There was continued discussion of the RUcore brochure.
Bob Sewell reported that the University Senate's committee on research and graduate and professional education will be given a charge related to a university open access policy. This will allow us an opportunity to assert ourselves in the open access discussion. Boyle will work with the university counsel to study other universities' open access mandates to see which one (and there should be only one) would be the best fit at Rutgers. Marianne and others will be working with V.P. Pazzani, who is a member of the committee, to draft the policy. Ron Jantz noted in passing that Pazzani is anxious to accelerate the process of finding materials for deposit in RUcore. We should talk to him more seriously about how this could be accomplished.
Draft Discussion document for a Duke Open Access policy: http://academiccouncil.duke.edu/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/Draft-Open-Access-Policy-Feb2010.pdf
The Duke University FAQ seems to provide a useful model for us. Bob Sewell asked for volunteers to look at other institutions' FAQs like this to provide background for an open access policy. The ACRL Scholarly Communications Toolkit has similar information. Ron Jantz suggested getting real statistics on the use of scholarship in the repository and its benefit to the university. Haipeng suggested that without an actual policy in place, as there is at Duke, we need to concentrate at first on general issues rather than trying to work on the specifics of what would benefit Rutgers. Jeanne Boyle suggested that we start with the ACRL Toolkit. It was noted that Duke's is the most recent example built with the experience of other instututions, notably the University of Manchester. We will begin with the benefits section that the Duke FAQ adapted from the University of Manchester. Haipeng will begin compiling a list of the benefits of open access.
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1020&context=jeanne_gabriel_bankier and Faculty Survey 2009: Key Strategic Insights for Libraries, Publishers, and Societies: http://www.ithaka.org/ithaka-s-r/research/faculty-surveys-2000-2009/Faculty%20Study%202009.pdf
The discussion focused on Digital Repositories at the Crossroad, which everyone agreed was interesting in spite of its authors' connection with Berkeley Electronic Press that might have skewed their conclusion that repositories should avoid concentrating exclusively on post prints of published articles. The importance of including materials of regional interest was noted. Boyle and Tom Frusciano believe that we should concentrate on discovering web based versions of print publications such as technical reports, newsletters, and white papers that used to go routinely to the University Archives but more recently have remained in digital forms at a variety of locations. They would like to test these links and aggregate them on a web page to start, with the possibility that some might eventually be put into the repository. Tom has a fairly recent database of such sites that he will give to Jeanne. We will then consider what it would take to convert it to a web page enumerating and linking to the online versions. A federated search might also be devised to aid in the discovery of such resources.
The discussion on Faculty Survey 2009 was postponed until the next meeting.
http://www.oclc.org/research/events/2010-03-11.htm, http://www.oclc.org/research/activities/rights/, and http://www.oclc.org/research/activities/rights/practice.pdf As we ran out of time, Jeanne Boyle will report on this agenda item at the next meeting.