Minutes of last meeting (Sept. 24) to be approved, let Laura know if you have any more changes.
We will be exhibiting a poster for a table at the State of the Libraries meeting. Jane and Laura will also be speaking at the meeting about the path the Senate took toward approval of the Open Access resolution. Open access journals also will be a focus of a poster at State of the Libraries.
OA Week event seemed to be enjoyed by all; feedback was positive.
"Formalizing" the program, DOIs, journals' role in research services (follow up from Planning and Coordinating) and next steps (Jantz and Mullen).
This discussion focused on the issues of "formalizing" the Open Access Journals program, including enhancements, memberships, and moving forward. Ron distributed a handout on the Current Status of Journal Publishing at RUL, and summarized its history:
RUL has five active journals, each one unique. Each journal is edited/governed by at least one person from Rutgers:
Additional background and current information on the program:
Two things are being considered to enhance the platform:
There is increasing interest from various people and departments in creating new digital journals. Benefits: (a) these initiatives can be said to tie into RUL's strategic plan, specifically open access. It also ties into strategic planning for subject liaisons.
The University of Pittsburgh has done an impressive job publishing digital journals, and there is no reason we can't do this as well and as impressively as they do: www.library.pitt.edu/e-journals/pubs.html
It is important to have a process by which we review and "vet" proposals, and streamline development of each title. It is also important that each future title build in provisions for continuity. There is the danger of one person starting a title, involving RUL in the work, and then disappearing.
Should there be a policy for who could start a new title? Should new titles be limited to journals associated with a society, department or a center? There are several possible new digital titles in various stages of development:
The Committee endorsed Ron's proposal and thinks that the "journals program" should continue to formalize its current titles/program, and then we need to continue to push forward with conversations on new projects. This discussion should go to Cabinet.
The Website team (Laura, Joseph, Jane, Donna, Minglu, Jeff) met on October 12. We reviewed other school's scholarly communications sites; Minglu also distributed materials on good academic sites. The Penn State and MIT Scholarly Communications sites were considered to be good models for our purposes. We want to keep it simple, answer the questions: What is it? Why? How? The Penn State page was most desirable in terms of our idea of one portal, an umbrella site for all of our current services.
The website team envisions that each portal would have a "landing page," with short description of each of the major topics. This would be a brief page answering very targeted questions with linking to more in depth information. The landing page would answer:
(b) What is it?
(c) current trends
links to materials
Sample design for Research Services web site includes the following topical areas (not in this order necessarily):
Digital Curation Research Center (or similar)
Minglu volunteered to be responsible for the initial design of the site. Joseph has set up a Twitter feed for scholarly communication as we envision some ability to share information from this site. This website will be a top priority for CSC this spring.
Jane and Laura reviewed the Senate vote: There was a large turnout and a lot of excitement. Only a couple of questions from the floor, only two people voted against it. President Barchi was present during the vote, and gave it his personal support right afterwards. Since the Senate cannot actually make university policy, this recommendation must be presented to President Barchi and adopted. The Senate president will follow up this week (there is a long backlog of recommendations that need presidential approval). We know President Barchi supports the policy, so it is only a formality to get the response. There will then be an implementation phase. What is the CSC's role in this?
We need a coordinated response to requests for information. Requests will come to various communication points, but may need added context about the open access policy.
More work needs to be done to get information down to the departmental level. Requests for presentations are coming in. We need to keep the conversation going in a positive way, without getting bogged down. We should get out a message to the RUL faculty about what to do pending the implementation. Liaisons should be a part of this.
We need talking points for librarians who will be answering questions about Open Access and implementation.
The FAQ page needs to be refined. There is a problem with the contacts link, needs to be fixed (not go to an Outlook screen).
How will RUCore be handling what we hope is an increase in the number of papers submitted to the repository? We need to talk to them about their plans. Can the process be streamlined? What is CSC's relationship with RUCore?
We need to reconsider the whole nature of the CSC. Does the committee need more authority? Does the make-up of the committee need to be revised? This is a future agenda item. There are some disconnects between those doing the work, and those discussing that work and possibly recommending policy.
Tom: Let's postpone the discussion of 4.b.
What will be the academic implications of Rutgers joining the Big 10? We will become part of the Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC), which Tom thinks this will be a good fit for us.
Next meeting: CSC will not meet in December, and Laura will send a poll around for a January date.