Minutes of February 22, 2016 Meeting

J. Cohn, R. Jantz (guest), Y-H Lin (guest), R. Marker, A. Morgan, L.B. Mullen (chair and recorder following SOAR update), J. Otto (recorder through end of SOAR), J. Pilch, C. Radick, M. Wang, K. White, R. Womack (guest), T. Yang, Y. Zhang
K. Hartman

1. AVP report (J. Cohn)

Cohn directed members to Cabinet minutes for relevant discussions held there. RUL is in a transition period of committees, task forces, work, and organizational structure. Until a new structure is in place, we will need to live with some ambiguity, but Cabinet is very cognizant that we need to make progress. Input was sought regarding CSC’s Research Services/Scholarly Communication website and was reassured that these activities should be continued. Other initiatives and projects will need to go to Cabinet for input and approval, including the rollout of SOAR outreach materials that have been prepared for liaisons, listed on today’s agenda. Cabinet will be meeting weekly whereas CSC is monthly so there should be timely turnaround in between CSC meetings. Yang and Cohn will address any questions. Mullen noted that CSC, LRC, and USC often seem to be discussed as one, but there are differences, especially in AUL sponsor participation and attention. In answer to a question, it was noted that RUL priorities are listed in Krisellen Maloney’s State of the Libraries presentation and posted at: http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/staff/admin/state_of_the_libraries/State_of_the_Libraries_2015.pdf

2. AUL report (T. Yang)

Cabinet members have been asked to elaborate and interpret Cabinet minutes for others. Yang directed group to the January 26 Cabinet minutes, about half of which concerned scholarly communication issues. Cabinet has stated that SOAR is a priority for the Libraries, and TAS has prioritized resources to support it. The digital priorities process needs to be revisited in this context. Cabinet has endorsed Grace Agnew’s proposal to move ahead with RUcore release 8.1 (R8.1), and will be discussing R8.2. [Otto noted that the RUcore release timeline is available online: https://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/collab/releases.php.] Cohn summarized Cabinet discussion of Ithaka’s November 2015 scholarly communication organization report. The report is a landscape review focusing on 10 research libraries, and describes three distinct models: collections-based models, research support models, and free-standing models similar to Harvard’s. The report includes interviews with vice-presidents, university librarians, and scholarly communication librarians about how the organizations work, how they’re funded, and how they relate to other parts of the university. [See http://www.sr.ithaka.org/publications/office-of-scholarly-communication/.] The report, along with other analysis, may inform what a scholarly communication organization should look like at RUL. Yang also reported on Cabinet discussion of the open textbook initiative. The focus will be on educating teaching faculty on how to use and incorporate open textbooks into their curricula. Melissa Just will be coordinating this. Questions from library users should be referred to her. The report of LRC’s Open Textbook Task Force (not to be confused with an earlier E-Textbook Discussion Group, chaired by G. Agnew) has been sent to K. Maloney and M. Just. J. Otto directed members to the Senate report on Open Textbooks (http://senate.rutgers.edu/SAConS1402CostOfTextbooksAsAdoptedMarch2015.pdf) and President Barchi’s response to it (http://senate.rutgers.edu/RLBAckS1402onCostOfTextbooks.pdf), in which he charged the Libraries with designing and administering a pilot program.

3. Chair’s report (L. Mullen)

Mullen distributed copies of the CSC document prepared for PlanCo and Cabinet, based on discussions at the CSC special meeting held January 12. Mullen emphasized in the PlanCo/Cabinet meeting discussion that CSC has never really had a dedicated AUL for scholarly communication. The interim AUL/CDMs have covered scholarly communication, but not as a major focus. One takeaway from the special PlanCo meeting on Jan. 27th was the proposal that there be no elections for this year’s upcoming open CSC offices. K. White’s and M. Wang’s positions end this year and they will likely be asked to continue their terms, rather than opening the seats up for a vote. CSC will need to decide how to move forward in the next year. This will be a major agenda item in the later Spring. Mullen has notes from Jan. 12th CSC discussion on the future of the committee, but no public minutes were posted on this topic on the CSC minutes page; there were no objections to this, as it was an internal discussion. Mullen then mentioned the new New Brunswick Libraries (NBL) reorganization; there are a variety of work groups, each with a team leader; R. Womack is Head of the Research and Content Department, which includes some scholarly communication/open access areas. These teams and groups, including faculty and staff, will focus their work on New Brunswick area work and initiatives.

SPARC (of which Rutgers is a full member) has released its 2016 program plan, which is available online; it has expanded its focus to include Open Access, Open Data, and Open Education (including open educational resources or OERs, and open textbooks). Open textbook initiatives are most often aligned with scholarly communication. In closing Mullen brought up the topic of “affordable textbooks” (as opposed to open textbooks) and the role of Springer Nature. In an initiative to increase use of licensed ebook textbook content as well as to save students money on textbooks that are already available at selected institutions, Springer has been using Web of Science faculty lists to contact faculty and let them know what textbooks are available through their subscription. Rutgers has major licensed textbook resources available now, and paper copies for 24.95 available via the MyCopy program. Springer Nature would like to enlist Rutgers in this promotion and marketing effort and contact RU faculty, beginning in June. Mullen will send out information about a webinar detailing how this is working now at a major Florida university. Mullen has more information, including emails going to professors, etc. This will be of interest to Melissa Just, Collection Development, and CSC.

4. Round Robin

a. Senate ORCID update (J. Otto). The ORCID resolution was passed at the very well attended February 19 Senate meeting in Camden, with only one dissention. Otto brought some copies of the report and distributed copies of page 8, the Resolution. The full report can be found on the Senate web page (http://senate.rutgers.edu/RGPEConS1505ImplementingORCIDIdentifiersFebruary2016.pdf). It is currently linked from the Feb. 19 agenda but will be moved to the reports page shortly. The PowerPoint will also be posted on the Senate page, linked from the minutes.

The ORCID implementation will have many implications for the Libraries; the participation goal is 80% and RUL (along with the Office of Research and Economic Development, probably to a lesser extent) would play an advocacy role; possibly some of this could be rolled into SOAR/OA policy presentations and other discussions. CSC may want to do a major agenda item on ORCID at a future meeting. Zhang discussed both SOAR and ORCID at a recent class on ethics of scholarship, and the Senate initiative was mentioned by the course director there. She added that ORCID has a major impact on the creation of science scholarship. Yang noted that K. Maloney had discussed ORCID with M. Norin, the new CIO.

b. ORED Newsletter call for items (A. Morgan). To raise RUL visibility with ORED and the University, A. Morgan continues to coordinate submissions to the ORED newsletter. Pilch will submit a copyright piece, but more topics are needed. ORED is getting to be a major supporter of the Libraries, and this should continue to build visibility. Jantz noted that in a recent lunch with SC&I faculty, it was clear that more information on DOIs would be helpful, and he volunteered to write that one.

5. SOAR Update

Otto gave an update on SOAR deposits since last meeting (mid-December). There have been 214 total deposits since Barbara Lee’s formal announcement of the Rutgers Open Access Policy going into effect. By a rough count this represents about 80-85 depositors, or an average of 3 items per depositor. Otto distributed a pie chart (see attached): indicating that of 214 total deposits, 98 are available in SOAR (fully searchable with cover sheet and DOI). 57 are awaiting the correct version from the author. (For many that came in with the incorrect version, the author quickly sent the accepted manuscript and those have been fully processed and are included in the “Available in SOAR” category). 44 papers are retrospective (pre-policy effective date) and authors understand that these take longer; we’ve had no complaints; faculty are notified for delays longer than a few days and response has been very positive. (Many retrospective deposits have been fully processed and those are included in the “Available in SOAR” category.) Three deposits are non-routine and need a small technical detail worked out; two arrived within the last three days and are therefore not categorized as backlog. Currently there are only 8 items in the 3-day queue and that represents about a day’s work with current staffing. Many people are depositing at point of acceptance; this is unusual among OA institutions and can be viewed as a point of pride, since it represents an important behavioral change for faculty.

There are three people working on deposits right now; Li Sun and Peter Konin are working alongside Marker; they are both new to the process, ramping up with a new set of skills but even so, things are humming right along. SOAR is open for business; we’re actively engaging with faculty; we have continued with presentations, with more to come. Last week Marker, Mullen, and Otto spoke at the Metropolitan New York Library Council (METRO) in Manhattan, in a session called “Institutional Repositories at Different Stages of Development.” CUNY represented a repository in its infancy and Rutgers’ RUcore was appearing as a veteran. Information was presented on the development of RUcore/SOAR/OA Policy and other important features of RUcore services. February 26, Mullen and Otto will be discussing SOAR and the OA Policy at a SC&I colloquium for PhD students. Some departments are requesting SOAR/OA Policy presentations at their upcoming faculty meetings. There has been preliminary discussion of a meeting in Camden, which now has 3 PhD programs, possibly in August. Following a presentation to the NB Department Chairs, there have been questions fielded by those chairs after they have spoken with their faculty.­­­ Other departmental presentations have been scheduled with liaisons. Mullen convened a small gathering of the COAPI group (Coalition of OA Policy Institutions) at ALA Midwinter in Boston.

The printed flyer announcing the OA policy to faculty is expected to appear in mailboxes at any moment so liaisons can expect questions. The flyer directs questions to Mullen and Otto; Mullen takes most of these (and tracks them as reference statistics), as they tend to relate to open access, the policy, and scholarly publishing. All questions relating to the technical/repository side are handled by Marker and Otto. There was a brief discussion about arXiv harvesting, rate of deposit (roughly 20 per week), and ease of deposit (recently an author deposited 34 deposits in as many minutes). Processing times on the back end will go down as we gain more experience. It’s important to keep the flow going and retain momentum with faculty.

Mullen discussed OA outreach materials for use by liaisons; currently these are sent out as requested but free availability on the selectors’ Sakai site and paper copies on hand at various library locations will be more efficient. She distributed the “Talking Points for Liaisons” and the boilerplate SOAR/OA Policy PPT, which is customizable by liaisons. Also available are SOAR pens, bookmarks, green factsheets, and copies of the Rutgers Open Access Policy. Mullen and Otto are eager to make these materials available to liaisons, and always offer to accompany any liaison to meetings. Cohn and Yang stressed the need to provide training to liaisons and involve the RUL directors in coordination of training. The SOAR and OA Policy outreach represent faculty engagement which is part of the public services that the Libraries provide, and the best way to do that is through library directors, who are in the best position to balance local priorities. Bypassing of directors is the issue we are addressing in the committee restructuring, and this new effort should follow the new model. Cohn will submit these issues for discussion at the March 8 cabinet meeting. A librarian noted that liaisons should be comfortable with OA policies and issues, as it has been a topic for many years. March will be midway through the semester; even if training took place the first week in April, liaisons wouldn’t be able to go back to faculty until the fall. Yang responded that faculty deposits and departmental requests will continue to be processed as they come in. Mullen noted that liaisons, in August, following the initial selectors assembly on OA Policy/SOAR (held in advance of the “Day One” rollout on Sept. 1) requested an opportunity to discuss open access within discipline-specific cultures. Yang reiterated the need to involve directors. Mullen noted that ACRL and many others view liaisons as the key to making outreach scalable and ensuring libraries are involved in the university’s scholarly communication infrastructure. The issue of making the boilerplate PowerPoint and the talking points document prepared for liaison use available in the selectors’ Sakai site will go to Cabinet.

6. Publishing with PLOS ONE (Womack, guest)

R.Womack attended CSC to share his experience publishing an article in the very high profile open access journal, PLOS ONE. Womack’s publication of this article represents a successful and important move out of the LIS literature and is creating a wide visibility already. Womack’s article, “Research Data in Core Journals in Biology, Chemistry, Mathematics, and Physics” can be accessed at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0143460

Interesting to note are the format of the publication, the altmetrics provided (thousands of views already), as well as Womack’s reporting of the stringent but efficient peer review process used and the rapid publication schedule (as compared to top tier traditional journals in LIS areas). Due to the article processing charge required, Womack modeled what other authors without grant funding do at Rutgers and sought funding from his department, after unsuccessfully pursuing Research Council funding. Questions come in via the SOAR contact lists about availability of funding for open access journal publication; many other universities have a dedicated fund. Please see Womack’s article in PLOS ONE at the URL above.

7. Reapplication of RU OA Journals with DOAJ (Jantz, guest)

R. Jantz began with a recap of all the work that´s been done on the RUL OA Journals over the past few years in order to ensure excellence. This includes the development of workflows as well as the proper inclusion of the journals in indexes and other important resources that confer an imprimatur of quality. The Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) is requiring all included publishers (including RUL) to re-register their journals by a deadline of March 31, 2016. Further, we would like to receive the DOAJ Seal of Approval by covering the 7 items required for that designation. Criteria for inclusion is now more stringent, but the RUL OA Journals meet the quality standards. and there are just a couple of outstanding questions for discussion/recommendation at CSC. Those include the need to fill out the brief information for inclusion in SHERPA/RoMEO, whether there is peer review or sometimes editorial review on each title, whether we will provide public availability of download statistics (we can, and it is up to the editor), and whether we should not include journals that do not provide the baseline number of articles per year (may apply in two cases; editors consulting). CSC discussed and recommends to Cabinet that Jantz (as journals coordinator), send the information to SHERPA, continue the process of getting the application to DOAJ in by the March 31 deadline, and since all archiving has been completed by Lin, propose that the journals program is ready to move forward with its previously decided one to two journals per year. Jantz can provide any more information needed for any Cabinet discussion of the journals program. These recommendations will be taken by Cohn to Cabinet in March.

8. CSC Webpage: CSC final recommendation on completed Scholarly Metrics Panel, other webpage issues (Wang, Zhang)

The “Scholarly Metrics” panel is fully prepared and ready to go up on the CSC webpage. This panel offers information on both traditional and alternative metrics, along with a contact list for those needing assistance with citation analysis, journal impact factor, and other metrics issues. The panel was created by Zhang and Ann Watkins, and then vetted thoroughly by CSC members before being copyedited by Radick. It is recommended by CSC that the panel go up on the site now. The next panel CSC will work on will be the Scholarly Networking panel, in response to so many questions about various sharing sites such as Mendeley, Academia.edu, ResearchGate and others. Wang will coordinate the vetting of the information for this page via email prior to discussion at next CSC. The main CSC page has a new name to reflect both scholarly communication as well as Information for Researchers.

9. Announcements, agenda setting, adjourn:

Mullen: Presented a Career Development Workshop at the AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) Annual Meeting in Washington, D. C. on “Creating a Publishing Legacy: Managing your Digital Profile.” Making your work open as an early career researcher was a focus.

Next meeting: March 28, 2016, 10 a.m., UL Conference Room (added note: this meeting may be rescheduled and will be announced)

URL: http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/staff/groups/com_of_schol-comm/minutes/schol-comm_16_02_22.shtml
Website Feedback  |  Privacy Policy
© Copyright 1997-, Rutgers University Libraries