** Cross-posted ** On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Karen Bates <K.Bates@salford.ac.uk> wrote: > A central university fund is being set up to help enable Salford researchers > to meet the cost of Open Access publication charges, and we, in the library, > have been asked to help produce criteria and guidelines for applications for > this funding. So my starting point is to try and find examples of criteria > that other institutions with a similar fund use to judge applications/award > the funds. > > Are any other repository staff similarly involved in their institutions’ > Open Access publishing funds? And would anyone be willing to share info > regarding criteria you use to award funds to your researchers? On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 4:37 AM, Karen Bates <K.Bates@salford.ac.uk> wrote: > Many thanks for all your responses to this on and off list – you’ve provided > some very useful information and links! It doesn’t seem like many > institutions in the UK have gone down this route yet, with more examples in > Europe and the States – will be interesting to see if this changes soon. > > Karen Bates > Repository Manager > The University of Salford Let's hope, fervently, that what changes first, and soon, is that institutions go down the route of mandating green OA self-archiving (as University of Salford has wisely done) http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/fullinfo.php?inst=University%20of%20Salford for *all* of their refereed research output, *before* they begin spending any of their increasingly scarce funds on funding gold OA publishing for a fraction of their research output: On Not Putting The Gold OA-Payment Cart Before The Green OA-Provision Horse http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/714-guid.html SUMMARY: Universities need to commit to mandating Green OA self-archiving before committing to spend their scarce available funds to pay for Gold OA publishing. Most of the university's potential funds to pay Gold OA publishing fees are currently committed to paying their annual journal subscription fees, which are thereby covering the costs of publication already. Pre-emptively committing to pay Gold OA publication fees over and above paying subscription fees will only provide OA for a small fraction of a university's total research article output; Green OA mandates will provide OA for all of it. Journal subscriptions cannot be cancelled unless the journals' contents are otherwise accessible to a university's users. (In addition, the very same scarcity of funds that makes pre-emptive Gold OA payment for journal articles today premature and ineffectual also makes Gold OA payment for monographs unaffordable, because the university funds already committed to journal subscriptions today are making even the purchase of a single print copy of incoming monographs for the library prohibitive, let alone making Gold OA publication fees for outgoing monographs affordable.) Universal Green OA mandates will make the final peer-reviewed drafts of all journal articles freely accessible to all would-be users online, thereby not only providing universal OA, but opening the doors to an eventual transition to universal Gold OA if and when universities then go on to cancel subscriptions, releasing those committed funds to pay the publishing costs of Gold OA. The Immediate Practical Implication of the Houghton Report: Provide Green Open Access Now http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/708-guid.html ABSTRACT: Among the many important implications of Houghton et al’s (2009) timely and illuminating JISC analysis of the costs and benefits of providing free online access (“Open Access,” OA) to peer-reviewed scholarly and scientific journal articles one stands out as particularly compelling: It would yield a forty-fold benefit/cost ratio if the world’s peer-reviewed research were all self-archived by its authors so as to make it OA. There are many assumptions and estimates underlying Houghton et al’s modelling and analyses, but they are for the most part very reasonable and even conservative. This makes their strongest practical implication particularly striking: The 40-fold benefit/cost ratio of providing Green OA is an order of magnitude greater than all the other potential combinations of alternatives to the status quo analyzed and compared by Houghton et al. This outcome is all the more significant in light of the fact that self-archiving already rests entirely in the hands of the research community (researchers, their institutions and their funders), whereas OA publishing depends on the publishing industry. Perhaps most remarkable is the fact that this outcome emerged from studies that approached the problem primarily from the standpoint of the economics of publication rather than the economics of research. Stevan Harnad EnablingOpenScholarship http://www.openscholarship.org/ > From: Peter Suber > Sent: 10 January 2011 22:37 > To: Bates Karen > > Karen: See the list of OA journal funds at the Open Access Directory. > http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/OA_journal_funds > > As often as possible, we link to university pages about the funds, > describing the policies you'd like to study.
