Following the report of the Preservation Planning Committee and the reports of two preservation consultants, Bob will be appointing a Preservation Committee. This will be a standing committee, reporting to the CDC and the AUL, charged with the system wide oversight of preservation in all formats. Its immediate task will be to develop a five-year plan for preservation to coincide with the Libraries' five-year Digital Library Initiative. It will prioritize our needs in staffing, facilities, funding, and organization and develop a phased plan for meeting them.
Bob handed out guidelines for a "Digital Collection Project Proposal Application." These proposals will be reviewed and scored by a new evaluation committee, Digital Repository Review Committee. The purpose of the process is, among things, to ensure uniformity of criteria in evaluating potential projects. All projects must meet the metadata and other digital preservation standards developed by DAWG, so that we have no discrete, stand-alone efforts. All of the approved projects will be "ingested into the RUL digital repository which is based on the open source software, FEDORA. Grace drew a diagram to explain how the metadata and data will reside in their individual projects as well as the digital repository. This will allow our users search a particular project or to do federated searching across our projects and in IRIS. Eventually the repository will be university-wide.
Mary announced that we will begin using Yankee Book Peddler as our approval plan vendor beginning July 1. She anticipates that this change will streamline the acquisitions process considerably. The YBP system interfaces with SIRSI, so that it will no longer be necessary to re-key in orders that selectors send over from GOBI. Also, we will be able to include the YBP discount when we place orders, rather than when we're invoiced. This means that Workflows will accurately reflect what we pay for titles, so we don't have funds routinely over-encumbered. The week of April 26 we will begin training for selectors in the new system.
Jackie informed us that the science librarians are very eager to be included in the new approval plan. No one opposed the idea, but there was extensive discussion as to how we might pay for it.
Wiley Interscience has offered us the option of buying "tokens" that could used to get access to articles our subscription would not normally cover. It's not entirely clear how this will work. Jeanne and Mary will explore. It may or may not help with interlibrary loan requests.
As of March 18, the oldest regular order waiting to be processed at Acquisitions was dated March 9. Selectors are reminded that the deadline for state orders to be processed this fiscal year is March 30.
In lieu of a systems report Ann simply reminded the CDC and selectors that database usage statistics are available on the systems T drive in the systems folder. To get there, first right click on your start button and select "explore." Then take the following path: my network places>novell connections>entire network>netware services>netware servers>lib TSB>vol1>groups>common>systems. Open this folder and you'll find an Excel worksheet entitled databaseuse2004.
Bob distributed a spreadsheet showing the state and non-state collection funds with free balances of over a thousand dollars. Two of the largest are TSMB and TAMB, transfer funds that are used in New Brunswick to cover overspent funds in the sciences and in the humanities and the social sciences, respectively. We discussed how to spend this money down. The N.B. librarians agreed that the scientists will divide it amongst themselves to buy monographs and the humanists and social scientists will use it to help fund the approval fund.
Bob handed out the draft of a form that selectors will use to make annual budget requests for their departments. At present, the state fund allocations to the fund code level have generally been based upon previous year's allocations and expenditures. The form is designed to make our allocation process more informed and responsive to changes in the teaching departments. The draft of the form is fairly simple. It asks, for example, the number of faculty and students in the department or program, whether it offers a doctorate or masters degree, and whether it has an approval plan. Selectors will also be asked to assess the current level of funding for collections and identify areas that are currently underfunded. The form will also be used to make special requests for big-ticket, one-time purchases. Bob will chair a working group to refine the form. He appointed Kevin, Veronica, Howard, Jim, and Trevani to the working group.
The Web of Science version to which we currently subscribe goes back to 1994. We can buy various ranges of backfiles from ISI going as far back as 1945. These are very pricey. Just a six-year backfile (1988-1993) would cost $107,602. We discussed whether to request special, one-time funding to purchase backfiles and decided not to do so. There have been complaints about Web of Science, particularly the way that it deals with secondary authors. Other databases, such as Science Direct and SciFinder Scholar, are now doing citation analysis and doing it better. Also, much of the need for citation analysis in the science departments is from faculty who are writing grant proposals. In such cases, a co-author from another institution with better chronological coverage in Web of Science could do the citation analysis. If this is not an option, the Rutgers Online Request Service (RORS) will search Web of Science in Dialog for a reasonable fee.
SPARC is offering through NERL options for membership that will allow faculty at member institutions a discount on the fee charged for submitting an article to the Public Library of Science journals. The discount ranges from ten percent for a membership costing $2,000 to seventy-five percent for a membership costing $75,000. Although the Libraries support SPARC's efforts wholeheartedly, the CDC declined to participate in this offer at this time. First, it is not clear that this is a fee that should be paid by the Libraries rather than the University. Second, we felt the fee schedule was rather steep for the levels of discounts offered. NERL continues to negotiate for a reduced consortial membership fee.
There followed a more general discussion of issues surrounding different models for open access. We noted that SPARC thus far has only demonstrated that an open access journal can survive. If their journals can't actually eclipse their Elsevier- type counterparts, then SPARC has only increased what we pay for our journals. We wind up paying for modestly priced, open access journals, in addition to wildly inflated titles produced by Elsevier and their ilk. There was general feeling that the government should step in and take action in some way, and very little optimism that it would do so. As another instance of SPARC's good intentions gone awry, it was pointed out that in the parliamentary investigation in Great Britain, Elsevier argued that it can't be a monopoly, since SPARC is producing competing journals. Howard advocated the model used in the physics community. Pre-print articles are posted freely in the ePrint archive at Cornell. The material is not peer reviewed, but users are able to recognize what's good and what's not. The downside here might be that an undergraduate, or another less experienced researcher, might not be able to make that distinction.