(It was decided that we would briefly discuss the digitization process that Cabinet is working on as an addition to the agenda.)
Wang reported that we have three landing pages already developed. Wang has completed the “Research Data Management” page. Zhang has worked on “Citation Management Tools;” we decided not to include Mendeley on this page. Pilch is working on the copyright page; it will be ready soon. Wang and Mullen remind those working on pages that that we just need icon, placement of icon on page, contact name, and landing page info that introduces the service. Each page will link out to other information. The completed pages are up on Sakai. Mullen is working with Ron Jantz on clarifying issues around the open access journals, and Jeffery will assist with the CSC webpage information for the “journals program.” Otto has two landing pages; RUcore and DCRC. She suggests that for RUcore we just link to the page. CSC members recommend at least a mouseover with basic information. We need to treat all three RUcore portals, and Otto will work through that. There doesn't seem to be a DCRC web page, though there is information on the SCC website. Radick reported on the digitization projects page. She believes the "question" format developed for the landing pages won't suit the digitization projects page in part because the information it will contain will be more about explaining SC/UA's and RUL's processes and procedures for digitization projects rather than offering a digitization service. She will be working with Pilch on the digitization projects page, which will include a FAQ. Otto and Mullen completed their page about the Open Access Policy rather than focusing on Open Access itself. Wang will meet with Koruth (web designer) when all the pages are ready. Otto wanted to make sure that the data pages were vetted by Womack and Morgan. Laura noted that it was- at least early on. CSC needs to prioritize this work and complete the webpage as soon as possible. Some aspects of our services are still unclear and are waiting for the results of the digitization priorities process.
The digitization framework is being discussed in Cabinet. There are 48 projects on the list of digital projects so far. The Cabinet prioritization discussion will help to streamline the process. The projects that are most feasible (and relevant) will get priority. Pilch noted that some people are still requesting new projects outside the process, but we will soon move to the new process. Izbicki believes there should be training for what is involved with being a project manager. Pilch is having discussions with Womack and Morgan about how we will handle data. She believes we need a data framework; the issues and projects are complex. Some data projects have many separate agreements. Simple data owned by the donator will be the easiest to start with. We are also considering that some material will have only restricted access. The Jazz Oral History project is an example; this project is very high profile. Pilch is answering many copyright queries of all types. Pilch then reported on developments outside of RUL. Nationally, there are efforts to amend copyright law for the digital environment. U.S. Register of Copyrights Maria Pallante believes that the next act will be forward looking but flexible, meaningful, and workable; that it is in the public interest to protect authors; that we will need to consider that works are different, and different works should be treated differently; and she has suggested that copyright terms be reduced from 70 to 50 years. Discussions of amending Section 108 are in progress; Pilch presented at the February 8th symposium on Section 108 reform sponsored by the Copyright Office at Columbia Law School. The Copyright Office is also interested in amending the law for orphan works; RUL recently submitted comments to the Copyright Office in response to a Notice of Inquiry on orphan works. Aside from legislative reform, a group from Berkeley and American University are developing a best practices document on orphan works; Pilch recently participated in a focus group at NYU on this effort. On April 8 and 9, there will be an ARL summit on copyright at Purdue. Internationally, in February there was a WIPO special session to finalize the language of an international treaty to benefit blind and reading disabled persons that is expected to be adopted in June. This is the first in a series of WIPO efforts to consider copyright limitations and exceptions in three areas- for the blind and reading disabled, for libraries and archives, and for education. Exceptions for libraries and archives will be taken up next, either in July or December. Publishers are already being flexible about permissions for the visually impaired. Universities will have to start accommodating the blind/visually impaired. There was a discussion on accessibility aspects of our RUL and CSC webpages. Although the treaty might not affect US law, hopefully RUL will be a leader in making sure our resources are accessible.
Mullen and Otto have been working with two documents: the Harvard (HOAP) documentation on implementation, and a book chapter about implementing open access repositories. Laura will send out both documents to CSC. We will read these and discuss at the next meeting. There are interesting differences in how academic libraries pursue implementation. CSC agrees we will need to join COAPI (Coalition of Open Access Policy Institutions) so that we can take advantage of the knowledge gained by a larger group of OA policy implementers. A group will be formed to develop an implementation plan - the library advisory group will discuss this at their next meeting. CSC could look at possible scenarios for implementation and discuss outreach and education, and even pull together a list of highest ranked journals in various disciplines. More will be known after the implementation group is set. Otto prepared a spreadsheet showing various action items taken from the Harvard document. We could do the same kind of mapping for the other policy implementations discussed in the book chapter. Some are policy issues, some are work tasks, some informational. Our Harvard-style policy gives Rutgers authors a bit more leverage with publishers than other policies. We all need to understand very clearly the implications of our style of policy. We will need to provide advice on how to make it work in practice. The policy is back in the Counsel’s office after the president has signed off on it. RUL will have the big responsibility for the practical aspects of implementation. Deposits may be handled differently by different departments and/or schools. The faculty themselves will want something very simple and easy. We cannot make this difficult or time consuming for faculty and graduate students. We are starting to get requests from departments for presentations about open access. Wang reported on the presentation to Newark’s biology department. The presentations will want to cover a larger umbrella conversation about “what is Open Access?”
This item was tabled due to time.
A distinction between major and routine projects will remain. AULs will be involved in this process. ETD process is established. The journals should go through without additional review. The data initiatives will need a workflow. The etextbook discussion is different and is not part of the digitization process in Cabinet. It is a study project. We need a policy on the handling of Special Collections materials that might be digitized. We have to be careful not to "succeed into overwork.” We have to be careful about not letting the requests overwhelm our resources. The digitization framework is not as clear, perhaps, as had been hoped. No project should be allowed to make all the others grind to a halt. If we can do them together that would be best. If two or three collide over resources, then prioritization is needed. Izbicki believes that the AULs should decide about projects in their sections where the rights have been established. Training of liaisons and project managers is essential.
Laura Bowering Mullen
April 2, 2013