Agenda and January 15, 2009 minutes were approved.
Committee reviewed 4th draft of the Scholarly Communication FAQ’s. Niessen will contact Harry Glazer regarding a news story.
Memo regarding the pilot study in which the Copy Center will scan items that will be submitted to the Repository was discussed. Niessen will ask Darryl Voorhees if it's ok to distribute this memo electronically to departments. [He subsequently said yes.]
Agnew reported that the goal for repository is 500 items by end of academic year. CSC bulk deposit proposals document was distributed. Included were Potential Criteria for Selection and a list of several websites identified by Niessen which fit the criteria. We approved the list with one deletion.
Liaisons for these Centers/Institutes will be asked by Niessen to contact these units to request that their collections be submitted to RUCore. Marker will draft a memo which liaisons may use in approaching their units. Liaisons should look at the Center website, evaluate material, request faculty participation (copying Marker). We hope to get reports of progress by our next meeting – which has been moved to March 26.
Agnew reported that we can establish a Center's material at the "Collection" level – and that material produced by faculty can be included both in departmental and Center/Institute collections. Agnew's class on metadata can be useful in "cataloging" the collections. While there are no humanities collections identified in our list, we will go after individual faculty papers in the humanities.
Marker has looked at the output of the Center for Cultural Analysis. The liaison for CCA is working with her to establish a dialog on getting the material included in RUcore.
There is interest by the faculty in initiating new e-journals or moving their existent titles to our platform. We have to consider to what extent we want to be in the publishing business. We need a panel of individuals to examine what we have accomplished so far with e-publishing journals and to advise on the merits of continuing or expanding our activities. We do not yet have personnel to work with editors as platform changes are implemented. Editors may be reluctant to take on some of these technical responsibilities. An argument was raised that we need a dedicated line for a person who would work with editors coordinating technical and editorial aspects – with the current situation this would require moving over an existing line. Agnew reported that L. Langschied is analyzing the work done in support of publishing e-journals and that she (Agnew) believes that we cannot add any additional e-journals without a dedicated full-time line. Boyle pointed out that no one is currently in charge of attending to such issues as empty links, location of authors' guidelines, copyright and licensing statements etc. She also pointed out that our e-journals have been recognized as good, and Ebsco would like to add to their platform but that getting licensing agreements has been difficult. It was also suggested that we might charge for our efforts on a cost-recovery basis which might pay for the proposed full-time line. We propose establishing an independent E-Journal Review Board to evaluate proposed new journals. We tabled our goal of setting up procedures for adding new titles – and for the time-being will not e-publish the Annual Review of Jazz studies.
Sewell and Niessen will investigate who is responsible for planning this event, identification of and invitations to speakers, etc. [Upon investigation a further planning meeting was scheduled.]
Draft 7 of RUCore policies includes a statement by Boyle discussing how programs for Undergraduates can arrange for the work of their students to be deposited.