Minutes of October 22, 2007 Meeting

Frusciano, Hoffman (recorder), Kuchi, Niessen, Sewell, Triggs, Womack

R. Sewell reported that the bill in Congress requiring Open Access for publication of research funded by NIH was being compromised by two potential amendments and urged us to e-mail our Congressmen today supporting the original bill – mandatory Open Access for publication of such research. [NB: the bill passed in the Senate October 23, following previous passage in the House. Now the bill must go to conference, but this increases the urgency of facilitating author submissions for text and data.]

The Planning and Coordinating Committee is asking us to provide input to M.Gaunt in preparation for an Open Forum on Scholarly Communication to be held after the November 16 RUL meeting. At this Forum M. Gaunt will give an overview of scholarly communication issues and priorities for RUL and she would like for CSC to further the discussion at the Open Forum. Some of the areas for the CSC to consider are:

  1. open access e-journals – library’s role in publishing (Do we want to create more new e- journals? Do these new e-journals have any downward impact on commercial journal pricing? Other issues?)
  2. populating the RU repository and
  3. digitization of materials in RUL collections.
  4. criteria for RUCore Collection Development.

A question regarding RUcore was raised: Is RUCore searchable by Google? J. Triggs reported that it was not as yet – but will be shortly. (Feb. release -version 4.5) Two possible options exist for achieving searchability: (1) OAI harvesting has limited value, does not control access to selected collections or (2) submission of a site-map to Google that permits us to control access to some objects. Our current e-journal platform is Google-searchable. Kuchi reports the User Services Committee (co-chaired by Linda Langscheid and Rhonda Marker) was told the February release will have Google searchability of author-submitted articles.

1. Role of the University in Publishing and Dissemination its faculty scholarly work

This discussion was stimulated by two documents for ARL : “University Publishing in the Digital Age: Highlights of the Ithaka Report” and David Shulenburger’s “University Research Publishing or Distribution Strategies?”

The Ithaka report recommends expanding universities’ role in publishing the works of their faculties and Shulenburger thinks the universities should play a role in distributing (not necessarily publishing) the works of their faculties.

Peer-reviewed publishing is at the core of faculty evaluation, and as David Schulenberger points out it would be unfitting for the administration to insert itself into the peer review process. On the other hand, the RU administration does appear to be interested in furthering the dissemination of authors’ scholarship, and here is where RUL can play a role.

There will be disciplinary differences when considering dissemination of peer-reviewed material vs. non. Note: e-scholarship (California) bought back rights from publishers for their faculty publications. The issue of role of libraries in e-publishing. Repository vs. peer-reviewed publishing. In some disciplines pre-prints and post-prints are widely accepted and shared, in other areas the peer-reviewed publication is still the gold standard.

2. Role of the Liaisons in Raising the Awareness of Authors’ and Teachers Rights regarding copyright issues;

(cf CIC documents, http://www.cic.net/groups/CICMembers/archive/Report/authorsrightsfinalversion61906.pdf )

Roles of liaisons:

There is no point in inviting projects that won’t be accepted.

If faculty consult R.Marker as prospective “Repository Collection Manager” re: inclusion of material in RUCore; she will involve the appropriate liaison.

It was suggested that liaisons meet with faculty groups to introduce SPARC documents on Rights of Authors as well as Rights of Teachers with regard to copyright material. Some discussion as to whether all departments will have equal interest in both aspects. Suggested that begin discussions via Senate and NBFC Library Committee.

We need to engage the faculty on the issues of both teachers’ and authors’ copyrights; however with respect to timing there is also concern about how author submissions to the repository will actually work. Alternate strategies would be to get on the agenda of campus-wide meetings, and for liaisons to organize discussions in their departments. The advantage of the latter is the extreme diversity among departments and disciplines in the relative weight of research and teaching (in many science departments research grants rule the roost) and of publishing patterns.

Our committee will seek discussion of the above issues with members of the teaching/research faculty by the end of the semester to get their input.

It was agreed that our committee recommends to Cabinet that it follow the lead of the CIC in advocating university authors use an addendum on rights. It would be a good idea to propose this issue to the Senate and the NBFC.

3. RUL Priorities for Digitization of RUL collections

(cf ERRC guidelines: http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/staff/collection_dev/forms/digital_project_proposal_questionnaire.doc )

a. NJ Documents: will digitize – include Stacks and Special Collections material? Suggested doing both. Is State Libraries holding more complete?

Work with State agencies themselves? Alex has done re-con for NJ Docs, LSM has not.

Niessen will attend the November 2 Document Association of New Jersey (DANJ) meeting at which the digitization of NJ documents will be discussed, and Frusciano will attend the November 5 meeting of NJ Digital Highway (NJDH) and report back to us on its future plans, after the end of its major grant, with regard to NJ documents. Will these be part of NJDH or RUCORE?

b. Theses: Will be able to get to e- theses (ETD’s) via a catalog link. Pre-1923 theses can be digitized and e-published as they are no longer covered by copyright. (Can we cooperate with Alumni office to get current info. on post-1923 graduate-alumni so we can solicit permissions to include those theses?) Current status of this year’s ETD’s? Not yet – still problems with audio and pictorial content.

4. Criteria for RUCore Collection Development

Who decides? This committee? Other? What will we accept for deposition? Newsletters? Other? What should liaisons be soliciting from their faculties? These issues must be decided separately from the technical issues. We will ask M.Gaunt to discuss at open forum. At this point the RUCore policies page http://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/policies/ also has a list of such questions. Teaching and Research faculty should be consulted to get input on CollDev. Issues. Will we accept Departmental collections, individual? Must something be added permanently or can date-sensitive items be removed as some pre-specified time? Are embargos acceptable?

The Va. Tech project can be a model in that we did the first batch of records, then passed project on to them. Using this model – we show participants how to use the resource, then they can enter their own material.

It was also suggested that we look at the policies Michigan uses for its repository, “Deep Blue”.

URL: http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/staff/groups/com_of_schol-comm/minutes/schol-comm_07_10_22.shtml
Website Feedback  |  Privacy Policy
© Copyright 1997-, Rutgers University Libraries