Minutes are up and approved. Donna will help with formal minutes. All the minutes for all the meetings are posted.
Jane and Laura have been giving 20 minute presentations on the Open Access policy initiative to faculty and administrative groups: Newark Faculty Council, Camden faculty (broad representation), RUL Advisory Committee, SEBS Chairs' Council, NB Faculty Council, EVPAA's Council (brief presentation) and one at the Graduate School New Brunswick Executive Council scheduled for May 22.
Jane demonstrated an iteration of the powerpoint presentation that she and Laura have been giving , which focuses on the concept of open access, rather than the mechanics, and shows that it is in use in many peer institutions. Examples of institutional and subject repositories are given. We emphasize that it is only for scholarly articles, and mention the possibility of deposited data behind the scholarship. We stress that we can accommodate various disciplines, and that by depositing their articles in RUCore, faculty members are increasing their research impact. Faculty are encouraged to know their author rights! Slides for voluntary vs. mandated deposits will be tweaked. Overall, everyone agrees that it is an excellent presentation. Jane and Laura discussed how the presentation served as an educational tool for a concept not accurately understood by many faculty members, and how it served to persuade those who tended to be against open access to rethink their position. Attendees at presentations particularly liked that fact that RUCore staff researches the publisher policies, and that the deposit process can be delegated. After this is done at the final presentation on May 22, we need to come up with a different type of presentation that can be disseminated more widely.
The presentation prompted discussion about several details related to the mechanics and concept of the open access initiative. One question concerned the lack of an authoritative copy in the repository, since it is usually the preprint and/or postprint that the publisher authorizes for deposit. Is this a danger to the traditional publishing model itself? It is important to also have a link to the published article. RUL faculty members have been asked to deposit an article via the current "pilot" and make any suggestions.
Another, more operational question that arose is the RUcore staff time devoted to researching the publisher policies. Currently, the staff is able to handle the flow, but they could be overwhelmed if there is a steep increase in deposits. This is a good time to work on any issues in advance of the October Senate vote.
(This was originally #4 on the agenda, and was moved up due to Tom's schedule.)
Tom reports that there is increasing pressure for RUL to pay for membership in a variety of open access groups and journals. His thoughts and questions on this issue were precipitated by a request that we join the Social Sciences Directory. We already financially support some open access initiatives, such as arXiv. There is increasing pressure from some departments to support very specific journals or projects. In some cases, if we join an open access initiative, RUL does receive a discount, so the numbers need to be figured out. Laura discussed some other initiatives such as PLoS, DOAJ, D-Lib and others, mentioning our current support.
The questions are how much money should we be allocating to open access groups and journals, and where will this money come from? Should we be working with departments to join or support subject-specific initiatives?
We need to make a list of the open access repositories, groups, etc. that we are currently supporting, and how much they cost. We should look at the different models and web sites. If we decide to ask the library administration for more money for this purpose, we should formulate the proposal after we have closure on an institutional Open Access policy. For now, there is not sufficient interest to pursue the consortial offers for Bioline or Social Sciences Directory.
Ryan displayed and discussed VIVO, (http://vivo.cornell.edu/), a scholarship networking tool created by Cornell University librarians in 2003 and currently being replicated by libraries around the world, including a $12.2 million grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to adapt it for networking biomedical researchers. Ryan would like to initiate our own VIVO project next year, when he becomes Faculty Coordinator. The committee supported the idea, but wondered about the cost. The group feels that we need to keep all products that "map scholarship" on our radar.
Faculty at SCI are interested in collaborating on a program to discuss new models of peer review, and proposed to partner with us on a symposium. This is the Fall symposium on peer review, which used to be the spring symposium. Although the topic is interesting, this committee already is very busy with the Open Access Policy initiative, and individually, every member has a "full plate". It was decided that we would support and help publicize the symposium, but that there did not seem to be enough momentum to work on this with other pressing matters at hand.
Open Access Week will be in October. Laura attended the SPARC conference and intends to share information on sessions as time allows. The SPARC study on library publishing services can be found at http://wp.sparc.arl.org/lps/
The website of the Right to Research Coalition (http://www.righttoresearch.org/)
Our next meeting will be in June, the last Monday in May is a holiday!