Re: A Useful Clarification of Harvard's OA Fund

[Ann Okerson <aokerson@pantheon.yale.edu>]

Dear David -- having just gotten to the Schieber blog, I found 
the following:

"But even if none of them had been grant-funded, HOPE covers fees 
prorated based on Harvard authorship.  Since only 65 of the 144 
authors on these articles were Harvard affiliated, it would have 
covered only 65/144 (about 45%) of the fees. The cost would be 
(65/144) x $3000 x 24 = $32,500..."

So, in the event that a multi-authored article was *not* grant 
funded (which seems as if it would rarely happen), how would the 
fee collection work for the remaining percentage of the fees that 
were owed by other institutions?  It might be quicker and cheaper 
just to pay it all out of one fun, for example that of the first 
listed author?

Regards, Ann Okerson

On Thu, 3 Feb 2011, David Prosser wrote:
> You may remember a few weeks ago Joe Esposito highlighted a post
> by one of his fellow Scholarly Kitchen bloogers, Phil Davis.
> Phil was taking exception to the narrative on journal prices put
> forward by Robert Darnton in his Three Jeremiads article  (see
> http://bit.ly/ho06Um for details).
>
> One part of Phil's critique, although by no means the main part,
> was whether or not the COPE initiative would save Harvard
> libraries money, especially in relation to the Tetrahedron bundle
> of journals.  Stuart Shieber has responded, highlighting some of
> Phil's misunderstandings of the Harvard OA Fund and explaining
> the flaws in Phil's financial analysis.  The post is at:
>
> http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2011/02/01/the-tetrahedron-test-case/
>
> I highlight the post only because it picks up on comments already
> brought to the attention of this list.
>
> As a general point, perhaps this highlights the dangers of
> thinking of costs and benefits in single budget lines, rather
> than across whole systems.
>
> David