As a Crossref member, I want to distinguish funding for OA fees/APCs from funding for research

As a Crossref member, I want to distinguish funding for OA fees or APCs from funding for research.

What

A member asked how they might add open access tagging into the funding data, or a funding statement into the license metadata, to specify the funding source (or lack thereof) for OA fees.

Why

It's a meaningful distinction when researchers get separate funding sources to cover OA fees for a particular article's publication, unrelated to funding sources for the research project as a whole.

How urgent

Definition of ready

• Product owner:
• Tech lead:
• Service:: or C:: label applied
• Definition of done updated
• Acceptance testing plan:
• Weight applied

Definition of done

• Unit tests identified, implemented, and passing
• SONAR on merge request branch checked by tech lead
• SONAR on merge request branch checked by reviewer
• Code reviewed
• Available for acceptance testing via a staging URL, or otherwise
• Consider any impacts to current or future architecture/infrastructure, and update specifications and documentation as needed
• Knowledge base reviewed and updated
• Public documentation reviewed and updated
• Acceptance criteria met
  • AC 1
  • AC 2
• Acceptance testing passed
• Deployed to production

Prior to and during Backlog Refinement, consider the potential impacts this user story may have on the following areas:

• Billing/costs
• Internal documentation
• External documentation
• Schema
• Outputs
• Operations
• Support & Membership experience
• Outreach & Communications
• Testing
• Internationalization
• Accessibility
• Metrics, analytics, reporting

Additional details about the above items can be found here.

Notes