JISC Collections Open Access Fees Project: Final Report, Submitted to OAIG Sep 2011

Connotea Imports 2012-07-31

Summary:

"2.1 From interviews with the principle stakeholders and from feedback at the workshop, it is clear that lack of awareness of funding for OA article processing charges and difficulties in accessing the funding are the main barriers in the UK to authors taking up this option. 2.2 Funders, other than those already actively engaged with this process, need to become involved by making funds readily available and by creating clear, consistent, implementable and unambiguous mandates. 2.3 The process of paying OA article-processing charges as part of indirect costs is not perceived to be efficient, effective or useful. Funders need to consider alternative approaches – such as those used by The Wellcome Trust or the British Heart Foundation, where clearly defined pots of money are made available – if they are to successfully fund, track and audit how and where their investment is being spent. A “one size fits all” model is not what is being proposed here; more that administrative rigour, clear process and transparency are necessary regardless of the size and profile of the funder. 2.4 Currently, because some authors do not have funding to publish or have not been made aware of how to obtain this funding, hybrid OA will remain a minority activity until such time as this situation is rectified. 2.5 It was not just publishers who made the case for change in this area. Librarians who were interviewed for this study argued that there is no scope for moving money around to other pots. They also stressed that universities have procedures in place to manage funds made available by the Wellcome Trust, so can be expected to manage other funds in a similar way....There needs to be a more joined-up approach between the Research Councils, other funders and individual HEIs in terms of the way funds for OA article-processing fees are communicated and made available and, based on the responses from librarians interviewed for this study, this should start by addressing practical, workflow issues and the idea of putting policy into practice. A forum for discussions on the practical implementation of OA funding should be formed. To increase awareness of the availability of funding for OA article-processing fees and to ensure that authors understand the process for claiming these funds, funders should revise the information provided on their websites and make clearer in proposal submission guidance and grant letters what process should be followed. Funders, HEIs and HEFCE need to consider how the author proposal submission process that incorporates TRAC could be amended to make clear that an author is requesting OA funding and to help develop an audit trail...."

Link:

http://open-access.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/OAIG_OAFees_Oct2011.pdf

From feeds:

Open Access Tracking Project (OATP) » Connotea Imports

Tags:

oa.new oa.gold ru.do ru.ps oa.uk oa.funders oa.fees oa.jisc oa.oaig oa.reports oa.journals

Authors:

petersuber

Date tagged:

07/31/2012, 12:20

Date published:

10/30/2011, 11:01