Page History

...

• We would like to diversity of revenue sources in order to raise additional funds to allow us to expand arXiv's staffing (especially the current minimal IT staffing configuration), lowering the current tier structure to encourage more organizations to become members, and support R&D projects. What are your suggestions?  One of the ideas we would like to discuss is adding a Give button on arXiv home page to invite donations from users (examples). What are the pros and cons of this idea? 
• The purpose of the arXiv reserve fund is to support unexpected expenses to ensure a sound business model. Currently, arXiv has a reserve fund of approximately $100,000 that accumulated during 2010-2011 due to unexpected staff vacancies and other savings (2012 expenses have not been factored in yet). The 2013-2017 budget projections assume that we will be able to add $50,000-$100,000 per year to the reserve funds. We need to develop policies about how contingency funds will be used and how the account will be structured (for instance, funds needed for closing the business versus development funds - also a part of the reserve funds to create an endowment & the interest can be used for reducing membership fees).  Also, we need to determine at what point of reserve fund accumulation (total reserve balance) we will consider to lower the annual membership fees.
• The current annual institutional fees are in the $1,500-$3,000 range, which may be high for some developing countries or institutions that are lower in the use ranking (below 200).  Shall we add a lower fee to encourage these institutions to support arXiv?
• Some of our members feel that it makes sense to increase the annual fee for the top users as the current model does not appear fair (see the usage chart).  What do you think? Should we add a higher top tier pricing for the organizations that are listed high in the use list?
• Philip sees the potential to increase the fees, because arXiv is still a great value at current fees.  He also asked how the disciplinary coverage in arXiv has changed since physics was the main user group; are we paying close enough attention to disciplinary differences?

arXiv 2013 Budget & Pledge Summary (May'13): arXiv snapshot_May2013.pdf  

...

• Question about why arXiv may need more revenues. Because the current budget is based on operational costs and does not factor in adding new features, revamping software, etc.
• Question about IT staffing.  A few months ago, arXiv team decided not to migrate the browse component of arXiv to Invenio. There are a number of factors behind this decision. The main reasons for re-evaluation were slow progress by our team in the migration, an understanding that replication of arXiv functionality in Invenio involved rather more coding that we had earlier imagined, and pressure from our advisory board to address other issues. Instead of this large-scale migration we have decided to refocus our efforts on continuing to develop arXiv within its existing technology infrastructure and will reassess our strategy to use Invenio as platform for arXiv next year.
• Esther stated that German scientists like arXiv lean and simple, operated at low cost. We need to make a very clear case why extra money would be required. She said that if there were a "give button" on arXiv it would make sense to earmark and carefully communicate the use to which this money would be put. Better to have a specific project in mind that general support.  Because
• Esther cautioned us that because we announced that we have a sustainability model in place, we need to be careful about explaning why we need additional funds. We need to be careful about not confusing scientists and not confusing scientists that we still need more funds. Also, also we don't want them to want scientists or member of consortia members to think that we are approaching both them and their institutions for funding twice.  For instance, TIB is contributing on behalf of German universities and scientists.
• Question: Are there any institutions with rank>200 who would be willing to pay if there were a lower tier? à We have not asked so we don't know. However we are aware that some institutions are finding even the lowest tier not affordable due to their budget challenges.
• If we decide to introduce a lower tier, we may engage new members but we'll also reduce contributions from the current members that are ranked lower than 200
• Germany would like to have a more "fair" model (higher fees for the top tier uses) but understands the challenges in complicating the current system by introducing another detail that would require individual negotiations with the top users. Oya suggests that for next year's fees, we might include for very heavy users (top 10-20) an invitation to contribute additional funds due to their high use.
• Philip sees the potential to increase the fees, because arXiv is still a great value at current fees.  He also asked how the disciplinary coverage in arXiv has changed since physics was the main user group; are we paying close enough attention to disciplinary differences?

Action items: 

• Cornell will draft a reserve funds proposal to seek more concrete advice from MAB.

...