STAFF RESOURCES

Minutes of February 25, 2008 Meeting

Present:
Grace Agnew, Jeanne Boyle, Helen Hoffman, Triveni Kuchi, Rhonda Marker (guest), Jim Niessen (co-chair), Bob Sewell (co-chair), Jeffery Triggs.
Excused:
Valeda Dent, Ryan Womack

1. Update on substitution for Tom Frusciano as humanities representative on CSC

Bob asked for guidance from the Rules of Procedure Committee about replacing Tom Frusciano, who is now on leave. The next highest vote getter(s) would be eligible, but none were willing or available to serve. Hence a replacement will not be selected.

2. Elements of an Action Plan for NIH Compliance

Bob stated that the new NIH access policy is a good opportunity for collaboration with the office of the Vice President for Research and Sponsored Programs. Marianne and the AULs will be meeting on February 29 with Dr. Pazzani and others to discuss university compliance with the new policy. The Libraries will outline what support they can offer in this regard. Bob suggested the following: identify key documents related to compliance, how to make the information accessible (such as a specific webpage on RUL’s and ORSP websites), facilitation of NIH policy compliance thru educational activities, and RUcore. The obligation to comply with NIH policy ultimately falls on the host institution.

Rhonda Marker reviewed the NIH access policy and process. She distributed copies of the first page of the revised NIH policy and the checklist of NIH compliance actions developed by the Becker Medical Library at Washington University in St. Louis.

The NIH does not specify how long someone can take before having to deposit a work. The sample language from NIH for authors’ agreements does not include deposit in an institutional repository. It will be important to keep track of which manuscript or version is deposited, and this is a functionality in RUcore (the event metadata can track and retain work versions and errata) that other repositories often lack. The role of repositories is likely to increase because granting agencies other than NIH will probably follow suit in requiring the depositing of sponsored research. NIH language refers to principal investigators, but these are not always identical with authors. We should therefore add the name of the principal investigator, grant name and number, and embargo period, if applicable, to the RUcore submission process. The status and reports page of RUcore will enable authors to see download statistics that they can use in reporting the impact of their research.

RUL’s job is to make it easier for faculty to manage their deposit burden so they can concentrate on their research. We will offer one place to submit and retrieve articles derived from research funded by NIH and, potentially, other federal agencies. RUL will become the agent for PIs in submitting funded research to PubMedCentral (PMC), but PMC does not provide versioning information as does RUcore. The Cyberinstructure Committee stated last week that a supplementary page may be needed for NIH submitters in order to collect all the information that the NIH requires; but the NIH submitter’s template will look very similar to the faculty submission form that will be launched February 28.

Grace reported that a simple web form will be available by April 7 (the date when the new NIH policy goes into effect), and the information needed for NIH submission will be captured. Rhonda will then manually use the information to submit the articles to NIH. In time, the Libraries may become a registered journal submitter for “Pragmatic Case Studies in Psychotherapy,” Dan Fishman’s open access journal supported by the Libraries. The Libraries process should be fully automated by fall 2008. We can automate metadata trails, but other universities cannot.

Rhonda noted that she reviewed information from many other sites, and only two, the medical libraries of Washington University and the University of Wisconsin at Madison, are offering faculty a form for NIH submission.

Bob noted that the faculty has two needs – submission of articles and tracking of grant data.

Tasks for the Libraries and the CSC include:

An educational role (making key documents available from a web page that links to the liaisons list), defining the liaison librarian’s role, sharing the form and process with liaisons, collaboration in a seminar sponsored by VP Pazanni. We should demonstrate how and why faculty should submit their articles via RUcore, and how we will benefit those who do by assisting in their record keeping. Google indexing of RUcore will be ready already this week, and the Faculty Survey interface will be ready in the Fall.

A partnering role: liaisons should attend the March 7 webcast at the CORE building to participate in the discussion following the webcast. The Libraries will provide an attendance signup sheet there to identify interested researchers and then send them documents from the webcast if needed. Jim will spearhead the creation of a web page about the NIH policy that will be available before the webcast, and the CSC will develop an article or articles for the Libraries news page. Triveni volunteered for a working group to develop the web page. Rhonda will advise, and Chad Mills and Sam McDonald will produce the page. The committee identified as key documents for NIH awareness: the revised NIH policy; the ARL guide to NIH policy; the NIH policy chart from the Becker Medical Library; information on authors’ rights.

3. Update on RUcore submission functionality

Rhonda demonstrated RUcore and the submission process for the faculty portal. WAC is currently discussing the location of the RUL website’s top-level link to RUcore as well as the link from the Faculty Services page. RUcore has a section for collection development policies that currently consists of four questions whose answers should be supplied by CSC:

Who may submit collections to RUcore?
What types of collections are acceptable?
What collaborations can RUcore support?
How can resources be removed from the repository?

4. Committee goals and renewal discussion

Bob initiated discussion about the role of the committee in response to suggestions from the Planning and Coordinating Committee of the Libraries Faculty. The roles of the CSC should include informing the faculty about open access, pursuing and supporting methodologies like RUcore that make research widely available, knowing about and considering current topics about institutional repositories, developing policies for RUcore, pursuing an open access statement like the one from the Harvard faculty, developing a library of significant articles about scholarly communication (Ryan will take the lead on this), engaging the sciences, and supporting data curation. The discussion on committee goals must lead to a report to the Planning & Coordinating Committee no later than March 2008.



 
URL: http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/staff/groups/com_of_schol-comm/minutes/schol-comm_08_02_25.shtml
Website Feedback  |  Privacy Policy

© Copyright 1997-2013, Rutgers University Libraries   (Further Copyright Information)