Bob Sewell commenced the meeting with a working definition of scholarly communication: “how scholars share their work and what they share of their work.”
The committee can deal with any issue under this broad definition: print, electronic, purchased or open access materials. But the focus will be primarily on transformative aspects of scholarly communication development that are propelled by technology and the open access movement. The committee will deal with policy development, education and outreach. The committee will help formulate strategy for marshaling RUL’s forces to further the cause of open access, fair use and author’s rights. Technological issues are subsidiary to these, although we all need a general understanding of the technological infrastructure of Rucore. Jeffery and Grace will help us address technological issues as they come up. We will also address copyright issues, already well along in RUL under the leadership of Jeanne. In the area of collection development for the repository, the CSC will be the successor to the Digital Repository Review Committee (DRRC), whose operation was difficult because RUCore first needed to reach a requisite level of development. The DRRC was active in clarifying the status of legacy digital projects and their migration to RUCore, and this will be a continuing concern of the CSC.
It was agreed that at least during our initial phase we should meet at least once a month. Regular meetings for the rest of calendar 2007 will be Monday October 15, November 12, and December 17, 9:30-11:30 in the McDonnell Room.
Web Matters: There is already a Staff web page for the CSC; a Sakai site will be created, and we will switch from our current listserv to a Sakai list for purposes of sharing and archiving information to which only the committee needs access. We need to discuss in future meetings the goals and content of a public website for scholarly communication. We agreed that this needs to be a group project. We should select a small group of concerned and responsive departmental faculty to respond to our ideas or to mock-ups of a “pilot” public website.
We may form subgroups of the committee to tackle special issues, for instance copyright and licensing. In this context we mentioned Mary Beth Schmoltz, the coordinator for licensing of Rutgers content, as a good resource person.
There was a discussion of possible outside members of the committee: Mary Beth Schmoltz, someone for the office of Vice President for Research Michael Pazzani, Marlie Wasserman of the RU Press, and somebody from the OIRT. We should schedule a meeting at the RU Press, both as a way of accommodating Wasserman’s busy schedule and to get a tour of the press. An examination of the contracts operation of the press would be useful for our committee. We should also consider inviting representation from the Library Committee of the New Brunswick Faculty Council and a suitable committee of the Senate.
The chair raised the question of the stipulation in the committee charge that a library faculty member be elected as co-chair. Jim Niessen accepted nomination and then election as co-chair.
There is a glossary of terms at RUCore http://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/faq/glossary.php" that would be a good place for our definition. The Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml has a good a definition, which we might tweak for our purposes. Signing on to it would enable us to commit ourselves publicly and, in related communications, place stress on our preference for non-exclusivity in our licensing of Rutgers resources. For RUL to become a signatory would require Cabinet sign-off.
Grace noted that RUCore will probably be linked from the RUL home page in October. It would thus be timely to invite Rhonda Marker or a member of her committee to our October meeting.
The chair noted our concern about the publishers’ PRISM campaign against open access and the involvement of both the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) and the Rutgers Washington office in this issue. We should explore the possibility of action not only nationally, but through consortia such as VALE, NERL, and PALCI. We need to be concerned about PRISM especially because it is contacting scholars and misinforming them about the danger of open access to peer review. In our own (RUL) response to PRISM we should be careful to not appear equally partisan because this would endanger our credibility. We need to take their arguments seriously and provide well-informed answers that can be used by our leaders. Formal statements to the faculty should come ideally from Marianne, or much better from Vice President Furmanski. A good catch phrase is “access is how knowledge happens.”
The Rutgers copyright policy provides for the creation of a committee intended to field questions from authors about copyright, but it is not clear whether it has actually been formed. Jeanne will investigate this, and Bob will contact Karl Hahn (Director of the Office of Scholarly Communication at ARL) about the PRISM campaign. Grace suggests that CSC members look for opportunities in their disciplinary conferences and organizations to speak out on open access issues.
We can raise awareness of Creative Commons licenses, advocating a permissive stance toward permissions for derivative works and mounting the Creative Commons form on RUCore.
We should look into the business guides provided on the BOAI page at http://www.soros.org/openaccess/oajguides/index.shtml .
RUCore needs a standardized copyright statement for RUL E-Journals. Both EJBE (Electronic Journal of Boundary Elements) and PCSP (Pragmatic Case Studies in Clinical Psychology) have an author’s agreement on copyright http://ejbe.libraries.rutgers.edu/agreement.php http://pcsp.libraries.rutgers.edu/agreement.php and an RUL Statement about open access http://ejbe.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul.php http://pcsp.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul.php ; Bob and Jeanne are working on a statement for the Journal of the Rutgers University Libraries. These are not yet standardized statements though.