There are three major topics that need to be discussed in this meeting: RUL OA journals remaining issues, we will review OA Journal Application Form with Ron; OA policy implementation; and Information for Researchers' website.
Aletia will be appointed as a CSC member for next year; Jeffery will rotate off. Jeffery was thanked for his service to CSC.
Laura updated members about the topics to be discussed at the upcoming SPARC Forum at ALA. One is evaluation of OA content, and adding quality OA content to library collections alongside the libraries' other fee based subscriptions. This is especially important when the library's budget is decreasing, and business model does not determine quality. Selectors have a great role in adding OA content to library collections. Another topic is OA Textbooks; we should expect more interest in this topic in the future. There are products supporting OA policies that we will want to look at: Symplectic Elements is one of them. It harvests metadata from journal databases, even figshare, and will connect with IRs, and therefore has the potential to take OA implementation to another level. Thomson Reuters may come to do presentations on a similar product.
Newsletter sent out by research facilitators group has included Yingting's entry about NIH in a recent issue. RUL plans to insert entries every month. CSC might be able to coordinate the writing and submission to the Newsletter in the future. This might be something CSC could pilot for a year. Laura will follow up on this.
OA policy waiver has been brought up by a publisher in a couple of cases already when a Rutgers researcher goes to publish an article. So how to put publisher on notice of Rutgers OA Policy will be discussed in the future. As of now, we are telling publishers who require waivers that our policy goes into effect Sept. 1, 2015. Some universities notify publishers about their policies; others do not.
Laura attended a recent conference presentation on large scale university-wide ORCID implementations. As the OA Policy is being adopted widely next year in the university, ORCID will become more relevant to us. ORCID representatives are willing to come to give presentations.
There were questions asking about how to communicate scholarly communication updates to RUL and Rutgers, this will be discussed in the future. Too many emails is not the answer, but others want updates.
There were questions about the existing RUcore brochure and whether it's up to date. Rhonda said it could be useful to update it, and that the information contained in the brochure is relatively unchanging. Contact info needs to be updated; there are new services we could put in, for instance OA Policy and data services. FAQ could also be added. For marketing purposes, we might want to make the content more relevant to our users, rather than simply focusing on our products.
Among all COAPI institutions, Rutgers OA Policy is the first and only one that includes graduate students.
This is the last meeting in this year. There is no meeting in July. We will email to communicate before next meeting. New committee members will join as of July 1.
Ron is the OA Journal Coordinator. In April of 2013, a proposal to enhance and standardize the OA Journals Program was presented to the Cabinet, and this past year there have been many enhancements. Journal Acceptance Criteria was well received in a recent Cabinet meeting after our CSC review. Today we will focus on reviewing the New Journal Application Form. Since the high level criteria has been set up and reviewed by the Cabinet, this form is to ensure those criteria are met by the projects. The form is using the digitization form as a model and there are four parts to be signed by different people.
The New Journal Application Form was last updated on May 30, when Janice added the copyright content.
Part I of the form is to be completed and signed by journal editor. Questions 4 and 5 are to make sure that the journal's content is unique as well as meeting the high level criteria of "benefit teaching and research at Rutgers". Question 9 of Part I includes a list of items most of which are mentioned in the high level criteria. Out linking DOIs will be implemented for new journals. Janice added the last two items here. Copyright, referring to "individual articles" (which is different from the possible print copy of the journal), will be held by authors.
Part IV Question 9 better be moved to Part III, and let Grace Agnew be the only one who signs Part III, as this part will include all the technical issues and resources estimations, which Grace needs to know about and make decisions about. The signature sections on this and other sections needs to be modified, using checkboxes for approval options (approved or review again), and then only one signature from Grace at the end.
In Part IV, the title should be "RUL COLLECTION AND MANAGEMENT ISSUES". This session has many similar questions as Part I, in order to collect RUL collection development perspectives on those issues. The signature section needs to be modified, using checkbox for approval options (approved or review again), and then only one signature/date at the end, this part should be signed by AUL for Collection Development and Management. (Ron will make sure this title is updated).
Part II, Question 4 mentions that a print compilation using the digital content will have a different copyright holder. Question 6 mentions the "Publishing and Archiving Agreement", which will be designed by Janice, signed by Marianne Gaunt, the journal editor, and another appropriate Rutgers administrator. Question 8 and 9 are more of RUL's responsibilities/issues, members discussed whether those should be included here. The signature section needs to be modified, using checkbox for approval options (approved or review again), and then only one signature from Janice at the end.
Yingting gave a brief update about the new NIH panel and landing page, which was prepared quickly by her in March and April. This panel has been moved up to the second row among the other panels. Order of panels will be our future discussion. PMCID vs. PMID is a frequently asked question, so Yingting listed it on the icon as a bullet point as well as a content item on the landing page.
A new email list has been set up for gathering general research services questions from the front page of "Information for Researchers", and a contact web form has also been created, which will gather more structured user information and question topics and submit to the email list: email@example.com (display name: RUL Information for Researchers). Members that are included in this email list are Laura Mullen, Jane Otto, Rhonda Marker, Isaiah Beard, Ron Jantz, Caryn Radick, Janice Pilch, Yingting Zhang, Minglu Wang, Aletia Morgan, and Ryan Womack.
Right now, this main contact section is at the bottom of the "Information for Researchers" front page. Hopefully this will facilitate users to ask general questions about research services. When questions are submitted, each member on the list is expected to pick the question related to the issue that he/she is in charge of answering. Laura can refer any that are not obvious.
Jane suggested that we remove the email itself and leave just the form, so that users could avoid the email engine pop ups, and we could gather consistent structured question content. Minglu will contact Sam and Mary Ann to make the change.
Members discussed the update mechanism for the front page panels and the landing page content, and decided to send all update needs to Minglu, who is going to gather the information and send them to Sam and Mary Ann. Minglu will continue coordinating all updates to the webpage.
Members discussed ways to increase the website and pages' discoverability. We need to have RUL website's top level linking. We need to enhance our appearance on the library website's main menu and homepage. Images of the icons of these services need to be laid out more prominently and make users familiar with these visuals. Laura will attend future Web Board meetings and bring these issues up.
There are new panels/services that have been proposed. Caryn mentioned that Digital Humanities Working Group is working on a Digital Humanities page. Altmetrics and Academic Profiling are possible future panels too. The number of the panels and the order of them on the front page will be discussed and adjusted as needed when more panels are added, or new issues come up.
Jane and Laura are co-chairing the OA Policy Implementation Working Group and are leading the development of the OA portal right now. Efforts have been put into system specifications and designing a compelling website as a scholarship portal to the repository, with new brand new name, clean and modern look, and more functionality. Proposal for this portal, SOAR (Scholarly Open Access at Rutgers) has been presented at a variety of RUL meetings.
Laura and Jane have reviewed other institutions' OA Repository models. They compiled a list of 60 repositories chosen based on many criteria, ranked them into 5 tiers, studied the top 10, and included other sites to look at too. The goal is to follow the best practices and establish ourselves as a leader in OA policy implementation.
The technical team working on SOAR enhancements has the following members: Mary Ann Koruth, Yuhwei Ling, Chad Mills, Yang Yu, and Kalaivani Ananthan, in addition to Jane and Laura.
Jane presented to members a current preview of the OA policy implementation website, the SOAR portal. The OA Implementation Working Group wants it to be a "one stop shop" for many features, and wants the look of it to be clean and modern. New search and browse functions are under development, a FAQ session and a video will be produced. There are sections of "Most downloaded" (authors will be notified if they get on the list) and "Recently submitted" on the front page.
Jane presented about the new SOAR (Scholarly Open Access at Rutgers) portal's impact on the RUcore homepage. There understandably may be concerns about a new brand within RUcore, but there are compelling reasons to introduce one, and careful consideration has been given as to how best to optimize this new brand (SOAR), while clearly showing SOAR's relationship to the larger, more comprehensive RUcore, the Libraries which have created RUcore, and the University itself. A statement, "SOAR is a service of RUcore…" will appear at the bottom of each SOAR page and on all cover sheets (pages added to every deposit identifying version, etc.)
The OA Policy Implementation Group has considered that since RUcore name seems not very well known to the University, and faculty are not familiar with IRs, which are comprehensive and hard for them to understand, a new brand name for the OA portal is preferred. Numbers of deposits into RUcore have not been robust, and so a new brand with a compelling "look and feel" is what's needed for implementation of the policy. RUcore's current homepage might be a bit confusing for users and needs to be updated, but the basic page layout could stay the same. On the right side, it is suggested to have four images panels for digital collections, SOAR, ETD, and data services. On the left side list of content, it's suggested that "Faculty" category and its sub categories go away, leave the "Collection" category, add exhibit and events (department conference videos). "Collaborations" category name needs to be clarified. There was discussion about the left side of the page, and features needed there. Rhonda is willing to convene a RUcore team to work on revising RUcore's page.
Other agenda items listed below will be discussed over email:
Meeting was adjourned at 12:25pm.
The Digital Humanities Working Group consists of Ron Jantz (chair), Krista White (deputy chair), Mary Ann Koruth, Jonathan Sauceda, Francesca Giannetti, Zara Wilkinson, and Caryn Radick.
This group reports to the Libraries Resource Council and has been sending them the minutes of our meetings.
The team is meeting twice a month on the second and fourth Mondays.
Caryn Radick will be serving as the liaison to the Committee of Scholarly Communication, (Krista White may do this as well as [I believe] she will be joining CSC).
DHWG has been working on a panel for the "Information for Researchers" (CSC) page, which I will bring to the CSC for review.
Francesca Giannetti and Ron Jantz have met with Professors Ann Fabian and Meredith McGill (from the School of Arts and Sciences Digital Humanities Initiative) to discuss Digital Humanities at Rutgers. Krista and Zara are involved with Newark and Camden's (respectively) digital humanities pursuits.
The group is putting together a proposal to Marianne (at her request) for a Digital Humanities computing center in the libraries (most likely Alexander or the Art Library) and are considering the possible spaces and equipment needed.
The group is also looking at DH at other universities, particularly those in the tri-state area and considering how the libraries can be involved in Digital Humanities projects at Rutgers.