[GOAL] Cambridge RCUK Block Grant spend for 2016-2017

[rickypo]

Dear Danny,
 
Thanks for posting this. Can I ask a question? You say in your post that
Cambridge University does not provide any of its own funds for open access
and so it has no option but to use RCUK funds. You will correct me if I am
wrong, but is not RCUK funding seen as a temporary measure to allow for a
transition to open access, and is there not an expectation that universities
will gradually pick up the bill for gold OA? If that is right, what is the
plan once that funding goes away? What is Cambridge University’s transition
plan?
 
Best wishes,
 
 
Richard Poynder
 
 
 
 
Hello all, 
 
We have just published a blog post: "Cambridge RCUK Block Grant spend for
2016-2017” https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=1463

Headline numbers
 
In total Cambridge spent £1.68 million of RCUK funds on APCs (this is up
from £1.28 last year)
1920 articles identified as being RCUK funded were submitted to the Open
Access Service, of which 1248 required payment for RCUK*
The average article processing charge was £1850 – this is significantly less
than the £2008 average last year,  reflecting the value of the memberships
we have (see below)
*Note these numbers will differ slightly from the report due to the
difference in dates between the calendar and financial years (see below).
 
The blog explains the University’s expenditure on non-APC costs, and also
analyses the value for money of a few of the offset deals and memberships in
which we are participating.
 
Our full dataset is available in the repository here -
https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/264341

 
Regards,
 
Danny
 
Dr Danny Kingsley
Head, Office of Scholarly Communication
Cambridge University Library
West Road, Cambridge CB39DR
P: +44 (0) 1223 747 437
M: +44 (0) 7711 500 564
E: dak45 at cam.ac.uk 
 >
T: @dannykay68
B: https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/

S: http://www.slideshare.net/DannyKingsley

ORCID iD: -0002-3636-5939

 

___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] OA Overview January 2017

[rickypo]

Forwarding from Jisc Repositories.

 

From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk] On 
Behalf Of Arthur Sale
Sent: 12 January 2017 06:27
To: jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [GOAL] OA Overview January 2017

 

Let me summarize what I know Stevan.

 

*   All Australian universities (even privately-funded ones) can get 
federal research grants. As part of the eligibility requirements, all 
publicly-funded research has to be collected by each university’s Research 
Office and made available for federal audit. In all cases, I believe that this 
means deposit of the articles in an Internet-connected server. Quaintly, we 
call such objects RODAs (Research Output Digital Assets)!
*   To answer question 1, I do not know. We do at the University of 
Tasmania as you would expect (see 
http://ecite.utas.edu.au/rmdb/ecite/q/ecite_home) but I don’t survey all the 
others regularly as I used to do. I would expect about 30-50%.
*   Are the repositories registered in ROARMAP? Again, I don’t know. 
However, I will do a post to the Australian OA discussion group (and copy this 
email to it).
*   You did not ask, but are they included in the BASE search engine? I 
think my university is, but again, this is a question for each university. As 
you know they are obstinate and lazy beasts.
*   In the acquittal of each research grant (the final report), the 
recipients are supposed to document whether the RODAs were made open access, 
and if not to explain why not. I do not know whether this is complied with or 
enforced.
*   As far as I know there are no aggregated statistics. Each university 
does its own thing.

 

I attribute this state to (a) you, me and all the other great OA advocates who 
have joined the debate over the years, and (b) savvy leaders of our two 
Australian research councils, and now including the Chief Scientist who advises 
the Prime Minister. We run a community oa email group, but it is not 
over-active.

 

I don’t know about aggregated compliance statistics, and indeed I do not see 
how easy it would be to measure them. The question is ‘how do you measure the 
whole output to compare with the deposited?’ when everything is supposed to be 
deposited?  Please have a look at 
http://ecite.utas.edu.au/rmdb/ecite/q/ecite_about, 

 

Best wishes

Arthur Sale

 

From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk] On 
Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
Sent: Thursday, 12 January 2017 02:06 AM
To: jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk  
Subject: Re: [GOAL] OA Overview January 2017

 

 

Dear Arthur,

 

Thanks for the kind words, and congratulations on 100% self-archiving in 
Australia! (I had no idea!)

 

Although my comment was posted at the point of your contribution to the thread, 
I was not actually responding to you, but to various points made in the thread. 
I know we agree.

 

But I do have two questions:

 

(1) Do the Australian universities use your (our) Button during the OA embargo? 

 

(2) Are the Australian mandates registered in ROARMAP? (They need to be known 
to be amulated.)

 

(3) Are the compliance statistics available?

 

Best wishes,

Stevan

 

Sale, A., Couture, M., Rodrigues, E., Carr, L. and Harnad, S. (2014)  
 Open Access Mandates and the "Fair 
Dealing" Button. In: Dynamic Fair Dealing: Creating Canadian Culture Online 
(Rosemary J. Coombe & Darren Wershler, Eds.)  
 http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/18511/

 

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 5:38 PM, Arthur Sale  > wrote:

Keep up the emphasis, Stevan, as appropriate. I totally agree that the 
double-payment argument is absurd, as I wrote. And yes there is added value in 
published books, including but not limited to preservation. I did not need the 
spray.

 

As a result of the OA movement (including your and my efforts) all Australian 
universities have 100% of their articles self-archived. Yes all and 100%, for 
audit purposes. That’s been the case for many years now.

Unfortunately they are not all open access immediately, but they are available 
within the institution on one server, and the academics all comply. Their 
departmental standing and funding would otherwise suffer.

It is a small victory, to be sure, but the inability of people to think outside 
the box of their scholarly training is a huge problem. It helps that we have a 
few people at the decision levels in Australia who are ICT-savvy and more 
flexible. I think the same is true of Canada.

 

Best wishes

Arthur Sale

 

 

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org   
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org  ] On Behalf 
Of Stevan Harnad
Sent: Wednesday, 11 January 2017 06:05 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Cc: scholc...@lists.ala.org