Explore the vast range of titles available.

Introduction: This article investigates funding sources reported by authors of open access (OA) articles at four R1 (doctoral-granting institutions in the United States with very high research activity) universities, along with these authors’ perceptions of Article Processing Charges (APCs). The study suggests a cognitive dissonance among many respondents, in which there appears to be a desire and willingness to participate in OA publishing, which is at odds with a sense of unreasonableness and an uneven distribution of the ability of researchers to participate. Literature review: Much of the literature on APCs centers on rising prices, how commercial publishers profit from this model, and the resulting inequities in OA publishing. Some information exists about resources for funding APCs, including grant funding, library programs, and fee waivers. Methods: We surveyed authors who published an OA article in the calendar year 2022. The survey asked whether there was an APC, the funding source for the fee, and the author’s perception of the reasonableness of APC prices and their relative ability to pay compared with their peers. Results: From 321 total respondents, grant funding was the largest source of APC funding, and authors reported fees of over $1,500 in U.S. dollars as unreasonable. Discussion: This study confirms the hypothesis that external grants are the primary support for authors paying APCs, and beyond that, authors use a variety of sources to support their publishing fees. Respondents characterized APCs in general as unreasonable for less well-resourced colleagues. Conclusion: Though authors were generally able to find funding or have fees waived, they perceive a threshold of reasonableness for APCs.

Introduction: This article investigates funding sources reported by authors of open access (OA) articles at four R1 (doctoral-granting institutions in the United States with very high research activity) universities, along with these authors' perceptions of Article Processing Charges (APCs). The study suggests a cognitive dissonance among many respondents, in which there appears to be a desire and willingness to participate in OA publishing, which is at odds with a sense of unreasonableness and an uneven distribution of the ability of researchers to participate. Literature review: Much of the literature on APCs centers on rising prices, how commercial publishers profit from this model, and the resulting inequities in OA publishing. Some information exists about resources for funding APCs, including grant funding, library programs, and fee waivers. Methods: We surveyed authors who published an OA article in the calendar year 2022. The survey asked whether there was an APC, the funding source for the fee, and the author's perception of the reasonableness of APC prices and their relative ability to pay compared with their peers. Results: From 321 total respondents, grant funding was the largest source of APC funding, and authors reported fees of over $1,500 in U.S. dollars as unreasonable. Discussion: This study confirms the hypothesis that external grants are the primary support for authors paying APCs, and beyond that, authors use a variety of sources to support their publishing fees. Respondents characterized APCs in general as unreasonable for less well-resourced colleagues. Conclusion: Though authors were generally able to find funding or have fees waived, they perceive a threshold of reasonableness for APCs.

Purpose – Researchers at the University of Tennessee Libraries experimented with crowdsourcing to determine if contributions by members of the public could be utilized to add citations and subject tags to a new online bibliography, Database of the Smokies (DOTS: dots.lib.utk.edu). The paper aims to discuss this issue. Design/methodology/approach – The database is built in Drupal, an open source platform that provides a crowdsourcing mechanism. The public was offered the opportunity to create accounts and add content to DOTS. After three months, the project team performed a transaction log analysis of user submissions in order to determine whether an editorial process was necessary. Findings – This analysis revealed that 18 percent of database content was the result of crowdsourcing and that much of the content submitted by participants was either obscure or difficult to locate. The analysis also showed that while contributors added valuable citations, an editorial review process was necessary to ensure this crowdsourced content could be published in the database. In addition, contributor supplied subject tags were not of significant uniqueness or quantity to substantially influence the existing taxonomy. Finally, the publicity of the crowdsourcing feature allowed other institutions to contribute to the project and add rare material. Originality/value – This paper offers a model for utilizing crowdsourcing to entice a sophisticated user group to help build a bibliographic database.