Scholarly Communications Working Group Meeting Minutes

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Scholarly Communications Working Group Meeting Minutes
Physical Description:
Meeting Minutes
Creator:
Fruin, Christine
Publisher:
George A. Smathers Libraries
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, FL

Notes

Acquisition:
Collected for University of Florida's Institutional Repository by the UFIR Self-Submittal tool. Submitted by Christine Fruin.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida Institutional Repository
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Board of Trustees of the University of Florida
Resource Identifier:
System ID:
IR00001208:00020


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATIONS WORKING GROUP MEETING: Minutes FOR APRIL 11, 2011 Attending: Isabel Silver, Tara Cataldo, Beth Auten, Dina Bensen, Melody Royster, Stacey Ewing, Rae Jesano Minutes: this meeting – Rae 1. Approve Minutes/Revise agenda? Minutes approved 2. Scholarly Communications Librarian Christine Ross to begin on May 9th: lunch and orientation a. We are meeting that day and will go to lunch with her after the meeting. Tara will send Isabel Marston’s orientation sheet. Christine’s office will be next to Isabel’s and near Interlibrary Loan. Times should be scheduled to meet with librarians at the other libraries on campus, including the HSCL. 3. Conferences: identify and report possible presentations opportunities for OA and inform the SCWG (e.g., UF presentation to 2011 FLA to be added to SCWG LibGuide) a. Dina is doing a presentation at FLA on what we are doing for open access. b. If there are announcements calling for presentations we should send them to Isabel. She will be out of the library at the end of May. 4. Reports from Strategic Subgroups: a. Promotion of the IR@UF: i. Banner is live ii. Next steps: 1. Focus on use of content and users of content 2. Theses and dissertations: how does this work? Are graduate students required to deposit? a. Graduate students self publish their dissertations and they are required to submit them electronically to the archives. b. The IR is entering the dissertations from Landscape Architecture. Currently, e dissertations are available electronically through FCLA. c. Asking faculty to tell the graduate students about the IR may get the faculty to think about adding their publications. 3. Approach depts. for senior projects: suggest to faculty that this may be a good place to store student projects where they will be permanently accessible. 4. “Do it for me” service model for faculty, or maybe at least for retiring faculty 5. Identifying retiring faculty: go directly to depts. Role for Library liaisons? a. Since we cannot get this information from HR, maybe liaisons can use their departmental contacts to find out which faculty members are retiring. The retiring faculty member can be approached to enter materials into the IR. b. See what other sources there are to find out who is retiring. 6. Identifying sources of content: iii. Publicity efforts: Provost has a new Faculty Update newsletter, submission guidelines: http://www.aa.ufl.edu/faculty update/guidelines.html Submitting an article may be an alternative method to publicize the IR to the faculty. b. Acquisitions and Cataloging: Tara i. To ask selectors if they have added any OA journals or books, and if they have a systematic way to do so. 1. Report from the Selectors meeting: a. No one is actively search for Open Access items, but if they come across one then a link is created in the online catalog.

PAGE 2

2 b. This is done by submitting a Grover for adding new e resources. ii. Will selectors examine the DOAJ by subject and add journals to the Library catalog? Christine will forward all UFOAP supported journal titles not in the catalog to Acquisitions iii. Hybrid journals: 1. Need catalog display (no subscription but some articles are OA): if we don’t subscribe to the hybrid journal and they are embargoed or if we can only access specific articles they will have a note in the catalog, e.g., “No UF Subscription, certain articles are open access”. 2. Tara examined the spreadsheet of funded titles and identified hybrid titles to check subscriptions: UF subscribes to all the articles in hybrid journals funded by the UFOAP. 3. Isabel followed up with a report for SPARC on hybrid UFOAP support (see attached) iv. New item: information/instruction on use of open access materials for reference and research: are there any reference resources that are open access? We should identify them. c. Copyright presentations (to await new SC librarian) d. Impact factors: i. Rae to do: March 30: instructions or short tutorials on finding impact Factors, Eigenfactors and H Index or Scimago Journal Ranking ii. Let’s consider how to present this to library liaisons: Tara and Rae to work on a how to/presentation/tutorial. Update: just barely getting started but there is a broad outline. e. OA Policy/Mandate: [create draft document for SCWG LibGuide] i. Identify faculty champions: we need to develop that list. ii. Identify messages that resonate with particular groups: 1. Faculty as creators of work: visibility of research, stable location of work. Educate faculty about authors’ rights and addendums to maintain their rights. 2. Faculty as consumers of research also! a. Emphasize wide distribution and ready availability of their work. b. Emphasize access and preservation, not just of their work but for other research as well, and do NOT emphasize serials crisis or even a public good c. Appeal to senior faculty to lead change d. Institutional commitment to ensure that work in the IR is made as accessible as possible through search engines like Google and Google Scholar 3. Administration: institutional reputation iii. Avoid top down mandate: from President and Faculty Senate (U. of MD case study); Need to read Sophia’s notes. So far, it’s been top down or library driven. If it is to work, it needs to be a grass roots effort. Maryland’s mandate failed because it was top down. 1. Mobilize the committed faculty, possibly through the ULC: University Libraries Committee and/or new faculty governance sub committee 2. Even Faculty Senate may be seen as top down. iv. Strategies 1. Greater participation in the IR@UF

PAGE 3

3 2. Make compliance as easy as possible: possibly deposit items for faculty, especially retiring faculty. 3. Greater faculty awareness of control of commercial publishers over their work and academic freedom (i.e., all copyrights, creating derivatives and re bundling, removal of peer reviewed research from public access). Educate authors about their rights as authors 4. Awareness that copyright begins with UF but has been informally granted back to faculty by a long standing academic tradition; to reclaim copyright for the faculty AND the institution. 5. Legal protection of faculty by General Counsel’s Office (MIT) 6. Shift the Article Processing Fees first to funding agency (grant) and also to academic institution (UFOAP) 7. Encourage faculty to use OA materials, and then to give back in the same way 8. Note that if faculty increase OA publishing, the journals will increase in prestige 9. Show off the existing policies at Harvard, MIT, Stanford’s School of Education, Boston U., U. of Kansas, Duke U., etc. and use for discussion groups 10. Be willing to accept an “opt out” policy to grant faculty freedom to publish where they choose (better than an “opt in” policy!) v. Elements of policy/mandate: (Peer Review in Academic Promotion and Publishing, 2011, pp. 92 93)) 1. Focus on author deposit of final manuscript in IR@UF 2. Requirement that faculty pursue non exclusive licensing agreements with publishers 3. Institutional commitment to use the non exclusive license to negotiate directly with publishers on behalf of authors 4. Opt out waiver process 5. Institutional representative responsible for interpreting policy and resolving disputes vi. Resources 1. Sophia’s report: PP. 77 97: Peer Review in Academic Promotion and Publishing: Its Meaning, Locus, and Future. 2. ARL/ACRL Environmental Scan: http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/opp.pdf f. Collaboration with state and/or regional libraries: 9 potential participants i. Next steps: 1. Identify a few other select universities: a. Add: University of Central Florida, Florida A&M University, and University of Miami i. Additional universities named included Florida State University, University of South Florida, which seemed interested. b. Colleges: Rollins, St. Petersburg College, Indian River State College, and Broward (?). How about checking with Santa Fe, since they are large and local. c. Smaller schools are interested in Open Access as consumers 2. Letter of invitation: from whom, to whom, to what?: We need to find contact people at these institutions. If you have ideas let Isabel know. We need to identify some questions for conversation. 3. Set up collaborative space: wiki?, FCLA? This will be done by a subcommittee 4. Provide Margeaux and Dina with something to announce at FLA.

PAGE 4

4 g. OA Journal Publishing Platform: update i. Laurie issued a report to Judy and recommended Online Journal Source through FCLA, and Judy approved ii. May need a subcommittee to promote this on campus iii. From Judy: We will need an MOU with each department, setting service expectations/individual responsibilities. Probably need to identify current minimal costs as well as potential for future costs. h. OA Week 2011: Beth and Isabel. i. College visits: Isabel still to forward select college information to Judy to obtain invitations to fall meetings ii. Faculty Senate: Isabel and Judy to attend Faculty Senate Steering Committee to obtain place on Oct agenda iii. Central Program: first, to select venue: 1. It was decided that the Reitz Union would be the best venue, even if we have to pay for the room and video streaming. The room should be booked for 1:30 3:30. 2. McCarty hall and 1A would be the cheapest, but we could not reserve any rooms In McCarty until August, since they are controlled by the Registrar’s office. 3. It would be preferable if we could get part of a ballroom with a capacity of 50 100 people. a. A ballroom would allow us to have round tables for discussion groups and a place for food and posters. b. Food would have to be catered through Classic Fair Catering 5. New business: Next meeting: second Monday of every month, 10:30 a.m., LW 429, May 9; minutes: Elizabeth