36 Survey Results: Survey Questions and Responses
Online spreadsheet 1 7%
Other method 7 47%
Please briefly describe the other method. N=7
Monthly reports to the Scholarly Communication Committee, reports to the library liaisons
Occasional reports and blog posts; presentations to stakeholder groups (e.g., our Faculty Library Board)
Reports to the Faculty Council Committee on Libraries
Shared through the annual Canadian Association of Research Libraries statistics process since 2013.
Upon request. Also presented in a poster session at a conference.
We prepare reports as requested by the provost and the University Libraries Committee.
APC FUND BEING PLANNED
40. In how many months will the fund be implemented? N=6
To be determined. This initiative depends on the availability of funding.
We are currently in discussions to determine the amount in the fund, how it will be distributed,
policies, etc. We anticipate that we would implement the fund in the fall of 2016 or spring of 2017.
Within next 12 months
NO APC FUND
41. Please indicate why your institution has no APC fund. Check all that apply. N=33
Lack of funding 15 46%
Lack of administrative support 15 46%
Lack of faculty interest 5 15%
Other reason 16 49%
Please briefly describe the other reason. N=16
APCs are not particularly a cost-eﬀective or scalable mechanism for furthering open access.
In general we have author interest but at the moment the TriAgency policy allows authors to use some
grant funding for APCs so that may minimize the requests we receive.
Instead of “Lack of author interest” I would say it’s “lack of demonstrable author requests.”
It is for diﬀerent reasons such as funding and the unsustainability of it, but the main reason is that we
do not believe that this should be part of the mission of the library to pay for author’s APC.
More pressing priorities require attention at this time, however, there is author interest.