Minutes of September 18, 2014 Meeting

G. Agnew, E. Gorder, T. Izbicki, B. Lipinski, R. Marker, K. Mulcahy (co-chair), L. Palumbo, A. Watkins (co-chair), V. Pelote, J. Pilch (recorder), J. Still, J. Sauceda, J. Sloan, G. Smulewitz, E. Sosnowska, M. B. Weber

1) Approval of the Agenda

The agenda was approved as distributed.

2) Approval of the Minutes from August 21, 2014 meeting (posted in Sakai on 9/15/14)

One change was made: B. Lipinski was excused from the August 21, 2014 meeting. Approved with that correction.

3) Chairs' Report - K. Mulcahy & A. Watkins

The faculty petition is now in . and will be tested to see if it works. Liaisons will be responsible for soliciting support from departments. The petition should be open within a week.

A spreadsheet on RUL State Fund Trends including periodical funds was distributed to members. It shows the budget in constant dollars for 2014, which means that figures for other years are translated into buying power relative to the constant year. The overall state budget is erratic in terms of constant dollars. Buying power for the 10-year period has been badly eroded. The 2015 figure in the spreadsheet shows the encumbered funds. For 2015, inflation has already been factored in and selectors should pay attention to the 2015 encumbered prices.

4) AUL Report - T. Izbicki

Cabinet is working on a general message about the budget. On Tuesday, they will discuss strategy for the non-collection budget scenarios. Cabinet is trying to do two things: to be strategic and not to add further targets to collections. Christine Wolff's work on academic analytics- the performance of departments- provides an enormous amount of material to use for budget decisions. We have requested a report on monographic issues and there is a report on which journals faculty most often publish in. A password is necessary to review the data. This is a closed system using a subscription from the university. M. Gaunt has a password and Christine can run reports.

October 13-17 is Scopus week. Elsevier will be here and there will be training in Mendeley. We might get more significant information related to personal data in Scopus and Mendeley. Everyone will have a chance to participate in this training and to inform faculty about the training. Our administration has subscribed to this service that may be used to evaluate faculty productivity. We are trying to get records on book publishing as well. We have started with data from the New Brunswick environment. E. Sosnowska commented that the analytics tool does not include data from RBHS.

We need to post RUL policies to places where they are more easily found and we need more policies. RUL is under-developed in policies. We don't have a mold policy on the website. A few years ago, we had a document on preservation but it was too procedural. We may need to draft a policy on e-books to address format, costs, arrangements, etc. T. Izbicki also suggested that we also need a library policy on disposing of university equipment.

There was a suggestion that we use the Sakai site for policy documents until they are approved for the Staff Resources page. V. Pelote suggested that we include policies on formats other than books and journals, such as LPs. J. Sloan offered that we also need a method for follow-through and support. R. Marker mentioned that we have never had a policy on the preservation of media. E. Gorder suggested that there was a preservation assessment done in 2003 or 2005 that might be useful to build on.

For RUL this is a matter of prioritization. We also need to ensure that policies link to each other. We need to factor in use of HathiTrust as a preservation strategy and how we will contribute unique content to HathiTrust.

5) AUL - G. Agnew

We finally have the test account with HathiTrust for "on premises" access. There is no proxy. The materials must be used from a university IP address. Some resources are read-only, while others may be downloaded in PDF. HathiTrust provides little guidance on this. Melissa Just is forming a task force on HathiTrust to work out the details on usability. We think that we will have digital access of some sort to the books still under copyright in our collections, but we will need to confirm this.

The Wikipedia project is going well. There are two good editors. We are planning a train-the- trainer program for early October, to train those interested in working with faculty and students.

6) CTS Report - M. B. Weber

M.B. Weber provided information on two temporary staff absences.

M.B. Weber, T. Izbicki, K. Mulcahy, and M. Ruszala had a conference call with Ingram to discuss the future of our approval plan. Communications are not always working with university presses or with approval vendors. They do not always follow the profiles. There are two approval plan vendor left in the market, YBP and Ingram. Some universities no longer use approval plans and we have considered alternatives. The PALCI plan at $16/book was considered to be good. By contrast, the PDA pilot showed that whoever orders first can use up the funds and we learned that it is a challenge to distribute the funds in a balanced fashion.

7) DTS Report - G. Smulewitz

The unit is working on an "Everything Else" spreadsheet that will show cost per use for journal collections and databases, and more. They are trying to compile statistics for seven categories. It will be posted today to Sakai.

Please watch for an announcement for the Scopus presentation during Scopus week in October.

8) Reports from SC/UA and IJS- E. Gorder & V. Pelote

Nothing to report from SC/UA or from IJS.

9) Budget Planning - T. Izbicki et al.

The targeted cuts to the budget will be distributed on the basis of historic patterns in spending over the years. T. Izbicki asked the disciplinary representatives to report on progress being made on decisions.

Budget cuts in Agriculture are being made separately. G. Smulewitz has been working with Springer, Gale, and other vendors on price reductions. E. Sosnowska added that RBHS will continue to work on journal collections and also on medical book platforms to reduce prices. Possible collaborations on collection development are also being considered, similar to the 2CUL initiative between Cornell and Columbia University.

If groups fall short of the targets, RUL will need to see where we stand and do some creative thinking. We will need a contingency plan. We will be looking at the Wiley contract, at low-use/high-cost items. J. Sloan suggested that we discuss low-use journals in general and look at Web of Science. T. Izbicki indicated that discussion of Web of Science will have to wait until next year. R. Marker suggested that we study faculty attitudes toward approaches to cancellations, as they may vary. E. Sosnowska said that ideally we should keep both Scopus and Web of Science. Thomson Reuters is another possibility- but there is a CIC offer and they have allowed us to renew for one month.

In using ILL as a replacement for subscriptions, the library pays copyright royalty fees, up to $75 per work. Faculty can't put charges for royalty fees on their grants, but if it's an ILL fee they can charge the grant. We are looking at possible new ILL models to cut costs, such as SIPX. Currently RUL pays $25 for uses above the CONTU limits. If we removed that payment, it would affect budgets. But if there are personnel cuts, our ability to handle ILL and EZ Borrow transactions will be compromised. Article delivery costs come out of Melissa Just's budget and follow the CONTU guidelines. UBorrow is free but we pay for EZ Borrow.

10) Council Goals and Activities

K. Mulcahy advised members to read the goals and activities for the annual action plan.

The committee agreed to amend Draft Objective #1 to include "to assess the information-seeking behavior of faculty and students."

For Draft Objective #2, we may have to re-think selector lines. Open positions will stay open but there will be changes ahead. J. Sloan suggested something more concrete in #2. G. Agnew suggested that we take advantage of multi-disciplinary resources.

Concerning Draft Objective #3, Ron Jantz is investigating e-book platforms for library publishing. We are still considering an e- textbook initiative within the context of the national initiative for creating affordable textbooks. The Textbook Affordability issue was taken up this spring by the RUSA student group in the University Senate. We also need to consider incentives that faculty would or would not have for creating e-textbooks, and the quality of e-textbooks.

Draft Objective #4 on collective collection development has a lot to do with altmetrics, with how faculty use our resources. We need to show the value of the book budget. G. Smulewitz suggested that a goal should be to improve/evaluate the collection analysis group to define roles of participants, and to move into a multidisciplinary framework. The vendors are two steps ahead of us in this, as they are breaking out of subject silos.

Draft Objective #5should be not be in the purview of LRC, it's a matter for SC/UA.LRC remanded it to SC/UA. The deadline for this exercise is October 15 but further suggestions should be submitted to K. Mulcahy by October 1.

11) Announcements

T. Izbicki: There is a new issue of the Journal of Rutgers University Libraries dedicated to the Civil War in New Jersey, based on the SC/UA exhibit.

G. Smulewitz announced the departure of one staff member in serials.

12) Agenda for October meeting-All

K. Mulcahy and Ann Watkins will send out a call for agenda items for the October meeting.

13) Adjournment

Website Feedback  |  Privacy Policy

© Copyright 1997-2017, Rutgers University Libraries