This was the first meeting of the academic year and it was hoped that the committee could organize for the year. But some key members of the committee- the newly elected and other core members of the committee-could not attend. The core group consists of 3 elected subject reps. (Kevin Mulcahy for humanities, Melissa Gasparotto for social science, Qian Hu for science), Ka-neng Au for Digital Library Issues), and the AUL for Collection Development and Management (currently Bob Sewell but on Sept. 1 Tom Izbicki).
Concern was expressed about the need for continuity among some of the appointed members. It has become clear to committee members of the importance of having Rhonda Marker, RUcore Collection Manager, on the committee. Haipeng, previously appointed, has been co-chair of the committee for the past year and expressed interest in continuing on the committee. Other appointed members also expressed interest in continuing to serve on the committee. It was decided to delay decisions related to who will be appointed and who will become the chair (and possibly co-chair) until the next meeting when more members can attend.
As for the scheduling of meetings, it was generally agreed that the one of the Tuesday mornings, when Cabinet does not meet, would be convenient for all.
After this awkward beginning of the meeting, the committee got down to business. One of continuing foci will be to promote to faculty open access in general and RUcore as a tool for open access. This is especially relevant since a University Senate committee will be looking into RU’s development of a public access policy, relate to the possible expansion of public access to federally funded research. Various related agenda items were discussed.
Jane Otto presented a revised document initially prepared by Haipeng for the last meeting that was based on a similar document at Duke and other sources. Jane shortened it and added a section on how open access (and RUcore) would benefit the state of NJ. It will be available on the Scholarly communication website: http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/scholarly_comm/scholarly_comm.shtml This document will be a good companion to the recently completed RUcore brochure when liaisons talk to faculty. Part of our efforts should be on increasing understanding of authors’ rights in general.
Some related discussion followed: In addition to traditional publications that can be made publicly accessible, other documents can be useful in a repository like RUcore such as: lectures, presentations, datasets, materials otherwise not published.
We discussed some document from Oregon State University Library related to their open access policy for their library faculty publications. It seems they are the only library to do this so far. Should RUL faculty on its own develop such a policy? Two benefits: RUL authors would make their publications more accessible and, by adopting such a policy, they could act as a model for other RUL faculty.
We currently publish four, which we will continue to be supported. We are considering a fifth journal from IJS. Beyond that we need to proceed carefully in the future. What are the real costs of maintaining a repository or a journal?
This document is on scholarly publication and public access to results of federally funded research. Two important positions were presented in the statement: