Minutes of February 27, 2012 Meeting

Grace Agnew (guest), Qian Hu, Tom Izbibki (Co-Chair), Ron Jantz (guest), Rhonda Marker (guest), Laura Mullen (Co-Chair, minutes), Jane Otto, Janice Pilch, Caryn Radick, Donna Schulman, Bob Sewell, Jeffery Triggs (recorder)
Ka-Neng Au, Kevin Mulcahy


Note: Meeting is to focus on the RUcore faculty deposit module as the vehicle for the proposed open access policy implementation

1. Update on recent Senate meeting

Senate update following the Feb. 24th RU Senate Meeting in Camden (added to the agenda) (Otto, Mullen) RU Senate met on Friday, Feb, 24. On Friday, Otto (as Senator and Chair of the RGPEC’s Open Access Subcommittee) attended the Senate meeting in Camden where the open access policy resolution was docketed for 15 minutes. The purpose was for the Senate as a whole to provide feedback about the open access report and resolution. There were a few new concerns, and some brief comments. At CSC, Mullen distributed a copy of the draft background report written by the RGPEC OA Subcommittee. The report is finished but not the policy itself, which is still "draft." The Open Access Subcommittee will meet and discuss a rewrite of the policy itself. There will be a variety of presentations around this report to university bodies. The actual vote on the resolution will likely be held at the October Senate meeting in New Brunswick. There are a few months to get everything in order and to make sure that implications for RUL are discussed fully. The first presentation using the Subcommittee’s report as background for discussion will be held at the RUL faculty meeting on the 9th of March, and then other meetings/presentations will follow in the coming months.

2. RUcore Faculty Deposit module: Implications of a proposed open access policy (Marker and Jantz)

Ron Jantz and Rhonda Marker presented material on the faculty deposit module of RUcore. There will be a pilot proposal underway in which Rutgers library authors (all authors, not only faculty) should start using RUcore to deposit articles in advance of the expected October implementation. This pilot will be presented at the RUL Faculty meeting and a feedback mechanism established. Rhonda demonstrated and discussed practical issues of the deposit process. One prominent feature is a screen allowing authors to assign a surrogate to upload their work. Next choice is intellectual property: either work for hire, sole author, or co-author. If you are co- or sole author, you have to click to agree to copyright. Janice points out that the policy will have to change in accordance with the actual open access policy. Rhonda noted that the authors' names are populated from LDAP and are not always the same as the name in publications. The author chooses links to faculty survey and a date. We need to have a way for faculty to request changes to their records. You can set embargoes at this point. We no longer show the NIH deposit page. For NIH articles a special form still pops up. Janice points out that we need to make clear that the Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs is the one who has the authority to allow embargoes. Grace reminds that we do not want to get into the business of sending embargo requests to the VP. There was a discussion of which office will be allowing embargoes. It will be "understood" that the VP is permitting embargoes. Rhonda explains the different set of contact pages for general, faculty deposit, and ETDs (Electronic Theses and Dissertations). Harvard has over 4,000 deposits in their faculty deposit. Kansas does not have so many. Is the copyright holder always the one at time of deposit? This could change at some point. Rhonda explained the upload link; the article does not go directly into the repository, but to an upload area. These are then vetted and additional information added if needed. The rights for the journal are researched. The faculty deposit must satisfy the journal’s copyright requirements. Rhonda gets an alert when an article is uploaded. One potential problem is that when the volume of articles submitted to RUcore increases (as we hope), the amount of post-submission work for the RUcore staff will increase substantially, and more people will be needed to work on this end of the process.

Ron presented RUcore download statistics for 2011. We averaged a download every 1.5 minutes. For January this year we averaged a download every minute. 450% more downloads in 2011 than 2010. 60% of downloads are from ETDs. Issues with Google Scholar were addressed, and the search engine is now indexing RUcore content. Another positive development is the new platform, which gives a faster response. Faculty deposit has a lot of hits although it is still a very small collection. NJDH is getting a lot of hits as well. The top five downloads are items related to railroads from NJDH. The next most popular is an ETD on athletic departments.

When an article is deposited in a collection that is marked for output to Scholar, a cron job adds the article to the Scholar sitemap and then it is added to the RUcore scholarly browse page. TAS will need to establish a workflow that ensures each new collection is marked for output to Scholar. Grace will bring this to CISC. These collections are fed to Google. Google indexes its main index every week or so. It finds these scholarly articles and identifies them as suitable for the separate Scholar index. It does not immediately index all articles in Scholar, however. If an article is new or unique, it gets indexed with the separate Scholar index right away. If it is identified as being a version of an article already indexed in Scholar, it is held until the next complete refresh of the Scholar index, which happens every three months or so. Eventually these articles get indexed with Scholar, though they sometimes appear only in the "16 other versions" links, etc. This explains why there is an apparent delay in the Google Scholar indexing of some uploaded articles.

There is interest in getting copies of RU articles that are in other repositories or that are published in open access journals. Should we be harvesting articles from places on the web and depositing them in RUcore? There may be issues with licensing with this and it may be trickier than we think to implement this. What is the relationship at the moment with the Faculty Survey? Some people now can put RUcore links into their faculty survey pages, though this is not an elegant solution. Rich Tedesco used to put links to custom search portals in manually. The RUcore stats will be available for users without necessarily logging into faculty deposit. The pilot will be valuable in pointing out any remaining issues of process.

3) RU/RUL Copyright update: Interpreting open access policy language (Pilch)

Janice explained the language in the policy on page 4 of the Senate report. We may need to distinguish between a policy that provides public access and one that provides fully open access. Scholars grant permission (a license is a formal permission). MIT, Duke, Kansas, and Stanford used similar wording to create policy. "Nonexclusive" licenses leave the author in control of the copyright, as opposed to the "exclusive license" in the scholarly publishing tradition. "Irrevocable" means this can't be taken back. Global/worldwide rights are superseding the older limited geographical rights in the publishing tradition. Questions arise regarding the right to create derivative works, that falls within "full re-use" in open access terminology. We may specify that articles are "not sold for a profit". Duke uses the terminology "Not sold", which is stricter. The policy does allow for indirect profit, such as from advertising income (eg advertising on Google Scholar). What about "authorizing others to do the same"? To implement this phrase, Rutgers would have to authorize others to exercise the rights in some manner. The policy hasn't addressed this. We need to clarify what this means for Rutgers. Reuse of scientific data is an important issue here. But if all rights have been given away non-exclusively, with permission for Rutgers to allow others to exercise all the rights, the fact that the author retains copyright is rather meaningless. The policy is still considered a draft. A further meeting of the OA subcommittee later in March will discuss the issue of policy language.

4) RUL authors and RUcore deposits: Implementation of a pilot (All)

Covered in agenda item 2 above.

5) Announcements

Rhonda and Laura will be attending the SPARC Open Access Conference from March 12-14 in Kansas City. Rhonda is presenting at the innovation fair, and Laura will be attending sessions on open access policies and gold OA journals. There is funding for SC/UA and TAS to mount a digital exhibition using materials from the 2009 Harrison Williams exhibition. Bob reports that back issues of The Journal of the Rutgers University Libraries’ are being scanned and placed online. Jane is moving ahead on getting conference proceedings into RUcore. Donna is involved with due diligence for a collection of SMLR archival digital photographs. Laura reminds that Elsevier has finally disavowed the Research Works Act. Will they back away from their current open access policies? Now, they have liberal self-archiving policies but have a different policy for institutions that have instituted open access policies or mandates.

Adjournment 12:00 p.m.

Next meeting March 26th 10 a.m. Alexander Library Heyer Room.

Website Feedback  |  Privacy Policy

© Copyright 1997-2013, Rutgers University Libraries   (Further Copyright Information)