Marianne, Jeanne, Bob, and Jim met on December 10 to discuss plans for a spring 2009 symposium on scholarly communication that had been proposed by RLAC, the Rutgers Libraries Advisory Council. The discussion on RLAC had touched on the price of publications, Open Access (OA) initiatives, NIH, and alternative publishing models. There is some faculty misunderstanding as to whether OA undermines peer review. Branding by established journals has major prestige for promotion and tenure committees, but Vice President Pazzani is urging them to go beyond this. In fact the PRC has overruled departments that it considered to be thinking too conventionally in its thinking about alternative publishing. These are the issues on which the symposium should focus.
We agreed on a working title for the symposium: Scholarship in a Changing Environment: How Should Promotion and Recognition Reflect the Digital Transformation?. It would take place in fall 2009 rather than the spring in order to permit time to get the best speakers and not risk the dissipation of momentum for follow up during the summer. We want to announce the plans to the Senate during the spring, and secure co-sponsorship for the symposium from Dr. Furmanski, Dr. Pazzani, and the University Senate.
The symposium would begin with networking at 8:30, then at 9 a welcome by Dr. Furmanski, and an introduction by Marianne. The first keynote speaker will give a presentation on new digital models of scholarly communication. Then there will be a reactor panel of Rutgers scholars in the humanities, social sciences, and sciences. Then there will be a second keynoter speaking on the transformation of rewards and academe's interest in dissemination, and a wrap up discussion suggesting follow up in the areas of faculty action for new reward standards, OA on the Harvard model, and the role of RUcore.
Marianne presented a summary along these lines (including names omitted here) to RLAC.
The discussion focused on sections 1.F., 1.G., and i.H. of Rutgers University Libraries Strategic Plan Goals, Action Plan fy2008/9.
1.F. is Focus the creation of digital resources on the Libraries/ unique collections and on the output of Rutgers University, with an emphasis on support for the faculty research process.
Finalize and announce RUcore collection policy: CSC will take one last look at the wording re: undergraduate essays.
Survey faculty about the faculty deposits platform: this is properly an activity of USAWG
Special Collections/University Archives is requested to update CSC on its digitization goals
CSC will prepare policies and procedures on OA e-journal adoption in FY09
CSC will prepare a fuller analysis of the 2007 survey of research center websites in FY09
1.G. is Develop services that facilitate scholarly communication and support the research in process among researchers at Rutgers.
Policies and criteria for faculty submissions and digital projects: DRRC worked on this previously, and its ideas will provide the basis for completion by CSC.
CSC will prepare criteria for major digital projects, but not actually select the projects as is suggested in the Action Plan.
Scholarly communication website: This CSC project will be launched shortly.
Liaisons survey departmental websites and submit reports: CSC will develop criteria and submit them to LRC.
1.H. is Advocate for university and faculty participation in the open access movement to increase the impact of our faculty's research and expand access to scholarly information.
Develop and offer liaison programs on OA, faculty deposits, and ETDs: CSC will pursue in consultation/tandem with USAWG and Training and Learning Committee.
Actively develop the RUcore institutional repository collection: This is an RUcore/TAS activity. Rhonda can provide updates.
Introduce new service to scan print format resources for RUcore. CSC applauds this, and would welcome updates from Valeda.
Still outstanding was the selection of a "fair use for teachers" site for the missing link. Discussion focused on possible locations on the RUL site for the link to our site. CSC favors 1) the left navigation bar, or across the top, 2) Faculty Services, and 3) About the Libraries. Finally, there should be a News story by Harry.
CSC agreed that the first step in this work is producing the necessary content. In terms of division of labor, the USAWG role is helping users understand, improve, and use the tools. "Loftier" issues like OA are more in the CSC area of responsibility.
It would be useful for RUcore developers to do focus group sessions with liaisons.
We should link any step by step information to the scholarly communication page, and produce flyers in consultation with USAWG.
Copyright falls more into the CSC area of responsibility than USAWG.
Sample portals can be prepared for use by liaisons when they go on the road.
By analogy to the FAQ list on submissions that the USAWG subgroup is preparing, CSC can prepare a similar list of our subjects, like OA and copyright, and also invite users to submit their own questions. Jim will take a first stab at this.