To date, very little formal research has been conducted into the efficacy of Open-access Funds.  As implementations proliferate across institutions, it will be important to develop metrics and benchmarks to evaluate their impact. Among institutions that have established Open-access Funds, none has a formal mechanism for judging whether its program is having the desired impact (owing in large part to the relative immaturity of most such Funds). However, most institutions are capturing data to make such analysis possible in the future.  In creating an Open-access Fund, you should plan to track at least the following data elements:

• Number of Articles Approved
• Number of Articles Reimbursed
• Number of Unique Submitting Authors
• Number of Unique Departments
• Number of Unique Journals
• Number of Unique Publishers
• Amount of Money Disbursed
• Percentage of available Funds Disbursed

Capturing this information will allow you to perform a thorough quantitative and qualitative analysis of your Fund’s impact.  Because different institutions have different motivations in starting these Funds, no single formula will be applicable across all implementations.  

The compiling of statistical evidence should no doubt be supplemented by qualitative inputs as well.  Several institutions are informally surveying participating authors to understand their usage of the Fund and to identify areas for improvement.  The notion of an author “exit interview” is worth serious consideration for any institution maintaining a Fund.

In the interest of transparency, both quantitative and qualitative data should be shared as openly as is practical on a regular basis.  Many institutions are creating annual reports that anonymize and amalgamate their data.  These reports can be shared with research offices, faculty advisory committees, faculty senates, and other interested parties.  The advantage of this openness is that it invites the feedback of other stakeholders, and is likely to deepen their commitment to the Fund.