Research Article
A Benchmarking Survey of Open Access Funds at the
University of California
Allegra Swift
Scholarly Communications
Librarian
University of California,
San Diego Library
San Diego, California,
United States of America
Email: akswift@ucsd.edu
Anneliese Taylor
Head of Scholarly
Communication
University of California,
San Francisco Library
San Francisco, California,
United States of America
Email: anneliese.taylor@ucsf.edu
Received: 25 Oct. 2024 Accepted: 8 Jan. 2025
2025 Swift and Taylor. 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.
Data Availability: Swift, A. K., & Taylor, A. (2024). UC Open Access Fund 2022
Benchmarking Study. [Survey instrument, data, presentation slides, and report].
OSF. https://osf.io/486qe/
DOI: 10.18438/eblip30649
Abstract
Objective
– The purpose of this study was to examine the
status and viability of application-based open access funds (OAFs) across the
University of California (UC) Libraries to assist with long-term planning for
this type of funding at UC.
Methods – In 2022, the
authors surveyed the 10 UC campus libraries about both the outcome of an
earlier UC-wide OAF pilot and the current status of application-based OAFs to
support article processing charges (APCs), book processing charges (BPCs), and
open educational resources (OERs). Five campuses reported having a current OAF.
These five campuses responded to additional questions about their budgets and
their sustainability, the number of publications funded, policies, and staffing
resources for managing the OAF.
Results
– Five UC campuses had an active application-based
OAF, with budgets or expenditures ranging from $20,000 - $271,000 annually.
Only two campuses felt their budget was sustainable. One of the five campuses
closed its fund after the survey. The number of staff resources per fund ranged
from 1 to 6 with 3 to 32 hours of work weekly. Funding policies were similar to
other institutional OAFs with some distinctions. All campuses had revised their
criteria to disallow funding for journals covered by UC’s transformative open
access agreements.
Conclusion – Providing application-based funds for OA publishing at high-publishing
academic institutions requires a substantial budget and workforce. Though these
funds benefit some authors, the wider equity of APCs and BPCs needs to be
considered.
Introduction
Open access funds have been a popular approach for
libraries to support authors at their institutions who wish to publish their
work open access (OA) for about two decades. Though libraries are now embracing
a variety of approaches for subsidizing OA publishing costs, OA funds remain in
place at about 130 institutions globally (Springer Nature, 2024).
The definition of “open access fund” (OAF) for this
study refers to a pool of funds that individual faculty, students, and/or staff
can request funds from to help pay for open access article processing charges
(APCs) or book processing charges (BPCs). Because some University of California
libraries include open educational resources (OERs) in their OAF, the authors
also included this publication category in the survey. OAFs are sometimes
called subvention funds, since they offer financial support to authors to help
pay for open access publishing or to offset the costs of providing OERs. These
funds are often managed by the library for individuals affiliated with the
institution, and awardees must submit an application to receive funds.
The study reported in this article primarily
addresses OAFs at the University of California (UC) campuses that provide funds
for APCs and BPCs. We explore how the UC Libraries’ management of their funds
compares to trends in OA fund management in the national OA landscape that
exists in 2024. This landscape has evolved to incorporate library and
institutional investment in multiple approaches to advancing OA, including
publisher agreements wherein the institution pays its authors’ APCs,
non-APC/BPC-based models, investments in OA initiatives and memberships, and
library publishing.
In late 2021, the libraries at the University of
California, San Diego (UCSD) and the University of California, San Francisco
(UCSF) wanted to assess their plans for providing an open access fund to
researchers at their universities. UCSD did not have an OAF (although it did
set aside funds to support authors publishing books on UC Press’s open access
Luminos platform) but was considering establishing one. UCSF had an active OAF
supporting APCs and BPCs but had reduced its budget in the fiscal year
beginning July 1, 2021 and needed to strategize its long-term plan for the
provision of funds.
The authors developed a benchmarking survey of the
10 University of California libraries.[1] The
survey included questions addressing campuses’ interests in OAFs and collected
data on UC’s historical and current involvement with OAFs. The UC Libraries are
highly coordinated and collaborative and share multiple advisory, oversight,
shared service, and Common Knowledge Groups (CKGs) (UC Libraries, n.d.).
The California Digital Library (CDL) is part of the
UC Libraries advisory structure. In the 2011 - 2012 fiscal year, CDL provided
seed funding to the 10 UC campus libraries to pilot an OAF at each campus. This
historical funding combined with the existing advisory structure made the UC
system an ideal group for benchmarking purposes. We aimed to determine what
impact the seed funding had on the ongoing availability of OAFs and, for those
campuses with active funds, what policies they applied, what their budget
considerations were, and what resources and staffing were used to maintain
their fund.
Since the UC Libraries have established over 18 open
access publisher agreements to help UC authors publish open access scholarly
articles, we also sought information on what impact these agreements have on
OAFs. This type of agreement is frequently referred to as a “transformative
agreement” (TA), which UC defines as agreements that “... substantially shift payments
for subscriptions (reading) into payments for open access (publishing). Most
such agreements are intended to be transitional—a step on the path toward full
open access” (University of California, n.d.-a).
Many of UC’s TAs use a multi-payer model, wherein
the first $1,000 of an APC is automatically paid for UC corresponding authors.
Authors with research funds are asked to pay the remainder of the APC, and
those who do not have research funds receive funding for the full APC after
submitting a request. UC authors also receive discounted APCs with a number of
publishers through subscription agreements (University of California, n.d.-b.).
The results of this survey may help other
institutions assess their existing OAFs as well as institutions considering
establishing a new OAF. We will frame the role of OAFs alongside transformative
agreements and “diamond” OA approaches supported by libraries (models whereby
the costs to publish OA are subsidized by the author’s institution and no
author-facing fees are levied).
Literature Review
Establishment and Breadth of OA Funds
Open access funds (OAFs) provide money to the
institution’s authors to help authors publish their work open access (OA) and
distribute it more widely. These funds promote publishing models that make
content free to read and allow authors to retain their copyright. Since OAFs
are run by the library, they insert libraries into the publication process,
which is a relatively new role for libraries. Having an OAF creates
opportunities for dialogue between library workers and authors about rights
retention, OA publishing models and mandates, and scholarly publishing broadly
speaking. These conversations help establish the library’s expertise in areas
that are increasingly complex for scholars and researchers (Tananbaum, 2014).
The exact number of open access funds around the
world or in any one country is difficult to determine. Lists of such funds are
challenging to keep up to date, and some funds may go unreported. The advocacy
group SPARC tracks 54 active and 36 inactive North American funds among its
members (SPARC, n.d.), with 22% of SPARC’s 250 members having active funds. The
Open Access Directory lists publication funds (Open Access Directory, 2024) and
discontinued funds (Open Access Directory, 2018) by institution name but does
not include a count of agreements. Publisher Springer Nature’s list tracks 130
OAFs for books and/or journal articles and 170 funders in 30 countries
(Springer Nature, 2024).
Reports of academic libraries establishing OAFs in
North America can be found in the literature as early as 2005 (McMillan et al.,
2016; Newman et al., 2007). The University of California, Berkeley was one of
20 signatories to the Compact for Open-Access Publishing Equity (COPE), committing
to providing a stable source of funding for their institution’s authors
publishing in open access journals. The last institution to become a COPE
signatory joined in 2014 (Compact for Open-Access Publishing Equity, n.d.;
Eckman & Weil, 2010). A study of Canadian libraries found that, as of 2012,
OAFs were common in Canadian academic libraries but not a standard service
(Hampson, 2014).
A 2016 survey of the Association of Research
Libraries’ (ARL) 67 member libraries found that 30% had an active OAF. This was
a slight decrease from 31% of members with an active OAF per ARL’s 2012 survey
(McMillan et al., 2016). In 2022, the provision of funds to pay for article
processing charges (APCs) was still not prevalent in the United States. An
American Association for the Advancement of Science survey of 89 institutions
found that only 36% had funds available in one form or another to support APCs
for its authors (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2022).
The fact that well under half of U.S. institutions have OAFs in place 18 years
after they first appeared speaks to the challenges of funding and maintaining
OAFs as a viable means of paying author-facing APCs and BPCs.
Other Surveys or Assessments of OA Funds
Once OAFs were established, libraries began to
report on their value and assess impact, with most published reports appearing
between 2014-2019. Much of this reporting centers on authors’ positive
perceptions of the value of such funds (Beaubien et al., 2016; Doney &
Kenyon, 2022; McMillan et al., 2023; Tenopir et al., 2017; Teplitzky &
Phillips, 2015) or the application of research impact metrics to quantify
return on investment of OA funds (Click & Borchardt, 2019; Hampson &
Stregger, 2017).
In a 2014 global survey of 149 libraries from 30
countries, 70% of libraries that provided funding for OA publishing sourced
their OAFs from existing materials (collections) budgets (Lara, 2015). Any
additional funding typically comes from provost or research offices at academic
institutions (McMillan et al., 2016). These funding sources are precarious as
OA budgets are not seen as essential in the same way subscription expenditures
are (Kennison et al., 2019). Providing a sufficient budget to meet demand is a
common challenge, as reported by a survey of 77 ARL member libraries. To stay
within budget, libraries have implemented policy changes such as reducing the
amount paid per article, capping how much an individual may receive in a fiscal
year, disallowing APCs for hybrid OA journals, or discontinuing the fund
altogether (McMillan et al., 2016). Evidence of these financial challenges can
be seen in screenshots of the OAF webpages at Dartmouth University and Harvard
University when applications were put on hold due to depleted funds, and at
UCSF when eligibility policies were changed in 2021 due to a reduced budget
(Taylor, 2021).
An important aspect of running and sustaining OAFs
is the increased workload for library staff, though this topic is not
frequently addressed in the literature. Articles that mention the impacts of
managing OAFs on library workers include the Ashworth et al. (2014) report on
the University of Glasgow’s commitment of three full-time equivalent (FTE)
staff to manage their open access service, the Glushko et al. (2015) recommendation
to document time spent managing funds, the caution from Kennison et al. (2019)
for libraries to attend to the critical need to create new staffing and
workflow models for OA content, and the Hacker (2023) alert to the challenge of
accommodating additional workloads related to national open access initiatives
in Switzerland.
To assess OAFs, the Canadian Association of Research
Libraries (CARL) Open Access Working Group (OAWG) recommends tracking both
quantitative and qualitative measures. Quantitative metrics, such as number of
articles and unique authors, author departments, and journals where articles
are published, help institutions assess “changes in demand, identify trends,
and understand the effect of changes to criteria and to funding” Glushko et al.
(2015). The CARL OAWG suggests that qualitative measures can be collected
through author surveys about topics such as the quality and timeliness of
services, the clarity of criteria and communications, and the impact of
receiving funding on an author's ability to publish open access.
Recent assessments have questioned the
sustainability of OAFs and their role in a shifting scholarly communication
landscape. Korolev (2022) examines the University of Wisconsin Milwaukee
Library’s OAF and finds that “partnerships for mutual cost-sharing or
fund-raising are critical” to the sustainability and growth of an OAF. Click
& Borchardt (2019) and Reinsfelder & Pike (2018) identify trends in
libraries that increasingly support non-APC/BPC funding models such as crowdfunding,
collective funding, and support for library publishing and open infrastructure.
The viability of the OAF model is threatened by these concurrent OA and library
initiatives, such as investment in non-APC/BPC models, transformative OA
agreements, and funder public access policies (Click & Borchardt, 2019).
In addition to the sustainability of OAFs,
author-pay models like APCs and BPCs raise broader questions and concerns about
equity for researchers around the globe. Folan (2023) questions if there should
be APCs at all, stating that the business model is intrinsically inequitable.
The University of California Libraries have signed multiple transformative open
access agreements based on APCs (University of California, n.d.-a), but there
is concern about how this model disenfranchises researchers who don’t have
institutional agreements or other funds to pay APCs (Hudson-Ward, 2021;
Harington, 2020). We undertook this survey and examination of the role of the
OAF with these issues in mind.
Aims
The purpose of this study was to examine the
availability of application-based open access funds (OAFs) within the
University of California (UC) Libraries and to benchmark policies, budgets,
staffing, and sustainability of UC OAFs. The authors explore the management of
the UC Libraries’ funds in comparison with trends in national OAF management.
We will frame the role of OAFs alongside transformative agreements and diamond
open access (OA) approaches (models whereby the costs to publish OA are
subsidized by the author’s institution and no author-facing fees are levied)
supported by libraries. The results of this survey may help other institutions
make more sustainable and equitable decisions for their existing OAF as well as
those considering establishing a new OAF.
Methods
Survey Development
The authors developed the questions for this
University of California (UC) open access fund (OAF) study based on their
institutions’ interests in benchmarking OAFs across the UC campuses. The survey
was created in Qualtrics with display logic so that all 10 UC campuses could
respond to the survey and see only the questions that applied to their OAF
status. IRB approval was not required by the authors’ institutions due to the
low risk level and type of study.
The authors shared a draft survey for review with
scholarly communications librarians at two other UC campuses with active OAFs
and with two stakeholder groups at their respective campuses. UCSD’s Scholarly
Communications Working Group, a group of librarians with responsibilities in
collection development and discipline liaison roles, provided feedback and
details on the history of UCSD’s original pilot OAF. At UCSF, a group of
librarians who discuss members’ research activities tested the survey draft and
suggested several improvements.
The final survey was distributed to the UC Scholarly
Communications Common Knowledge Group (SCCKG). This group of librarians
includes those who are the most knowledgeable about their campus’s activity
with OAFs and support open access (OA) initiatives on a daily basis and often
manage existing funds.. The SCCKG holds monthly virtual meetings and has an
email distribution list with at least one representative from each UC campus
library, as well as several representatives from the California Digital Library
(CDL).
The survey questions (Swift & Taylor, 2022a)
were arranged into four sections to collect information about the evolution of
OAFs since their initial implementation, how they are managed, and plans for
continuing or canceling existing OAFs or reconstituting funds. These sections
were:
·
fund history and current status
·
policies
·
budget
·
staffing and resources
Survey Distribution
The final survey was sent to the UC SCCKG email
distribution list (27 recipients) in February 2022 with a request that each
campus designate one person to gather information and to answer on behalf of
their campus.
In our email request, we noted our intentions for
dissemination of the final report to the SCCKG, then to our broader library
stakeholders, and finally as an open access publication, and stated that we
would share the results with a presentation to the SCCKG so that the
respondents could review the report for any errors or omissions. We obtained
consent from each respondent to include the information collected in a final
open access published report. A very small amount of redaction was requested.
One librarian from each of the 10 UC campuses
responded to the survey, usually after conferring with other stakeholders on
their campus. Eight of the responding librarians’ titles included scholarly
communication(s), one was a collections strategist librarian, and one person
was an associate university librarian.
Data Analysis
The dataset was exported from Qualtrics to Excel
(Swift & Taylor, 2022d) and then converted to Google Sheets for analysis.
Data were presented along with narratives in a report (Swift & Taylor,
2022b), sent to the campus respondents for review, and presented (Swift &
Taylor, 2022c) to the UC SCCKG. SCCKG members were encouraged to share the
findings with relevant stakeholders at their campuses. The report was shared
with the UCSF Library Leadership Team as well as the stakeholders who provided
suggestions on the survey draft. UCSD presented it to the UCSD Library’s
Collections Strategists Group and to the Scholarly Tools and Methods
Program.
Results
Fund History and Current Status
Complete results are available in the UC
Open Access Fund 2022 Benchmarking Report (Swift & Taylor, 2022b).
In the 2012-2013 fiscal year, the California
Digital Library (CDL) provided $10,000 in “seed funding” to all 10 University
of California (UC) campus libraries to establish campus-based open access funds
(OAFs). This funding was to be supplemented by campus library funding to
provide a sufficient level of funding. Survey questions 1-3 asked about the
campus libraries’ use of these funds and the current status of an OAF.
Table 1
Fund History and Current Status Across the UC Campus Libraries
|
University of California campus |
Fund before seed funding? |
Use of 2012 seed funding from CDL |
Current OA fund? |
Current fund active since |
|
UC Berkeley (UCB) |
Yes |
Other |
Yes |
January 2008 |
|
UC Davis (UCD) |
Uncertain |
Yes, continuous |
Yes |
November 2012 |
|
UC Irvine (UCI) |
Yes |
Yes, and replenished through 2014 |
No |
— |
|
UC Los Angeles (UCLA) |
No |
Other |
No |
— |
|
UC Merced (UCM) |
No |
Yes, until it ran out |
No |
— |
|
UC Riverside (UCR) |
Yes |
— |
No |
— |
|
UC Santa Barbara (UCSB) |
Uncertain |
Uncertain |
Yes |
July 2016 |
|
UC Santa Cruz (UCSC) |
No |
Yes, until it ran out |
No |
— |
|
UC San Diego (UCSD) |
No |
Yes, and replenished for 3 years |
Yes* |
2016 |
|
UC San Francisco (UCSF) |
No |
Yes, and replenished for 2 years |
Yes** |
May 2015 |
Notes:
* UCSD ran its APC-based OAF from
2012-2015. Initially, the money ran out after three to four months. The
University Librarian added more money to the fund to ensure a balance until the
end of the fiscal year; however, the supplemental funds were quickly dispersed,
and this model was found to be unsustainable. The UCSD fund was adjusted in
2016 to support non-APC initiatives and new open access models in response to
growth in these areas and the unsustainability of funding individual APCs for
such a large and research-intensive campus. The UCSD Library responded to the
survey at a time when there was an existing fund, but the future of this fund
was in question. Since 2022, the UCSD Library does not have a designated OAF
but provides ad hoc funding for author BPC requests.
** UCSF shut down its fund in April 2022
after this survey was conducted (Taylor, 2022).
UCB is one of the campuses that continues
to fund article processing charges (APCs) and book processing charges (BPCs).
Its Berkeley Research Impact Initiative (BRII) fund (UC Berkeley Library, 2024)
was set up in 2008 through a joint sponsorship between the library and the Vice
Chancellor for Research. UCB incorporated the CDL seed $10,000 into the BRII
fund in 2012-2013.
UCLA used the original funds not for
journal APCs, but to create a faculty grant program to encourage use of open
course materials. This fund has since been adjusted to incentivize faculty to
participate in the Affordable Course Materials Program (UCLA Library, n.d.) to
“identify, access, adapt and adopt alternative course materials” that include
library-licensed collections in addition to open access resources.
When the
five campuses without a current APC- or BPC-based OAF were asked whether they
plan to establish one, all answered “No.” The deciding factors echoed across
the campuses were the lack of administrative support, financial sustainability,
and staffing concerns (see Table 2).
Table 2
Reason for
Not Establishing an OA APC/BPC Fund
|
Campuses without an OA fund |
Reason for not planning to establish an
APC- or BPC-based fund |
|
UCI |
Experience with the 2013-14 pilot suggested that the amount of money
would not cover the anticipated number of requests. When the fund was
supplemented and still ran out the fund was closed. |
|
UCLA |
We thought it was not a good return on investment for APCs. We have
[been] supporting book/OER funding in recent years. |
|
UCM |
The library would certainly be interested, but it would take external
support that just is not there. Establishing [an] APC/BPC fund is not
something that campus leadership considers a priority. |
|
UCR |
Cost and administrative overhead. |
|
UCSC |
UCSC is investing in the systemwide approaches to OA through
transformative agreements, publisher discounts, subscribing to open access
books, and UC OA policies for green OA in eScholarship. |
Campuses that did not have an active application-based
fund to pay APCs or BPCs or to support OERs were given the option to skip to
the end of the survey after this question and end their response. Though UCLA
supports OERs, they skipped to the end of the survey. UCLA’s Affordable Course
Materials Program currently allows instructors to apply for $1,000 to support
the adoption of alternative learning materials for courses with fewer than 200
enrolled students and $2,500 for courses with more than 200 students (UCLA
Library, n.d.). The five campuses with active funds that fund
APCs or BPCs (UCB, UCD, UCSB, UCSD, and UCSF) completed the rest of the survey.
These five
campuses were asked for the number of publications funded by type and any fund
caps for that type (Table 3). At the
time of the survey, UCB, UCD, and UCSF supported publication of peer-reviewed
scholarly articles, books, and book chapters. UCB also supported open
educational resources (OERs), though no funding went towards that category in
the 2020-2021 fiscal year. UCSD only funded BPCs through the UC Press Luminos
imprint, and UCSB only funded journal articles. Individual journal article APC
caps, where imposed, ranged from $1,000 to $2,500. UCSB does not have an APC
cap. Variance in the BPC cap reflects the breadth of support for book
publishing. UCSD and UCSF were at the lower end of the range with a cap at
$5,000 to cover the author rate to publish on the Luminos platform. UCD and UCB
were at the higher end of the range, with UCD’s individual BPC cap at $15,000
for authors publishing through TOME (Toward an Open Monograph Ecosystem) and
UCB’s $10,000 cap providing support across a variety of publishing venues.
Table 3
Campuses
With Current Funds – Caps and Publications Funded in Fiscal Year 2020-2021
|
Publication Type |
UCB |
UCD |
UCSB |
UCSD |
UCSF |
|
Scholarly articles cap |
$2,500 |
$1,000 |
No cap |
— |
$2,000 |
|
# of articles funded |
83 |
291 |
55 |
— |
93 |
|
Book cap |
$10,000 |
$15,000 |
— |
$5,000 |
$5,000 |
|
# of books funded |
3 |
4 |
— |
2 |
— |
|
Book chapter cap |
$2,500 |
$1,000 |
— |
— |
$2,000 |
|
# of chapters funded |
— |
5 |
— |
— |
— |
|
OER cap |
$5,000 |
— |
— |
— |
— |
|
# OERs funded |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
Note: Data
covers July 1, 2020 - June 30, 2021.
Policies
The four campuses that use their OAFs to pay for journal
article APCs do not fund articles covered by a UC-wide or campus-based
transformative agreement (TA). All four campuses confirmed either in the
comments or by separate email to the authors that their OAF covers qualifying
articles in journals that are excluded from or not yet covered by a TA. None of
the five campuses ask applicants how they pay the APC or BPC remainder if their
OAF only covers a portion of the fee.
When it comes to qualifying criteria for an author’s
publication to be funded, all four campuses that fund journal article APCs only
do so for articles published in full OA journals (i.e., hybrid OA journals do not qualify). At three campuses (UCB, UCD,
and UCSB), the applicant must still be affiliated with the university to
receive funds. Additional limitations include one publication per applicant per
year; one application per publication; the application must not have a grant;
OA journals must be indexed in DOAJ; and the publisher must follow professional
and ethical publishing practices, such as adherence to OASPA’s criteria or
equivalent. Two campuses limit funding to either first authors (UCSF) or
corresponding authors (UCSB). In the “Other” response (Table 4), UCSD noted
that Luminos BPC coverage was reviewed on a case-by-case basis and reliant on
fund approval.
Figure 1
Campus criteria for successful funding applications
(select all responses that apply).
Two campuses (UCB and UCSF) limit their OAF to authors
without grant funds. Both
campuses have language about funding restrictions on the
webpage and on the
application form. Applicants must also attest that they
do not have grant funds for OA on
the funding request form, though neither campus verifies
an applicant’s funding status beyond their application.
UCSF noted, “We know that many applicants do in fact have
grant funds despite our efforts otherwise. They justify the request based on
their budget being low or insufficient, or the publication coming out after the
previous grant expires, though they often have a new grant.”
The responses to the question of which individuals may
apply for funding were typical for library OAFs. Each of the UC campuses with
OAFs considered applications submitted by faculty, postdoctoral scholars,
research fellows, staff, librarians, and graduate students. The two campuses
with medical schools (UCD and UCSF) allow resident physicians to apply. UCB,
UCD, and UCSF also accept applications by students in professional degree
programs, such as medicine, nursing, and law. UCD and UCSF are the only
campuses that allow emeritus faculty to apply, and UCD is the only campus that
allows undergraduate students may apply.
When asked “Does your fund support marginalized
researchers and scholars (based on race, gender, sexual orientation, ability,
discipline, career stage, or otherwise) in any way?”, two campuses selected
“Yes.” The other three did not indicate any explicit criteria targeting these
identities, though UCD clarified that “funding is approved for any UCD
affiliated author.” UCB explained that their BRII fund website encourages
applications from scholars in the social sciences and humanities. UCSF’s fund
was modified in 2021 to target early career and staff applicants, excluding
faculty applicants (Taylor, 2021).
Budget
The five UC
campuses with an OAF were asked:
·
What
is the annual budget for your fund?
·
Where
does the funding come from?
·
If
funding comes from the library, please provide any additional information you
can about which library unit(s) the funding comes from (e.g., collections
budget, general fund).
·
Is
your funding stable and sustainable for the next 2-3 years?
·
If
your campus is not planning to continue funding your fund for the near future,
what, if anything, are you shifting your funds towards instead?
All five campuses coordinate their OAF
budget with library leadership/administration, finance, or collection teams
according to their local structure and budget. UCB’s OAF was the only fund that
reported receipt of an extramural, multi-year grant that contributes to their
OAF budget.
Table 4
Fiscal Year
2020-21 Budget by UC Campus
|
Campus |
Budget |
Source |
Stable? |
Redirect funds |
|
UCB |
No set budget, annual spend is $100k-$150K |
multi-year philanthropic grant that supports the library’s general fund |
Yes |
— |
|
UCD |
$175K (overages are accommodated; $271K spent in 2020-21) |
Library/Collections fund |
Yes |
— |
|
UCSB |
$150K |
Library/Collections fund |
No |
— |
|
UCSD |
$20K |
Library/Collections fund |
Uncertain |
Uncertain |
|
UCSF |
$80K |
Library/General fund |
Uncertain |
Uncertain |
Staffing and Resources
The last section of the survey asked:
·
What
is the headcount of personnel contributing to management of the fund?
·
What
are the job titles for the individuals who fulfill the following roles for
managing your campus fund, and the average number of hours spent on a monthly
basis?
·
What
is the total monthly average number of hours spent managing your fund by all
personnel?
Table 5
OAF Staffing and Time Spent Managing Funds
|
Campus |
Headcount* |
Hours monthly |
Hours weekly |
Position titles |
|
UCB |
5 |
14 |
3.5 |
●
Scholarly
Communication and Copyright Librarian ●
Circulation
Supervisor ●
Library business
office personnel ●
Scholarly
Communication Officer |
|
UCD |
2** |
45 (estimated) |
11.3 |
●
Scholarly
Communications Officer ●
Financial
Services Assistant ●
Head of
Collection Strategy |
|
UCSB |
3 |
10-12 (estimated) |
3 |
●
Scholarly
Communication Librarian ●
Library Business
Manager ●
AUL for Research
& Learning |
|
UCSD |
1 |
15-20 |
5 |
●
Scholarly
Communication Librarian*** |
|
UCSF |
5** |
126 |
31.5 |
●
Library Assistant
3 (two positions) ●
Library Assistant
4 ●
Head of Scholarly
Communication ●
Administrative/Finance
Manager ●
AUL for Research
& Learning |
Notes:
*Headcount refers to the number of
individuals who contribute to the running and management of the OAF, regardless
of how much time each spends per week.
**Both UCD and UCSF undercounted their
headcount by one (1) based on the number of positions provided. The numbers
shown in this column reflect the number provided in the survey responses.
***At the time of completing the survey,
the UCSD Scholarly Communications Librarian was responsible for the OAF and
relied on a group of librarians volunteering in the Scholarly Communications
Working Group to advise and track the fund.
Discussion
Fund Policies and Budget
Constraints
Some of our results mirror findings from
previous assessments of campus-based open access funds (OAFs) and surveys of
universities with OAFs. Funding for journal articles, book chapters, and books
dominates OAFs at University of California (UC) campuses as it does elsewhere.
UC OAF policies that determine funding eligibility are similar to OAF criteria
at other institutions (Open Access Directory, 2018), although funding criteria
differ amongst UC campuses. For example, only UCSB and UCSF limit journal
article applications to either first authors or corresponding authors.
UCD, UCSB, UCSD, and UCSF mentioned the
challenge of funding their OAF adequately to meet demand. This challenge
matches our observations about OAFs outside of UC being either shut down or put
on hold due to overspent budgets (Open Access Directory, 2024; Dartmouth
Libraries, n.d.; Harvard Library, n.d.; Kennesaw State University Library
System, n.d.; University of Arizona Libraries, n.d.; University of Ottawa
Library, n.d.).
UCB is the only campus whose fund supports
open educational resources (OERs), though no funding went towards OERs in the
fiscal year of the study. UCLA used the 2012 seed funding from the California
Digital Library to set up an OER-based Affordable Course Materials Initiative
(ACMI) (Farb & Grappone, 2014). ACMI continues today as a grant-based
program to incentivize and support the adoption of alternative course materials
(UCLA Library, n.d.)
UC OAFs apply a range of policies, such as
limiting funding to fully open access (OA) journals (thereby excluding
OA-optional journals) and limiting the number of applications to one per
publication and per author on an annual basis. Some of these policies are
values-based (resisting the payment of APCs to subscription journals due to
publisher double-dipping), whereas others are designed to prevent funds from
being overspent (per-publication and per-author annual caps).
The per-article caps range from a low of
$1,000 at UCD to a high of $2,500 at UCB. UCSB is the only UC campus that does
not cap how much it will pay for article processing charges (APCs). UCD’s lower
cap has allowed a higher number of articles to receive funding. The fact that
this cap doesn’t cover the full cost of most APCs doesn’t deter authors—even
partial coverage can aid a researcher facing APCs averaging $3,000. UCSF
experienced the same demand for funds as UCD when it lowered its cap to $1,000
from $2,000 to accommodate a surge in funding applications during the COVID-19
shutdown in 2020 and 2021 (the cap was raised back to $2,000 before this study
was conducted) (Taylor, 2021).
Publication rates increased during these
pandemic years due to both the urgency of publishing COVID-19-related articles
and the fact that some researchers had more time to focus on writing and
publication when they couldn’t conduct many of their normal activities.
However, as has been widely reported in the literature, some researchers had
less time for all professional activities during the pandemic, in particular
women and those in caretaking roles (Squazzoni et al., 2021). This study did
not examine this phenomenon.
The nature of application-based OAFs means
that they are first-come, first-served. There is no controlled expenditure for
any one publisher, and demand can be difficult to predict. Staying within
budget may require lowering caps or simply cutting off the fund mid-year when
funds are spent, which happened at UCSF in spring 2022 after this study was
completed (Taylor, 2022), and as we’ve seen with other funds, such as the
University of Ottawa Library's discontinued OAF (University of Ottawa Library,
n.d.) and Kennesaw State University’s paused OAF (Kennesaw State University
Library System, n.d.). Both UCD and UCSB had to supplement their funds during
the fiscal year of this study to increase their budgets and meet demand (see
Table 4).
Staffing Considerations
In addition to budgetary hurdles, our study
provided insights into the required staff time and staff positions that run
OAFs at the UC campuses. The average personnel headcount to support a fund is
3.6 (Table 5). All five UC campuses include the librarian in charge of
scholarly communication in their headcount, and four include business or
finance personnel to manage the reimbursement authors for their OA fees. Two
campuses, UCB and UCSF, involve members of circulation/access services in their
fund management. At UCSF, the three library assistants who were involved are
all access services personnel.
The two outliers with regards to the
personnel headcount and the number of hours spent managing the fund are the
home institutions of the authors. UCSD had the lowest headcount at one, and
UCSF had both the highest headcount with six and the most hours spent.
UCSD’s original OAF pilot ran until 2015
when it was determined that APC funding was unsustainable, both financially and
in regard to staff time. In 2016, the collections program decided to explore
alternative OA funding models and reserved money for initiatives and resources
such as Knowledge Unlatched, PeerJ, and Punctum. At the time of the survey, the
UCSD OAF supported Luminos book processing charges (BPCs).
UCSF’s headcount of six personnel stems
from an effort to enlist additional support for the head of scholarly
communication in reviewing applications, answering questions about the OAF, and
adding funded publications to the UC institutional repository, eScholarship.
This expanded effort helped distribute the workload and brought access services
into a key library service. However, it also meant that those personnel needed
to spend time learning the ins and outs of the fund’s policies and UC’s
transformative agreements. In addition, UCSF Library’s business office moved
from being internal to external to the library, a change which added complexity
and time needed to handle the financial aspects of fund management. Finally,
the fact that the budget for UCSF’s OAF was in flux in the fiscal year of the
study resulted in significantly more time spent on assessment, modification of
eligibility and policies, and outreach to UCSF authors about the changes.
Some UC campuses have been able to manage
their funds with relatively small staff impact, echoing what Tananbaum found in
SPARC’s 2010 report. While this report provided a rough estimate of 15-45
minutes spent per article from submission through payment, this does not
account for differences in institutional financial procedures or the much more complex
world of OA support that libraries find themselves in now. Only the 45-minute
end of this estimate strikes the authors as realistic for the most
straightforward of applications, considering the range of tasks involved as
outlined in the provided guide (Tananbaum, 2010).
The components of establishing a fund and
setting and revising eligibility and policies can be very involved and may
require substantial amounts of time. These tasks include, from Tananbaum’s
guide with revisions and additions by the authors noted:
·
drafting and revision of policies, procedures, and
eligibility requirements (revision)
·
vetting of above with relevant campus units
·
development, testing, and ongoing revisions of
application process (revision)
·
creation and maintenance of website and marketing
materials (revision)
·
development of application vetting process and training
materials (revision)
·
creation of fund disbursement protocols
·
securing of actual funds
·
determining staffing and training staff (addition)
·
surveying funded authors (addition)
·
producing reports for assessment purposes (addition)
The authors’ modified version of
Tananbaum’s task list for ongoing fund management is:
·
outreach activities to promote the fund among eligible
authors
·
vetting of applications to ensure eligibility/compliance
·
responding to authors’ questions regarding submitted and
unsubmitted applications (revision)
·
verifying and tracking actual publication of article
(revision)
·
disbursement of funds
·
tracking payment results (revision)
·
adding funded publications to institutional repository
(addition)
Kennison et al. (2019) stress that
understaffed and under-resourced OAFs are more likely to be unsustainable and
unsuccessful. Management and decision-making about what efforts to fund “must
not be labors of love by passionate volunteers, but designated responsibilities
of resourced staff. Such efforts take considerable time, effort, and
communication” (Kennison et al., 2019).
A Changing OA Landscape
OA funds are
no longer the only game in town for supporting open access publishing. The
University of California entered into its first transformative open access
agreement (TA) in 2019 and now has over 18 TAs, with more than 50% of journal
articles published by UC authors eligible for funding (University of California,
n.d.-b). UC campuses with an active OAF no longer reimburse APCs for journals
fully covered by a TA. Both UCB and UCD reported that they saw a modest
decrease in both the number of OAF applications and approvals as the number of
TAs negotiated by UC has increased.
In addition to receiving fewer
applications, a higher percentage of applications are being rejected due to
authors asking for funding for journals covered by a UC TA. The difference
between an OAF and a TA is lost on most authors—they see it as one and the
same. As one librarian who manages their library’s OAF remarked, “those
rejections result in a significant workload (email to authors, explaining the
rejections, explaining the TA if the application was for a TA-covered journal)”
(M. Ladisch, personal communication, December 5,
2024). With every new agreement, OAF staff need to familiarize themselves with
it in order to know when to reject an application for an article in a journal
covered by the TA, or when to review an application for a journal because it is
excluded from the TA. All UC Libraries staff reported a significant increase in
the amount of time spent replying to questions about funding for OA publishing
since the TAs came about.
Despite the extra workload that managing
TAs brings to the library, they are still more effective at increasing an
institution’s OA journal article output than OAFs when APC business models are
involved. For example, UCSF authors published 549 articles in fully OA journals
through UC TAs over a 20-month period, compared to the 93 articles reported in
Table 3 (University of California, 2024). TAs control the institution’s
expenditures, pay OA publication costs on behalf of its authors (or part of the
costs, as is the case for UC authors with grant funding), and typically cover
an unlimited number of articles by the institution’s authors each year (University
of California, n.d.-a). TA
workflows are streamlined and more efficient than OAFs, since they are
implemented at scale on publishing platforms. However, there is still a role
for OAFs since TAs are not possible with every publisher.
Authors are embracing OA publishing and see
their institutional library as the source of funds or agreements to cover
associated costs. This growing demand means that libraries need to be staffed
and trained to respond to the variety of questions that arise around OA
funding. The fate of OAFs must be determined by a library's budget and staffing
capacity and not necessarily authors’ needs. Now that UC has TAs with numerous
publishers, authors ask regularly about coverage for publishers with no
agreement. To address this “long tail” of publishers, individual UC campuses
have negotiated local TAs selectively with publishers including Cold Spring
Harbor Lab Press, John Benjamins, and The Microbiology Society (UC San Diego
Library, 2024; UCSF Library, 2024). These local agreements occur where there
are not UC-wide subscriptions.
Though APCs and BPCs don’t seem to be going
away anytime soon, there is no shortage of non-APC diamond OA models that
libraries also now support. Business models with widespread support from UC and
many other libraries include Subscribe-to-Open (S2O) used by Annual Reviews and
Project MUSE; collective/crowdsourced funding models, such as Knowledge
Unlatched and Direct to Open (D2O); and supportive partnership models, such as Open
Library of Humanities and the values-aligned Open Access Community Investment
Program (OACIP) (Inefuku et al., 2024; Reinsfelder & Pike, 2018).
Library-based publishing, whereby institutional libraries host and subsidize
open access publishing platforms, has also gained steam in the last decade. Library
Publishing Directory lists 179 programs in 2024, up from 115 in 2014 (Library
Publishing Coalition, n.d.).
The multitude of diamond OA initiatives,
open infrastructure investment opportunities, and library publishing programs
create competition for library funds. The complexities for libraries in this
environment necessitate making open content as central as licensed content,
budgeting and evaluating it accordingly, and changing staffing and workflows to
support open content (Kennison et al., 2019; Chodacki & Gould, 2022). Some
institutions, such as the University of Arizona Libraries, have repurposed
their former OAF for OA support more broadly (University of Arizona Libraries,
n.d.). The UC Libraries have adopted multiple OA approaches and models,
including diamond OA and green OA policies, as outlined in the Pathways to Open
Access toolkit (University of California, n.d.-b)
The Intention Behind the Funds –
Are the UC Campuses Meeting Their Goals?
The intent
behind the original UC OA Fund Pilot was for all UC campuses to offer an OAF
similar to UC Berkeley’s Research Impact Initiative (UC Berkeley Library, 2024).
These OAFs met the pilot’s goals of demonstrating an institutional commitment
to OA publishing to ensure that UC authors’ work is freely accessible to the
public, encourage faculty control of copyright, and provide opportunities for
libraries to engage with their campuses around open access and scholarly
communication (UC Scholarly Communication Officers, 2012). Another goal was to
support UC’s mission of contributing to the public good by removing access
barriers to UC research results (University of California, n.d.-c) The pilot
resulted in 506 articles published over 18 months across all 10 UC campuses
benefitting a global readership. By comparison, the OAFs of the five campuses
contributing to this survey helped publish 522 journal articles, 9 books, and 5
book chapters during one fiscal year. The UC campus OAFs have helped many UC
authors who would not have otherwise had the funds to publish open access to
benefit from increased access to and visibility of their research. However,
these 522 journal articles are a small percentage of the total publication
count from these institutions. Each of these UC campuses typically publishes
between 2,500 and 9,000 research and review articles each year.
Authors who received financial support
through an OAF were understandably grateful, especially those who would not
have had the funds to publish in journals that charge APCs. Yet there are just
as many unfortunate authors who learn too late that the journal they chose to
submit their manuscript to is not covered by a publisher/university “read and
publish” or transformative agreement or by a campus library OAF. In addition,
for those libraries with OAFs, often the award amount does not cover the entire
APC or adjust for the rapidly rising charges that many journals levy. Libraries
that aren’t able to replenish their OAF budget when it’s spent before the end
of the fiscal year have to pause or shut down their fund (Taylor, 2022),
leading to authors publishing later in the fiscal year being turned away
empty-handed. These factors point to the inherent inequities and challenges of
managing and administering an OAF.
Authors in STEM disciplines tend to be
better funded than those in the social sciences and humanities (SSH), publish
mostly journal articles, and publish more frequently and rapidly. Though SSH
authors publishing in journals can also benefit from OAFs, the OAF budget for
BPCs is not sufficient to cover the much higher cost of BPCs compared to APCs
for these monograph-heavy disciplines.
Furthermore, there are inherent inequities
in the proliferation of author-facing APCs and BPCs. Publishing disparities
exist for many under-resourced authors due to funding and publishing
differences, which are lower for some disciplines, and requirements to be
affiliated with an institution with an OAF or a TA in order to receive funding
for transactional publishing fees (Farley et al., 2021; Harington, 2020; Kwon,
D., 2022). While individual campus OAFs benefit some authors at that
institution by ensuring that their research is globally accessible, there is
increasing evidence that OAFs increase inequity in the entire scholarly
communication ecosystem by fueling the “APC barrier” and in turn only serving a
minority of the world’s researchers (Folan, 2023; Johnson & Ficarra, 2021a;
Johnson & Ficarra, 2021b; Klebel & Ross-Hellauer, 2023; Kwon, D., 2022).
Conclusion
Understanding the history and current state of open
access funds (OAFs) at the University of California (UC) can serve as a
foundation for budgetary decision-making at campuses where libraries are
working to support open access (OA) initiatives and strategies. The uncertain
disposition of the OAFs at the authors’ home institutions prompted this
examination. By surveying 10 UC campus libraries in a closely collaborative yet
very independent system, our analysis found that the deciding factors for
discontinuing OAFs were staffing concerns and financial sustainability. Support
for OAFs at the remaining four campuses has become more complicated with the
advent of UC’s transformative agreements. UCSF’s attempt to stay within a
reduced budget by modifying application criteria and favoring early-career
authors still proved unsustainable, and the fund was shut down. UCSD currently
has no dedicated OAF or similar program.
OAFs have been found to be of most benefit to authors at
institutions where the fund’s financial and staffing resources are on par with
the publishing output of the institution. However, there is growing concern
that funding models such as OAFs and transformative agreements privilege
authors at well-resourced institutions and further broaden global inequities in
scholarly communication.
Another area of concern for the viability of this model
is the staffing needed to implement and manage an OAF. The wide range of
staffing models across the UC campuses revealed that neither increased allotted
staff and time or revising the funding criteria ensure the sustainability of
funds. Many libraries with OAFs also have institutional transformative open
access agreements and diamond OA memberships, which both complicate the
offerings for authors and increase the workload for the library workers who
support these OA funding mechanisms.
Libraries considering implementing an OAF, as well as
those at a point of assessing, continuing, or shuttering a fund would do well
to understand their impacts on staffing, budgets, and justice, equity,
diversity, inclusion, and accessibility on the advancement of open access.
Libraries are increasingly considering values-based guidelines to guide their
decision-making and investments. While OAFs provide a benefit to authors who
receive funding to make their publications open for all to access, they do not
rein in OA expenditures or move the needle on transforming scholarly
communication to an open model that is within reach for all authors and
readers.
Author Contributions
Allegra Swift:
Conceptualization (equal), Data curation (equal), Formal analysis (equal),
Investigation (equal), Methodology (equal), Visualization (equal), Writing -
original draft (equal), Writing - review & editing (equal) Anneliese
Taylor: Conceptualization (equal), Data curation (equal), Formal analysis
(equal), Investigation (equal), Methodology (equal), Visualization (equal),
Writing - original draft (equal), Writing - review & editing (equal)
References
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2022). Exploring the hidden impacts of open access
financing mechanisms: AAAS survey on scholarly publication experiences and
perspectives. https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/2022-10/OpenAccessSurveyReport_Oct2022_FINAL.pdf
Ashworth, S., Mccutcheon, V., & Roy, L. (2014). Managing
open access: The first year of managing RCUK and Wellcome Trust OA funding at
the University of Glasgow Library.
Insights: The UKSG Journal, 27(3), 282-286. https://doi.org/10.1629/2048-7754.175
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), Article eP1204. https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.1204
Buckholtz, A. (1999). SPARC: The
Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition: Theme: Electronic
journals in science and technology libraries. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, 22. https://doi.org/10.29173/istl1466
Chodacki, J., & Gould, M.
(2022, August 18). Pathways to open access: Open infrastructure and CDL.
University of California Office of
Scholarly Communication. https://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/2022/08/pathways-to-oa-open-infrastructure/
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
Compact for Open-Access Publishing Equity. (n.d.). Overview. http://www.oacompact.org/
Crow, R., Gallagher, R., & Naim, K. (2020). Subscribe to
Open: A practical approach for converting subscription journals to open access.
Learned Publishing, 33(2), 181–185. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1262
Dartmouth Libraries. (n.d.). Open
access publishing form. https://osf.io/a6ruc
Doney, J., & Kenyon, J.
(2022). Researchers’ perceptions and experiences with an open access subvention
fund. Evidence Based Library and
Information Practice, 17(1),
56-77. https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip30015
Eckman, C. D., & Weil, B. T. (2010). Institutional open
access funds: Now is the time. PLOS
Biology, 8(5), Article e1000375. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000375
Estelle, L., & Wise, A. (2023). OASPA Equity in Open Access Workshop 1 report. Open
Access Scholarly Publishing Association. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7733869
Farb, S. E., & Grappone,
T. (2014). The UCLA Libraries Affordable Course Materials Initiative: Expanding
access, use, and affordability of course materials. Against the Grain, 26(5),
Article 14. https://doi.org/10.7771/2380-176X.6848
Farley, A., Langham-Putrow, A., Shook, E., Sterman, L. B., &
Wacha, M. (2021). Transformative agreements: Six myths, busted. College & Research Libraries News, 82(7),
298. https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.82.7.298
Folan, B. (2023, January 23). The ‘OA market’ - what is healthy? Part 1. Open Access
Scholarly Publishing Association. https://www.oaspa.org/news/the-oa-market-what-is-healthy-part-1/
Glushko, R., Hampson, C., Moore,
P., & Yates, E. (2015). Open access funds: Getting a bigger bang for our
bucks. Proceedings of the Charleston Library
Conference 2015, 571-577. http://dx.doi.org/10.5703/1288284316320
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), Article
eP1252. https://dx.doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.1252
Hacker, A. (2023). Open access in Switzerland: An institutional
point of view. College & Research
Libraries News, 84(6), 212-216. https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.84.6.212
Hampson, C. (2014). The adoption of open access funds among
Canadian academic research libraries, 2008-2012. Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice
and Research, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.21083/partnership.v9i2.3115
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), Article eP2182. https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2182
Harington, R. (2020, December 16). Transformative agreements,
funders and the publishing ecosystem: A lack of focus on equity. The Scholarly Kitchen. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2020/12/16/transformative-agreements-funders-and-the-publishing-ecosystem-a-lack-of-focus-on-equity/
Harvard Library. (n.d.). HOPE
Fund. Harvard https://osc.hul.harvard.edu/programs/hope/ or https://osf.io/zcsuj
Hudson-Ward, A. (2021, March 30). The missed moment to
elevate open access as DEIA imperative. Choice. https://www.choice360.org/tie-post/the-missed-moment-to-elevate-open-access-as-deia-imperative/
Inefuku, H. W., Brundy, C., &
Lair, S. (2024). Building community: Supporting minoritized scholars through
library publishing and open and equitable revenue models. College & Research Libraries, 85(1), 64-77. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.85.1.64
Johnson, R., & Ficarra, V. (2021a, July). Co-creating a
healthy and diverse open access market: Issue brief. Open Access Scholarly
Publishing Association. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5497869
Johnson, R., & Ficarra, V. (2021b, September). Co-creating
a healthy and diverse open access market: Workshop report. Open Access
Scholarly Publishing Association. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5534551
Kennesaw State University Library System. (n.d.). Open access publishing fund. https://www.kennesaw.edu/library/open-access-publishing.php or https://osf.io/8zhax
Kennison, R., Ruttenberg, J.,
Shorish, Y., & Thompson, L. (2019, September 11). OA in the open: Community needs and perspectives [White paper]. LIS
Scholarship Archive. https://doi.org/10.31229/osf.io/g972d
Klebel, T., & Ross-Hellauer,
T. (2023). The APC-barrier and its effect on stratification in open access
publishing. Quantitative Science Studies,
4(1), 22–43. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00245
Korolev, S. (2022). The tenth anniversary of the UWM Open Access
Publication Fund (UWM Libraries
Other Staff Publications 16). University of Wisconsin Milwaukee. https://dc.uwm.edu/lib_staffart/16
Kwon, D. (2022). Open-access publishing fees deter researchers
in the global south. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-00342-w
Lara, K. (2015). The library’s role in the management and
funding of open access publishing. Learned
Publishing, 28(1), 4–8. https://doi.org/10.1087/20150102
Library Publishing Coalition. (n.d.). Library Publishing Directory.
https://librarypublishing.org/lp-directory
McMillan, G., O’Brien, L., & Lener, E. F. (2023). OA and the
academy: Evaluating an OA fund with authors’ input. College & Research Libraries, 84(3), 357-373. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.84.3.357
McMillan, G., O’Brien, L., & Young, P. (2016). Funding article processing charges (SPEC
Kit 353). Association of Research Libraries. https://publications.arl.org/Funding-Article-Processing-Charges-SPEC-Kit-353/
Newman, K. A., Blecic, D. D., & Armstrong, K. L. (2007). Scholarly communication education
initiatives (SPEC Kit 299).
Association of Research Libraries. https://publications.arl.org/Scholarly-Communication-SPEC-Kit-299/
Open
Access Directory. (2018, August 1). Discontinued OA publication funds.
Simmons University School of Library and Information Science. https://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/index.php?title=Discontinued_OA_publication_funds&oldid=27275
Open Access Directory. (2024,
January 16). OA publication funds.
Simmons University School of Library ad Information Science. https://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/index.php?title=OA_publication_funds&oldid=29143
Reinsfelder, T. L., & Pike, C. A.
(2018). Using library funds to support open access publishing through
crowdfunding: Going beyond article processing charges. Collection Management, 43(2),
138–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/01462679.2017.1415826
SPARC. (n.d.) Campus open
access funds. https://sparcopen.org/our-work/oa-funds/
Springer Nature. (2024). Funding
& support services. https://www.springernature.com/gp/open-research/funding or https://osf.io/yd7c2
Squazzoni, F., Bravo, G., Grimaldo,
F., García-Costa, D., Farjam, M., & Mehmani, B. (2021). Gender gap in
journal submissions and peer review during the first wave of the COVID-19
pandemic. A study on 2329 Elsevier journals. PLOS One, 16(10), Article
e0257919. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257919
Swift, A., & Taylor, A. (2022a). OA fund UC benchmarking survey instrument. Qualtrics. https://osf.io/vne2p
Swift, A., & Taylor, A. (2022b). OA fund UC benchmarking survey report 2022. Open Science
Framework. https://osf.io/fjn56
Swift, A., & Taylor, A. (2022c, September 21). OA fund UC
benchmarking survey report presentation [Slide deck]. Open Science
Framework. https://osf.io/5savq
Swift, A., & Taylor, A. (2022d, September 21). OA fund UC
benchmarking survey results data [Data set]. Open Science Framework. https://osf.io/ahd67
Tananbaum, G. (2010). Campus-based open-access publishing funds: A
practical guide to design and implementation. SPARC. https://sparcopen.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/oafunds-v1.pdf
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
Taylor, A. (2021, December 22). Open access fund targets students, early career researchers. UCSF
Library. https://www.library.ucsf.edu/news/open-access-fund-targets-students-early-career-researchers/
Taylor, A. (2022, May 26).
UCSF’s open access fund replaced by transformative open access publisher
agreements. UCSF Library. https://www.library.ucsf.edu/news/ucsfs-open-access-fund-replaced-by-transformative-open-access-publisher-agreements/
Tenopir, C., Dalton, E.,
Christian, L., Jones, M., 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.
(2015, October 16). Evaluating the impact
of open access at Berkeley: A qualitative analysis of the BRII program [Conference
poster]. LAUC-B Conference, Berkeley, CA, United States. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8c33n5fn
Tricco, A. C., Nincic, V.,
Darvesh, N., Rios, P., Khan, P. A., Ghassemi, M. M., MacDonald, H., Yazdi, F.,
Lai, Y., Warren, R., Austin, A., Cleary, O., Baxter, N. N., Burns, K. E. A.,
Coyle, D., Curran, J. A., Graham, I. D., Hawker, G., Légaré, F., … Straus, S.
E. (2023). Global evidence of gender equity in academic health research: A
scoping review. BMJ Open, 13(2), Article e067771. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-067771
UC Berkeley Library. (2024, August 16). Berkeley Research Impact Initiative (BRII): Program description. https://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/brii/description or https://osf.io/7cjtu
UC Libraries. (n.d.). Common
knowledge groups. https://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/ckg/
UC San Diego Library. (2024, August 7). Open access publishing & policies: Open access publishing discounts.
https://ucsd.libguides.com/scholcom/discounts
or https://osf.io/jh68s
UC Scholarly Communication Officers Group. (2012). UC OA fund pilot proposal. UC Libraries. https://osf.io/umtzs
UCLA Library. (n.d.). Affordable Course Materials Initiative
(ACMI). https://www.library.ucla.edu/about/programs/affordable-course-materials-initiative-acmi/ or https://osf.io/gwb2a
UCSF Library (2024, November 25) Discounts and funding for
open access publishing. https://libraryhelp.ucsf.edu/hc/en-us/articles/360036082334-Discounts-and-Funding-for-Open-Access-Publishing or https://osf.io/rpv9t
University of Arizona Libraries. (n.d.). Open access support. https://lib.arizona.edu/about/awards/oa-fund or https://osf.io/4hjft
University of California Office of Scholarly Communication.
(2024, January 31). UC transformative agreements report, Jan 1, 2022 - July
31, 2023 [Unpublished report].
University of California Office of Scholarly Communication. (n.d.-a).
Guidelines for prioritizing
transformative open access agreements. https://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/uc-publisher-relationships/guidelines-for-evaluating-transformative-open-access-agreements/
University of California Office of Scholarly Communication.
(n.d.-b). OA publishing agreements and
discounts. https://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/for-authors/publishing-discounts/
University of California Office of Scholarly Communication.
(n.d.-c). Open Access strategies at UC.
Retrieved September 30, 2024, from https://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/scholarly-publishing/pathways-to-oa/
University of California Office of Scholarly Communication.
(n.d.-d). Why publish open access?
Office of Scholarly Communication. Retrieved September 30, 2024, from https://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/for-authors/open-access/
University of Ottawa Library. (n.d.). Financial support for open access publishing. https://www.uottawa.ca/library/scholarly-communication/uottawa-initiatives/financial-support or https://osf.io/78hvw