<%BANNER%>
UFIR
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/IR00002048/00001
 Material Information
Title: Scholarly Communication in the Field
Series Title: Common Ground at the Nexus of Information Literacy and Scholarly Communication
Physical Description: Book Chapter
Creator: Fruin, Christine
Publisher: Association of College & Research Libraries
Place of Publication: Chicago, IL
Publication Date: 2013
 Notes
Acquisition: Collected for University of Florida's Institutional Repository by the UFIR Self-Submittal tool. Submitted by Christine Fruin.
Publication Status: Published
General Note: This work originally appeared in “Common Ground at the Nexus of Information Literacy and Scholarly Communication” edited by Stephanie Davis-Kahl and Merinda Kaye Hensley. Chicago, IL: Association of College & Research Libraries, 2013. Any use of this work must be accompanied by this notification.
 Record Information
Source Institution: University of Florida Institutional Repository
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management:
This item is licensed with the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike License. This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon this work even for commercial reasons, as long as they credit the author and license their new creations under the identical terms.
System ID: IR00002048:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:

Fruin_Ch13 ( PDF )


Full Text

PAGE 1

CHAPTER 13Scholarly Communication in the FieldAssessing the Scholarly Communication Needs of Cooperative Extension Faculty and StaffChristine Fruin University of FloridaIntroductionThe trend at most university libraries has been to dedicate signicant funding, time, and human resources to the promotion of scholarly communication through on-campus service and outreach. Like many campuses across the country, the University of Florida (UF) has identied scholarly communication as a strategic initiative. Through the leadership and initiative of the new Scholarly Communications Librarian and subject liaisons, scholarly communication is promoted on campus through individual consultations, workshops, and general outreach. Issues promoted to faculty, campus administration, and students include maintenance and promotion of an institutional repository, establishment of an open access publishing fund, promotion and use of a state-supported open journal system, and support of UFs faculty senate in its campaign for a campus-wide open access mandate. Important scholarly communication issues for UFs teaching faculty and researchers are copyright, open access, and citation management, as well as the impact of these issues upon their own research and publishing. During the 2011 UF College of Agricultural and Life Sciences (CALS) Teaching Symposium, the library identied a new community for engagement around scholarly communication issues: faculty researchers from the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) and cooperative extension ofces. This group indicated a high need for education and training on copyright and open access and the impact of these issues on their own scholarship, as well as on the public education and outreach activities conducted by the extension ofces. While the Scholarly Communications Librarian and other librarians routinely respond to scholarly communication questions 249

PAGE 2

250 COMMON GROUND AT THE NEXUS OF INFORMATION LITERACY AND SCHOL ARL Y COMMUNICATIONfrom and provide regular outreach and instruction on scholarly communication topics to on-campus teaching faculty and support staff, presently there is no mechanism to deliver this type of training and information to UF researchers who primarily work off-campus in the state of Floridas sixty-seven county extension ofces and thirteen Research and Education Centers (RECs). To determine how to best address this need, the Scholarly Communications Librarian, with the assistance of one of the agricultural librarians, successfully applied for internal grant funding. The Scholarly Communication and Cooperative Extension grant proposed to assess the scholarly communication needs of faculty and staff working in the extension ofces and to plan for the librarys delivery of educational services. In this chapter, the author will review the challenges inherent in delivering library services to cooperative extension ofces and describe why scholarly communication training should be part of those ser vices. The author will then discuss the survey developed to assess the scholarly communication needs of UF faculty and staff and how the results of that survey may be used to plan and implement a scholarly communication program for the UF/IFAS cooperative extension ofces.Challenges in Providing Library Services to Extension OfficesIn 1914, Congress enacted the Smith-Lever Act of 1914,1 which established a partnership between land-grant universities and the US Department of Agriculture. According to the Smith-Lever Act, the pur poses of extension were the development of practical applications of research knowledge and the delivery of instruction and demonstrations of existing or improved practices and technologies in agriculture. In fullling this purpose, cooperative extension ofces shared a function with libraries: providing the public with access to information (Rozum and Brewer 1997, 161). The information needs of UF extension faculty vary from those of their on-campus teaching faculty counterparts. Not only do extension faculty need access to information for purposes of their own research, but they also need to be informed consumers of the information stored and disseminated by research libraries and serve as mediators between the research information and the ultimate consumers of that information, e.g., the farmers in the eld (Tancheva, Cook, and Raskin 2005). As academic libraries work with extension ofces, it has proven to be a challenge to deliver the information resources as well as the instruction and consultation in locating and evaluating information. One of the challenges has been access to information resources. Extension ofces typically lack space or funds to house

PAGE 3

SCHOL ARL Y COMMUNICATION IN THE FIELD 251physical information resources locally. Further, the ofces may be hundreds of miles from the UF campus and its libraries. Thus, extension personnel had to rely upon document delivery through interlibrary loan and library courier. However, technological developments have allowed for greater access to literature and other information through electronic databases. UF subject liaisons also utilize content management tools such as Springshares LibGuides, RefWorks, library blogs, and course management systems such as Sakai to organize content and links to subject specic resources. Technologies such as live chat and videoconferencing for the delivery of instruction also help UF librarians stay connected with extension ofce staff and faculty researchers. However, access to resources is not always fast and trouble-free. Connection speeds may vary among ofces, and connection to IPauthenticated databases by proxy server or VPN can sometimes be confusing and require dedicated technical support from either UF library or IT staff to address connections issues by these distant users (McKimmie 2003, 30). Another challenge posed by the logistics of serving distant ofces has been the delivery of consultation and instruction. The distance between extension ofces and the UF librar ies often precludes extension agents from participating in instruction opportunities offered on campus, and librarians, with budget cuts and juggling multiple responsibilities, rarely have time or opportunity to provide instruction on-site at extension ofces. A nal challenge in the effective delivery of information and services to extension ofces has been the lack of expertise of librar ians who specialize in extension as part of their liaison assignment. In a 2005 USAIN survey of ARL member land-grant institutions about collaboration among libraries and cooperative extension, no data was found to support the dedication of a professional librarian to outreach and service to extension ofces. Rather, the majority of survey respondents indicated that reference questions from extension personnel were handled in the same manner as reference questions received in the libraries (Hutchinson et al. 2005). Recognizing the need for supporting this key community, UF in 2005 hired its rst Outreach Librarian for Agricultural Sciences, whose duties are to plan, coordinate, and deliver library services to IFASs off-campus users, who are primarily those working within extension. The result of creating this position was an increase in not only awareness but also usage of library resources by extension personnel (Davis 2007). Further, with the hiring of the Scholarly Communications Librar ian, a natural teamwork opportunity arose to provide well-rounded instruction in library resources and scholarly communication to those working in extension.

PAGE 4

252 COMMON GROUND AT THE NEXUS OF INFORMATION LITERACY AND SCHOL ARL Y COMMUNICATIONScholarly Communication and ExtensionLibrary services such as interlibrary loan, instruction, and access to resources are clearly needed by those working in cooperative extension, and libraries have responded by dedicating professional staff to serving extension ofces and crafting communication channels and information portals to serve those needs. At the same time, academic libraries increasingly have become the primary coordinator and resource for scholarly communication efforts and outreach, including publishing support, copyright education, and open access advocacy. Scholarly communication was identied by the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) Research Planning and Review Committee as a top trend in academic libraries in both 2010 and 2012 and is also represented in the most recent ACRL Plan for Excellence (ACRL 2011; ACRL Research Planning and Review Committee 2010, 2012). Academic librarians have led the effort to educate faculty and students about authors rights and open access publishing options and to recruit content for institutional repositories. More recently, some academic libraries have become involved in publishing endeavors by creating and hosting open journal systems and vocally advocating for publishing reform (Mullins et al. 2012). However, scholarly communication outreach efforts have largely been limited to those teaching and researching on campus. There is little evidence that scholarly communication outreach has been a priority for those working outside the main campus. At UF, faculty and researchers working in extension have indicated that those conducting research and community education through their cooperative extension ofces also need these same services and information. As educators who provide education in the community rather than the classroom and more often via digital means, extension staff have questions about the application of fair use to their endeavors. As researchers engaged in publishing and collaboration with other researchers, extension staff also have questions about different publishing models, including open access; how to read and negotiate publisher agreements; and how to maximize their inuence and impact within their elds of research. If academic libraries are providing this information and instruction to on-campus constituents, they similarly should be providing this as part of outreach to extension ofces. The libraries at UF, through the work of the Scholarly Communications Librarian with the assistance of the libraries Scholarly Communications Working Group2 and library liaisons, regularly provide on-campus faculty and researchers with scholarly communication training and resources. However, there was no mechanism to deliver this type of training and information to UF researchers in the eld.

PAGE 5

SCHOL ARL Y COMMUNICATION IN THE FIELD 253Further, a search of the literature and informal conversations with a few scholarly communication librarians at other land-grant institutions revealed that delivery of scholarly communication instruction to those working in extension had not been studied or implemented as a service. As a means of addressing this need expressed by faculty and researchers at the 2011 teaching symposium, the Scholarly Communications Librarian and an agricultural sciences librarian (grant team) applied for and received internal grant funding to create and distribute a survey to those working in the sixty-seven cooperative extension ofces and thirteen RECs across the state of Florida. A survey was developed cooperatively with the content expertise of the grant team and the methodological expertise of UFs Collaborative Assessment and Program Evaluation Services (CAPES). The grant team, with assistance from CAPES, analyzed the survey results and then devised a pilot program for delivery of scholarly communication training and resources to select extension ofces.Assessing Scholarly Communication Needs of UF ExtensionThe UF/IFAS extension ofces employ persons in varying capacities, including clerical workers, extension agents who provide community education, and doctorally trained faculty who conduct scientic research in the eld. The grant team decided to target the assessment instrument toward those working in the extension ofces who were most likely engaged in scholarly research and education. To help identify who should receive the survey, the grant team established the following required criteria: Primary job is not clerical or ofce support. Delivers, produces, or supervises the delivery or production of community education materials and/or programming. Job title includes the term agent. Conducts research in the eld. Holds faculty rank at the University of Florida. Serves as director of extension ofce or regional center. See Appendix 13.1: County Extension Survey. A student assistant hired by the grant team reviewed the websites for IFAS and each of the county and regional extension ofces and compiled a contact list of 580 individuals meeting the respondent criteria. The survey link was sent to persons on the contact list, and 149 persons (25.7 percent) representing 47 of the county ofces and 10 of the RECs replied. The survey was designed to solicit feedback on several dened areas: the demographics of the respondents, the demographics of the populations served by the respondents cooperative extension ofce, the research habits of the respondents, and the

PAGE 6

254 COMMON GROUND AT THE NEXUS OF INFORMATION LITERACY AND SCHOL ARL Y COMMUNICATIONrespondents attitudes and knowledge about specic scholarly communication issues. The questions related to the respondents demographics provided us with an overview of the level of formal education those working in cooperative extension have achieved, as well as a sense of how many years they have spent teaching in higher education or working in the extension environment. The questions about the service populations demographics were tailored toward informing us about the respondents perceptions of their constituents as opposed to numerical data. We were curious to see if there was any correlation between respondents perceptions of the education or literacy level of the population and their concern with scholarly communication issues. Questions about the respondents research habits informed us about their use of technology as a means of conducting and organizing research. Finally, the questions about scholarly communication issues measured their knowledge and understanding of copyright law, including their rights as authors, fair use of copyrighted materials, and understanding of the open access model of publishing.Survey ResultsPreliminarily, the survey polled respondents on the location of their ofce, their primary job responsibilities, and their perceptions of the populations served by their ofce. The majority of the respondents held a masters degree (51.6 percent) as their highest degree, with 35.5 percent holding a doctorate. Most respondents indicated that their service populations were a mix of rural and urban communities (49.6 percent), while the remaining respondents served more rural clients (34.1 percent) than urban (16.1 percent). The respondents perceived their service populations as mixed in their educational background. More than half of the extension ofces with representatives responding to the survey indicated that they served about an equal mix of persons with and without college degrees (52.5 percent), while 40.0 percent of the ofces served clients who mostly did not have a college degree, and only 7.5 percent served clients that mostly had college degrees. This resulted in most of the clients being literate (79.5 percent had more than 75 percent literacy; 16.4 percent had 50 percent literacy; and only 4.1 percent had less than 50 percent literacy at their site). The grant team designed the remainder of the survey, which can be viewed in its entirety at the conclusion of this chapter, to assess the knowledge level and training needs of extension personnel in three primary areas: scholarly publishing experiences; copyright literacy; and research habits, including use of various technologies for conducting and organizing research. In the area of scholarly publishing experi-

PAGE 7

SCHOL ARL Y COMMUNICATION IN THE FIELD 255ences, the grant team endeavored to determine not only the frequency with which those working in cooperative extension publish scholarly articles, but also their understanding of their rights as authors and how that understanding impacted their interactions with publishers. With regard to published articles in peer-reviewed journals, 42.3 per cent reported publishing in such journals. Of those who had published in a peer-reviewed journal, 56.8 percent had read and signed a publication agreement, and only 1.4 percent had attempted to negotiate or change the transfer-of-copyright provision. Most of the respondents were also not knowledgeable about open access. Only 2.5 percent were very knowledgeable and advocated for open access; 21.7 percent were familiar with the concept; 25.8 percent had heard of it but were uncertain how it applied to them; and 50.0 percent had not heard of it. Consistent with their knowledge about open access, only 10.6 per cent had consulted or published in an open access publication. To assess copyright literacy, the grant team primarily inquired into respondents knowledge about fair use. Figure 13.1 shows that the county extension employees clearly lack knowledge about copyright. For example, 63.2 percent were uncertain about what rights they retain when publishing their work, and only 30.6 percent understood their rights as an author. In addition, 77.5 percent did not feel condent doing a fair use evaluation. That same percentage also indicated that they wanted to utilize a resource such as a guide or workshop to learn more about copyright issues, including their rights as authors and fair use. When asked how often respondents were required by their work to use copyrighted works or to cite copyrighted works, 30.9 percent replied Frequently, 31.7 percent replied Sometimes, and 37.4 percent replied Rarely or Never. In addition, about a third (32.5 percent) had sought permission from a copyright holder to use por tions of a copyrighted work. The respondents best description of their Figure 13.1 Fair Use and Copyright Knowledge 63. 2% 23. 6% 30. 6% 52.7 % 57.7 % 45. 1% 22. 5% 23. 9% Un cert ai n wh at ri gh ts I re ta in wh en publishing my wo rk Un de rs ta nd tr an sf er of co py ri gh t pr ovis io n in agr eem en ts Un de rs ta nd wh at ri gh ts I ha ve as an au th or Know wh en to as k fo r pe rm issi on fr om a co py ri gh t ho ld er Confus ed ab ou t wh et he r fa ir us e ap pl ie s to my wo rk Ev er y ed uc at io n us e is fa ir us e F eel co nf id en t do in g a fa ir us e evaluation Know th e fo ur fa ct or s of fa ir us e

PAGE 8

256 COMMON GROUND AT THE NEXUS OF INFORMATION LITERACY AND SCHOL ARL Y COMMUNICATIONattitudes with respect to using copyrighted works is seen in Table 13.1. The majority of the respondents always include citations and use only that quantity of a work that would qualify as fair use. Survey results showed that respondents used different sources for information when conducting research (Figure 13.2). The two most widely used sources were EDIS3 and the Internet. About two-thirds of county extension agents responding to the survey use journals or their colleagues as resources, while less than half use the library or library catalog, professional societies, and subject databases. Figure 13.2 Sources of Information in Research Table 13.1 Respondents Use and Citation of Copyrighted W orks Research Teaching I use materials freely and without seeking permission or including citation to the original source because my use is for educational purposes 5.4% 11.0% I use materials freely and without concern of copyright status or getting permission because I always include a citation 16.2% 21.1% I always include a citation and use only that quantity of a work that would qualify as fair use 55.9% 48.6% I never use more than 10 percent of any work 5.4% 7.3% I never use copyrighted works in my research and only use my own words or materials found in the public domain 17.1% 11.9% 82. 7% 36. 2% 66. 9% 36. 2% 79. 5% 44. 1% 65. 4% 7. 1% ED IS Li br ar y/Ca ta lo g Jo ur na l Su bj ec t Da ta ba se In te rn et Se ar ch En gi ne Pr ofe ssi on al So ci et ie s Coll ea gu es Ot he r

PAGE 9

SCHOL ARL Y COMMUNICATION IN THE FIELD 257None of the tools commonly used to organize research and citations were widely used by the respondents (Figure 13.3). More than half reported that they did not use any organizational tool, and 21.7 percent still use paper les. The question on the technology used in research and teaching showed that almost everyone uses PowerPoint. Every other technology was used by less than half of the respondents. The most widely used tools after PowerPoint were videoconferencing, social media, and GoToMeeting. Although the listed technologies or software applications were not reported to be widely used, survey respondents did indicate an interest in learning about the technologies available and how they can be used in research and outreach.DiscussionThe survey results clearly showed that the county extension employees are not ready to use the full range of technologies available, nor do they clearly understand the issues related to copyright, fair use, and open access. Their level of knowledge and understanding did not differ much from what is typically encountered by the Scholarly Communications Librarian and the subject librarians when providing consultation and education to teaching faculty found on-campus. While those engaged in research and teaching on-campus author and produce educational works for consumption by colleagues and enrolled students respectively, those working in extension are translating their research into works more suited for the general public as well as for distribution in community education endeavors. Regardless of whether Figure 13.3 T ools Used to Organize Research and Citations 4. 2% 14. 2% 2. 5% 0. 0% 0. 8% 21.7 % 56.7 % Re fW or ks E ndN ot e Ea sy bi b Zo te ro Me nde le y Pa pe r File No ne

PAGE 10

258 COMMON GROUND AT THE NEXUS OF INFORMATION LITERACY AND SCHOL ARL Y COMMUNICATIONthe provider of learning materials is a faculty member on-campus or a researcher working in a remote extension ofce, the understanding of the application of fair use is just as important, and the survey indicates that those in extension are confused about its application. Use of open access for publication of research done in extension and deposit of research into the institutional repository, particularly in light of the mission of land-grant universities to provide public education, are of particular importance for those working in extension. The survey results show that respondents possess very little knowledge of these issues; however, the interest in learning more is high enough to mandate inclusion of open access in the training regime. Further, it was also clear that the survey respondents are interested in learning more about these issues to make more effective use of scholarly communication and the associated tools. The greatest challenge, then, is how to best reach those working in extension. In order to address the knowledge gap and the expressed interest in learning more about the issues addressed in the survey, the grant team devised an in-person, half-day training program to be conducted as a pilot project at the county extension ofce and the REC that had the highest participation rate in the survey. Invitations were sent via email to those persons working in the two facilities that had the highest numbers of survey respondents. Flyers advertising the workshop were also sent to the two facilities. The grant team will travel to each of the two locations and present the workshop to those in attendance. UFs videoconferencing service, Polycom, will also be offered as an option for participating in the workshop if face-to-face attendance is not possible. The workshop will be primarily lecture style with accompanying slides and live demonstrations of relevant websites and electronic resources. The workshop program will begin with a brief overview of the Smathers Libraries minigrant program and the background and purpose of the Scholarly Communication and Cooperative Extension grant. This overview will be followed by a one-hour presentation by the Scholarly Communications Librarian on copyright and fair use. Attendees will receive tips on how to read and negotiate typical publication agreements, including how to locate and use authors addendums such as the SPARC Author Addendum. Further, specic examples of print, nonprint, and digital or online resources are used to demonstrate the application of fair use to the education and research work of those working in extension. After time for a break and for questions and answers on the copyright and fair use presentation, the agriculture librarian will provide a hands-on demonstration of the use of EndNote Web for citation management and required IFAS faculty publication reporting. Attendees will learn how to create their account and how to

PAGE 11

SCHOL ARL Y COMMUNICATION IN THE FIELD 259search and export citations not only from licensed databases but also from the electronic repository of documents maintained by UF/IFAS. The last hour of the workshop will cover open access as a publishing model. Attendees will be introduced to the concept and importance of open access and will be shown how they, in their role as authors and researchers, can participate in open access. Specically, local open access opportunities will be covered, including the University of Florida Open Access Publishing Fund and the University of Florida Institutional Repository. Feedback will be solicited from workshop attendees on the usefulness and relevance of the content covered during the workshop as well as the effectiveness of the live and in-person delivery method. The grant team will review the workshop feedback in conjunction with the survey results to determine how future training of those working in the extension ofces should be conducted and what content should be covered. The grant team hopes that the feedback will help to further tailor the content to the specic needs of the extension and possibly identify needs not previously identied through the survey instrument. Should the live and in-person method of training prove ineffective or poorly attended, the grant team may apply for additional grant funding through the Smathers Libraries minigrant program to cover costs of producing a high-quality interactive training video that can be accessed at the convenience of extension faculty and staff. The grant team is also contemplating experimenting with videoconferencing or software such as Blackboard Collaborate as a means of conducting training at more remote cooperative extension ofces.ConclusionThe faculty and staff of the IFAS cooperative extension ofces and RECs are actively engaged in outreach, research, and teaching in the course of their assignments and responsibilities as faculty and agents within the extension program at UF. These activities suggest the importance of understanding how to effectively communicate to their constituents and their colleagues through various scholarly media. The survey conducted by the grant team demonstrates that extension employees are not ready to use the full range of technologies available, nor do they clearly understand the issues related to fair use, open access, and their own rights as authors. However, it is equally clear that they are interested in learning more about these issues to make more effective use of scholarly communication and the associated tools. As such is the case, the grant team will endeavor to develop an education and training program to inform those working in extension about these issues. Utilizing in-person and online training as well as special-

PAGE 12

260 COMMON GROUND AT THE NEXUS OF INFORMATION LITERACY AND SCHOL ARL Y COMMUNICATIONized resources and guides on scholarly communication, the grant team hopes to determine what are the most effective methods for delivering scholarly communication services to those teaching and researching in the eld. With available technologies and a commitment to teaching and outreach to extension personnel, there will be many opportunities to create a thought-provoking and interactive program around scholarly communication.

PAGE 13

SCHOL ARL Y COMMUNICATION IN THE FIELD 261APPENDIX 13.1County Extension Survey1. Name 2. E-mail Address 3. In what IFAS Extension Ofce or Center are you located? [Respondents could choose from a drop-down list of all the county ofces and RECs in Florida.] 4. What is the primary agricultural focus of the Extension Ofce or Center where you are located? 5. Do you hold a position in a CALS department at the Univer sity of Florida? 6. If you hold an appointment in a UF academic department, please specify the department. 7. What is your highest degree of education? 8. What is your current job title? [The most common titles within IFAS were listed, with an option to manually enter a job title.] 9. Please indicate the number of years of work [0, 3, 5, 10, 15, 21 or more] experience in: a. Higher Education b. Extension Services c. Teaching 10. The communities served by your Extension Ofce or Center are: a. Mostly rural b. Mostly urban c. A mix of rural and urban 11. The education level of the people receiving services from your Extension Ofce or Center is: a. Most have college degrees b. Most do not have college degrees c. About an even mixture of those with and without college degrees 12. The literacy level of the people receiving services from your Extension Ofce or Center is: a. 75% or more are literate b. 50% are literate c. 25% are literate d. Less than 25% are literate

PAGE 14

262 COMMON GROUND AT THE NEXUS OF INFORMATION LITERACY AND SCHOL ARL Y COMMUNICATION13. When interacting with people in the communities served by your Extension Ofce or Center, communication is primarily: a. In person (e.g. walk-ins, live demonstrations) b. By telephone c. Online (e.g. e-mail, webinar) 14. How often does the staff, including researchers, of the Extension Ofce or Center meet? a. Never b. Weekly c. Monthly d. Quarterly e. Annually 15. How often does the Extension Ofce or Center staff meet with other staff of the Regional Center? a. Never b. Monthly c. Quarterly d. Annually 16. What sources do you use for information when conducting research? (Check all that apply.) a. EDIS b. Library/Library Catalog c. Journal d. Subject Database e. Internet Search Engine (e.g. Google) f. Professional Societies g. Colleagues 17. What tool do you use to organize your research and citations? a. RefWorks b. EndNote or EndNote Web c. EasyBib d. Zotero e. Mendeley f. Paper le g. None 18. What forms of technology do you use when doing research/ teaching? (Check all that apply) a. PowerPoint b. Blackboard Collaborate (formerly Elluminate) c. GoToMeeting d. Video Conferencing (e.g. Skype) e. Social Media (e.g. Facebook, Google+, Twitter)

PAGE 15

SCHOL ARL Y COMMUNICATION IN THE FIELD 263f. YouTube g. Dropbox 19. Are you interested in learning about these technologies and how they can be used in your research and outreach? a. PowerPoint b. Blackboard Collaborate (formerly Elluminate) c. GoToMeeting d. Video Conferencing (e.g. Skype) e. Social Media (e.g. Facebook, Google+, Twitter) f. YouTube g. Dropbox 20. How often does your work require you to use copyrighted works or to cite to copyrighted works? a. Frequently b. Sometimes c. Rarely d. Never 21. Have you ever sought permission from a copyright holder to use portions of a copyrighted work? (If yes, please describe the situation and how you went about requesting permission.) 22. Has your research been published in a peer-reviewed journal? 23. If you have published in a peer-reviewed journal, did you read and sign a publication agreement? 24. If you have published in a peer-reviewed journal, did you attempt to negotiate or change the transfer of copyright provision in the publishers agreement? a. Yes, but the terms were not changed. b. Yes, and the terms were changed. c. No 25. Who have you sought opinion/consultation from about fair use or other copyright matters arising from your own copyrighted works or using the copyrighted works of others? (Check all that apply.) a. I have not sought opinion/consultation. b. Librarian c. Colleague d. Copyright workshop e. Lawyer f. Copyright Clearance Center 26. Indicate your level of agreement (Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree) with the following statements:

PAGE 16

264 COMMON GROUND AT THE NEXUS OF INFORMATION LITERACY AND SCHOL ARL Y COMMUNICATIONa. I know the four factors of Fair Use. b. I feel condent doing a Fair Use evaluation. c. I believe that every educational use is Fair Use. d. I am often confused about whether Fair Use applies to my research and teaching. e. I know when I have to ask for permission from a copyright holder. f. I understand what rights I have as an author of my original work. g. I understand the transfer of copyright provision found in most publisher agreements. h. I am uncertain what rights I retain when publishing my work. 27. Which statement best describes your attitude about using copyrighted materials in your research and writing? a. I use materials freely and without seeking permission or including citation to the original source because my use is for educational purposes. b. I use materials freely and without concern of copyright status or getting permission because I always include a citation. c. I always include citation and use only that quantity of a work that would qualify as fair use. d. I never use more than 10 percent of any work. e. I never use copyrighted works in my research and only use my own words or materials found in the public domain. 28. Which statement best describes your attitude about using copyrighted materials in your teaching? a. I use materials freely and without seeking permission or including citation to the original source because my use is for educational purposes. b. I use materials freely and without concern of copyright status or getting permission because I always include a citation. c. I always include citation and use only that quantity of a work that would qualify as fair use. d. I never use more than 10 percent of any work. e. I never use copyrighted works in my teaching and only use my own words or materials found in the public domain. 29. Would you utilize a resource such as a guide or workshop to learn more about copyright issues including your rights as an author and fair use? 30. Have you used a work licensed through Creative Commons?

PAGE 17

SCHOL ARL Y COMMUNICATION IN THE FIELD 265a. Yes b. No, but I have heard of Creative Commons. c. No, and I have never heard of Creative Commons. 31. Have you licensed any of your own works through Creative Commons? a. Yes b. No, and I am not interested. c. No, but I would like to learn how to use Creative Commons. 32. Which of the following statements best describes your under standing of open access? a. I am very knowledgeable about it and a vocal advocate of open access. b. I am familiar with the basic concept of open access. c. I have heard of open access but am uncertain about how it applies to me. d. I have never heard of open access. 33. Have you ever consulted or published in an open access publication? 34. Which of the following items are in the public domain? (Check all that apply) a. Works of the federal government b. Any material found on the Internet c. Any work that is no longer in print d. Works published before Jan. 1, 1923

PAGE 18

266 COMMON GROUND AT THE NEXUS OF INFORMATION LITERACY AND SCHOL ARL Y COMMUNICATIONNotes 1. 7 U.S.C. et seq. 2. The UF Libraries Scholarly Communications Working Group is charged with working with the Scholarly Communications Librarian in a team effort to coordinate activities and develop instructional materials in support of scholarly communications, scholarly publication reform, intellectual property issues, and open access activities and programs provided by the Smathers Libraries at the University of Florida. The working group, while it also has the responsibility to foster such professional development among library faculty and staff, is comprised of members with the following attributes: knowledge of open access trends and development; knowledge of scholarly publishing and new models for scholarly communication; understanding of the issues involved in open access and ability to explain its importance and justify increased participation with it; willingness to become familiar with scholarly communications policy issues; understanding of faculty concerns regarding open access publishing; willingness to share information and communicate effectively with each other; and strong positive relationships with teaching faculty. 3. EDIS, or the Electronic Data Information Source of UF/IFAS Extension (http://edis.ifas.u.edu), is a comprehensive, singlesource repository of all current UF/IFAS numbered peer-reviewed publications.ReferencesACRL (Association of College and Research Libraries). 2011. ACRL Plan for Excellence. April. http://www.ala.org/acrl/aboutacrl/strategicplan/ stratplan. ACRL Research Planning and Review Committee. 2010. Top Ten Trends in Academic Libraries: A Review of the Current Literature. College and Research Libraries News 71, no. 6 (June): 286. http://crln.acrl.org/content/71/6/286.full. ACRL Research Planning and Review Committee. 2012. Top Ten Trends in Academic Libraries: A Review of the Trends and Issues Affecting Academic Libraries in Higher Education. College and Research Libraries News 73, no. 6 (June): 311. http://crln.acrl. org/content/73/6/311.full. Davis, Valrie. 2007. Challenges of Connecting Off-Campus Agricultural Sci-

PAGE 19

SCHOL ARL Y COMMUNICATION IN THE FIELD 267ence Users with Library Services. Journal of Agricultural and Food Information 8, no. 2: 39. Hutchinson, Barbara, Amy Paster, Randy Heatley, Lyla Houglum, and Pat Wilson. 2005. Cooperation among Libraries, Cooperative Extension, and Agricultural Experiment Stations in Land-Grant Universities: The Results of a 2004 Survey. United States Agricultural Information Network. June 10. http://usain.org/library_extensioncollab/CollaborationReportFinal6-05.pdf. McKimmie, Tim. 2003. Reaching Out: Land Grant Library Services to Cooperative Extension Ofces, Experiment Stations, and Agriculture Science Centers. Journal of Agricultural and Food Information 4, no. 3: 29. Mullins, James L., Catherine Murray-Rust, Joyce L. Ogburn, Raym Crow, October Ivins, Allyson Mower, Daureen Nesdill, Mark Newton, Julie Speer, and Charles Watkinson. 2012. Library Publishing Services: Strategies for Success. Final research report. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press E-books, March. http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/ purduepress_ebooks/24. Rozum, Betty, and Kevin Brewer. 1997. Identifying, Developing and Marketing Library Services to Cooperative Extension Personnel. Reference and User Services Quarterly 37, no. 2: 161. Tancheva, Kornelia, Michael Cook, and Howard Raskin. 2005. Serving the Public: The Academic Library and Cooperative Extension. Journal of Extension 43, no. 3 (June). http://www.joe.org/joe/2005june/iw3. php.