SPEC Kit 332: Organization of Scholarly Communication Services · 17
SC Resolutions
Faculty governance bodies have supported open ac-
cess (OA) resolutions and endorsements at 11 institu-
tions (20%), five others (9%) have endorsed or passed
a resolution related to SC exclusive of OA. Most reso-
lutions or endorsements encourage and recommend
that faculty authors be aware of the costs of journals
where they publish, edit, or review, and make their
work available in the IR when possible. Nearly all of
these statements “encourage open access when [it]
doesn’t conflict with [the professional] advancement
of [a] faculty member,” as one respondent phrased it.
Two respondents stated that there is an OA policy
that, unlike a mandate or recommendation from a fac-
ulty governance body, grants the institutions license
to freely share faculty members’ scholarly articles.
Both policies also allow authors to apply for a waiver
of the license or an embargo on access when either the
license or immediate access is not in an author’s best
interest. In three cases library faculty passed OA poli-
cies or mandates in their departments. Similar to the
institutional OA policies, the library OA policies or
mandates call on library faculty authors to negotiate
rights to deposit their works locally and make articles
openly available. A waiver is available if rights cannot
be obtained.
One faculty senate resolution stands out in en-
couraging institutional administration “to work with
departments and colleges to assure that the review
process for promotion, tenure and merit takes into
consideration these new trends and realities in aca-
demic publication.” This statement, passed in 2009, is
fairly unique in recognizing one of the biggest chal-
lenges in asking faculty to publish in OA journals—
the entrenched habit of tenure review committees to
consider journal impact factors when reviewing a fac-
ulty member’s tenure application—and suggests that
it is not enough for faculty to be aware of publishing
trends in order to significantly change current pub-
lishing models and support public access to research.
Some respondents specified the addendum to pub-
lishing agreements their faculty use most often, or the
copyright addenda they most often recommend to
faculty authors. The majority referred to the Science
Commons Copyright Addendum Engine, and sev-
eral more identified the Science Commons-Scholarly
Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition
(SPARC) addendum, or Access-Reuse addendum, in
particular. Two Canadian respondents also referred
to a SPARC-affiliated license, which is similar to the
Access-Reuse addendum used by US institutions.
Another popular addendum is the one endorsed by
the Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC), a
consortium of 13 ARL member institutions. Several
institutions provide authors with recommendations
in terms of “basic” and “broader” copyright addenda.
In such cases, the “basic” addenda is based on the
language used by the National Institutes of Health
for compliance with their funding mandate, and
the “broader” addenda uses the Science Commons-
SPARC addenda or bases its language on a document
about negotiating publishing agreements from the
IUPUI Copyright Management Center.
Comparisons to 2007 Survey
There are some similarities between the findings from
the 2007 SPEC Kit on Scholarly Communication Education
Initiatives and the current survey. For one, a distrib-
uted, shared SC leadership structure within libraries
is still the most common model in use. However, in
2007, only 32% of libraries had a Chief SC Librarian,
and the majority of those librarians spent less than
30% of their time on SC initiatives. Now, in less than
five years, SC leaders are spending closer to 50% of
their time on SC efforts. Furthermore, a majority of
the respondents to the current survey have carved out
formal library positions—one or more individuals, or
teams/units—to lead SC efforts.
There are further similarities between the two
surveys’ findings. For example, assessment of SC ef-
forts is still rare. In 2007, only five respondents had
assessed their SC education initiatives, compared
to eight in 2012. A more positive trend that has con-
tinued is faculty hosting OA journals using online
journal publishing platforms supported by librar-
ies. Likewise positive is the continuing emphasis on
educating researchers about SC issues to encourage
the use publication agreement addenda, as well as
the formalization of institutional support for OA in
faculty governance resolutions.
In many ways, the current survey findings high-
light the efficacy of the education initiatives that ARL
SC Resolutions
Faculty governance bodies have supported open ac-
cess (OA) resolutions and endorsements at 11 institu-
tions (20%), five others (9%) have endorsed or passed
a resolution related to SC exclusive of OA. Most reso-
lutions or endorsements encourage and recommend
that faculty authors be aware of the costs of journals
where they publish, edit, or review, and make their
work available in the IR when possible. Nearly all of
these statements “encourage open access when [it]
doesn’t conflict with [the professional] advancement
of [a] faculty member,” as one respondent phrased it.
Two respondents stated that there is an OA policy
that, unlike a mandate or recommendation from a fac-
ulty governance body, grants the institutions license
to freely share faculty members’ scholarly articles.
Both policies also allow authors to apply for a waiver
of the license or an embargo on access when either the
license or immediate access is not in an author’s best
interest. In three cases library faculty passed OA poli-
cies or mandates in their departments. Similar to the
institutional OA policies, the library OA policies or
mandates call on library faculty authors to negotiate
rights to deposit their works locally and make articles
openly available. A waiver is available if rights cannot
be obtained.
One faculty senate resolution stands out in en-
couraging institutional administration “to work with
departments and colleges to assure that the review
process for promotion, tenure and merit takes into
consideration these new trends and realities in aca-
demic publication.” This statement, passed in 2009, is
fairly unique in recognizing one of the biggest chal-
lenges in asking faculty to publish in OA journals—
the entrenched habit of tenure review committees to
consider journal impact factors when reviewing a fac-
ulty member’s tenure application—and suggests that
it is not enough for faculty to be aware of publishing
trends in order to significantly change current pub-
lishing models and support public access to research.
Some respondents specified the addendum to pub-
lishing agreements their faculty use most often, or the
copyright addenda they most often recommend to
faculty authors. The majority referred to the Science
Commons Copyright Addendum Engine, and sev-
eral more identified the Science Commons-Scholarly
Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition
(SPARC) addendum, or Access-Reuse addendum, in
particular. Two Canadian respondents also referred
to a SPARC-affiliated license, which is similar to the
Access-Reuse addendum used by US institutions.
Another popular addendum is the one endorsed by
the Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC), a
consortium of 13 ARL member institutions. Several
institutions provide authors with recommendations
in terms of “basic” and “broader” copyright addenda.
In such cases, the “basic” addenda is based on the
language used by the National Institutes of Health
for compliance with their funding mandate, and
the “broader” addenda uses the Science Commons-
SPARC addenda or bases its language on a document
about negotiating publishing agreements from the
IUPUI Copyright Management Center.
Comparisons to 2007 Survey
There are some similarities between the findings from
the 2007 SPEC Kit on Scholarly Communication Education
Initiatives and the current survey. For one, a distrib-
uted, shared SC leadership structure within libraries
is still the most common model in use. However, in
2007, only 32% of libraries had a Chief SC Librarian,
and the majority of those librarians spent less than
30% of their time on SC initiatives. Now, in less than
five years, SC leaders are spending closer to 50% of
their time on SC efforts. Furthermore, a majority of
the respondents to the current survey have carved out
formal library positions—one or more individuals, or
teams/units—to lead SC efforts.
There are further similarities between the two
surveys’ findings. For example, assessment of SC ef-
forts is still rare. In 2007, only five respondents had
assessed their SC education initiatives, compared
to eight in 2012. A more positive trend that has con-
tinued is faculty hosting OA journals using online
journal publishing platforms supported by librar-
ies. Likewise positive is the continuing emphasis on
educating researchers about SC issues to encourage
the use publication agreement addenda, as well as
the formalization of institutional support for OA in
faculty governance resolutions.
In many ways, the current survey findings high-
light the efficacy of the education initiatives that ARL
