Minutes of July 30, 2012 Meeting

Joseph Deodato, Tom Izbiki, Laura Mullen (recorder), Michelle Oswell, Janice Pilch, Caryn Radick (SC&UA), Jeffery Triggs, Minglu Wang
Melissa Just
Donna Schulman, Jane Otto

1. Approval of Agenda, Minutes

  1. Introductions and welcome to new members and guests; charge, goals (LBM, TI) (10 mins)
  2. RU/RUL Copyright Update (15-20 mins) (JP)
  3. Open Access Week task force/planning (15 mins) (LBM, TI)
  4. OA policy update (10 mins) LBM for LBM, JJO), HOAP policy consultation
  5. RUL scholarly communication website/Senate Website: update (5-10 mins)
    Identification of small group to work on website/communications
  6. ALA update: SPARC Forum, other (All, 10 mins)
  7. COAPI-to join? (LBM)

1. Introduction of members

Joseph Deodato (Digital Library Issues), Tom Izbiki. (Co-Chair, Coll. Dev.), Melissa Just (guest), Laura Mullen (Co-chair, minutes). Michelle Oswell (Arts & Humanities), Janice Pilch (Copyright, Licensing), Caryn Radick (SC&UA), Jeffery Triggs (SCC, recorder), MingluWang (Data)
Excused: Donna Schulman (social sciences), Jane Otto (digital library issues, Senator)

Co-Chairs welcomed new members to CSC as this is the first meeting of the new group. Mullen will cover science as Hu’s replacement for one year. Meetings will be held the last Monday of each month, except holidays. No meeting in August. SCI student approached about joining the committee. We are open to guests, and the student could attend as an observer if interested. CSC has discussed holding regular larger, more open meetings in the past, but for now we need the smaller committee to accomplish certain goals. The committee charge (2007) was revisited. There is a new strategic plan in process - which may necessitate revising the CSC charge. The process of selecting RUcore projects is still rather murky. This may very well be clarified soon as prioritizing digital projects is an objective of other groups at present. There was clarification that CSC is not the “open access committee” but intends to be much more inclusive of all scholarly communication topics.

2) Copyright update (Pilch)

This update focused on what we are doing within RUL rather than on outside actions and developments. Janice would like to be pro-active in identifying good, promising projects so that we can move forward in expanding digital collections. It would be good if we had a common understanding of what this means. There are examples of good projects to which we might want to point. A good example is the Journal of the Rutgers University Libraries. Another is the Karen Guancione exhibit that Michael Joseph handled. Digital projects, by their nature, fall into the categories of being exceptions-based, contract-based, permissions-based, or based on the public domain works- it depends on the legal status of the works. It’s necessary to know the legal facts associated with the works. This is something that projects managers are going to need to be involved with. For example, research data is often contract-based material, because is associated with grant contracts, IRB approvals and other agreements. The Jazz Oral History Project is also based on pre-existing contracts. As for permissions-based projects, when Rutgers is the copyright holder and the department agrees to digitize, it’s easy. It might be feasible to undertake a project that requires a small number of permissions, but it’s not feasible to take on a project that requires a large number of permissions. Most often we’ll be operating on the basis of copyright exceptions, and are generally looking for no-risk to low-risk material. When the works are in public domain, there is no risk. Applying fair use is never a no-risk proposition, but often material will present an acceptably low risk if it is very old, clearly orphaned, has no commercial value, etc. We should codify this, and help make the faculty aware of the issues before they bring up projects. We can increase efficiency by having realistic expectations about digital projects, and work to identify those that are most likely to succeed, rather than spending time and facing disappointment when projects are unrealistic from a legal standpoint from the start. The open access movement started on a legal basis. The free internet is a different world. Rutgers cannot take on unnecessary risk. We need to objectify the principles which we will use to accept or deny projects. We might have separate handouts for people who have material in hand and those coming fresh with new projects. Janice would like to do an educational forum on digital collections and copyright. The forum would be initially for RUL, and would take about 2 hours. Tom thinks we might integrate this with SAPAC's ongoing presentation schedule. There might be a free month available for lunchtime presentations. A two hour forum would be better than two parts. We might want to have such a forum as part of Open Access Week. Other CSC members may collaborate on the program. Radick shared her experience with some of the permissions issues with digital projects. All agree that practical materials must be available for liaisons and others who find themselves in conversations about new digital projects.

3,4,5) Agenda items 3,4,5 were combined (LBM): OA Policy update. Where are we now?

The policy goes to the Senate on October 19th for a vote. This is the day before Open Access Week starts. Laura and Jane gave presentations to many university groups. Some of the administrators have left positions, such as M. Pazzani, and the new people in these positions may not be familiar with the initiative. Otto and Mullen will give a more fulsome report at the next meeting. Rhonda Marker and others are working on enhancements to the faculty deposit interface in advance of the policy vote. If it passes, this would be big news. Last week the old website was taken down as planned. There is a new page with a couple of links (e.g., a link to the OA policy draft and full report, the one page fact sheet (easy to hand out as PDF when needed), and a generic PowerPoint presentation), but we need CSC members to create a better website and devise a communication channel for scholarly communication. Deodato, Pilch, Wang and Mullen will be involved with this to start. Mullen will invite Otto as well. We will probably not do this as a blogging effort, but instead possibly embed a Twitter feed on the page. Mullen will send email and convene this group, likely in September.

Open Access Week (Oct. 22-28, 2012): We will have a program on Oct 23 from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. in the Pane room with a showcase afterwards. Representative from commercial publisher will talk about the “author pays” model, and Dr. Dan Fishman will talk about an open access journal that does not carry author fees. We will issue invitations to other panelists, hoping to have a data perspective and possibly a speaker on open access more broadly; maybe also the social responsibilities of open access. Harvard Open Access Project (HOAP) is now offering consulting. It may be a little late for us, but something we can consider.

7) We should think about joining COAPI (Coalition of Open Access Policy Institutions).

Institutions joining do not have to have a policy in hand, but can be at any stage of planning or implementation of an open access policy. There is no cost but we would have to attend various gatherings of the group. Should we wait for the result of the vote? Mullen will find out exactly what the membership entails.

8) Next meeting in September.

We will have a discussion of goals and we are trying to schedule a fulsome discussion of the journals program, inviting Ron Jantz. Laura asks all members to bring agenda items. We will try to be a committee of action as well as discussion.

6) ALA update.

Mullen attended the SPARC Forum in Anaheim which focused on institutional author funds for open access. If we have an open access policy, we will likely need to set up an open access fund to support authors who need to pay publishers. This is mainly for social science and humanities researchers who do not necessarily receive funds from grants or institutions. Mullen attended sessions on research data and also mentioned the ALA discussions that revolved around the commercial publishers and their "open access agreements."

Next meeting Sept. 24, 2012, 10 a.m., Heyer Room, Alexander Library

Respectfully submitted, Laura Bowering Mullen August 2, 2012

Website Feedback  |  Privacy Policy

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