Re: A Useful Clarification of Harvard's OA Fund

[Beth Weil <bweil@library.berkeley.edu>]

Ann,

Yes, at Berkeley our BRII fund pays the whole amount, we don't 
prorate.  Frequently the work was all done at Berkeley, but 
graduate students and post docs have moved on, before the article 
was published.  In other cases, the corresponding author is from 
Berkeley.  We must have an invoice to reimburse researchers (and 
I suspect this is true at other institutions as well.)  I doubt 
that publishers would be able or willing to split the bill.

Beth Weil

On 2/8/11 5:29 PM, Ann Okerson wrote:
> 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
>