Jisc published an independent review of the implementation of RCUK policy on OA in the UK. With regards to APC management the review states the following points (excerpts)
“Any difficulties in the processes and workflows relating to APC payments to publishers
… Many publishers are working with legacy, and often multiple, systems resulting in inefficiencies and in some cases an inability to supply data in appropriate formats quickly and easily. While the Jisc APC pilot intermediary service aimed to offer a more efficient workflow, instances where a publisher couldn’t reconcile a payment resulted in the researcher being chased for payment and delays to making items openly accessible…
… the impetus to make an article OA as quickly as possible is often at odds with institutional finance processes…
… The management of APCs demands integration between the research office, library, repository and finance functions and this involves new ways and patterns of working that take time to develop…
… APCs and membership schemes: Feedback indicates a lack of transparency within the APC market…
… Many institutions have chosen to establish membership schemes as an efficient and cost-effective way of managing APCs but this inevitably limits choice…
… Apart from managing and administering APCs, liaising with publishers regarding licences, payment dates, publication dates, errors and omissions, institutions also spend time researching publishers’ OA polices, payment methods, and policies for funder compliance, eg using Sherpa/FACT …
… Institutions want to fully understand the processes and the issues around management of APCs and they perceive an intermediary as presenting a barrier to that understanding at this stage in the process. Also while the quantity of APCs is still quite small they are content to manage these with a series of spreadsheets…
… Institutions have reported being unclear about funder requirements…”
