The agenda and minutes for the February 19 meeting were approved.
Rather than abandoning the mailman list, Kuchi suggested and Niessen will investigate forwarding any mailman messages to the Sakai list so that its mail archive will be complete moving forward.
It is agreed that it is important to keep elected faculty on the committee and that more science librarians are needed, maybe 1 elected and 1 appointed by the chair. This appointment should be framed by current needs, initiatives, programs, projects and required expertise within the area. Membership of an archivist will continue as is, perhaps on an ad hoc basis. AULs should also remain on the committee; it was noted that the memberships of Bob Sewell and Jeanne Boyle are especially critical. The repository manager (currently Rhonda Marker) should be a permanent member of the committee. The committee charge indicates that non-library membership will be desirable during the second stage of the committee’s work. We should use the symposium in the fall to stimulate involvement by departmental faculty. The chair of the NB Faculty Council’s Library Committee and representatives of Pazzani's and Furmanski's offices would be possible additions. It was decided that the committee should remain flexible about adding outside members as needed. It is important to gather feedback from outside folks before finalizing the fall symposium program. The group also discussed Camden and Newark involvement and decided that, if representatives are not elected, that one should be appointed from each campus jointly by the committee chair and the campus director. The Institute for Jazz Studies should have representation, but it appears to be too early for IJS just yet.
The final proposal was for 13 members as follows:
Niessen received reports from five liaisons about research center collections valuable for RUcore and distributed a summary (attached). Most liaisons supported adding the collections, while a few tempered their recommendation.
The draft letter for liaisons to send to their faculty constituencies was reviewed. There was discussion about how to describe the benefits of participating in RUcore. Ideas were:
It was suggested that the Libraries establish its own search portal for library faculty research deposited in RUcore as an example that could be demonstrated.
Members also noted that not all materials are available yet in Google Scholar. Our file needs to be regenerated more frequently so that the promised Google Scholar availability occurs sooner after deposit. Faculty complain if their works do not appear.
Marker and Triggs will take the issues of a library portal and Google Scholar availability to the cyberinfrastructure committee meeting next week.
All agreed that the letter would be customizable by individual liaisons.
Marker will distribute a revised letter to the committee for comment.
Preliminary Discussion. Niessen and Sewell will work on a template.
a) Scholarly communication symposium scheduled for October 2, 2009. Niessen reported that the location will be the Cook Campus Center and that David Schulenberger (Kansas) and Karla Hahn (ARL) will be keynote speakers.
b) News story for website planned for Rutgers Focus. Niessen and Harry Glazer discussed publicizing the Libraries Scholarly Communication website, and the hook in the Rutgers Focus will be increased exposure of faculty work.
c) Scholarly Communication FAQs: Ready for Webbing? All agreed the FAQs are ready.
d) Niessen announced there would be a SAPAC program with a panel to discuss the Google Book settlement and that Sewell will be on the panel.
e) Niessen reported that the newly formed RUcore Data Working Group has requested addition of one or two questions about data when CSC asks liaisons to survey academic departments.