COST RECOVERY PATTERNS COST RECOVERY PATTERNS 23 Repositories Interviewed on Income Streams and Cost Models First Quick Scan of Replies Interest Group WDS/ RDA Cost recovery February 2015 By Eefke Smit, Int Assoc STM Publishers

The 23 Repositories interviewed, who are they Subject specific and multidisciplinary repositories: approx (and 3 say they are both subject-specific and multi-disciplinary) Their stakeholders: Funders (all), the Institute they belong to (50 %), users (30 %) and journals (15 %) Target audience: Researchers (100 %), wider audience like government, industry, general public (50 %), students (25 %) Curation levels: None (2), Basic (4), At Data Level (4), Differs (8), Enhanced curation (4)

Current Income streams: In most cases, there are multiple sources of funding, This is the percentage repositories that get money from: The (group of) institutes they belong to: 60 – 65 % of the repositories Government Funds and other Research Funders: 50 % of the repositories Specific project grants: 50 % of the repositories Deposit fees: 25 % of the repositories Annual contracts, annual member fees: 25 % Is the current stream sufficient for the future: 60 % say yes, 30 % say no, 10 % say maybe.

Future income streams: Term of funding currently for the main income stream: annual: 20 % 3 yr secure: 25 % 5 yr secure: 35 % Ongoing: 10 % Term of project: 10 % Mix: 30 % (contains double counts between the categories) Exploring alternatives? 65 % Yes 25 % No 10 % a little

Potential sources worth exploring Sponsorships Contracts for specific services offered (hosting, archiving, curation) Expanding the number of affiliated institutions Deposit fees Funders making more money available (given priority for data) Specific services for the commercial sector (mentioned by one) More services for national memory institutes