case study: setting up an institutional fund (bill hubbard, university of nottingham)

8/14/2019 Case study: setting up an institutional fund (Bill Hubbard, University of Nottingham)

1/21

Setting up an Institutional Fund

Bill HubbardHead of Centre for Research Communications

University of Nottingham


2/21

Compliance and Support

Academic researchers need clarity

Funders need compliance Institutions need clear funding routes Policies and publicity should alert researchers to

their responsibilities under funder mandates Policies and publicity should reassure researchers

that OA costs will be met Support systems should be in place to help - andmonitor compliance

A central OA Fund can help address this


3/21

Research Income and OA fees

Direct costs: Research grants can be used to fund OA fees during the

life-time of a grant Researchers need to be encouraged to build this into their

grant applications

Indirect costs: Overheads claimed by the institution can also include OA

fee costs Funds need to be identifiable & accessible to researchers Costs need to be built into institutional overhead costing

models


4/21

Detailed Guidance: EPSRC

Universities can recover publication fees incurred after a grant has ended as anindirect cost. This involves setting up funds and processes at an institutional or sub-institutional level.If a university chooses to set up a fund to enable their researchers to pay publicationfees, it can form part of the costs used for calculating the universitys standard rate forthe indirect costs of research. In the same way, a proportion of library costs arecurrently included in calculating the standard rate.Indirect costs are based on the annual attribution and reporting of costs in previousyears, so universities can only start to include the costs of paying publication fees intheir calculation of indirect cost the year after they first make provision.

Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, Payments of Publication Feeshttp://www.epsrc.ac.uk/ResearchFunding/GrantHolders/PublicationFees.htm


5/21

The UK Situation 2009

Survey of UK HE librarydirectors, June 2009

55 valid responses Russell Group: 11

Pre-92 universities: 24 New universities: 15

HE colleges: 5


6/21

Central Funds?

Question: Do you have aninstitutionally-coordinated approach to

payment of per-article OA fees (such as acentral fund)? Yes: 8 institutions (14%) No correlation between institution type

and OA fund No clear pattern of responsibility in the

institution for funds 7 of the 8 funds administered centrally

3 by library 3 by research support office 1 by graduate school


7/21

Institutional Context

The possibility of setting up a fund has been raised inmany institutions

About 8 saw it as a real possibility in the next 12months (varying levels of confidence)

Some indicated alternative arrangements are in placee.g. devolved responsibility

Library managers are usually the ones initiatingdiscussions in institutions


8/21

Nottingham: Case Study

Recommendations adopted by the University Research Committee,November 2006:

1.All authors should be encouraged to deposit copies of their papers in theNottingham ePrints repository.2.The University should identify a central budget upon which all authors inthe institution can call to fund publications/OA charges.3.Wellcome-funded authors should be reminded of the availability of funds topay for their publications/OA charges.4.Further internal publicity should be carried out in order to inform academic

staff of the new requirements of funders.5.Arrangements should be put in place to monitor the Universityscompliance with funder requirements.


9/21

Working with an OA Fund

Approved in November 2006 Managed by the research support office (Research Innovation

Services, RIS) Procedures document developed, March 2007 Publicity undertaken by RIS and Information Services Monitoring of the fund by RIS and IS Fund re-endorsed by Research Committee, 2008

Review of procedures Further publicity required


10/21

Usage

Total number of requestsover 3 years: 210

Requests per year 2006-07: 31

2007-08: 79 2008-09: 100

Over 3 years BMC: 103 Non-BMC: 107


11/21

Costs

Total costs: 233,581

Costs per year: 2006-07: 28,597 2007-08: 84,370 2008-09: 120,614

Over 3 years BMC: 106,566

Non-BMC: 127,015


12/21

Costs

Mean average cost per article: 1,112

BMC articles: 1,035 Non-BMC articles: 1,187

Highest payment: 2,975 Lowest payment: 347


13/21

Claimants

Claimants predominantly fromMedical and Life Sciences areas

Faculties: Medicine and Health Sciences:

49% Science: 46%

Engineering: 1% Social Sciences, Law and

Education: 4% Arts: none

Within the Faculty of Sciencemost claimants from Biology,Biosciences and VeterinaryScience


14/21

Publishers

Payments made to 26 publishers over 3 years Only 6 publishers received payments for more than

5 articles: BMC: 103

Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology: 9 Elsevier: 9 Oxford University Press: 9

Public Library of Science: 6 Springer: 10

Mean average publisher charge: 1,358 Learned society publishers: 1,242


15/21

Considerations for Institutions

1. Identify an institutional champion

2. Clarify funder policies3. Establish clear institutional arrangements for costrecovery

4. Consider the most appropriate institutionally-coordinated arrangements

5. Agree policies for non-funded researchers6. Develop clear policies for the Fund


16/21

Considerations for Institutions

7. Consider the relationship with library funding

8. Develop streamlined workflows9. Undertake publicity10.Provide proactive support for researchers11.Monitor compliance12.Review policies and funding regularly


17/21

Considerations for other stakeholders

Publisher developments required: streamlining workflows achieving greater standardisation

Consortial/national developments required:

negotiating with publishers on policies, workflows andprice

Funder developments required: new workflows for compliance processes work more closely with institutions on common aims for

research outputs


18/21


19/21

References

SHERPA JULIET (funder policies) http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/juliet/

SHERPA ROMEO (publisher copyright policies) http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo

UUK/RIN guidance to UK institutions http://www.rin.ac.uk/openaccess-payment-fees

With thanks to: Chris Middleton for analysis of the Nottingham central fund usage

statistics Stephen Pinfield for the origin al version of this presentation
http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/juliet/http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeohttp://www.rin.ac.uk/openaccess-payment-feeshttp://www.rin.ac.uk/openaccess-payment-feeshttp://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeohttp://www.sherpa.ac.uk/juliet/


20/21

Questions?

Bill Hubbard Head of Centre for Research Communications JISC Research Communication Strategist

[email protected]


21/21

CRC Summary

SHERPAPartnership

News - Information -Investigation

SHERPAServices

RoMEO - JULIET -OpenDOAR

JISC ResearchCommunications

StrategyStrategy Development -Feedback - Dissemination

SHERPAProjects

RSP - NECOBELACDRIVERII - OpenAIRE

National Partner DRIVER

ConfederationCOAR

OA Research,Surveys,Projects

UniversityOA Services

R & D

case study: setting up an institutional fund (bill hubbard, university of nottingham)

Documents