Minutes of March 24, 2014 Meeting
- Tom Glynn, Tom Izbicki, Ron Jantz (Guest), Aletia Morgan (Guest), Laura Bowering Mullen, Jane Otto, Janice Pilch, Caryn Radick, Jeffery Triggs, Yingting Zhang (Recorder)
- Rhonda Marker, Minglu Wang
1. Chairs' Report (Mullen and Izbicki)
- Laura Mullen announced that Aletia Morgan will be a guest for the next few meetings to represent data issues for Minglu Wang who is on leave.
- Laura attended SPARC OA and COAPI (Coalition of Open Access Policy Institutions) meetings in Kansas City. The SPARC meeting focused on a broader theme- that Open Access (OA) is moving in the direction of three areas – open access to scholarly articles, open data, and open educational resources. In the larger scholarly communication landscape, people are using products to support their OA policy, such as Symplectic Elements which is used by UC and others. Rutgers OA policy is the only one that covers graduate students. That should attract our graduate students and is also drawing outside attention to our open access policy work.
- Laura mentioned that in PLoS journals there are hundreds of articles written by Rutgers authors from all kinds of departments. PLoS shared this information. See Laura for details.
- For Open Access Week, if we want to do something for it, we should start planning soon. Many people, e.g. those from companies as well as libraries are willing to come here to speak.
- Discussion of digital priorities in the Cabinet will be coming up again on the six month cycle. Laura and Tom will be presenting about “criteria” for new potential journal projects at the next cabinet meeting in preparation for the six-month reevaluation of digital priorities.
- There are two final remaining open librarian positions on the wish list being proposed by PlanCo. Next time there will be discussion on what we think is important for the last two open positions and whether we should go ahead. What faculty positions would enhance our scholarly communication organization?
- Laura and Caryn (with Triveni Kuchi) are doing an environmental scan of scholarly communication organizations at other peer and aspirant institutions. This is difficult work to do from public information found on websites and would need to be followed with interviews with other libraries.
- Ron Jantz is attending the meeting as a guest for discussion on RUL OA journals.
2. RUL OA Journals Discussion (Jantz, Guest)
- Ron provided a report showing the download stats of the five RUL OA journals in FY2013 and since inception. The five OA journals, according to the stats, are quite popular and have generated significant downloads. RUL has been accepted as a member of CrossRef. We can now add DOIs for Dan Fishman's PCSP journal. We will continue enhancing the journals with DOIs going forward.
- There were two documents that Ron brought over to CSC for review: Journal Acceptance Criteria and New Journal Application Form. At this meeting, we focused on the Criteria. Cabinet discussed OA journals a few times and they want to get input from CSC on criteria for journal acceptance. Our original proposal didn't clearly express a Rutgers focus that was wanted by cabinet. Laura will bring the CSC-vetted criteria to Cabinet tomorrow for their feedback.
- Journal Acceptance Criteria is a summary of lots of discussion over the years. It serves as an initial filter for whether or not to proceed to process a journal application. The committee reviewed each bullet in the criteria document. The journal content has to be relevant, free to the public and peer reviewed. For sustainability, editors need to sign up for a period of three years and the Editorial Board agrees to arrange for replacement of an editor. Fees for maintenance and archiving are negotiated with each journal. We need to be flexible with the fees. The publication and archiving agreement needs to be signed by three representatives of the Governing Board – the editor, the librarian, and a Rutgers dean or department head. Janice is working on the publication and archiving agreement. Copyright is retained by the authors. Articles are licensed under Creative Commons – Attribution, Non-commercial (CC BY NC). Janice felt strongly that we should leave Share Alike (SA) out. Share-alike has been stricken pending Cabinet approval.
- The new projects should be Rutgers focused. What would we consider enough of an RU focus? How narrow does this have to be? It may be difficult to define a general character. Our goal is to start one or two projects a year, not one in five years. According to Ron, it involves a couple of weeks of planning to launch a journal. Janice noted that we need to avoid unclear copyright situations like that of NJH. How would a student run journal be different? The new/continuation of the proposed history journal will have a revised version of the agreement used in the old journal, but would not go through the proposed process this time. Laura read Rhonda's email to the group, which she sent prior to the meeting on her concerns with some items in the two documents.
- The Journal Application Form will be discussed next time. Ron asked CSC members to email him comments on the application form. Janice recommended having a documented workflow. It was resolved not to require the Journal Application Form for New Jersey Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal.
3. Creative Commons Licenses Updates (Pilch)
- Janice updated on Creative Commons (CC) licenses. She distributed handouts on CC Legal Code and the CC Licenses. CC licenses are not perfect, but they are the best way for us to make journals openly accessible. They are also useful for OERs, but less appropriate for ETDs and digitized works still under copyright. They are more complicated than people generally think. Creative Commons has been around for about 13 years since 2002.
- There are several major distinctions underlying CC licenses including derivative works vs. non-derivative works; commercial vs. noncommercial uses. CC was designed primarily for works created by one person for the internet, and there are some difficulties in use of CC licenses for works that incorporate many third party works, as scholarly works often do. There will be an upcoming meeting with CC to make CC better for scholarly works.
- There are six CC licenses. They are Attribution CC BY (the most generous one), Attribution-ShareAlike CC BY-SA, Attribution-NoDerivs CC BY-ND, Attribution-NonCommercial CC BY-NC (good for RUL OA journals), Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike CC BY-NC-SA, and Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs CC BY-NC-ND.
- ShareAlike is not the best choice for open journals because it requires anyone using an SA-licensed article to license their work in turn under an SA license, and that is not always possible- for example, when someone makes use of the original SA-licensed article to publish a new article with a traditional publisher. Some works in RUcore have a SA license. We will not change that but will move from ShareAlike in the future for open journals.
- There are certain commonalities to all CC licenses. CC licenses are irrevocable. They require attribution and prohibit use of TPMs. They terminate automatically when they are not followed. They can't be applied to hardware and software. We should use CC BY-NC rather than CC BY-NC-SA as we do now. They shouldn't be used for ETDs and digitization works, but can easily be used for open textbooks.
4. NIH Compliance Webpage (Zhang)
- Yingting shared with the group some issues that researchers are facing with regard to the NIH Public Access Policy. In February, a few people from RUL met with OVPR on how to support researchers in compliance with NIH Public Access Policy. One of the decisions was to publish news items in the Research Newsletter.
- Many people are confused with PMCID and PMID. The first news item Yingting wrote was on the difference between PMCID and PMID. She asked Sam to create a link for the full text of the news item on the Information for Researchers’ page as a temporary solution. The group reviewed the link that Sam added on a dev page. The group commented that the link was not visible enough. We need something more obvious on the webpage. It could be a banner or some other things just to make it more visible. It was also mentioned that the link should be under nih_public_access so that it will remain the same even when an NIH panel is added to the researchers’ webpage. Yingting will contact Sam to make these two proposed changes. The first news item is expected to be published in the newsletter on March 27, 2014.
- On adding a new panel for NIH, it was suggested to call the panel NIH Public Access and More to have room for future expanded public access to all federally funded research. Shall we go with five panels in a row or three panels in a row? Yingting will come up with some mockups and prepare a new NIH landing page using Minglu’s template and have Mary Ann Koruth create a logo for the new NIH panel. They'll work further by email.
5. OA Implementation: RU units (schools, departments) (Otto, Mullen)
- Laura and Jane developed a spreadsheet of schools, departments, and other units to be displayed in the portal (Faculty Deposit). Jane demonstrated the organizational hierarchical display similar to that in DASH (http://dash.harvard.edu/community-list). Words like school and department in the RU units names will be omitted in the display.
Next meeting: April 28, 2014. Several members will be attending Research Data Management symposium at Rockefeller University in New York, where Ryan Womack will present, but the CSC meeting will be held as scheduled. Discussion may be on ETDs and definitely will include a major agenda item on open access implementation, and possibly a follow up to PlanCo work on scholarly communication organization.
Meeting was adjourned at 12:00pm.