Minutes of May 23, 2016 Meeting

Judy Cohn, Karen Hartman, Rhonda Marker, Aletia Morgan, Laura Bowering Mullen, Jane Otto, Minglu Wang (recorder), Krista White, Yingting Zhang
Janice Pilch, Caryn Radick, Tao Yang

1. AVP Report (Cohn)

1) Cabinet minutes now have links to source documents, providing more detailed information on agenda items.

2) LibQUAL survey results were shared with cabinet, and will soon be released to RUL. Results by libraries including coded comments (positive/negative) are available.

3) Cohn shared a draft charge for a "Discovery Working Group". The goal is to improve user experience via the website, link resolver and catalog, streamlining access, retrieval and instructions. This requires careful planning and there have been ongoing discussions in Cabinet to refine the charge. Agnew and Pellien will be resources for the working group. A multi-year process is expected. Tasks will include how to improve access to resources via the website and simplify instructions. Initial work will focus on improving discovery and the link resolver. All content, regardless of format, should be retrievable. CSC members are welcome to send Cohn suggestions or comments about the Discovery Working Group charge via email. Work will commence once the charge is finalized and members of the group identified. Members suggested that this working group should consider including repository material, open textbooks, and other open access material in general as part of discovery.

4} Maloney was officially asked to chair the RU ORCID Implementation Working Group.

2. Chair's Report (Mullen)

1) Five of our OA journals have successfully made it through the reapplication process and are on the new DOAJ platform. It will take more than 4 months to be added to SHERPA/RoMEO.

2) RU participates with SCOAP3, and this Open Access initiative (high energy physics journals) has been extended for 3 more years.

3) OpenCon, SPARC's conference for early career researchers is coming up this year in Washington in November. Rutgers participated two years ago. It's an application/invitation only conference and all SPARC members were urged to participate. For this year, Mullen is not aware of plans to send anyone. We should keep this in mind for the future. Last year, the conference was held in Brussels, but will alternate with a US location, probably Washington, D.C.

4) Pellien has reached out to CSC in case there are any CSC items for the newsletter or other communication channels.

5) Mullen handed out Alexandra Elbakyan's legal response to the Elsevier lawsuit against Sci-Hub, and pointed out that this is not likely to be resolved via the courts at this point.

6) ACRL announced their 2016 Legislative Agenda. One of two main items are access to federal funded research data.

7) Acquisition of SSRN by Elsevier is the biggest news recently. Everyone is concerned about the documents deposited in SSRN, the largest subject repository. Now usability and sustainability of institutional repositories become even more important. Many RU authors are part of SSRN, so this is likely to come up in discussions with faculty and other scholars.

8) Reminder that after the June meeting, CSC will need a new chair.

3. Round Robin Updates:

1) Report from the Library Publishing Forum (Marker)

Marker attended the Library Publishing Forum (LPF) in Denton, Texas. The topics included more than OA journals; there were workshops on Open Educational Resources (OER), focusing on getting faculty to adopt OER and creative authors of OER. There were programs on helping faculty adopt open textbooks, for example providing funding for faculty to integrate OER. In terms of encouraging authors to actually write open textbooks, funding could be available at $15,000 and above for authoring a single textbook. Different libraries have different approaches in their efforts to help faculty find and adopt open textbook resources. Marker suggested it would be advantageous to think about organizing some panels to educate faculty about open textbooks. Mullen has a LibGuide on the topic in use by departmental faculty, and RUL now has a task force on it.
The LPF has only has had three annual conferences so far. There was an interesting paper presented by Charlotte Roh on publishing and social justice, talking about the lack of diversity in scholarly publishing. Undergraduate publishing and research is another topic that was emphasized in multiple sessions.

2) SOAR Twitter/other Twitter issues (Zhang)

Zhang attended the RUL social media summit. The CSC Twitter account does not have many followers right now. Zhang suggested some tips/strategies to improve. For example, use both handle and hashtag to increase interest; retweet; improve our profile by using an official looking picture; add a brief description of SOAR; CSC members take turns to tweet; and to have one tweet every day. Members suggested this could be one of the tasks for CSC to work on in this coming year.

3) ORCID update (Otto)

Mullen handed out the letter from Barchi in response to the University Senate resolution on university-wide ORCID implementation. He supports the Senate's recommendations for RU to become a member of the CIC ORCID consortium and the establishment of an ORCID Implementation Working Group. The SVPAA's office will put a group together. Dr. Barchi's response to the report is at
Mullen and Otto are already getting requests to fold ORCID information into the SOAR/OA Policy presentations. Otto's understanding is that the annual membership fee will not fall to the Libraries, although the Libraries' role in promotion and education is expected to be significant. ORCID can automatically import metadata from SOAR. Although there will be institutional implementation later, there is no downside for faculty to register now. It could be suggested to faculty that if they are registering for an ORCID ID, they should include additional information to distinguish themselves, for example, institutional affiliation, claim an article, etc. This fuller ORCID record is one of the benefits of a university-wide implementation. ORCID is linked to other IDs. Zhang's SciENcv workshop was also asked to include ORCID information. Publishers and funders often require ORCID now.
Some faculty may conflate ORCID and Academic Analytics, to which some faculty are opposed. In fact, in SOAR/OA policy presentations, we do not reference "reporting" for this reason; instead we talk about using SOAR statistics to "create narratives" for departments or individuals. We use SOAR's pie chart geographic download statistics to demonstrate "global reach" rather than comparative downloads.

4. SOAR report (added to the agenda, Otto):

In April, there were two more SOAR departmental presentations: one at the Economics Department with Womack, and one to all SEBS chairs. On the schedule going forward are presentations at the New Faculty Expo and more departmental sessions in the Fall.

Since the last CSC meeting, SOAR received 36 new deposits, about one per day, and with the majority coming from librarians. We need those numbers to grow and that suggests a need to begin contacting department chairs for presentations; we had previously tabled this until we had a better handle on the number of deposits and staffing. We should be able to keep up with things at the current rate, although Marker noted there was a small backlog due to travel, system testing and staff evaluations.

Otto asked Cohn about the March Cabinet discussion on 1) a "push" for SOAR deposits (which Otto and Mullen were not advocating at that time); and about RUL directors coordinating their local outreach activities (which was apparently not discussed). Cohn clarified that the message from Cabinet is that SOAR outreach falls into individual university priorities as seen by the director. Otto suggested that when she is back from sabbatical, it will be a good time to go to the chairs of all the schools since keeping up momentum is essential to successful OA policy implementation via SOAR.

There are questions about whether there are any consequences of not complying with the OA Policy. Our strategy is to start with our strong campaign and promoting researchers' behavioral change to deposit at the time of acceptance for publication, and there might be harvesting later. Funders will also start to require compliance. RUL has an implementation policy that could be an example.

Discussion ensued about scholarly communication work going forward. Cohn reminded members that CSC is going into its transition from carrying on work to a faculty body group. There will possibly be a scholarly communication working group with dedicated sponsors from cabinet in the near future. Mullen mentioned that some issues are time sensitive and have to move quickly (or keep going). Cohn suggested that at the CSC June meeting we could talk about this transition. CSC members shared concerns that the working groups envisioned could be silos and that we might lose the broader context that has usually emerged among faculty. How exactly would we clarify the faculty body's advisory role? Cohn thinks the end of this academic year is a good time to make the transition. Marker mentioned the complication caused by the mixture of different librarians' complete or partial responsibilities within a working group. This discussion will likely continue at the June CSC meeting.

5. Discussion of scholarly communication-related Sakai sites (Cohn)

CSC discussed how the CSC Sakai site has not been used very effectively for communication of committee business. Cohn suggested possible scenarios to address this issue: one is to have an owner and bring the existing Sakai site up to date by adding retrospective material. This could be a site for all, which people go to for training on the material archived there.

It was also suggested there should be a completely new Scholarly Communication site for liaisons and all others wanting to access outreach materials for SOAR, ORCID, or any other scholarly communication-related initiative. A newly-formed working group might be responsible for designing this new Sakai site. A separate new site for everyone is preferred among CSC members, and members did not want to update the CSC Sakai site that exists now.

6. ETD update and discussion (Marker)

Marker reminded CSC members that Stephanie Bartz has a dissertation LibGuide at with information about Rutgers ETDs. The University has schedules for degree dates. Accordingly, RUL has schedules to process deposits after degree dates, and then we release the PDFs to the ETD server to be cataloged. RUL staff checks information in order to make sure everything is correct and assigns LC subject headings. ETDs are then added to RUcore. We send ProQuest a copy after an ETD is cataloged in RUcore, but before it is included in the library catalog. Not every school sends ETDs to ProQuest though. There are approximately 30% of ETDs that are embargoed, and the most common embargo is for 2 years.

7. CSC Webpage: Proposed Scholarly Networking Tools panel: final recommendation after revisions (Wang)

Wang handed out the final copy of the informational panel on Scholarly Networking Tools. This final copy includes all previous revisions suggested by members and also has been updated with Radick's final copyediting. Wang shared a list of links to a selection of other institutions' statements about scholarly networking tools. Most of them are on LibGuides. However, there are also web pages and blog posts. Usually these tools are discussed under a broader scholarly communication context, for example, research impact or open access repositories. Our final version of the new panel has taken members' advice on clarifying the nature of the tools, and on promoting use of SOAR/RUcore. The focus is on providing information about collaboration tools that we know are widely used by researchers. Wang will send the final copy (and the handout about other institutions' information) to the CSC email list. Members at the meeting all agree to the recommendation that Cohn bring this panel to Cabinet for approval.

8. June special meeting on data: Planning (Cohn, Mullen)

Mullen had originally proposed that the June CSC meeting might be an information sharing meeting on a special topic (similar to the meeting on Open Access Collection Development, where we had a structured agenda with invited guest presenters). "Research data" was the proposed topic. CSC members and guests would update each other on current projects different librarians are working on separately, for example, our medical librarians attended informatics training recently, several subject librarians are conducting data literacy instruction, or updates on which funding agencies will focus on institutional repositories (rather than other solutions).

Cohn expressed concerns about the ultimate purpose of such a meeting, whether it is to share our status quo, for example, the Research Data Task Force submitting a final report last year and there is a Research Data Exploratory Team prototyping ingesting data. But this area has not been identified as a RUL priority. A meeting on research data right now might cause pressure or expectation that we cannot currently meet. CSC members agreed that we would use the June meeting for pressing scholarly communication-related organizational transition discussions instead, and propose a larger research data-focused meeting at a later date if there is continuing interest.

9. Announcements/Adjourn.

There were no announcements, and the meeting was adjourned.

Website Feedback  |  Privacy Policy

© Copyright 1997-2017, Rutgers University Libraries