Jane Otto is leading the discussion in the Senate RGPEC (Research and Graduate and Professional Education Committee), and Mullen and Otto are working together on report writing and presenting material. CSC will devote next meeting to full discussion of implications for RUL if an open access resolution on policy becomes a reality at RU. A subcommittee of volunteers (OA Policy Subcommittee of Senate RGPEC) met twice to set a course and produce a report for distribution to the Senate. The report went to the RGPEC meeting for a full discussion last Friday. The report was discussed, and RGPEC decided to proceed ahead quickly and bring the resolution forward after minor revisions were made to the report-such as the identification of chairs of the proposed implementation committee. More details will be available following the Senate meeting on Feb. 24 in Camden. A brief discussion was held at Cabinet to ascertain the advisability of adding some "research data" details to the report. It was felt that this was an opportunity to expand the data discussion, and to illustrate RUcore's direction with research data management. We believe that this would be the first background report with specific info about "data". The Senate itself is unusual in representing more than just faculty-and some wanted undergraduates mentioned in the report. There are disciplinary differences and the report is sensitive to that. It has been important not to rush these types of discussions, but the Senate RGPEC committee is proceeding at its pace. The CSC would like to make sure that whatever we need to follow through is in place-including repository resources, workflows, staffing and an educational component. An educational component is already a recommendation in the report. CSC will be recommending that RUL scholars deposit work in the coming months so that we might better understand all of the processes for deposit. We can suggest putting this on the agenda for an RUL faculty meeting -RUL being a pilot in advance of any implementation of an OA policy. This would be a nice follow up to previous CSC work on a librarian OA mandate. The suggested pilot would not be a mandate, but a recommendation to RUL scholars to deposit work in RUcore. CSC would need a mechanism to receive feedback.
A comprehensive report was prepared by Michael Joseph, Kevin Mulcahy and Janice Pilch and it was presented to LRC at its Jan. meeting. Purpose of discussion at CSC (led by Mulcahy and Pilch) is to ascertain whether CSC feels it is important to recommend RUL membership in HathiTrust. Joining as a partner would cost 40,000 dollars or more per year. Laura suggested putting aside the funding issues for the purpose of the scholarly communication part of the discussion. The Google issues and currently pending lawsuits were discussed. They have 60 partners now, and 10 million+ volumes. They used to have both sustaining and contributing members-now only contributing. What would (or could) we give to them? Do we need to go outside? Is this the best of the open access projects? Digital Public Library of America was discussed. This is developing now, and is working with HathiTrust. The research libraries initiative should be expanding local collections. We may be bumping up again a record number limit in our catalog that having Hathi (or other large initiative's records might push us over). Kevin thinks we should be actively seeking money for Hathi membership. We may not see the like of this any time soon. Tom is interested in pursuing this type of membership as well as the issue of author funds. Laura suggests that CSC recommend that RUL investigate membership from the open access side, the extension of our research level offerings via catalog and other discovery, and members of CSC are interested in building relationships and continuing to partner with other research libraries in these important scholarly communication initiatives. We should have a place at the table. CSC appreciates the report and the continuing discussion of HathiTrust possibilities for RUL. After receiving feedback, the report will go back to LRC in March.
Hu prepared a handout and led a discussion on current progress and status of SCOAP3. In this model, SCOAP3 will "centrally contract with publishers for the services of administering peer -review, editing and Open-Access article dissemination and "each SCOAP3 partner will finance its contribution by canceling journal subscriptions." Libraries might cancel subscriptions to journals that are convertible to SCOAP3. This started in 2008 and now has ~100 US libraries in membership. Journals become open access. Subscription fees to partial journals - those whose content is not only particle physics - will be reduced. Rutgers is not a partner. We don't "pledge" funds very easily - especially for things that have not really happened yet. What was SCOAP3 actually planning to do? It was not very clear at first. Important to note that Rutgers has about 130 faculty in physics of all sorts. SCOAP3 website has a formula that can be used to estimate costs. Hu will keep CSC updated on this going forward. SCOAP3 is only a model for high energy physics at this time (the "flipping" of the suite of top journals). A recent article in C&RL suggested this model as possible for the LIS literature-but this does not really make too much sense. Physics literature is somewhat unique.
This item was tabled due to lack of time. Hope to present at next meeting.
Launched last week, it includes 8 principles on fair use. It outlines the principles, and then qualifies each with limitations and enhancements. There was some discussion of the Code at the ALA Midwinter Meeting. Some question the reasoning on which it is based, and think that the process lacked transparency. It's promoted as new, but some think that it does not include much that's new about fair use. It is supposed to reflect current practices-what we do already-but also aims to change what is typically done, so that we might influence the direction of the courts. The authors want to avoid the idea of "guidelines." The word "code" may seem even stronger. Some think that there is some risk in adhering to the practices as they are written. In particular, the authors seem take an expansive view of digitizing special collections. We might want to invite the authors for a 3-5 hour session here. CSC members suggested that we should have an informal brown bag discussion before inviting the authors for a formal session. Janice offered to continue the discussion with anyone interested-either one on one or in an informal discussion format.
Need to update the charge and consider the future of CSC (expanding to those outside RUL, open meetings, educational component), website needs updating or taking down. Members of CSC were asked to take a look at the website before the next meeting so we can discuss possible changes. CSC has decided to postpone planning of a symposium with SCI centered around the future of peer review until fall. Planning should begin soon. Also should begin planning for Open Access Week later in the spring. Izbicki would like to take any high impact items to Cabinet; communication to and from Cabinet is important.
Otto will be presenting about the "conference toolkit" at tomorrow's Cabinet meeting. This will be done on a cost recovery basis. This morning new enhancements to RUcore searching were released. Mulcahy reports that Rutgers has been hosting the Optimality Archive from the Linguistics Department and may put it in RUcore for preservation; 1200 in the archive with 50 per year added. Izbicki is going to participate in the NERL steering committee. 6,000 PDA records have been added to IRIS. Pilch attended interesting sessions at ALA Midwinter.