Minutes of November 28, 2011 Meeting

Ka-Neng Au, Qian Hu, Ron Jantz (guest), Kevin Mulcahy, Laura Mullen(Co-Chair), Jane Otto, Janice Pilch, Caryn Radick, Donna Schulman, Jeffery Triggs (recording)
Tom Izbicki (Co-Chair), Bob Sewell

1. Meeting minutes, CSC web presence (Mullen, Izbicki): Tabled due to importance of open access policy planning discussion. Triggs has kindly agreed to take informal meeting notes from which minutes will be prepared by co-chairs.

2. Senate charge, subcommittee naming, introduction to "policy" discussion, action plan (Otto, Mullen): The Research and Graduate and Professional Education Committee of the RU Senate (RGPEC) has been charged with investigating open access issues and creating a charge. Following an informal lunch discussion on the matter, it was decided that Jane will co-chair a small subcommittee of that group focused on the issue of policy. Members of CSC (Tom, Laura, Janice, Jane) will present information and have a conversation with the RGPEC on Dec. 9th. This day has been slated for Senate committee meetings only and is a good time for information sharing. The smaller subcommittee will include members of the RGPEC as well as librarians. That group will slightly revise the charge and work toward presenting a short report about the potential policy back to the RGPEC. New Brunswick Faculty Council would also like information on RUcore and CSC will work also on discussion with that group. Jane and Laura will work on a "talking points" document to provide structure for these meetings. Topics to include benefits of open access, and issues of existing policies from peer institutions. We need to be clear that we are talking mainly about scholarly article publications in terms of policies. SPARC documentation points to example policies, namely Harvard, Stanford, MIT; also mentioned are Princeton and Duke. Mention of ROARMAP included. We also need to clarify researchers' misconceptions about open access. OA is gaining traction with commercial publishers, and has evolved. Should we approach the faculty union with this issue? Can RUcore handle a potential uptick, and should RUcore be part of a larger repository effort? It is not necessarily easy for different repositories to "communicate." Initial interest about a repository effort did not start with the libraries, but with the Office of Research. It was suggested to the RGPEC that the libraries had already been working on this. The subcommittee will need a new name, possibly more focused on open access- not the current "publication policy subcommittee." The charge will be reworked. The next meeting of the subcommittee will be in January. Jane, a current Senator, will be taking a lead with this subcommittee. We will mention the benefits of RUcore, but maintain a more general definition of open access.

3. RU/RUL Copyright Update (Pilch): Work continues on the review of digitization projects. Janice will need to review some of the past projects, and also evaluate prospective collections before we decide to take them on. Some collections will require an item by item analysis, as individual works have different statuses. We are almost finished with the evaluation of the Journal of the RUL, and will go forward with that project. For all digitization projects, we have to address with the legal facts as a basis for making decisions, especially in light of the HathiTrust law suit. This will involve a newly formulated digitization framework to be discussed in 2012. Putting conference materials into RUcore? We are working on new guidelines and new release forms, to include options for videotaping conferences to capture as much as possible while complying with state and federal laws. For example, it is advisable to avoid recording the audience at conferences. Other options include shutting off the camera for the Q&A, or having audience members contribute their questions on pieces of paper so that only the speakers are seen/heard addressing them. We are also starting to working on the deposit of data into RUcore. Copyright queries continue to come up on a weekly basis, from faculty, staff, and students.

4. Issues of DOIs (guest Ron Jantz): A DOI is a kind of persistent identifier. In RUcore we have been using CNRI handles. DOI uses the same underlying technology. The DOI string is a naming convention, with a prefix denoting the organization and a suffix that can be anything identifying the individual object. California Digital Library has a different system called ARC IDs. They have added "services" to the ARC. There are 100 million DOIs resolved every month. They began with the publishing industry for journals, though it is now expanding in other areas. Having a DOI associated with a resource adds "credibility". We may be pursuing assigning DOIs to our resources in RUcore, or at least some of them. We need to be associated with a registration agency. We could do our own for $35,000. We have 5 journals published in the open access OJS system but not (yet) in RUcore. We could give them DOIs. One way would be to become a member of Crossref. With revenue of $1 million or less, we could join for $200+ a year plus $1 per DOI. We don't have that many articles, but do have some. California Digital Library offers a service called easyID. You can join for $2500 per year and have an infinite numbers of DOIs. We were thinking about using it for datasets. What about dissertations? We have assigned handles to dissertations. Proquest is probably not assigning DOIs to dissertations. We only have 600 ETDs per year. There may be a break-even point that would make California worthwhile. Crossref will not allow DOIs for dissertations, but it does support openURL. Who would pay for all of this? Who would decide which things need DOIs? Laura reminds that DOI is required for APA style now, and how common DOIs are in the scientific literature, so our journals need to keep pace. Ron will continue to investigate possibilities and invites others' comments.

5. Public Comment period for Data, Publications commences: "The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) has put out two formal Requests for Information; one on the subject of "Public Access to Peer-Reviewed Scholarly Publications" and the other on "Public Access to Digital Data." Announcement and discussion (as time allows). This is just a reminder about the need for comments to be sent. Lack of time for full discussion or strategizing.

6. Adjournment, future agenda setting, conference attendance announcements: Need to work on charge, provide update on open access policy discussions, VIVO group will be formed, DOIs follow up, memberships/institutional OA funds for discussion. Next meeting January 30, 2012.

URL: http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/staff/groups/com_of_schol-comm/minutes/schol-comm_11_11_28.shtml
Website Feedback  |  Privacy Policy
© Copyright 1997-, Rutgers University Libraries