Minutes of November 19, 2009 Meeting

Jeanne Boyle, Tom Frusciano, Melissa Gasparotto, Harry Glazer (guest), Quian Hu, Rhonda Marker, Jim Niessen (guest), Bob Sewell, Jeffrey Triggs

Agenda Item 1) Next steps after the October Symposium

It was agreed that issues raised in the symposium should be brought to other venues. Departmental meetings or less formal gatherings were seen as a good place to start, and it was agreed that materials for distribution would be needed as informational handouts. Three handouts were identified as useful: RUcore brochure (in development), Copyrights brochure and Open Access handout. Bob will make sure that these get into the regular distribution process to all libraries.

Agenda Item 2) Harry Glazer: RUcore brochure

Harry was a guest at the meeting to talk about the brochure he was asked to prepare for the teaching faculty on RUcore. Marianne asked that it be ready by February. The draft was discussed, and some changes to wording and layout were suggested. It was agreed that emphasizing the possibility that depositing in RUcore would increase the impact of faculty research was important, and that language to this effect should appear prominently in the brochure. Rhonda agreed to work with Harry to incorporate the suggestions, mindful of the fact that not all faculty are thrilled about the prospect of higher web visibility, given fears that their work might be "stolen." Bob agreed to be the point-person for this brochure, and to distribute the draft to CSC for additional comments. After CSC approves the brochure, it will be put on the agenda of the December council meetings.

Agenda Item 3) Jim Niessen: Outreach to History Department re: RUcore

Jim visited to talk about his experience doing outreach to the History faculty about RUcore. After being invited by the new department chair to talk about RUcore, he gave a presentation at the departmental meeting. Before the presentation, he did some research into the issues to which faculty might be most receptive. He found that the current RUcore faculty deposits show no correspondence between participation in RUcore deposits and the Faculty Survey or promotion and tenure. He therefore made no effort to push this argument onto the faculty. He did bring handouts: a printout from the SC page, the copyright decision tree on submitting work, and the RUcore faculty deposits submission forms. The faculty chair mentioned at the meeting that the university was concerned about making faculty research more visible, and that RUcore and the Faculty Survey were two ways in which this was being promoted.

Some of the History Department faculty concerns expressed (CSC discussion in parentheses):

Jim is considering a follow-up brown bag lunch at the History Department. He noted that repeated pitches will be necessary in order to increase deposits and support for a mandate on deposits.

Agenda Item 1, Continued: Next Steps

It was agreed that guidelines need to be developed for liaisons to talk to departments about depositing in RUcore. Once the RUcore brochure is ready, departmental visits by liaisons would be ideal. Jeanne suggested inviting liaisons who had faculty members at the Symposium to meet with CSC and have Jim discuss his outreach experiences.

It was agreed that Symposium registrants who left comments should be contacted directly ASAP.

It was suggested that Marianne bring RUcore to the attention of the Dean's Council and ask them to bring the information back to their constituencies.

Whatever information campaign is launched about RUcore, it is clear that we must have a clear goal in mind. This could ultimately be a faculty resolution on institutional deposits in the style of Harvard's mandate. However, we would not necessarily want to mention this first, but only gradually after more information is provided to faculty.

To make depositing easier, a short video tutorial (such as the one already in use for ETDs) was suggested.

In a separate discussion, it was noted that CSC could take on the effort to change the 1-A and 1-L. Currently the section for electronic publications is listed separately from peer-reviewed publications. It was agreed that this does not reflect the current model for scholarly communication, and that changing this is very important. Bob will discuss with Marianne.

URL: http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/staff/groups/com_of_schol-comm/minutes/schol-comm_09_11_19.shtml
Website Feedback  |  Privacy Policy
© Copyright 1997-, Rutgers University Libraries