Ryan Womack's minutes for the July meeting have been circulated to the group and approved. Minutes are still awaited for the June meeting (from Grace Agnew) and the August meeting (from Bob Sewell). It was noted that it will be important going forward to get out meeting minutes in a timely fashion.
The new web site of the Committee on Scholarly Communication is now on line, though it is not yet linked to from any public web sites. It is currently available through the following direct URL: http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/scholarly_comm/scholarly_comm.shtml
Jim Niessen handed out screen shots of the new web site pages, and there was general agreement that the web site looks very good. It was suggested that a fourth bulleted item be added to the main page with links to similar scholarly communications web sites at other institutions. Several titles, such as "What Other People Are Doing" , were considered, and it was agreed that we consider the matter further and vet the page by email so as to facilitate early approval and begin the process of public marketing. The term "SPARC Addendum" will be changed to "Scholars' Copyright Addendum" to reflect the new title being used at Science Commons. Once the web site has final approval, links to it will be placed on the RUL Web page and also on the RUcore web site. Further publicity will include a story placed in News and Events. This will help to call attention to the library's role in supporting scholarly communication.
Jeanne Boyle gave an update on the new Copyright Education Campaign, which she is launching with Elizabeth Minott and Rebecca Pressman. The ARL template document has been reviewed, and they are now ready to move ahead. There is no strict timeline, but it was estimated that they should be ready before the end of the semester. They may use an online schedule and create colorful and clear materials, such as decision trees, to assist interested faculty and other users. Faculty liaisons will play a useful role in information sharing. The group will be developing an FAQ as they go along. When they are done, this and other pages of similar interest (e.g., the copyright tutorial at Baruch College) should be linked to from the new Committee on Scholarly Communication web site. The brochure will also be part of the campaign.
Rhonda Marker gave an extensive and interesting overview of the various working groups associated with the User Services and Applications Working Group. These include the Cyberinfrastructure Steering Committee which directs the overall cyberinfrastructure development, the Metadata Working Group, and the Software Architecture Working Group. Using a series of slides, posted to the developers' section on the RUcore web site http://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/collab/ref/prs_usawg_overview_fall_2008.ppt, Rhonda gave a fairly detailed explanation of the development process from the perspectives of the different working groups, and explained how they interact and work together to design, implement, and stage complex releases of the RUcore platform.
Jim Niessen reported on his planned appearance at next week's meeting of the Planning & Coordinating Committee. They have requested another report on the Committee on Scholarly Communication. There was some uncertainty about the timing of such a request. The general understanding was that such a report would not be due before the end of the year. It was suggested that this discrepancy be clarified. While it might be possible to give progress updates on such activities of the Committee on Scholarly Communication as the creation of the new web site and the committee's active response to the NIH initiative, it was felt that any full report should be able to take into account the strategic goals for the coming year, which are currently being developed and are not expected to be made final until October.
Several new or revitalized goals for the Committee on Scholarly Communication were in fact preliminarily discussed at the meeting, such as the question of whether or not the libraries should be involved in more open journal publishing, how they might interact with faculty in helping to manage scholarly output such as datasets or Rutgers-based conference proceedings. It was suggested that the committee follow up on its review of Rutgers institute web sites by reviewing the web sites of academic departments, including faculty blogs, in search of new forms of scholarly communication.