Minutes of September 17, 2009 Meeting

Grace Agnew, Jeanne Boyle (recorder), Melissa Gasparotto, Qian Hu, Haipeng Li (co-chair), Rhonda Marker, Jane Otto, Robert Sewell (co-chair), Jeffrey Triggs
Tom Frusciano

1. 2008/09 Accomplishments

Bob Sewell reviewed the accomplishments of the committee during 2008/09:

The Peter Still and photographs from the Griffiths collections from Special Collections and University Archives are being digitized. The agreement for mass digitization with Lyrasis has been signed, and the workflow and selection of items will be planned. A manager is needed for the mass digitization project. The Libraries will be expanding open access to e-journals by digitally publishing New Jersey History. A cost study is being done based on the effort it took to publish New Jersey History. We are considering digitally publishing the Annual Review of Jazz Studies.

Bob noted that the scholarly communication website will have to be reviewed in conjunction with the October symposium. Haipeng will work with Webmaster Sam McDonald to update the committee pages.

The committee needs to set goals for the coming year, many of which will be driven by the October symposium.

2. RUetd working Group

Jane Otto reported that the RUetd Working Group was appointed by Grace Agnew and is chaired by Rhonda Marker. The charge and membership are posted at the RUcore developersí website: http://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/collab/etdwg.php, and there will be an announcement to rul_everyone@email. Jeanne asked if the group could oversee the cleanup of the draft rights statement used for the first batches of ETD deposits, and Jane will work with Grace and Jeffrey Triggs to make the changes.

Grace, Jane, and Rhonda gave an update about our ETDs. We are close to having all doctoral programs contributing. The Graduate School of Education is about to begin and will make deposit mandatory in either January or May. Mason Gross is next, and their multiple formats will benefit from development work done as other schools joined. Camden is depositing all Mastersí theses, and Newark is depositing some. There was a discussion about copyright, especially with regard to images. RUcore stores the images privately, apart from the text of dissertations. Jeanne noted that recent copyright case decisions favor looking at the transformative use of an object, so we are hopeful that we may be able to make the images public in the future. In addition to searching RUcore, IRIS is a good place to find dissertations since both print and ETDs are cataloged. Jeanne suggested that we appeal to alumni associations for help getting permission from graduates to digitize print dissertations. Grace noted that dissertations are the highest use in RUcore right now and that most RUcore correspondence is about dissertations. Bob reported that there have been 167,000 PDF downloads from our three open access journals since 2005.

3. Data Working Group

Melissa Gasparotto reported about the Data Working Group. Among the groupís 2009/10 goals is establishing two prototype data collections, one from the sciences and one from the social sciences. They should be ingested by the end of the year, and requirements documents for the product and the software will be developed. Group members are currently surveying other universities.

Grace reported that we are also working on metadata for research objects so that researchers can reuse data. She described it as research context metadata. This project may support researchers in their IRB process and with granting agencies. Marianne has asked for everyone to pull together to see what we can do to support grants. An example is the ability to provide a portal for a grant. Some result in this area will be rolled out next year.

4. Planning for Symposium Follow-up

Bob noted that the program has a presenter, reactor panel, and discussion tables. There was discussion about how to capture the table discussions. Suggestions were digital recorders with omni-directional microphones, flip charts, blank paper with request to capture five best ideas, an evaluation and feedback form. The desired outcome is to identify the big issues, see if our view is like the view of the faculty, a Harvard-like statement, participation in RUcore. There was general discussion about open access and the difficulty of negotiating publisher agreements. We need to be attuned to faculty interest and time and differing outlook of tenured and untenured faculty. One question suggested for the evaluation form is: Are you willing to be contacted later to continue this discussion? The committee discussed methods for continuing the dialog, including a blog, coffees, liaisons contact faculty who attend. Faculty become engaged when there is a problem to solve and when the outcome affects their impact. Bob and Jeanne will work on an evaluation form.

Bob left at 3:50 for a meeting with the Coutts representative to discuss the overall profile of the approval plan and its cost.

There was general discussion about the faculty tenure process and finding ways that we can help. Benefits of RUcore are that with one click you can find your colleaguesí research. The repository will also permanently archive research artifacts that are not published, such as data sets and video. The video production studio has many such artifacts and did not know about the repository.

It was suggested that library faculty members need a reminder that they have to register for the symposium.

URL: http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/staff/groups/com_of_schol-comm/minutes/schol-comm_09_09_17.shtml
Website Feedback  |  Privacy Policy
© Copyright 1997-, Rutgers University Libraries