Cornell University is considering a fund to pay publication fees at fee-based OA journals. Thanks to Philip Davis for the alert and this summary and comment:
...John Hermanson, professor of biomedical sciences and chair of the library board, presented the Open Access author fund proposal on March 11 to the Cornell Faculty Senate. Like other proposals, the fund would cover the author processing fees for those who wish to publish in Open Access journals.
According to the Senate minutes, Cornell University Librarian, Anne Kenney, is “extremely interested” in allocating $25K of library funds, with the other $25K being matched by the Provost.
Anticipating the question on whether $50K was sufficient, considering that some journals charge up to $3,000 per article, Hermanson claimed:
We don’t know if that is enough. From the previous experiences we have been discussing initially, it’s probably more than is necessary because there are a number of open access journals already available to faculty to publish in and they are relatively low in terms of volume submission they have seen....
Of course, low demand may not be the future for author publishing funds, and this is where governance becomes a significant issue....
I spoke with Hermanson on this issue, and he responded that the details have not yet been worked out by the library board, but that the board understands the importance of implementing policies and priorities on how the monies should be spent. These details should be no secret....
It is beyond my powers of comprehension to fathom why Cornell University would want to throw $50K of scarce library funds at funding Gold OA publication (for at most 1% of Cornell's annual journal article output) without first mandating Green OA (for the remaining 99% of Cornell's annual journal article output) at no cost at all....
If and when all of Cornell's annual journal article output -- about 7.5K articles per year, according to Web of Science -- is made Green OA by a self-archiving mandate, and all other universities do likewise, the planet will have 100% Green OA to all journal articles. If and when the availability of universal green OA induces institutions to cancel all their journal subscriptions, then Cornell's $9M annual windfall cancellation savings will be more than enough to pay the peer review costs for Gold OA for its annual 7.5K articles. Paying a much higher price per article pre-emptively now, when the relevant funds are still tied up in subscriptions, while not even providing Green OA to 100% of Cornell's own research output, is a real head-shaker....
Comment (5/26/09). I can't agree that OA journal funds are squandering money. They support OA journals, which need support in parallel with (not just after) our support for OA repositories. But I do agree, and have often argued (see also 1, 2, 3, 4), that "any university which understands the need for OA should also adopt a strong policy to ensure green OA for its research output....Unlike a gold OA policy, a green OA policy covers all the peer-reviewed articles published by faculty, regardless of the journals in which they choose to publish."
Posted by
Peter Suber at 5/26/2009 10:18:00 AM.
The open access movement:
Putting peer-reviewed scientific and scholarly literature
on the internet. Making it available free of charge and
free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.
Removing the barriers to serious research.
I recommend the OA tracking project (OATP) as the best way to stay on top of new OA developments. You can read the OATP feed on a blog-like web page or subscribe to it by RSS, email, or Twitter. You can also help build the feed by tagging new developments you encounter.
