Minutes of June 22, 2015 Meeting

Judy Cohn (guest), Tom Izbicki, Rhonda Marker, Aletia Morgan, Laura Mullen (chair), Jill Nathanson, Jane Otto, Janice Pilch, Minglu Wang (recorder), Mary Beth Weber (guest),Yingting Zhang
Caryn Radick (on sabbatical), Krista White (on SRA)

AUL Report (Mullen reporting for Yang)

Yang shared the link to his Collection Development Management Update document before this CSC meeting. Mullen discussed the CSC relevant items from the document:

Chair’s Report (Mullen)

Open Access Collection Development at RUL: the case of OA monographs (Weber, guest)

The CSC February meeting on “Open Access Collection Development” showed librarians’ great interest in continuing the discussion, and we will try to prepare a workshop on the topic for the fall for selectors. Mary Beth discussed some considerations about adding OA monographs to RUL’s Collection, including:

  1. Lack of collection development policy for OA monographs: Mary Beth suggested we need to develop such policies in consultation with the AUL for Collection Development and Management, subject specialists, and the LRC. A workflow and guidelines can be developed in consultation with Central Technical Services.
  2. What types of monographs will be collected? Shall we focus more on scholarly publications, or will other types of monographs such as novels and textbooks also be considered? We need to consider publishers’ permission to download, and whether they include access to the entire book or chapters. What types of license and restrictions exist? What types of formats are available, including for mobile devices? Can we support those formats?
  3. Relationship to print? Need to decide whether we will purchase the print copies that are added to our collection, and whether we will add OA titles to records for print titles we own.
  4. Publishers: Shall we identify a list of preferred publishers or link to the Open Access Directory’s list of publishers? Are there preferred publishers for different disciplines (sciences versus the humanities, for example)?
  5. Business models: which business is appropriate for us? Maybe different models for different disciplines?

Discussion: Mullen mentioned that we have done small projects like PubMed books before. Selectors would welcome some guidance about what to do. Weeding OA titles should also be considered. Tom raised the quality and reliability issues that need to be considered ultimately at the individual selector’s level. He suggests we need to track and identify patterns of different types of producers and publication mechanisms. Tom also suggested that we need to be cautious about adding OA titles to the catalogue and discovery layers, which might increase the cost of the system that we use. Janice raised the issue that it is not always possible to add copies of OA books as copies to the collection because some publishers allow linked access but do not allow full text download to a secondary access mechanism. Also, she mentioned that because it strictly illegal to remove content management information (licenses) from the content they govern, all licenses need to remain attached to the associated works if copies are downloaded to the RUL system. The license needs to be visible to users. This is often accomplished by a hovering notice. Rhonda reminds members that the presentation of the OA items should be set up by the producers, and not controlled by us. We won’t be hosting these materials. Mullen suggested that there should be a task force with members from both CSC and LRC, representing different disciplines, to further investigate different process of doing this, for example, either adding aggregated or individual OA records into catalogue directly or letting selectors pick and add to RUL’s collection based on their subject knowledge and expertise. Rubrics could be developed to guide subject specialists’ new responsibilities in this area of collection development. Tom, Janice, and Laura expressed interest in working on this as a task force group. It was suggested that Mary Beth could do this presentation again for LRC and let them know that CSC is interested in working with them. CSC thanked Mary Beth for presenting this information.

Open Access Week: Discussion of grant-funded events (Cohn, guest)

Judy shared that she and Yingting are working on a proposal applying to a Health Information Awareness Grant from International Network of Libraries of Medicine, given through its contract with the regional medical library, Pittsburg Medical Library. It will be $3000 not covering food, and asking for promoting free NLM and NIH resources. Yingting reached out to Scott Lapinski, a librarian from Harvard and an expert in NIH Public Access Policy compliance, and he has agreed to be the keynote speaker, coming for the first day afternoon sessions in Newark, and second day morning session in New Brunswick or Piscataway at the medical school. It’s also been planned to have a panel composed of librarians (maybe Laura and Jane talking about SOAR), a researcher who published in OA journals, and potentially an OA publisher. Judy and Yingting need suggestions on the panel speakers and moderator, on the topic of the keynote speech, and they proposed that there should be tables presenting information/material about library’s roles, about SOAR, about OA, and about NIH and NLM resources. The theme of the program is “Open for Collaboration, Rutgers University Libraries”, and the object of the program in the current proposal is to advocate Rutgers OA Policy, promote SOAR, and support health scientists’ compliance with NIH Public Access Policy and NLM resources. Members agreed that this program sounds great. Laura suggested discussion questions being developed beforehand and have publisher or NIH people in addition to librarians as panelists will help ensure the success of the program. Members suggested the focus should be our library users, the researchers. The new University Librarian could be invited to moderate the program. The program should be added to the university calendar, newsletters, and being marketed beyond RBHS. Laura and Aletia would like to join Judy and Yingting to further plan this program in July.

There will be some more OA week related small program discussions in our future meetings.

Endnote at RU (Cohn, guest)

Judy discussed that there are enough requests now coming from the other Rutgers departments for Endnote access. Our health science libraries have been providing Endnote software, training, and support for previous years. Judy asked if CSC would support the proposal of putting continuous and expended university wide Endnote services onto the LRC list of resources for consideration. Some current RBHS schools that do not have access to Endnote before the merger are getting access through special hybrid arrangement now. Health sciences librarians are willing to continue to provide support and service for Endnote users, for example, Yingting’s Endnote Blog is known nationally.

Discussion: The Rutgers Software portal should be able to provide statistics on the number of users who purchased the Endnote license. OIRT is paying for RefWorks and Flow now; maybe they are able to negotiate an even better price for Endnote. Members suggest Judy contact OIRT (Gayle Stein) instead of seeking LRC’s further endorsement on EndNote access. Members said Endnote is a resource that should be supported centrally by the Rutgers instead of RUL, similar to RefWorks and Flow. Jill will let Judy know whom to contact within RUL, and from the USC, that could make the right connections to OIRT. CSC offered support for a proposal to extend the EndNote site license to all of Rutgers university affiliates. This conversation will continue.

SOAR Update (Otto, Mullen)

Jane and Laura reported that the OA factsheet has been updated again, with clarification that users only need to check the publishers’ permissions if they want to. There are bookmarks for SOAR now, with a quick start guide on how to make a deposit in five simple steps. Jane and Laura went to the Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries conference. They have presented on passing the Rutgers OA Policy before; this time, they presented on the implementation of the OA policy, and they hope to have a third part presentation on this topic about what happened after the implementation, possibly next year. Jane and Laura went to present in the School of Pharmacy with liaison Jackie Mardikian where more than 100 faculty and students attended and were very interested, and they went to present to SCI faculty too with follow up invitation to talk to SCI leadership group (both sessions with liaison Lily Todorinova) about models for OA implementation.

Jane and Laura shared the document on “Models for Implementation of the Rutgers OA Policy” that they prepared for the SCI presentation and where they listed some potential models including:

  1. Authors deposit their own works (themselves) on their own initiative
  2. Authors deposit their works on their own initiative, via a designee/proxy, chosen by the author
  3. Authors deposit their works on their own initiative, via a designee/proxy, chosen by the academic unit
  4. Academic unit request SOAR DOI for any publication posted on the unit’s website
  5. Academic unit request SOAR DOI (or opt out ID) on any publication included in promotion/tenure documentation, area updates, etc.

In addition, many schools that Mullen and Jane visited have suggested having an advocate from their unit, a contact person for RUL liaison, and his/her CV could be used to select articles to deposit as a demonstration of SOAR features.

Some SOAR services are also listed on the above “models” document, and this document needs to be finalized and shared so any school or department asking for information on departmental implementation will have this information.

Janice asked whether we should add one more item to the list of services on the document, stating that “SOAR staff responds to copyright related inquiries.” It is decided that the content of this “models” document will be discussed with the Implementation Working Group.

Members suggested #4 and #5 items listed under the models need some rewording to clarify that deposits have to be made first in order to get the DOIs to be used on either websites or tenure review material. (Note that the “models” document is in draft and will be finalized and made available soon).

Rhonda, Jane and Laura have met with Audrey Weiner of the Faculty Survey, and Robert Heffernan, Executive Director of the Office of Institutional Research and Academic Planning. We are assured that Faculty Survey will stay. Currently, there is a brief introduction of RUcore on the Faculty Survey’s main page, and faculty can choose to have a RUcore search box of their deposit at the end of their Faculty Survey CV web page. It was agreed that we could update the RUcore intro with SOAR information on the Faculty Survey’s main page, and the RUcore search box will be removed because it is redundant and not working properly. 95% of new incoming tenure track faculty filled out the faculty survey.

Jane reported that new deposit form changes will appear today with the new release. SOAR staffing issues are under discussion. License agreement and waiver form are being worked on right now. In our July meeting there will be a big final SOAR update. That will be the final update before the policy rolls out on Sept. 1.

Round Robin Updates

New Elsevier policies (Mullen)
New Elsevier Article Sharing Policy has given up the requirement that an agreement had to exist with any universities that have OA policies. Elsevier extended many of their embargoes (in years past, they allowed immediate self-archiving without embargos) and claimed that most of them are 12 months. In fact they have many 3 and even 4 years embargoes. Elsevier wants authors to choose the gold OA option which the authors need to pay for up to $5000. Elsevier requires authors to use the CC-BY-NC-ND license on their new manuscripts. Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR) drafted a statement that 1,600 institutions and individuals have signed opposing Elsevier’s new sharing policy, and one Rutgers faculty signed it individually too. Signatories included ALA, ARL, COAPI, ALCTS, and many others.

Online and Hybrid Learning Conference: OA Texbooks? (Nathanson)
Rutgers holds Online and Hybrid Learning Conferences every year and the upcoming one will be in January 2016 with proposals due in August. Rutgers faculty who teach online and hybrid courses attended and people from other institutions too. The conference has partners including the Mid-Atlantic University Professional Association and NJIT this year. Janice presents on copyright every year, and Jill and Mei Ling presented on discovery and inclusion of library materials. Some new ideas for this year’s conference are: setting up a library vendor table; the conference committee is excited about the topic of Open Access Textbooks, so if any librarian, who is interested in presenting a 45 minutes session on an introduction to OA textbooks and related resources, please let Jill know.

“Request a Copy Button” in RUcore (Marker)
In RUcore, if a resource is embargoed, there is a “Request a Copy” button, which will send a request to the author with the requesting reasons for the author to approve or deny. So far, 100% of the requests are for ETDs, with an average of 1 request a day. A few authors contacted us to ask about the requests. We have successfully explained the process and the potential benefits to them, and authors tend to like it with these information. This is a private sharing feature that other IR programs support too. The link that is given to the requesters can only be used once. Janice suggested adding some more related information about the process when forwarding the requests to the authors. When SOAR deposits are under embargo, the request a copy button will appear.

New Biographical Sketch Format from NIH (Zhang)
NIH and AHRQ require that researchers use the new biosketch format in applications for research grants submitted for dues dates on or after May 25, 2015. Instead of a list of publications, this new format allows researchers to emphasize their accomplishments. Page limit was extended from 4 to 5 pages. Original list of 15 publications was replaced by a new “Contributions to Science” section, where researchers can describe up to 5 major contributions, each of them could list up to 4 peer reviewed publications or other types of research products. Applicants could provide a link to researchers’ full list of publications, which has to be hosted in publically hosted databases, for example, My Bibliography and SciEncv.

Announcements, Adjourn (All)

There were no announcements given.

URL: http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/staff/groups/com_of_schol-comm/minutes/schol-comm_15_06_22.shtml
Website Feedback  |  Privacy Policy
© Copyright 1997-, Rutgers University Libraries