12 · Survey Results: Executive Summary
The survey investigated the prevalence of the en-
dorsement or promotion of author addenda by re-
spondents’ institutions. For the purposes of this sur-
vey, “endorse” means a formal act by an institution
(either by administrators, or by the faculty governing
body) in support of author rights and the use of an au-
thor’s addendum. “Promote” means active outreach
to authors to educate them about author rights and to
encourage the use of an author’s addendum.
Endorsement
Fifty-two percent (36) of the responding libraries re-
ported that an author addendum had been endorsed
by administrators or a governing body at their institu-
tion or by their consortia, while 62% (43) responded
that there had been no endorsements. The numbers
reveal that there are more endorsements at the consor-
tial level than at the institutional level. Eight libraries
(12%) reported that an institutional endorsement was
under consideration at the time of the survey. One li-
brary indicated that an addendum had been endorsed
by their Faculty Senate, but that “It was not without
controversy, and I would consider the endorsement
to be rather weak. At least one subcommittee thought
that the addenda unnecessarily inserted the univer-
sity into the author-publisher relationship and could
damage such relationships. Others pointed out (on the
floor of the Senate) that such addenda are meaningless
unless the university can put resources behind the
faculty in negotiations.”
Promotion
A larger number of libraries (46 or 68%) reported that
their institution or consortium had worked to promote
the use of an author addendum 40 respondents (87%)
indicated promotion by their institution and 25 (54%)
promotion by their consortium. Promotional activities
mostly included providing links to an author adden-
dum and copyright information on library Web sites,
and some libraries have done faculty presentations
on author rights (particularly pertaining to the NIH
Public Access Policy). However, general consensus
shows there is not much active promotion on institu-
tional or consortial levels.
Twenty-one respondents (30%) reported that their
institutions have not promoted the use of an author
addendum in any capacity. They are not included in
the following results.
Addenda Use and Rights Retained
Addenda Use
Forty-seven libraries responded to a question about
which addendum their institution promoted or en-
dorsed. Forty-one have promoted an addendum, most
frequently the SPARC addendum (20 respondents or
43%) and/or an institution-specific addendum (17 or
36%). However, results show that all but 10 institutions
promote more than one kind of addendum. Others
include, in order of frequency, consortia-specific ad-
denda, the Science Commons addendum, and fund-
ing agency-specific addenda. The 13 libraries that have
promoted a funding agency-specific addendum all
verified that this represented the suggested language
from the National Institutes of Health (NIH).2
Sixteen institutions have provosts who have en-
dorsed an addendum 12 (75%) of those endorsed
a consortium-specific addendum, likely represent-
ing the members of Committee on Institutional
Cooperation (CIC) consortium whose provosts had
all endorsed their addendum as of June 2008.3
The addendum most often endorsed by a faculty
governing body (10 of 14 responses) was also a con-
sortia-specific addendum, which may also reflect the
CIC institutions. Only seven respondents report that
a department has endorsed an addendum, typically
an institution-specific one. Five report an endorse-
ment by their university legal counsel office.
Only nine responding institutions have publicly
announced the endorsement of an addendum with a
press release, though several report less formal ways
of spreading the news, such as e-mails to faculty.
Only four have contacted publishers about their en-
dorsement. When solicited for comments about con-
tacting publishers, one library responded that they
sent a letter to the top publishers of the university’s
authors notifying them of the addendum. Another
university system prefers to do large institutional
negotiations with publishers—rather than promoting
The survey investigated the prevalence of the en-
dorsement or promotion of author addenda by re-
spondents’ institutions. For the purposes of this sur-
vey, “endorse” means a formal act by an institution
(either by administrators, or by the faculty governing
body) in support of author rights and the use of an au-
thor’s addendum. “Promote” means active outreach
to authors to educate them about author rights and to
encourage the use of an author’s addendum.
Endorsement
Fifty-two percent (36) of the responding libraries re-
ported that an author addendum had been endorsed
by administrators or a governing body at their institu-
tion or by their consortia, while 62% (43) responded
that there had been no endorsements. The numbers
reveal that there are more endorsements at the consor-
tial level than at the institutional level. Eight libraries
(12%) reported that an institutional endorsement was
under consideration at the time of the survey. One li-
brary indicated that an addendum had been endorsed
by their Faculty Senate, but that “It was not without
controversy, and I would consider the endorsement
to be rather weak. At least one subcommittee thought
that the addenda unnecessarily inserted the univer-
sity into the author-publisher relationship and could
damage such relationships. Others pointed out (on the
floor of the Senate) that such addenda are meaningless
unless the university can put resources behind the
faculty in negotiations.”
Promotion
A larger number of libraries (46 or 68%) reported that
their institution or consortium had worked to promote
the use of an author addendum 40 respondents (87%)
indicated promotion by their institution and 25 (54%)
promotion by their consortium. Promotional activities
mostly included providing links to an author adden-
dum and copyright information on library Web sites,
and some libraries have done faculty presentations
on author rights (particularly pertaining to the NIH
Public Access Policy). However, general consensus
shows there is not much active promotion on institu-
tional or consortial levels.
Twenty-one respondents (30%) reported that their
institutions have not promoted the use of an author
addendum in any capacity. They are not included in
the following results.
Addenda Use and Rights Retained
Addenda Use
Forty-seven libraries responded to a question about
which addendum their institution promoted or en-
dorsed. Forty-one have promoted an addendum, most
frequently the SPARC addendum (20 respondents or
43%) and/or an institution-specific addendum (17 or
36%). However, results show that all but 10 institutions
promote more than one kind of addendum. Others
include, in order of frequency, consortia-specific ad-
denda, the Science Commons addendum, and fund-
ing agency-specific addenda. The 13 libraries that have
promoted a funding agency-specific addendum all
verified that this represented the suggested language
from the National Institutes of Health (NIH).2
Sixteen institutions have provosts who have en-
dorsed an addendum 12 (75%) of those endorsed
a consortium-specific addendum, likely represent-
ing the members of Committee on Institutional
Cooperation (CIC) consortium whose provosts had
all endorsed their addendum as of June 2008.3
The addendum most often endorsed by a faculty
governing body (10 of 14 responses) was also a con-
sortia-specific addendum, which may also reflect the
CIC institutions. Only seven respondents report that
a department has endorsed an addendum, typically
an institution-specific one. Five report an endorse-
ment by their university legal counsel office.
Only nine responding institutions have publicly
announced the endorsement of an addendum with a
press release, though several report less formal ways
of spreading the news, such as e-mails to faculty.
Only four have contacted publishers about their en-
dorsement. When solicited for comments about con-
tacting publishers, one library responded that they
sent a letter to the top publishers of the university’s
authors notifying them of the addendum. Another
university system prefers to do large institutional
negotiations with publishers—rather than promoting
