Minutes of December 14, 2015 Meeting

Judy Cohn, Rhonda Marker, Aletia Morgan (recorder), Laura Mullen (chair), Jane Otto, Janice Pilch, Minglu Wang, Krista White, Yingting Zhang
Caryn Radick, Tao Yang

1. Chair's Report (Mullen)

Reminder of Next Meeting Date - January 25, 2016

Prep for PlanCo meeting Wednesday (12/16). As requested, Laura is compiling a list of priorities for CSC. These will be considered at that meeting as part of the consideration of next steps in the RUL committee reorganization. These changes are required due to the RUL Bylaws changes approved on December 4 that restrict RUL committees to an advisory vs. decision-making role.

Pointer to today's Chronicle Blogs, which include an article about the Rutgers SAS faculty resolution calling for the university to limit their use of Academic Analytics for P&T reviews, given the frequent inaccuracies in the data.

Joseph Deodato and Cathy Pecoraro are investigating whether the BASE search engine (major aggregator of repository and other OA content) is automatically incorporating 80 million records into the RUL Articles Plus service. BASE is now partnering with EDS. (In an email later Monday, Laura clarified that this is not happening.)

2. AVP Report (Cohn)

Reminded the group of the RUL announcement that inter-library-loan (ILL) fees are being eliminated. Directors and AULs are working on the FY17 budget proposals for system-wide and universities which will be proposed to RU administration in January. The budget proposal must be organized in the new RCM format with lines of business, stated goals, costs of salary, operating and non-operating expenses. The Directors and AULs are sharing and coordinating their budgets to promote consistency.

The committee had some discussion about how RUL was allocating traditional RUL services vs. newer services, such as SOAR, with RCM, since it is not easy to clarify who funds and who benefits. Since many of our emerging initiatives are concerns of CSC, we need to participate in this conversation.

3. Round Robin Update: Senate ORCID Initiative (Otto)

Jane reported on the December 11, 2015, Senate Research, and Graduate and Professional Education Committee (RGPEC) meeting, where the ORCID charge was discussed. This meeting was intended to bring together ORCID experts with RGPEC members and the major stakeholders at Rutgers. ORCID's Technical Director (Laura Paglione) and Executive Director (Laurel Haak) joined the meeting via webinar, gave a presentation, and answered questions. Conversations with the CIC confirmed that it is usually the University Librarian and/or the University's Chief Information Officer who takes the lead in ORCID implementation, often with involvement from the Research Office. Invited to the meeting therefore (and asked to send a delegate if personal attendance were not possible) were Donald E. Smith (outgoing Vice President for Information Technology and Chief Information Officer) and Michele Norin (incoming Senior Vice President and Chief Information Officer), Christopher J. Molloy (Senior Vice President for Research and Economic Development), Robert J. Heffernan (Executive Director, Institutional Research & Planning), Krisellen Maloney (Vice President for Information Services and University Librarian), and Barbara Lee (Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs). In attendance were Smith, Norin, and Heffernan (also attending as Lee's delegate). Judy Cohn attended as the RUL delegate; Diane Ambrose attended for the Office of Research and Economic Development.

The purpose of the meeting was to lay out any concerns and questions about moving forward with implementing ORCID iDs University-wide. A key benefit of this implementation would be the availability of "ORCID Premium Membership" APIs that would be available to Rutgers IT staff. OIT saw no technical problems with this, although it might take some time. At the same time, the technical issue of the APIs is trivial vs. the effort required for outreach to faculty. The goal of the initiative would be to encourage faculty to claim an ORCID ID, and persuade campus researchers of the benefit of an ORCID profile that could facilitate aggregation of content in numerous University systems, including SOAR.

There was some interest in adding undergraduates, but it wasn't supported by RGPEC as a whole. In February, RGPEC will submit a report to the University Senate's Executive Committee, which would likely docket the report for the February 19 meeting of the full Senate. If the full Senate passed the resolution to implement ORCID, the report would go to President Barchi for approval. If approved planning for an ORCID implementation would move forward.

A concern raised by Judy Cohn is that the presenters implied that the majority of the work would be done by the library. There are apparently varying models for implementation across the CIC and other institutions. Before the report goes to a faculty vote, RUL and other stakeholders should review the plan with stakeholders to determine who can be identified as the beneficiary of having ORCID, so that it can be appropriately funded under the RCM model - faculty, ORED, or the graduate school?

4. SOAR update following University-wide announcement (Otto, Marker, Mullen)

New Activity. Since Barbara Lee's 12/1 email, we have seen a high rate of deposits (charts available from Otto) and received more than 50 questions from faculty. Two department administrators have contacted us about depositing articles on behalf of faculty. A frequent question involves the submission of past works. The early spike in deposits 12/1 and 12/2 has slowed, but we are still getting 5-10 deposits per day. By the end of the month, we will see as many deposits in SOAR as all previous scholarly deposits combined.

Backlog. At this point, we are prioritizing publications which fall under the policy. We are getting more "just accepted" manuscripts than before. This actually creates a complex situation, since it will require us to go back and update the record with links to the final version of record when that becomes available. There is unfortunately no process to generate an alert to update an incomplete citation, so it remains a manual process, although this could represent an opportunity for further enhancements.

Depositors have been patient so far, but with the growing backlog, we should consider modifying our turnaround time commitment that's shown on the web page, at least at this point. (This was done on 12/16.)

SOAR deposit processes. Jane has created a LibGuide to document the process. A major challenge is that very few of the deposits (10%) can be considered to be "routine". The other 90% require time to research policies, permissions, versions, and metadata. Permissions checking is the most time consuming part of the process. Our experience to date has been that the time to create a SOAR deposit ranges from 20-30 minutes to a maximum of 345 minutes, with an average time of 103 minutes.

Jane and Laura noted that the likely time required for SOAR deposits had been anticipated, and requests were made to plan for additional staffing in 2014, which were held pending evidence that the demand would be there for the SOAR service. At this point, RUL will need to review staffing alternatives to allow for a responsive and sustainable service.

Janice Pilch noted the responsibility that RUL has to provide correct information to the university community on SOAR. She stated that the language in the FAQ needs to more fully and accurately address the legal issues pertaining to open access. The message from the SVPAA should have indicated that a SOAR submitter will receive a DOI link that can be shared, not that the publication itself may be shared. Janice indicated that SOAR does not change rights to make deposit "anywhere" legal. Following extended discussion about how and whether to revise the information provided to SOAR depositors, there was no clear path to agreement. Judy Cohn mentioned that a special forum will be convened outside of a regular CSC meeting to discuss this issue and seek clarity. This suggestion was met with general approval.

Liaison Involvement in SOAR. Laura Mullen reminded the group that in all SOAR outreach events, that departmental liaisons are always invited to participate in any departmental or unit SOAR presentations.

5. Committee on Scholarly Communication - Discussion on Moving Forward (All)

This topic is in response to the RUL bylaws change which was required by recent changes to the larger RU bylaws that limit faculty/unit committees to an advisory vs. policy-making role. Laura Mullen described the issue, starting with a brief history of the CSC, which was formed in AY2007, and revitalized in 2010. Created as a standing committee in the RUL bylaws, its mission has been to develop and implement programs in support of Scholarly Communication. So the question at hand is how to move forward given the environmental changes?

Faculty committees are now advisory and do not assign work. CSC has a history of agreeing on need and identifying individuals to accomplish the work. Examples are the OA Symposium and the Information for Researchers web pages. How this ongoing work will be accomplished in the most effective way is to be determined.

Discussion within the committee centered on the degree of autonomy possible moving forward, and what type or amount of "work" would require cabinet or AUL involvement to move forward. CSC in particular is a committee comprised of representatives from across RUL, reporting to different AUL units; thus, who would have to approve work activities? There is some concern that historically, taking proposals to cabinet has been an unpredictable and confrontational process. Is there a commitment to create a more collaborative and productive approach to progress in a new structure? Judy Cohn indicated that Cabinet or AUL approvals would be required for strategic issues, or those requiring staff commitment.

Regular AUL involvement with CSC, such as Judy's presence, could help to avoid having to take every small thing to cabinet. So at this point, the big question is how to categorize CSC work that is of sufficient scope to require cabinet scrutiny.

6. Metrics panel for CSC Webpage and order of panels (Wang)

At this point, we had reached the end of our two-hour meeting time. The final two topics, CSC Web Page "panel order" and the "scholarly metrics (traditional and alternative)" panel content, will need to be reviewed over email before the next CSC meeting.

URL: http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/staff/groups/com_of_schol-comm/minutes/schol-comm_15_12_14.shtml
Website Feedback  |  Privacy Policy
© Copyright 1997-, Rutgers University Libraries