Minutes of November 9, 2009 Meeting

Albin, Axelrod, Fishman, Gaunt, Golbeck, Grassle, Masschaele, McGill, Morrell, Novak, Sewell, Wasserman

Libraries Budget

Gaunt and Sewell shared data on planning for cuts in all units' budget for FY10 and FY11. VP Furmanski has asked all units to prepare for a two year cut. The cuts for FY 10 are lower than the Libraries had originally thought. Collections will be reduced by $475,000 and operating funds by $47,163. Vacant positions (4 faculty and 12 staff) will be frozen during the year and salary savings will be accrued. NO permanent staff give backs will occur this year, but we want to retain flexibility until the final reduction figure is known next year. In FY11 the proposed reduction will be larger: $930,666 in salaries (the 16 vacant positions will be returned permanently), $560,000 for collections, and $320,690 in operating funds.

Sewell and the library selectors are reviewing all journal subscriptions and databases for overlap; moving any remaining print subscriptions to electronic, and reviewing database usage to eliminate lesser used materials. Monographs will be purchased on gift and endowment funds, which means that fewer will be purchased. Our subscription to Science Direct is ending and we will need to renegotiate the package which we expect to be close to $1.8 million this year. The Libraries will try to reduce the individual journal subscriptions within the package and negotiate a smaller yearly increase to cut the total annual cost from what we are spending currently.

We will close ranks with the loss of positions, there will be a general slow-down in operations, and projects that we intended to work on will be put on hold.

The Libraries are not a revenue generating unit, except for gifts, endowments, and grants. Funds collection for lost books and printing cover replacement costs. We are looking at print/binding on demand copies of theses and dissertations now that they are submitted digitally. Axelrod questioned the length of time it might take to recover the cost of the binder. Gaunt noted that the Libraries might also use the equipment for its own binding needs. The Libraries also hope to escalate their relationship with delinquent accounts so that we recoup long outstanding lost book revenue. Unfortunately, it takes a lot of preparatory work in Access Services before the accounts are transferred to Delinquent Accounts and collection agencies, and there has been a large staffing loss in Access Services.

Novak suggested that the Libraries might wish to offer consulting services in areas of expertise such as market research, using business resources, and knowledge management. He has experience in developing such services and offered to consult with the Libraries on possible approaches. Wasserman asked about library book sales, which the Libraries have only done on a limited basis.

There was general agreement that these approaches to budget reduction strategies were acceptable.

Scholarly Communication Symposium De-Briefing

Gaunt thanked members of the committee who were also on the scholarly communication program. Evaluations of the program gave high marks to the Rutgers panelists who gave articulate responses to how the scholarly communication issues affect the disciplines and monographs. Sewell distributed a summary of the evaluations. Overall the program was rated very positively for the organization, breadth of coverage of complex issues, and diversity of viewpoints. The two areas where responses were highest in "knowing more" were about academic recognition for new modes of scholarly content, and my rights as an author. Responders suggested that departmental meetings facilitated by an expert, and university and library websites were the most effective ways to inform others about these issues. They also noted that graduate students at orientation and through their associations were important audiences. Capitalizing on those already active in their disciplines with electronic dissemination would be useful in getting the word out. Many individuals asked for follow-up contact.

There was discussion of the difficulty of journals moving to open access or publishing new open access journals. Business models need to be developed and may vary depending on whether a journal is published by a society that uses revenue for other society activities, or whether it is just a new journal. Orphan journals might be a good target for open access. When open access is discussed peer review needs to be mentioned as some may equate it to self-publishing. Faculty do not identify with the link between their publishing in commercial journals and giving away their copyright to do so and the cost to the institution to buy it back.

The records in RUcore should note the status of articles as peer reviewed and accepted when an article is deposited. The Libraries should publicize that the ROMEO website lists journals where the publisher has given blanket permission to make articles open access. The interface for RUcore must be made simple and clear for it to be used heavily.

External letter for promotion and tenure should take into account "digital scholarship." Form 1-A should have e- journals included under journals (peer reviewed or non-peer reviewed) and list other e-works separately.

The Libraries' Committee on Scholarly Communication will follow-up with all the comments from RULAC as well as the symposium.

URL: http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/staff/groups/rul_adv_com/minutes/ruladv_09_11_09.shtml
Website Feedback  |  Privacy Policy
© Copyright 1997-, Rutgers University Libraries