John has taken over for Jeffry as lead technical developer of the platform. Update focused on the following:
There are various statements on the PCSP pages that are specific to PCSP but provide a model that may be modified for subsequent e-journals, including
It states that RUL, the Editor, and the Dean [or Department Head etc of the Editor] agree... A Governing Board, which provides for continuity in case the Editor leaves RU, consists of UL-RUL, the Editor, and the Dean or Dept Head
This will be on the Author's Page, and modified for each journal. All authors will be required to accept it, but it will guarantee authors' copyright
The statement is designed to explain the functionality and open-source character of the e-journal platform, why RUL is doing this, and go on public record in support of open access, freely accessible journals. The committee changed "free" in the text to "freely accessible" to avoid the possible connotation of the former of "low-cost" or "-quality." The committee considered the intention, stated in the last paragraph, to eventually offer the complete platform to other institutions, whether as a source of revenue for RU or for free. We came down on the side of "free," adding the proviso "under an open- source license." Such a license by definition prohibits commercial interests from repackaging then selling the platform. We will ask MIG if she would like to be the contact person in the last sentence: "For more information, please contact..."
There will be an initial announcement of PCSP to other members of the editorial board, with an initial set of impressive articles, in July; the board members will help publicize the journal. Then the full public launch will be sometime in the fall, when 2-3 modules are online
This Mitch Denda journal has been online since 2003; now it is migrating to the platform as the second e- journal, and usability is being tested
Dan is very interested in raising the prestige and publicity of PCSP. He stated that the Rutgers affiliation and becoming part of an eventual "stable" of journals would add status and credibility for the journal, so we asked whether a) "rutgers" was in the URL, b) whether it would have a series name and c) whether an RU logo should appear on the journal. It was noted that RUL is identified in the official URLs: http://pcsp.libraries.rutgers.edu, http://ejbe.libraries.rutgers.edu
By analogy to Project MUSE, it seems reasonable as the group of e-journals to give it a collective name, home page with search engine, and link to this home page on each journal home page. Also by analogy to MUSE, the committee was less enamored of the usefulness of an RU logo
It was suggested that Jim consult with Rick Johnson in Orlando about adding the logo "SPARC Leading Edge Journal" to PCSP et al, as has done the heavily publicized, freely accessible Journal of Insect Science.
The two e-journals of Haym Hirsh are good candidates, and Peter Klein of Philosophy has also expressed interest in creating an e-journal on the platform. The committee agreed we should focus our development efforts next on these targets rather issuing an RU call for new applicants.
There are two existing potential models for a vetting body:
a. The July 2002 Final Report of the Scholarly Communication Steering Committee at http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/about/rusci/SCS_Final_Report_2002.pdf recommended the creation of a Digital Publications Office "under the aegis of the Office of Vice President for Academic Affairs, the University Libraries, the Computing Center and the University Press."
b. The 4/16/04 resolution of the New Brunswick Faculty Council at http://nbfc.rutgers.edu/year03_04/Library.html called for a "Standing Committee on Scholarly Communication composed of academic and library faculty as well as administrators to:...c. Evaluate and ensure that new models of publication adopted at Rutgers meet high quality standards required for academic promotion and tenure."
Jim will speak before a large audience on June 26 and asked if it would be prudent to speak about our e- journal platform. The committee agreed that it would as long as no mention was made of specific journals at this time.
The thesis was proposed for discussion that we can move toward a more broadly-based institutional repository by identifying data access needs of content-generating units and then working to serve them. Of four possible content formats proposed for discussion, it was agreed that the most promising were syllabi, digitized documents and images, and papers presented at RU conferences and symposia.
Jim will contact selected units to see if they would be interested in this service, and report back to the committee about what he learns.