Meeting began around 9:35 a.m. with announcements, information sharing and discussion.
Jeanne Boyle (who could not make it to the meeting but communicated via Bob) recommended some changes to the NIH pages: Highlighting the NIH-RUL addendum - http://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/nih/addendum.php - as a first item on the NIH page would inform faculty (right away) that Libraries would be providing another point of access to their paper in addition to the required NIH deposit by submitting to RUcore. The second point was to make a change regarding "final peer-reviewed manuscript.
Bob Sewell shared with the nine affected RUL science liaisons the letter he had emailed to all the 139 PIs of NIH grants at Rutgers University. The letter informed them of the NIH policies and the convenient options that libraries are offering regarding this matter. A link to the NIH-RUL Web page http://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/nih/index.php was provided.
The complexity and the wide range of issues that come under the umbrella of Scholarly communication(SC)/Open Access (OA) create the need for ongoing training of contact persons within libraries. Training of liaisons as well as the availability of an expert consultant are necessary for the sustainability and effective maintenance of OA/repository activities. For example, there are conflicting definitions of postprint and the interpretation of use statistics is affected by versioning, times cited and works cited. All NIH deposits must provide a source for the published version in the citation, but this is currently optional in RUcore faculty deposit form.
Bob Sewell and Helen Hoffman have received several queries about "Open Access fees" that some publishers charge authors to permit them to place their articles/papers in an Institutional Repository. Such fees act as deterrence for authors to submit their works to the repository. Bob enquired with Vice president Pazzani, who stated that RU will not be funding such fees; it is recommended that the author's grant monies might be used to cover such fees, but these are often exhausted by the time resultant studies are submitted for publication. Rhonda suggested that publisher fees should be discussed more broadly by the Libraries and Pazzani, which could then result in an institutional agreement whereby Rutgers would support author fees if authors deposited in RUcore. More discussion ensued about such fees, policy, funding of such fees and the nature of publisher permissions.
The committee extensively discussed Collection, Preservation and Embargo policies for RUcore. Background material for discussion included current RUcore Web pages that briefly summarize collection policies, as well as Institutional Repository collection policies from University of California's eScholarship http://repositories.cdlib.org/escholarship/policies.html; University of Illinois, Chicago http://www.uic.edu/depts/lib/projects/indigo/faq.html; University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, http://www.ibiblio.org/collection.html; University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, https://services.ideals.uiuc.edu/wiki/bin/view/IDEALS/CollectionPolicies and University of Michigan's Deep Blue - http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/index.jsp . Based on discussions at the meeting a draft RUcore Collection policy document is under preparation.
Adjourned 12:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by