Minutes of September 23, 2013 Meeting
- Tom Izbicki (Co-Chair), Rhonda Marker, Aletia Morgan (Guest), Laura Mullen (Co-Chair), Jane Otto (Recorder), Janice Pilch, Caryn Radick, Gene Springs, Jeffery Triggs, Ryan Womack (Guest), Yingting Zhang
- Tom Glynn, Minglu Wang
1. Welcome, introductions of new members, chairs’ reports (L. Mullen)
- L. Mullen announced the October meeting would feature a discussion of PlanCo’s major agenda item for the year: the reorganization of Scholarly Communication.
- CSC may also want to respond to the growing interest in altmetrics, for which there is a new NISO report.
- Thus far the Committee has no plans for an Open Access Week program; although there have been some suggestions the logistics are prohibitively labor intensive at this point. Other options might be to piggyback on another program (for which planning would be via email), or the group could do a more informal presentation.
- Several requests have come in via Ask A Librarian, concerning funding for publishing in open access journals. Currently these questions are being referred to the office of the Vice President for Research. IUPUI has recently established a fund, with monies coming from several schools and its Research Office. Although $50,000 seems to be the norm, there has not been a lot of uptake. More requests can be expected now, with the integration of the medical schools.
- A request for letters of support for FASTR has been circulating and the request has been forwarded to M. Gaunt for possible action.
- L. Mullen requests members bring agenda items for future meetings.
2. RUresearch discussion (R. Womack)
- The next phase for RUresearch is to implement a full production service (from the pilot phase), with an expanded team.
- An initial policy outlining what RUresearch can offer to all faculty as a standard service is currently under development.
- In terms of the Team’s purpose and charge: the data team is an implementation group meant to support liaisons.
- Discussions by the RUresearch Data Team and the Cyberinfrastructure
Steering Committee (CISC) led to the conclusion that the proper place for policy discussions would be CSC.. It was clarified that while
small policy issues may be handled in this way, neither CISC nor CSC has the authority to make decisions on large policy issues. Small
policy issues (referred to as “lower-case” policy) might relate to outreach planning, operational questions, types of data on which to
focus, possible add-ons for development, etc. Large policy issues (referred to as “upper case” policy) include university-wide data
policy, copyright policy, and other issues related to national and state law and regulation, and university administration and policy.
Large policy issues are and will remain the responsibility of the University Librarian, Cabinet, and Planning and Organizational
Research. A steering committee within the group, to set priorities, may be considered; CSC would charge any subcommittee. Ideally there
would be input from the entire team but priorities would be set by the smaller group. CSC members who have been active on the current
Team clarified the content of team meetings.
- Membership: New members include J. Pilch and Y. Zhang, as well as other new health sciences colleagues. A Camden representative is being sought, and interested others may join as well. A new round of training will be planned in early 2014 and as before, all members are expected to complete the Research Metadata course curriculum. There is an expectation that any new science librarian would join the team, and membership would be optional for those in the social sciences. There are currently about 20 members. The idea is to have a common knowledge base and support group; this is not an action team, per se. The meeting format may need to be assessed.
- Future directions: There is a need for learning and education in the area of data management, and the Purdue and New England e-Science Portal were mentioned as possible models.
- There was discussion as to whether the web pages listing services should be taken down until a university policy on data ownership/access/retention policy is in place. While it is desirable to continue dialog with faculty about data management issues, responses to faculty requests have become problematic, as the pages offer a service no longer being provided. The group reviewed the web pages and decided by consensus to add ‘Under development’ to two areas of the CSC-developed Data Services web page. RUresearch pages on RUcore (including the Data Team page and the About RUresearch page) are not the domain of CSC.
3. RUL copyright issues (J. Pilch)
- J. Pilch updated the group on the status of the university policy on data ownership/access/retention policy that is prerequisite to RUL’s offering the data service it envisions. Because there was an early start on technical implementation of data without full consideration of large policy considerations, there has been uneven development on data. She recommended that in the future for large initiatives like this, the technical and the legal and policy considerations start at the same time and that we improve workflows for communication. Her membership on the RUresearch data team will help in this regard. Because the focus of the data team is expressly on grant-funded data for which rights are held by RU, the need for this policy is clear. In response to concerns about delays from University Counsel, J. Pilch stated that the urgency of developing this policy is understood and that she would do everything possible to get the policy in place as soon as possible.
- She further explained that data implementation will require a clear process for vetting and approving projects, involving a review process similar to the digital projects evaluation process in place for RUL digitization projects. She is developing criteria for data project review, and there will be a need to identify a group of people to evaluate projects, in consultation with her. Janice has developed draft evaluation documentation designed to address relevant legal and policy criteria for data deposit and will continue to develop it. RUresearch Data Team members also previously developed some documentation on which such criteria might be based. The CKT Energy Project has served in the last year as a pilot project for evaluating data projects.
- J. Pilch offered an update on progress with facilitating digital access to RUL collections. She has provided guidance, including copyright evaluations, to project managers and strategic collaborators in 28 digitization initiatives in the last year. New projects are continually being evaluated and approved by J. Pilch and R. Marker in implementing the digital projects evaluation process set by Cabinet. She highlighted three large initiatives-Rutgers Optimality Archive, Newark Oral Histories, and RU Historic Dissertations, emphasizing that some may take time but the goal is a successful implementation.
- Copyright education efforts are expanding on campus, involving collaboration with many campus departments and units to guide faculty, staff, and students. Collaborations include COHLIT, CTAAR, the Graduate School in New Brunswick, and individual departments. More requests are being received for workshops across campus. The new copyright website, currently under development, is being designed to serve as educational tool for RU in practical copyright issues.
- Another area of emphasis is copyright policy development, which continues in Special Collections and University Archives, Dana Library, Institute for Jazz Studies, and will be addressed for the Health Sciences. Of particular importance is the campus streaming policy which she is working to improve in order to address the needs of faculty creating online and hybrid courses. The Pearson Managed Program demands additional consideration.
4. CSC “Research Services” website update (L. Mullen for Wang)
5. OA Policy implementation update; updates to OA Policy webpage (J. Otto, L. Mullen)
- J. Otto reiterated an earlier CSC report that the Open Access Policy Implementation Working Group (of the RUL Advisory Committee) recommends moving forward on three fronts:
- RUcore interface and functionality
- University-wide presentations/education
- development of advocate/model/contacts for each department or discipline
- In response to RUcore development requests (a), J. Otto and L. Mullen have been working through the Cyberinfrastructure Steering Committee (CISC), Software Architecture, and Metadata Working Group to enable parsing of journal citation metadata (required for custom displays and the dynamic bibliography function), and ensure effective handling of multiple versions, including use of a cover sheet on each deposit and a ‘Request a copy’ button enabling requests to the author for embargoed deposits.
- Conversations are ongoing and/or forthcoming with M. Gaunt, the Harvard Open Access Project (October), Princeton (soon), grad student members of the Working Group (Sept. 27), the full Open Access Policy Implementation Working Group (Oct. 2), and the School of Engineering faculty, with liaison C. Wu (October 25). Otto and Mullen led an informal discussion of the Rutgers Open Access Policy with librarians at the Robert Wood Johnson Library earlier in September, and will visit the Smith Library this month.
- In response to the contacts request (c), Mullen and Otto have compiled a list of units, including New Brunswick, Camden, and Newark, and are in the process of incorporating the list of units from the former UMDNJ.
- Other work in process includes:
- drafting of content and specs for Faculty Deposit website searching, navigation, and displays, following DASH, arXiv, other models recommended by the Working Group
- minor updates to the CSC-developed Open Access Policy web page
- drafting of documentation requested by the Working Group for a more fleshed out OA policy website (including a list of presentations and updated fact sheet)
- drafting of FAQS (for both faculty deposit and Open Access)
- working with Marianne Gaunt to prioritize RUcore enhancement proposals
- establishing a timeline/Gantt chart, incorporating the RUcore development timeline, with a ‘Day One’ for implementation
- working with M. Barnett to bring project management spreadsheets into Intellect
- reviewing the University of California public
Open Access Implementation Wiki (https://wiki.library.ucsf.edu/display/OAPI/Open+Access+Policy+Implementation+%28OAPI%29+Project)
Jane Otto, September 23, 2013