Meeting minutes are up to date. Jane wrote an ORCID conference report. Yingting also wrote one on the Midwinter pre-conference she attended. Perhaps we can append these reports to the minutes in future. DOAJ is looking for editors, especially people with language skills. More comments and questions have come in about Open Access articles and author funds. Collaboration with the VPR&ED may be coming up in some way. Rhonda noted that the medical school integration has created some issues with grant reporting. Laura, Jane, Rhonda, and Yingting will be meeting later today about NIH policies and making sure that the new focus on funder compliance works well with the Rutgers OA Policy/RUcore. We have to start talking about the public services and collection development side of Open Access. The COAPI list sent a survey, and the questions were a reminder that we need to integrate OA works. How do we make open access materials available in our collections? Others are working to integrate open access materials into their catalogs, discovery layer, serials collections, etc. A new book called Opening Science from Springer is free on the web. How can we add things like this? We need to make clear how we do things like this. We want to be able to add material regardless of the business model of the publication. We have processes in place, but they are not clear to selectors. Is there a license attached to the free e-book mentioned? Altmetrics is getting to be a “big thing”. We may need a new web page about this topic to add to our CSC offerings. Research networking is also getting a lot of attention. Knowledge Unlatched - we do not belong. Should we? At the next meeting we'll discuss the new 4.0 Creative Commons License. Ron Jantz will join us to talk about the development of the OA journals program.
Minglu Wang demonstrated the latest version of the website. Should RefWorks Flow be just Flow? It is now ProQuest Flow more than RefWorks Flow. We decided that the mention of “RefWorks” will be cut from the label. The Open Access Journals page is ready to showcase the existing journals, not to advertise for new ones. Ron will discuss this at the next meeting. The page is scheduled to go live tomorrow. We need to revisit how Rutgers "Scholarly Communication" is displayed on the web. Laura will show this to PlanCo this week. We need to weight our pages perhaps. It's ready to go; Minglu will communicate with Mary Ann Koruth and the page will be complete.
Update on the implementation. This is the top priority for the current six-month period. Laura and Jane have been giving various presentations and come up with an enhancements list of 30 items. Kalaivani Ananthan will oversee the updates. They are working on specs for various features. Laura and Jane have reviewed other institutions' repositories. User accounts are scheduled for the current release. We have re-upped the librarians’ deposit policy pilot. Issues persist with Faculty Deposit, but are being worked on. Laura and Jane have an RFP for a short video about the open access policy. They met last week with Marianne about contacting deans who want to generate reporting. They are investigating Academic Analytics to see if it would complement some of our work. An OA Implementation Working Group meeting is scheduled for Wednesday. They'll get the timeline handout, learn about the user accounts feature, and learn about ORCID. Faculty Deposit will be changed a bit to become more of a scholarship portal, something like Harvard's DASH. Should ETDs be included? SOAR (Scholarship Online at Rutgers) is one of the popular names for this new portal idea. We will talk about the "please share" feature on the coversheet. This would allow users to write about how the open access material was helpful to them or not. Other agenda items have to do with outreach. The timeline is short with final report due December 2014, and enhancements done by Sept. 2014.
Discussing RUL issues, Janice followed up on the idea that we need to think about an evaluation process for born digital innovative activities. Jane wondered why we should distinguish digitization from transcoding. Can the same forms be used for both types of project? Janice thinks we need to tweak them to be generally applicable and that we need a "more expanded framework".
Some digitization projects are coming close to completion. Questions about the 250th anniversary are also coming up. We are considering a policy on how SPCOL can or should be made available and how they should be licensed. Also we are investigating the possibilities of SIPX which is a combination link resolver and compliance solution product. We are also looking into SWANK licenses for streaming video. There have been increasing numbers of queries from students about copyright issues for dissertations, and CTAAR programs with graduate students are gaining traction. RUL is moving on joining HathiTrust and the agreement is under review in Counsel. Janice also noted that legacy UMDNJ is under different copyright policies than legacy Rutgers. The UMDNJ policies are still in effect and there are differences. For example, the legacy UMDNJ policy holds that copyright in teaching materials belongs to UMDNJ.
On the national front, the Elsevier data-mining license is being discussed. It offers text and data mining for no additional cost to subscribers, but the library would need to sign a license. Will other publishers follow suit? The issue is that of whether text and data mining should be accomplished through a copyright exception or through licensing. Also, U.S. Copyright reform is underway and the Copyright Office will look at each provision in the law toward possible amendment. They are moving quickly to open up all the issues involved.
Most universities with OA policies have a fund for funding open access. If people want to publish in an open access journal, we may be able to help get them money. The University of Rhode Island has a small open access fund (normal capped at $3,000 which is considered the top of "reasonable fee categories” that journals charge as author fees). We wouldn't do this, however, for journals we already pay for (e.g., hybrid fees). The University of Calgary has a different, more open policy. Funds are often administered by the library but funded by the university. We need to determine what our parameters should be. We are getting questions about the "cost of open access". OA Journals don't always allow people to put articles in their own institutional repository. Rhode Island insists on being able to do this, but not Calgary. Rutgers would want to have RUcore deposits allowed. We will create a proposal in CSC for such a fund. Our concern would be for non-grant funded authors. We may want to use Rhode Island's fund as a model. CSC then discussed many of the OA memberships. There are questions about memberships in Bio/Med Central, PLoS and many others like them. PLoS has recently dropped their membership model. People have heard about open access fees even if nothing else about open access. There is a considerable variety of implementation schemes. We may need to find a way to describe all these and be able to answer questions. Knowledge Unlatched was promoted by IFLA. This is a global open access monograph initiative. There is a long list of librarian members. The Royal Society of Chemistry will now use a voucher system for authors who are affiliated with subscribing institutions and who want to make their articles OA. We will need to have information in the Libraries about all of these many initiatives.
Planning and Coordinating has focused somewhat on “scholarly communication organization” this year. They have been too busy to spend as much time on scholarly communication as Laura Mullen would have liked. This week the discussion will be on how other peer/aspirant institutions' libraries handle "scholarly communication”. It seems there is no consensus. Laura showed a couple of samples. For instance IUPUI has a website with personal pages for each person at the Center for Digital Scholarship. Ohio State on the other hand has a more prominent focus on copyright. We need to pull our services together and make people and projects more visible. Laura mentioned that this week’s PlanCo study is just focused on websites. To find accurate information, interviews would have to be conducted with these libraries.
Yingting (with Minglu and Laura) is presenting a poster on Altmetrics May 17th on M(edical)LA in Chicago. Krista White and Caryn gave a presentation at the Digital Libraries Showcase, and will be presenting on Oral History Projects at SAA (Society of American Archivists) in June. Laura presented at AAAS in Chicago last week about increasing one’s research impact via social profiling systems and through open access. Laura was also invited to be on a panel at the Institute for Advanced Study on the future of publishing and open access. Jane and Laura (with Yu-Hung Lin) went to the ORCID meet-up in NYC where it was clear that ORCID is much more than an ID system. We're trying to figure out how to incorporate ORCID in the metadata. Several notable people have expressed interest in coming to Rutgers to discuss open access.
Next time (March 24th) we will have a discussion of Creative Commons 4.0, and developments with the Journals platform.