter as well across the U of I’s graduate student email list. The
researchers received 42 usable survey responses. The survey included 26 closed
and open-ended questions and analysis included cross-tabulations based on fund
applicant status as well as respondent role. Of the 26 questions, 4 were
modified from a colleague’s previous study with U of I faculty members (Gaines,
2015).
Results – Survey
responses showed that interest in and support for open access were common among
respondents. Although a majority of respondents had published an open access
journal article and would like to continue to publish open access in the
future, only 17% agreed that they had departmental support to do so. Results
also demonstrated that researchers were less willing to pay article processing
charges (APCs) out-of-pocket and preferred for funding to come from grant
budgets first, followed by Office of Research Budgets, department or college
budgets, and library budgets. Respondents expressed support for many of the
open access subvention fund’s current criteria and processes, but they also
indicated an interest in establishing a more equitable fund distribution cycle
and allowing researchers to seek pre-approval once their article was accepted
for peer-review. Findings related to open access publishing perspectives built
upon previous research conducted at the U of I (Gaines, 2015) and across other
institutions.
Conclusion – This study confirmed the importance of
evaluating and assessing library programs and services to ensure that they
continue to meet the needs of campus communities. Through the study results,
the researchers demonstrated that respondents were interested in open access
publishing and the continuation of the open access subvention fund, as well as
offering the U of I an opportunity to adjust the open access subvention fund’s
processes to better serve researchers. These results also highlighted the need
for those involved in open access publishing support to investigate new open
access advocacy and education efforts to ensure that researchers receive the
philosophical and financial support they need to pursue different models of
scholarly publishing.
Introduction
Open
access subvention funds are “pool[s] of money set aside by an institution or
other research-sponsoring entity specifically to defray or cover processing
fees for articles published by members of the institution in open-access
journals” (SPARC, n.d., “What is an open-access fund?” section). These funds
are often upheld as opportunities for libraries and other campus units to
heighten the visibility of affiliated research, help change the scholarly
publishing landscape, reduce barriers to access, encourage diversity and
competition in the publishing services market, and support authors who would
otherwise be unable to publish their research in an open access journal.
Between FY 2019 and FY 2021, the University of Idaho (U of I) Library, Office
of the Provost, and Office of Research and Economic Development (hereafter,
“OAPF fund partners”) invested a combined total of $110,000 into their open
access subvention fund, the U of I Open Access Publishing Fund (OAPF). During
this three-year pilot period, the OAPF allocated between $30,000 and $50,000
each fiscal year, and supported the publication of 80 open access articles,
authored by a total of 144 U of I researchers. Use of the OAPF was consistent
each year, with the fund disbursing its entire allocation by the end of
February (FY 2019), the beginning of February (FY 2020), and the end of March
(FY 2021). Although fund performance data demonstrated that the OAPF filled a
need on campus, the researchers were interested in building upon prior research
and utilizing other data sources in their assessment of the OAPF.
Literature Review
Open Access Funding Models
Numerous
models for funding open access publications are in the midst of experimentation
and development by academic institutions, research funders, non-profit
organizations, and others. Models
include allowing direct charges to grants by funders (Solomon & Björk, 2016; Springer Nature, 2021), creating open access
subvention funds (Click & Borchardt, 2019), academic libraries pursuing
institutional open access memberships (Björk &
Solomon, 2012), and pursuing transformative agreements (Borrego et al., 2021),
among others. One of the reasons given for a shift away from subvention funds
by some libraries is the unsustainability of those funds (University of
Arizona, 2021). Some argue that scaling up a fund based solely on paying for
institutional researchers’ APCs will eventually exceed the funding available to
the library. For large research institutions, this appears mathematically
correct. The under-appreciated Pay It Forward report from the University
of California (2016) system highlighted this, showing that for its larger
institutions and their comparables, subvention funds were not a scalable
approach to ensuring its articles are open access. Thus, these institutions
have moved toward transformative agreements, which achieve a similar commitment
of funds to APCs (albeit capped at a specific level) while reinvesting in a
“Big Deal” approach to journal subscriptions and other methods, such as
institutional memberships, to discount publishing fees. However, buried in the
report was the implicit suggestion that smaller (or “low-output”) research
institutions, e.g., those with under approximately $200 million in research
expenditures or that publish around 1,000 articles per year or less, may
actually find a subvention fund sustainable, if not transformational
(University of California, 2016). This finding suggested that smaller libraries
may find value in subvention funds. If anything, this highlights the problematic
class divide in library science literature – the largest institutions drive the
conversation and trends (for obvious reasons), but their models may not apply
beyond the largest institutions or to the long tail of smaller academic
libraries. Exactly what the right mix of funding strategies ought to be,
relative to local institutional dynamics, is a question for further research.
Subvention Funds
Literature
on open access subvention funds has taken the form of institution-specific case
studies that detail factors related to fund performance, uptake, and
sustainability (Beaubien et al., 2016; Gyore et al.,
2015; Hampson & Stregger, 2017; Korolev, 2018, 2020; McMillan et al., 2020; Nabe & Imre, 2015; Otto,
2019; Pinfield & Middleton, 2016; Sinn et al.,
2017; Teplitzky & Phillips, 2016; Zuniga & Hoffecker, 2016) as well as multi-institution research
(Click & Borchardt, 2019; Fernandez & Nariani,
2011; Monson et al., 2014; Tananbaum, 2014; Yates et
al., 2015). Of most interest to this project were the studies and reports that
looked beyond descriptive statistics and investigated fund recipients’
perspectives on open access publishing, their opinions about the criteria and
processes used by open access subvention funds, and changes made to open access
subvention funds based on their feedback (Beaubien et al., 2016; Gyore et al., 2015; Korolev, 2018, 2020; McMillan et al.,
2020; Nabe & Imre,
2015; Sinn et al., 2017; Teplitzky & Phillips,
2016; Zuniga & Hoffecker, 2016).
Perspectives on Open Access Publishing
When
choosing to publish an open access article, previous research demonstrated that
open access subvention fund recipients were interested in increasing the
visibility of their work; when asked, many indicated that articles published
with open access subvention fund support were more visible and accessible
(Beaubien et al., 2016; Gyore et al., 2015; Nabe & Imre, 2015; Teplitzky & Phillips, 2016). Another positive outcome
of receiving an open access subvention fund award was that recipients reported
being willing to publish an open access article again in the future (Beaubien
et al., 2016; Nabe & Imre,
2015). Even though fund recipients experienced benefits from open access
publishing and were interested in pursuing open access publishing again, they
believed that authors should not pay the associated article processing charges
(APCs) out-of-pocket. When prior open access subvention fund recipients were
asked who should pay these APCs, they listed grants, the university, and the
library/open access subvention fund as their top three choices; almost no
recipients indicated that authors or co-authors should be responsible for
paying APCs out-of-pocket (Teplitzky & Phillips,
2016). Related to the desire of having agencies or institutional entities pay
for APCs was the finding that the availability of an open access subvention
fund was one of the primary factors in a recipient’s decision to publish an
open access article (Beaubien et al., 2016; Nabe
& Imre, 2015; Teplitzky
& Phillips, 2016). As described by Teplitzky and
Phillips (2016), fund recipients “[were] not necessarily open access advocates
but [were] willing to try open access” (p. 573) if funds were made available to
them.
Opinions on Open Access Subvention Fund Criteria and Processes
Overall,
open access subvention fund recipients expressed positive opinions about the
existence of the funds and wanted them to continue, while also suggesting ways
to improve the criteria and processes (Gyore et al.,
2015; McMillan et al., 2020; Teplitzky &
Phillips, 2016). These suggestions ranged from allocating more money each year,
seeking out money from other campus units, helping potential applicants
identify reputable journals, streamlining the process of paying APCs, allowing
applicants with active grant funding to apply for an award, making hybrid
journals eligible, and removing the requirement that articles must be accepted
for publication before submitting an application (Gyore
et al., 2015; McMillan et al., 2020; Teplitzky &
Phillips, 2016).
Changes Made to Open Access Subvention Funds
Multiple
researchers also reported the changes made to open access subvention funds
based on fund performance and feedback from fund recipients. Some open access
subvention funds made changes to their fund caps to ensure that funding was
available throughout the year (Gyore et al., 2015) or
to ensure that authors received enough funding to cover the majority of an APC
(Korolev, 2018; McMillan et al., 2020; Zuniga & Hoffecker,
2016). Feedback and fund performance data also led some open access subvention
fund operators to prioritize authors with certain roles, such as graduate
students and early career researchers, for funding (Gyore
et al., 2015; Sinn et al., 2017; Zuniga & Hoffecker,
2016). One open access subvention fund reported adding the requirement that
articles must be accepted for publication before they could be considered for
funding (Korolev, 2020).
Aims
Through
this study, we sought to increase the U of I’s awareness of their campus
community’s perspectives on open access publishing and the ways in which the
OAPF’s criteria and processes could evolve to meet campus needs.
The
research questions used to frame this study were:
·
What
beliefs do those who applied for or expressed interest in the OAPF hold about
open access and open access publishing, and have they changed since Gaines’
(2015) study?
·
Why
did U of I affiliates choose or choose not to apply for the OAPF during the
three-year pilot period?
·
Are
the OAPF’s current criteria and processes supported by those who applied for or
expressed interest in the OAPF?
·
How
can the OAPF’s criteria and processes change to better support U of I
affiliates?
By
conducting this study, the researchers wanted to build upon previous research
and assessment related to open access subvention funds and highlight the needs
and experiences of campus affiliates at a Carnegie R2 institution (doctoral
university – high research activity), with approximately 10,790 enrolled
students, and a land-grant mission to share research and information with the
general public and engage with our local communities. The U of I publishes
approximately 1,000 articles per year and expends approximately $110 million in
research expenditures annually. Although the current study is not the first to
examine this topic, documenting how to gather campus affiliates’ perspectives
and use their feedback to evaluate and inform changes to an open access
subvention fund provides other libraries with a framework to do the same on
their own campuses.
Methods
In
spring 2021, the researchers sent a Qualtrics survey to 113 current U of I
affiliates who received funding from or expressed interest in the OAPF during
the previous three years (FY 2019 to FY 2021). These two groups were the main
target respondents as the researchers sought to learn more about their
experiences with open access publishing and the OAPF in order to investigate
whether changes to the fund were necessary. However, because those who received
funding or expressed interest in funding likely had an open access-positive
response bias, the researchers also chose to share the survey twice in the U of
I’s daily email newsletter and via the U of I’s graduate student email list.
The
26-item anonymous Qualtrics survey included closed and open-ended questions about
open access publishing, the OAPF and its criteria and processes, as well as
demographic information (Appendix A). These included four modified questions
used by Gaines’ (2015) to investigate U of I faculty perceptions and knowledge
about open access. The researchers chose to conduct a survey because it allowed
us to gather quantitative data, in a timely manner, and compare the results to
previous survey research that examined open access subvention funds. The survey
research described in this article was approved by the U of I’s Institutional
Review Board (Protocol # 21-110), who classified this study as exempt under
Category 2 at 45 CFR 46.104(d)(2), meaning that the ethical standards of
respect for persons, beneficence, and justice must be followed, but expedited
or full IRB review of this project was not required (Protection of Human
Subjects, 2018). Survey responses were collected between May 3, 2021, and May
27, 2021. Data were initially analyzed using the Qualtrics cross-tabs feature,
which is similar to the PivotTables feature available in Excel. This feature
allowed the researchers to review trends in the data based on respondents’ OAPF
applicant status. The Qualtrics cross-tabs were then imported into Excel to
create the charts and tables included in this article. To ensure respondent
anonymity, all data presented in this article have been aggregated. All direct
quotes included in this article are not reported in connection with the
respondent’s demographic information to ensure that specific respondents cannot
be identified by readers.
Results
Demographics
Forty-nine
respondents completed the survey. Six incomplete survey responses and one
response from a non-U of I respondent were excluded from analysis, resulting in
a total of 42 usable responses. Respondents included current U of I faculty (n
= 28), staff (n = 1), postdoctoral researchers (n = 5), and enrolled graduate
students (n = 8) of various ages, with most respondents being between 26 and 45
years old (n = 27). Respondents included researchers from agriculture and
natural resources (n = 22); science and engineering (n = 13); as well as
education and human sciences, humanities and social sciences, and other (n =
7). Of the 42 survey respondents, 15 had not applied to the OAPF (36%), while
27 reported that they had previously applied (64%), totaling 25% of all
currently affiliated fund recipients contacted. While these results can be
analyzed across these categories in different ways, we chose to focus on the
differences between the OAPF applicants and non-applicants in the results below
because this is the most pertinent lens for evaluating the fund.
Open Access Publishing: Perspectives and Experiences
Journal Selection Criteria
When
asked about the importance of specific criteria when selecting a journal to
publish in, more than 85% of respondents indicated that the journal’s relevance
and prestige within their discipline were important when considering both open
access and non-open access journals. Slight differences in the importance of
specific factors were seen when comparing respondents based on OAPF applicant
status (Table 1). For example, across open access and non-open access journals,
a higher percentage of those who had applied to the OAPF rated the anticipated
speed of peer-review to publication as important when compared to those who had
not applied to the OAPF.
Table
1
Percentage
of Respondents Rating Criteria as Important for Journal Selection
|
Criteria |
Applied to OAPF |
Didn’t apply to OAPF |
||
|
|
OA Journal |
Non-OA Journal |
OA Journal |
Non-OA Journal |
|
Prestige
w/n discipline |
85% |
92% |
86% |
93% |
|
Whether
is OA or not |
58% |
42% |
77% |
29% |
|
Cost
to publish |
78% |
67% |
79% |
73% |
|
Relevance
to your discipline |
93% |
100% |
92% |
93% |
|
Impact
factor |
70% |
74% |
62% |
80% |
|
Speed
of review and publication |
66% |
67% |
54% |
50% |
Perspectives on Publishing Systems
All
but one respondent (98%, n = 41) believed that their discipline or research
field benefits from open access journal articles. However, slight differences
emerged between respondents when asked whether they preferred a system of
publishing in which it is free to publish, but requires subscriptions to read
or one in which it is free to read, but requires fees to publish. Those who had
applied to the OAPF (74%, n = 20) expressed a stronger preference for a system
in which it is free to read, but requires fees to publish. Those who had not
applied to the OAPF also expressed this preference over the alternative, but at
a lower rate (47%, n = 7). In the “other” text-box associated with this
question, four respondents stated that they saw the benefits of both systems;
two discussed the challenges of both systems; two stated that they preferred a
system that is free to publish and free to read; and one stated that they
preferred “non-profit based open access,” where content is “free to read, with
lower APC than for-profit.”
Perspectives on and Experiences with Open Access
Respondents
also agreed that it was important for the general public to be able to access
and read their research (93%, n = 39) and that publishing open access would
increase the visibility of their work (88%, n = 37). However, when respondents
were asked to indicate their agreement with “I have departmental support to
publish open access,” 55% (n = 23) disagreed, 17% (n = 7) agreed, and 29% (n =
12) selected neutral. Yet, the majority of respondents reported publishing an
open access journal article before (79%, n = 33) and almost all respondents
(95%, n = 40) would like to publish in open access journals in the future.
Differences in prior experiences with open access publishing were seen across
respondents, with a higher percentage of OAPF applicants (93%, n = 25)
indicating that they had previously published an open access journal article
when compared to those who had not applied to the OAPF (53%, n = 8).
Of
the respondents who had previously published an open access journal article,
most estimated that they had published between one and five articles (70%, n =
23). A smaller number of respondents reported publishing 6 to 10 (n = 4), 11 to
15 (n = 4), or 16 or more open access articles (n = 2). Respondents who
selected “no” or “not applicable” to publishing an open access journal article
before were asked to share some of the reasons why. Responses included concerns
about the cost of open access publishing, apprehension about lower impact factors
and standards for open access journals, as well as statements about career
stage and that they had not published any journal articles yet.
Open Access Funding Sources
When
asked to rank potential funding sources for APCs, respondents listed grant budgets
as the first source, followed by Office of Research budgets, department/college
budgets, library budgets, and “other” (Figure 1). When ranking the “other”
funding source, respondents were given the option of filling-out a text-box to
specify the funding source, but all respondents left this box blank. The
ranking of funding source preferences did not differ significantly across
respondents based on OAPF applicant status.
When
respondents were asked how much they would be willing to pay out-of-pocket to
publish an article in an open access journal, a plurality indicated that they
would only be willing to pay up to $250 (36%, n = 15), while a majority
selected various options that added up to $1,000 (64%, n = 27). Of the
respondents who selected “other” (n = 7), 6 listed $0 in the open text-box and
one stated they had “never paid out of pocket” (Figure 2). No respondents
selected $2,501 to $3,000.
Experiences with the U of I – OAPF
When
those who had applied to the OAPF (64%, n = 27) were asked about their
motivations for seeking funding, a slight majority indicated that it was a
practical decision (n = 20) and a smaller number of respondents indicated that
it was a desire to change publishing for the better (n = 12). Respondents could
select multiple answers. When those who had not applied to the OAPF before
(36%, n = 15) were asked why, responses included that they did not know it
existed (n = 7), the OAPF was already closed (n = 4), and that their
application did not meet all of the eligibility criteria (n = 4). Six of these
respondents also selected “other” and shared more information in an open
text-box, stating that they “never intend to publish in open access vanity
journals,” “journals covered by the fund were too restrictive,” and “I have
been able to cover the costs through grants, however,
costs seem to be going up and I would like to publish more in open access
journals.”
Figure
1
Funding
source preference for APCs, by respondent count (n = 40).
Figure
2
What
is the highest amount you would be willing to pay out-of-pocket to publish an article
in an open access journal? (by respondent count).
Feedback on the U of I – OAPF’s Current Eligibility Criteria and Processes
During
the three-year pilot period, applicants had to meet specific article, journal,
author, and documentation criteria and requirements in order to qualify for the
fund. These were as follows: 1) Articles must be accepted for publication in
the current fiscal year and funding per article is capped at $2,000.00; 2) Journals
must be listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), utilize
peer-review, and make articles fully open for publication; 3) Journal
publishers must be members of or comply with the Open Access Scholarly
Publishing Association (OASPA); 4) Hybrid journals are ineligible for funding;
5) The applicant must be a current U of I affiliate and funding per fiscal year
is capped at $3,000.00 per author; and 6) Priority will be given to OAPF
applications without other sources of funding available. These criteria and
requirements were established following a review of open access subvention
funds at other colleges and universities as well as discussions with the OAPF
fund partners about their goals for the fund.
The
requirements that received the highest levels of support from respondents were
that a journal must utilize peer-review (95%, n = 40) and make articles fully
open upon publication (95%, n = 40), the affirmation that authors may apply for
funding multiple times until their cap is met or funds are exhausted (85%, n =
35), only current U of I affiliates can apply for funding (83%, n = 34), and
the prioritization of OAPF applications without other sources of funding
available (71%, n = 29). The funding cap of $3,000.00 per author per fiscal
year (66%, n = 27) and the per article cap of $2,000.00 (57%, n = 24) were also
supported by a majority of respondents.
In
comparison, the ineligibility of subscription journals that publish only
certain articles open access (hybrid journals) was opposed by a plurality of
respondents (oppose = 45%, n = 19). This was the only current criterion that
received more opposition than support from respondents. Other requirements that
received lower levels of support included that a journal must be listed in the
DOAJ (support = 50%, n = 21), an article must be accepted for publication
before submitting an OAPF application (support = 50%, n = 21), and that a
journal publisher must be a member of or comply with the OASPA (support = 41%,
n = 17).
Slight
differences in the levels of support or opposition for specific criteria were
seen based on OAPF applicant status. As seen in Figure 4, a higher percentage
of those who had applied to the OAPF (67%, n = 18) than those who had not
applied (20%, n = 3) expressed support for the requirement that articles must
be accepted for publication before submitting an OAPF application. A higher
percentage of OAPF applicants (96% n = 25) than non-applicants (67%, n = 10)
also expressed support for the affirmation that authors may apply for funding
multiple times until their cap is met or funds are exhausted. While a higher
percentage of those who had not applied to the OAPF (87%, n = 13) than those
who had applied (62%, n = 16) expressed support for the prioritization of
applications without other sources of funding available (Figure 3).
Figure 3
Feedback
on OAPF criteria and processes.
Feedback on Proposed Changes to the U of I – OAPF’s Eligibility Criteria
Within
this survey, respondents were also asked to indicate their support for changes
suggested by members of the U of I community during the OAPF’s three-year pilot
period. The proposed changes with the highest levels of support from
respondents were splitting the fund allocation during the fiscal year (63%, n =
26), allowing applications to be submitted for pre-approval when an article is
undergoing peer-review (59%, n = 24), and making subscription journals that
publish only certain articles open access (hybrid journals) eligible for
funding (54%, n = 22). The proposed change with the highest level of opposition
was that authors could only receive funding once per fiscal year (oppose = 56%,
n = 23).
Slight
differences in the levels of support or opposition for potential changes were
seen based on OAPF applicant status. As seen in Figure 4, a higher percentage
of those who had not applied to the OAPF (53%, n = 8) expressed support for
setting aside or earmarking a portion of the funding for U of I affiliates at
specific career stages when compared to those who had applied to the OAPF (31%,
n = 8). While a higher percentage of those who had applied to the OAPF (62%, n
= 16) expressed support for making hybrid journals eligible when compared to
those who had not applied to the OAPF (40%, n = 6). When asked about setting
aside or earmarking a portion of the funding for U of I affiliates in non-STEM
disciplines, a slight plurality of those who had applied to the OAPF (46%, n =
12) opposed this change while a majority of those who had not applied to the
OAPF (60%, n = 9) were neutral (Figure 4).
Figure
4
Feedback
on proposed changes to OAPF criteria and processes.
Discussion/Limitations
Findings
from this survey demonstrated that respondents agreed their research
field/discipline benefits from open access journal articles, that publishing
open access would increase the visibility of their work, and that the general
public should be able to access and read their research. These findings are in
line with previous research on open access publishing (Beaubien et al., 2016; Boock et al., 2020; Dallmeier-Tiessen
et al., 2011; Dalton et al., 2020; Gaines, 2015; Greussing
et al., 2020; Gyore et al., 2015; Jamali et al.,
2020; McDonald et al., 2016; Nabe & Imre, 2015; Odell et al., 2017; Rowley et al., 2017; Segado-Boj et al., 2018; Tenopir
et al., 2017; Teplitzky & Phillips, 2016; Togia & Korobili, 2014).
Current survey respondents also affirmed that a journal’s relevance to their
discipline and its prestige were important factors when choosing both open
access and non-open access journals (Blankstein &
Wolff-Eisenberg, 2019; Boock et al., 2020; Gaines,
2015; Greussing et al., 2020; McDonald et al., 2016;
Odell et al., 2017; Rowley et al., 2017). As found in prior research,
respondents also appeared to hold positive opinions about the OAPF, and when
asked to share their feedback, many commented that they wanted the fund to
continue and that it would be difficult to publish in high quality journals
without it (Gyore et al., 2015; McMillan et al.,
2020; Teplitzky & Phillips, 2016). Respondents to
this survey also indicated a willingness to pursue open access publishing in
the future, which is consistent with earlier research (Beaubien et al., 2016; Nabe & Imre, 2015).
Even
though respondents were interested in open access publishing, they were less
willing to pay the associated fees out-of-pocket. Most stated they would only
be willing to pay up to $1,000 out-of-pocket and preferred for APC funding to
come from grant budgets first, followed by institutional funding sources, and
finally library sources; these results are similar to those found in prior
research (Sheikh, 2019; Tenopir et al., 2017; Teplitzky & Phillips, 2016; Togia
& Korobili, 2014). One hypothesis as to why
current respondents ranked agency and institutional funding sources higher than
library funding sources is that authors may be prone to a status quo bias. If
authors view paying APCs as the final stage in their research process, they may
look to funding sources that are traditionally associated with research to pay
these charges, such as grants, the Office of Research, and their own
departments. Even though library and out-of-pocket funding sources may be
available, authors may not view these sources as viable funding options for
APCs if they do not typically use them for their own professional research
activities. A librarian’s tendency to see APCs as the “flipside” of a
subscription – both are types of funds that go to supporting a journal’s
operations – is not viewed in the same way by researchers. Additional research
is necessary to investigate the relationship between funding source preferences
for APCs and general support for library-funded open access subvention funds.
Overall,
respondents indicated that they sought funding from the OAPF for practical
reasons, but some were interested in changing publishing for the better. Those
who had not sought funding from the OAPF admitted that they did not know it
existed, that it was already closed when they attempted to apply, and that
their applications did not meet all of the eligibility criteria. These results
confirm that some of the OAPF’s education and outreach is working, but additional
work needs to be done to ensure that the entire campus community knows that
this program exists and is kept informed about the fund’s status and criteria.
Survey responses and open text-box comments demonstrated that respondents
supported most of the U of I OAPF’s current criteria and processes, but were
also interested in specific changes. Although U of I affiliates were interested
in receiving financial support to publish in hybrid journals, the OAPF decided
not to make hybrid open access journals eligible for funding. This decision was
made following discussions with the OAPF fund partners in which they reaffirmed
their commitment to only support articles that are published in fully open
access journals. OAPF fund partners felt that hybrid open access journals did
not support the OAPF’s goals of promoting diversity and competition in the
publishing services market nor would they advance open access publishing models
that embrace equitable access to research. They also recognized that the
consistently higher APCs charged by hybrid open access journals (see Budzinski et al., 2020; Pinfield
et al, 2017) could result in fewer authors receiving support each year.
U
of I affiliates were also interested in allowing authors to seek pre-approval
for funding, but because of the potential issues associated with earmarking
funding throughout the fiscal year, this suggestion has not been implemented at
this time either. However, the OAPF will continue to investigate the
“pre-approval for funding” option, in concert with the library’s and
university’s financial experts, as the current “accepted for publication”
criterion is likely a barrier that discourages some authors from pursuing open
access publishing as they would be unable to pay the APCs without guaranteed financial
support.
The
change with the most support from survey respondents, splitting the fund
allocation during the fiscal year, was something that seemed feasible and
beneficial, if subsequent data also demonstrated that this change was
necessary. After examining OAPF application data, the researchers discovered
that 61% of the allocation in FY 2019, 89% of the allocation in FY 2020, and
100% of the allocation in FY 2021 had been disbursed by the end of the first
six months of the fiscal year. The researchers were able to secure an
additional $20,000.00 in FY 2021 and reopen the fund in January 2021, but these
funds were disbursed by the end of March 2021. As a result of this data and
support from survey respondents, the OAPF proposed a change to its funding
distribution cycle for FY 2022. With approval from its three original funding
partners and a new donor, the OAPF’s allocation was split 50/50, with half of
the allocation ($17,500) made available for articles accepted for publication
between July 1, 2021, and December 31, 2021, and the other half ($17,500) made
available for articles accepted for publication between January 1, 2022, and
June 15, 2022. With this change, the OAPF seeks to create a more equitable
funding cycle and give those who publish their research during the second half
of the fiscal year an opportunity to receive financial support.
Looking
ahead to future funding cycles, it will be necessary for the OAPF and its fund
partners to continue to take the needs and suggestions of the U of I campus
community into account, while also considering whether their perspectives
correspond with the needs, interests, and goals of the OAPF and its fund
partners. At times, as evinced by U of I affiliates’ suggestion to make hybrid
open access journal eligible for funding, the needs of researchers might be in
conflict with the perspectives of the OAPF and its fund partners. The U of I’s
Faculty Senate Committee on Library Affairs gives us a means to discuss and
evaluate these conflicting perspectives in a forum designated for handling
faculty preferences with respect to library and institutional goals. Navigating
conflicting perspectives is never an easy task; the fact that a conflict exists
gives the OAPF fund partners an opportunity to listen and learn more about the
needs and experiences of their affiliates and potentially find common ground.
Comparison to Previous Research at the U of I
This
survey also built upon and modified four questions used in a previous study of
U of I faculty members (Gaines, 2015). These questions focused on the benefits
of open access to a researcher’s discipline, prior open access publishing
experience, the factors used when selecting where to publish, and perspectives
on open access. In 2013, 57% of survey respondents believed that their research
field/discipline “currently benefits or would benefit from journals that
publish open access” (Gaines, 2015, p. 7); 96% (n = 27) of faculty respondents
to the current survey believed the same. In total, 41% of faculty in 2013 had
published an open access journal article before (Gaines, 2015, p. 7) compared
to 89% (n = 25) of faculty respondents to the current survey. Although both
survey samples were small, these data demonstrated that in the last eight
years, it is likely that perspectives on open access have grown more positive
and more faculty are engaging in open access publishing across campus; however,
it is also necessary to recognize that the 2021 respondents may have an open
access-positive response bias as more than half of respondents had sought
support from the OAPF. Across both surveys, a higher percentage of faculty
selected “relevance of the journal for their discipline” as important for both
open and non-open access journals when compared to other factors (Gaines, 2015,
p. 9). In 2013, 80% of faculty “strongly believed that publicly funded research
should be made available to the public without barriers” (Gaines, 2015, p. 8),
while 93% (n = 26) of faculty in the current survey agreed that “it is
important to me that the general public can access and read my research.”
Gaines’ (2015) findings demonstrated that 67% of respondents agreed that
“publishing in open access journals would increase the visibility of their
research,” while 72% of respondents agreed that they “would like to publish in
open access journals in the future” (p. 9). In the current survey, 89% (n = 25)
and 93% (n = 26) of faculty respondents agreed with these statements,
respectively. These data indicated that interest in open access appears to be
growing at the U of I and more respondents agreed with many common
philosophical and credit-based arguments about open access.
However,
all of the findings were not as positive. When asked in 2013 whether they “felt
they had institutional or departmental support to publish open access,” 15% of
faculty respondents agreed, 48% were unsure, and 35% disagreed (Gaines, 2015,
p. 9). In the current survey, 14% (n = 4) of faculty agreed, 29% (n = 8)
selected neutral, and 57% (n = 16) disagreed. These data showed that for some U
of I faculty, departmental support for open access publishing might have
decreased over the last eight years.
As
neither survey defined “support,” it is possible that respondents answered this
question with different types of departmental support in mind, such as
philosophical support, financial support, tenure/promotion support, or other
types of support. Even though faculty respondents’ may have interpreted
“support for open access publishing” differently, the researchers affirm that
these results are still relevant when examined in light of other findings.
Although faculty respondents are interested in publishing open access and see
how this decision could potentially lead to both professional and broader
public benefits, they do not feel that their departments are aligned with these
pursuits. Looking ahead, additional research is necessary to investigate
researchers’ experiences and perceptions of various types of departmental
support for open access publishing, as any efforts to increase departmental
support for open access publishing will need to be tailored to the types of
support that are currently lacking.
Limitations
Although
these data added to the U of I’s knowledge of affiliates’ perspectives on open
access and the OAPF and led to proposed changes to the funding distribution
cycle, it is important to acknowledge that there were limitations. One
limitation is that the convenience sample of respondents—those who had applied
for or expressed interest in the OAPF—likely had an open access-positive
response bias. This bias did not negate the usefulness of these findings, but
it did suggest that additional research with the U of I campus community is
necessary to confirm whether these findings apply to the broader community.
Other limitations included a small sample size, which limits both the local and
broader generalizability of the results; a limited ability to ask follow-up
questions; and the potential for respondents to interpret questions
differently. To address the small sample size, researchers could seek
additional IRB approval and pursue further engagement by asking library
liaisons to share a link to the survey with faculty and students in their
departments. Researchers could also ask the OAPF fund partners to send a joint
email to campus affiliates, encouraging them to participate in the survey. To
increase participation among an expanded convenience sample, the researchers
could also add a link to the survey within the OAPF award decision emails and
share a link to the survey with anyone who expressed interest in the fund. The
lack of follow-up questions available when using the survey methodology could
be addressed by adding open-ended “tell us why you selected that response”
survey questions in specific locations. The researchers could also conduct
interviews or focus groups to give participants an opportunity to share their
perspectives in a less structured way. To ensure that all respondents
approached questions in a consistent manner, researchers could also add
definitions or clarify questions, when necessary. For example, the researchers
could change the general phrase “departmental support” to “financial support
from your department,” “philosophical support from your department,” or other
options.
Conclusion
As
the OAPF’s three-year pilot period has come to an end, it is evident that this
program met a campus need by providing financial and philosophical support for
those who were interested in open access publishing. Findings demonstrated that
interest in open access journal publishing was high among a subset of the U of
I campus community, but a perceived lack of departmental support was also
common. Respondents supported most of the U of I OAPF’s current criteria and
processes, but they also supported changes that sought to make the fund more
equitable. These included disbursing the allocation biannually to ensure that
funding was available for researchers throughout the year and utilizing a
pre-approval award process to ensure that funding was still available once an
article was officially accepted for publication. During its FY 2022 award
cycle, the OAPF was able to split the total allocation in half, ensuring that
researchers publishing in either the first or the second half of the fiscal
year had a similar opportunity to seek funding. More research is needed to
determine whether this change to the disbursement cycle will be effective. The
researchers will also continue investigating whether and how pre-approval of
applications prior to article acceptance could be implemented. In investigating
the feasibility of the pre-approval process, the researchers will leverage the
expertise of the library’s and university’s financial experts as well as seek
additional input from the OAPF’s funding partners and members of the campus community.
This
survey is just one piece of the data-driven assessment strategy that is
necessary to evaluate the impact and effectiveness of an open access subvention
fund. Although these results are specific to the local setting, the survey
protocol as well as the experiences and needs of respondents could potentially
inform OA subvention fund assessment and library practices at other
institutions. For example, other institutions with open access subvention funds
may choose to replicate this survey and add questions that reflect their unique
institutional contexts. They might also consider investigating whether their
fund could benefit from some of the changes suggested by our respondents and
whether these changes would be feasible on their own campuses. Overall, these
results demonstrated that the provision of a subvention fund is just one step
in the process; libraries and institutions must continue to assess whether the
fund’s criteria and processes reflect the practices and needs of their own
unique scholarly communities. Ongoing assessment should include a combination
of data related to fund performance; the attitudes, perceptions, and behaviours
of campus community members; and the impact of funded articles. Gathering data
from a variety of sources will allow open access subvention funds and their
fund partners to gain a well-rounded perspective on the impact of these funds;
such work is already occurring at the U of I. To determine whether the open
access subvention fund met its user-centred program outcomes, research
analyzing citation data and researchers’ publishing behaviours before and after
receiving an OAPF award is also ongoing. Looking ahead to the ever-changing
open access landscape, it will be necessary for those involved in open access
subvention funds to continue their assessment efforts to ensure that these
funds consistently meet the needs of their campus communities.
Author Contributions
Jylisa Doney: Conceptualization (equal), Methodology
(equal), Investigation (equal), Formal analysis (lead), Writing – original
draft (lead), Writing – review & editing (equal) Jeremy Kenyon: Conceptualization
(equal), Methodology (equal), Investigation (equal), Formal analysis
(supporting), Writing – original draft (supporting), Writing – review &
editing (equal)
References
Beaubien, S.,
Garrison, J., & Way, D. (2016). Evaluating an open access publishing fund
at a comprehensive university. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly
Communication, 3(3), eP1204. https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.1204
Björk,
B.-C., & Solomon, D. (2012). Pricing principles used by scholarly open
access publishers. Learned Publishing, 25(2), 132-137. https://doi.org/10.1087/20120207
Blankstein, M.,
& Wolff-Eisenberg, C. (2019). Ithaka S+R US faculty survey 2018.
Ithaka S+R. https://doi.org/10.18665/sr.311199
Boock, M.,
Todorova, T. Y., Trencheva, T. S., & Todorova, R.
(2020). Bulgarian authors’ open access awareness and preferences. Library
Management, 41(2/3), 91-102. https://doi.org/10.1108/LM-08-2019-0059
Borrego, Á., Anglada, L., Abadal, E. (2021).
Transformative agreements: Do they pave the way to open access? Learned
Publishing, 34(2), 216-232. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1347
Budzinski, P.,
Grebel, T., Wolling, J.,
& Zhang, X. (2020). Drivers of article processing charges in open access. Scientometrics, 124, 2185-2206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03578-3
Click, A. B.,
& Borchardt, R. (2019). Library supported open access funds: Criteria,
impact, and viability. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 14(4), 21-37. https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip29623
Dallmeier-Tiessen, S.,
Darby, R., Goerner, B., Hyppoelae, J., Igo-Kemenes, P., Kahn, D., Lambert, S., Lengenfelder,
A., Leonard, C., Mele, S., Nowicka, M., Polydoratou, P., Ross, D., Ruiz-Perez, S., Schimmer, R., Swaisland, M., & van der Stelt, W. (2011, January 28). Highlights from the SOAP
project survey: What scientists think about open access publishing. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/1101.5260v2
Dalton, E. D., Tenopir, C., & Björk, B.-C.
(2020). Attitudes of North American academics toward open access scholarly
journals. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 20(1), 73-100. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2020.0005
Fernandez, L.,
& Nariani, R. (2011). Open access funds: A
Canadian library survey. Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and
Information Practice and Research, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.21083/partnership.v6i1.1424
Gaines, A. M.
(2015). From concerned to cautiously optimistic: Assessing faculty perceptions
and knowledge of open access in a campus-wide study. Journal of
Librarianship and Scholarly Communication, 3(1), eP1212. https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.1212
Greussing, E.,
Kuballa, S., Taddicken, M.,
Schulze, M., Mielke, C., & Haux, R. (2020).
Drivers and obstacles of open access publishing. A qualitative investigation of
individual and institutional factors. Frontiers in Communication, 5.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2020.587465
Gyore, R.,
Reeve, A. C., Cameron-Vedros, C., Ludwig, D., &
Emmett, A. (2015). Campus open access funds: Experiences of the KU “One
University” open access author fund. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly
Communication, 3(1), eP1252. https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.1252
Hampson, C.,
& Stregger, E. (2017). Measuring cost per use of
library-funded open access article processing charges: Examination and
implications of one method. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly
Communication, 5(1), eP2182. https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2182
Jamali, H. R.,
Nicholas, D., Herman, E., Boukacem-Zeghmouri, C., Abrizah, A., Rodríguez-Bravo, B., Xu, J., Świgon’, M., Polezhaeva, T.,
& Watkinson, A. (2020). National comparisons of early career researchers’
scholarly communication attitudes and behaviours. Learned Publishing, 33(4),
370-384. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1313
Korolev, S.
(2018). Evaluating the impact of the university open access publication fund
(UWM Libraries Other Staff Publications). https://dc.uwm.edu/lib_staffart/11
Korolev, S.
(2020). 2020 update of the university open access publication fund (UWM
Libraries Other Staff Publications). https://dc.uwm.edu/lib_staffart/13
McDonald, B.,
Gibson, I., Yates, E., & Stephenson, C. (2016). An exploration of faculty
experiences with open access journal publishing at two Canadian comprehensive
universities. Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information
Practice and Research, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.21083/partnership.v11i2.3703
McMillan, G.,
O’Brien, L., & Lener, E. F. (2020, August 31).
Guest post—Assessing user perceptions of an open access subvention fund. The
Scholarly Kitchen. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2020/08/31/guest-post-assessing-user-perceptions-of-an-open-access-subvention-fund/
Monson, J., Highby, W., & Rathe, B. (2014). Library involvement in
faculty publication funds. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 21(3-4),
308-329. https://doi.org/10.1080/10691316.2014.933088
Nabe, J., & Imre, A. (2015, January 31). Library funding of open
access publication fees: Effects on faculty behavior and attitude. ALA
Midwinter: ALCTS Scholarly Communications Interest Group. https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/morris_confs/22
Odell, J.,
Palmer, K., & Dill, E. (2017). Faculty attitudes toward open access and
scholarly communications: Disciplinary differences on an urban and health
science campus. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication, 5(1),
eP2169. https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2169
Otto, R. W.
(2019). Six years of running a campus open access publishing fund. Where are
we? Charleston Conference. https://krex.k-state.edu/dspace/handle/2097/40201
Pinfield, S.,
& Middleton, C. (2016). Researchers’ adoption of an institutional central
fund for open-access article-processing charges: A case study using innovation
diffusion theory. SAGE Open, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015625447
Pinfield, S.,
Salter, J., & Bath, P. A. (2017). A “gold-centric” implementation of open
access: Hybrid journals, the “total cost of publication,” and policy
development in the UK and beyond. Journal of the Association for Information
Science and Technology, 68(9), 2248-2263. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23742
Protection of
Human Subjects, 45 C.F.R. § 46.104(d)(2). (2018). https://www.ecfr.gov/on/2018-07-19/title-45/subtitle-A/subchapter-A/part-46#p-46.104(d)(2)
Rowley, J.,
Johnson, F., Sbaffi, L., Frass, W., & Devine, E.
(2017). Academics’ behaviors and attitudes towards open access publishing in
scholarly journals. Journal of the Association for Information Science and
Technology, 68(5), 1201-1211. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23710
Segado-Boj, F.,
Martín-Quevedo, J., & Prieto-Gutiérrez, J. J. (2018). Attitudes toward open
access, open peer review, and Altmetrics among
contributors to Spanish scholarly journals. Journal of Scholarly Publishing,
50(1), 48–70. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.50.1.08
Sheikh, A.
(2019). Faculty awareness, use and attitudes towards scholarly open access: A
Pakistani perspective. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science,
51(3), 612-628. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000617742455
Sinn, R. N.,
Woodson, S. M., & Cyzyk, M. (2017). The Johns
Hopkins Libraries open access promotion fund: An open and shut case study. College
& Research Libraries News, 32-35. https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.78.1.9605
Solomon D.,
& Björk, B.-C. (2016). Article processing charges
for open access publication—the situation for research intensive universities
in the USA and Canada. PeerJ, 4, e2264. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2264
SPARC. (n.d.). Campus
open access fund FAQ. https://sparcopen.org/our-work/oa-funds/faq/
Springer Nature.
(2021). Funding for open access articles. https://www.springernature.com/gp/open-research/funding/articles
Tananbaum, G.
(2014). North American campus-based open access funds: A five-year progress
report. SPARC. https://sparcopen.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/OA-Fund-5-Year-Review.pdf
Tenopir, C.,
Dalton, E. D., Christian, L., Jones, M. K., McCabe, M., Smith, M., & Fish,
A. (2017). Imagining a gold open access future: Attitudes, behaviors, and
funding scenarios among authors of academic scholarship. College &
Research Libraries, 78(6), 824-843. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.78.6.824
Teplitzky, S.,
& Phillips, M. (2016). Evaluating the impact of open access at Berkeley:
Results from the 2015 survey of Berkeley Research Impact Initiative (BRII)
funding recipients. College & Research Libraries, 77(5),
568-581. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.77.5.568
Togia, A.,
& Korobili, S. (2014). Attitudes towards open
access: A meta-synthesis of the empirical literature. Information Services
& Use, 34(3-4), 221-231. https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-140742
University of
Arizona. (2021). Open access investment fund. https://new.library.arizona.edu/about/awards/oa-fund
University of
California Libraries. (2016). Pay it forward: Investigating a sustainable
model of open access article processing charges for large North American
research institutions. https://www.library.ucdavis.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/ICIS-UC-Pay-It-Forward-Final-Report.rev_.7.18.16.pdf
Yates, E.,
Hampson, C., Hatherill, J., Lavigne, J., Nariani, R., Paterson, J., Shires, M., & Tiessen, R. (2015). Library open access funds in Canada:
Review and recommendations. Canadian Association of Research Libraries:
Open Access Working Group. https://www.carl-abrc.ca/doc/CARLOAWGLibraryOAFundsFinalReport-Jan%202016.pdf
Zuniga, H.,
& Hoffecker, L. (2016). Managing an open access
fund: Tips from the trenches and questions for the future. Journal of
Copyright in Education & Librarianship, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.17161/jcel.v1i1.5920
Appendix
Survey Questions
1.
Do
you believe your discipline or research field benefits from open access journal
articles?
a.
Yes
b.
No
c.
Unsure
2.
Which
system of publishing do you prefer?
a.
One
in which it is free to publish, but requires subscriptions to read
b.
One
in which it is free to read, but requires fees to publish
c.
Other
[text-box]
3.
Have
you published an open access journal article before?
a.
Yes
b.
No
c.
Not
applicable [text-box]
4.
Approximately
how many open access journal articles have you published? (if Yes on Q3)
[text-box]
5.
What
are some of the reasons you haven't published an open access journal article
before? (if No on Q3) [text-box]
6.
When
you select a journal to publish in, how important are the following factors?
(Likert scale: Not Important, Neutral, Important)
a.
Non-open
access journal
i. Prestige of the
journal within your discipline
ii. Whether the
journal is open access
iii. The cost to
publish in the journal
iv. Relevance of the
journal for your discipline
v. The journal's
impact factor
vi. The anticipated
speed of the peer-review to publication process
b.
Open
access journal
i. Prestige of the
journal within your discipline
ii. Whether the
journal is open access
iii. The cost to
publish in the journal
iv. Relevance of the
journal for your discipline
v. The journal's
impact factor
vi. The anticipated
speed of the peer-review to publication process
7.
What
is the highest amount you would be willing to pay out-of-pocket to publish an
article in an open access journal if you had no financial support from grants,
the U of I – OAPF, your department, etc.?
a.
Up
to $250.00
b.
$250.00
to $500.00
c.
$501.00
to $1000.00
d.
$1001.00
to $1500.00
e.
$1501.00
to $2000.00
f.
$2001.00
to $2500.00
g.
$2501.00
to $3000.00
h.
More
than $3001.00
i.
Other
[text-box]
8.
With
1 (one) being your top preference, please rank these common funding avenues
based on where you believe funding for article processing charges (fees to
publish in an open access journal) should come from.
a.
Grant
budgets
b.
Department/college
budgets
c.
Library
budgets
d.
Office
of Research budgets
e.
Other
[text-box]
9.
Please
indicate your agreement with the following statements. (Likert scale: Disagree,
Neutral, Agree)
a.
I
have departmental support to publish open access
b.
I
prefer to publish in open access journals
c.
I
would like to publish in open access journals in the future
d.
Important
researchers in my field are publishing open access
e.
Publishing
open access would increase the visibility of my work
f.
It
is important to me that the general public can access and read my research
g.
There
are open access journals that match with my research interests/field
10.
Have
you applied for the U of I – OAPF during the last three years?
a.
Yes
b.
No
11.
What
motivated you to apply for funding via the U of I – OAPF? (select all that
apply) (if Yes on Q10)
a.
Desire
to change publishing for the better
b.
A
practical decision
c.
Other
[text-box]
12.
Did you receive funding for at least one
article from the U of I – OAPF? (if Yes on Q10)
a.
Yes
b.
No
13.
Did
you ultimately publish your article through other means? (if No on Q12)
a.
Yes:
In an open access journal
b.
Yes:
In a non-open access journal
c.
No
d.
Other
[text-box]
14.
What
are some of the reasons you haven't applied to the U of I – OAPF before?
(select all that apply) (if No on Q10)
a.
Didn't
know it existed
b.
OAPF
was already closed
c.
My
application didn't meet all of the eligibility criteria
d.
Other
[text-box]
15.
What
feedback do you have about the U of I – OAPF's application, notification,
invoice payment and reimbursement, or other aspects of the process? Questions
about criteria and processes appear on the next page of the survey. [text-box]
Please
indicate your support for the U of I – OAPF’s current criteria and processes.
16.
Article
criteria (Likert scale: Oppose, Neutral, Support)
a.
Articles
must be accepted for publication before submitting an OAPF application
b.
Funding
per article is capped at $2000.00
17.
Journal
criteria (Likert scale: Oppose, Neutral, Support)
a.
The
journal must be listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
b.
The
journal must utilize peer-review
c.
The
journal must make articles fully open upon publication
d.
Subscription
journals that make certain articles open access are ineligible for funding
e.
The
journal publisher must be a member of or comply with the Open Access Scholarly
Publishers Association (OASPA)
18.
Author
criteria (Likert scale: Oppose, Neutral, Support)
a.
Only
current U of I affiliates are able to apply for the
OAPF
b.
Funding
per author is capped at $3000.00 per fiscal year
c.
Authors
may apply for funding multiple times until their cap is met or funds are
exhausted
d.
Priority
will be given to OAPF applications without other sources of funding available
(such as grants or contracts)
19.
Award
process (Likert scale: Oppose, Neutral, Support)
a.
Applications
are evaluated on a first come, first served basis
b.
The
OAPF will pay invoices directly
c.
The
OAPF will reimburse funded applicants for out-of-pocket invoice payments
20.
Please
indicate your support for the following changes to the U of I – OAPF, as
suggested by members of the U of I community. (Likert scale: Oppose, Neutral,
Support)
a.
An
OAPF application can be submitted for pre-approval when an article is
undergoing peer-review
b.
A
portion of funding will be set aside/earmarked for U of I affiliates at
specific career stages
c.
Authors
can only receive funding once per fiscal year
d.
A
portion of funding is set aside/earmarked for U of I affiliates in non-STEM
disciplines
e.
Subscription
journals that make certain articles open access would be eligible for
funding
f.
Split
OAPF allocation within the fiscal year (e.g. Half the allocation is available
for applications submitted between July and December; half the allocation is
available for applications submitted between January and June)
21.
What
other changes would you like to see the U of I – OAPF make to its criteria and
processes? [text-box]
22.
Do
you have any additional feedback about the U of I – OAPF? [text-box]
23.
Are
you a current U of I ...
a.
Faculty
member
b.
Staff
member
c.
Postdoctoral
researcher
d.
Enrolled
graduate student
e.
Enrolled
undergraduate student
f.
Other
[text-box]
24.
What
is your age?
a.
18
- 25
b.
26
- 35
c.
36
- 45
d.
46
- 55
e.
56
- 65
f.
66
- 75
g.
75
+
25.
Which college do you primarily work in?
a.
Agricultural
and Life Sciences
b.
Art
and Architecture
c.
Business
and Economics
d.
Education,
Health and Human Sciences
e.
Engineering
f.
Law
g.
Letters,
Arts and Social Sciences
h.
Natural
Resources
i.
Science
j.
Other
[text-box]
26.
Which department do you primarily work in?
[text-box]