🛈 Wiki Tips

(1) Is your name in Wiki displaying only your last name? Or is your name in Wiki displaying as you user account id? Need to update your name in Wiki so colleagues can find you? Want to upload a photo? See Personal Settings in the updated FAQ in Wiki Help.
(2) Can't find a user to add to your wiki space? See what you can do when User cannot be found via search .
Page tree

Versions Compared


  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

Respectfully recorded by Shu Liu, UCI

Roll Call 

      •  UC Berkeley – Susan Koskinen
      •  UC Berkeley – Rachael Samberg
      •  UC Berkeley – Samantha Teplitzky
      •  UC Davis – Amy Studer
      •  UC Davis - Mike Wolfe
      •  UC Irvine – Mitchell Brown 
      •  UC Irvine – Shu Liu (co-Chair)
      •  UC Los Angeles – Jennifer Chan
      •  UC Los Angeles – Marty Brennan
      •  UC Merced – Donald Barclay
      •  UC Riverside – Rhonda Neugebauer 
      •  UC San Diego – Mary Linn Bergstrom
      •  UC San Diego – Bethany Harris
      •  UC San Francisco – Anneliese Taylor
      •  UC Santa Cruz – Christy Hightower
      •  UC Santa Barbara – Gary Colmenar
      •  CDL – Katie Fortney (co-Chair)
      •  CDL – Monica Westin
      •  CDL – Mat Willmott
      •  CDL – Jackie Wilson


  1. Announcements
    1. Marty is the new co-Chair; Shu is rotating off - still need another co-Chair for Katie to rotate off in June
    2. Reminder - this was your deadline to review the old SCO wiki - CON'T, done by the end of the week
    3. Question from Katie - do we want to keep using separate agendas and minutes, or should we switch to having one morph into the other? Group said yes! Decide and inform new meeting notes taking approach - task for Katie and Marty
    4. Monica - Redesign of eScholarship launch date sometime this summer - BETA release this July (will basic functions released); July through September for official release; there will be new workflows, pages, etc. Monica will provide detailed update to group in email
  2. Collaborative writing tools discussion (Christy, Anneliese, Sam, all)
    1. Which tools are campuses supporting or considering? (e.g. Overleaf, ShareLaTeX, Authorea)
    2. What can you report so far?
    3. What do you see libraries' role in licensing tools
    4. Is this part of the charge of investigating tools from SCLG?
      - Sam reported on how Beverley licensed tools; did a survey with grad students in Fall about what tools they are interested in; send a newsletter to audiences; licensed Mendeley and ShareLaTex; Stanford contacted them; LaTex workshop in Feb. that was well attended; challenges - some users really want Authorea, use vs. interest, Authorea is different from the others; support lifecycle; need to have a group to users to justify purchase; outreach effort; revert to personal account, using the product without paying for the premium; need to know the tools well for user education, hosting workshops, etc.
      - Anneliese: why not Authorea? similar tools - subscription at UCSF of Faculty of 1000 F-1000 Prime workspace; what's involved in setup and operate? Journal clubs didn't take off; vendor fair for electronic notebooks; take opportunities for free trials
      - Marty: just launched a one-year pilot of Authorea, got some qualitative feedback, issues with displaying and branding, suggest looking into the company a bit before investing, who supports this type of investigation? Focus on this task for medium-short term
      - Christy: think about what's transformative when thinking about what to propose for a STAR team review. UCSC has F1000 as well (and we heard on the call also UCR, UCSD do too), how to do promotion to address low usage of F1000 issue, landscape is changing and use of F1000 is declining and how scholars interact with each other is also changing; JSTOR text analyzer http://labs.jstor.org/blog https://www.jstor.org/analyze/analyzer is an new beta product that sounds like it does something similar to what the F1000 Workspace product does in terms of analyzing text and then suggesting references to articles that relate to that text.; when to stop subscription - balance between uses and budget; libraries should step up and take ownership of supplying the campus with products that cover the entire Scholarly Communication life cycle if the library wants to stay viable on campus (as opposed to saying that the writing center on campus should own collaborative writing tools for instance).  In the process of evaluating these collaborative writing tools we may want to collaborate with other CKGs (especially the subject bibliographic CKGs) in reviewing products in this space, and in deciding whether or not to ask STAR to review a specific product.
      - Mat spoke for STAR team on d. STAR has operationalized their website - there's a good description of what they do and a web form to request STAR reviewing SC initiatives, STAR is charged to examine particular "transformative" tools for systemwide investment. This CKG could request a STAR team review of a particular collaborative writing tool after discussion within our CKG as to which tool we would like to suggest and why. Christy also noted that there are other avenues to suggest products for systemwide licensing that do not go through the STAR team, and perhaps one of those other routes (through SCLG or JSC directly) might be more appropriate. STAR is meant to review products that are transformative to the scholarly communication lifecycle, not just good products we should purchase. Hard to know yet which category these writing tools are in.  Not to discourage a STAR team request, but to put it in context that STAR is not the only approach we could take.
      - Mitchell: vendors contacted UCI, price issue
      - Katie: continue the discussion in email? form a task group within the CKG to pursue an outcome? Group feedback: need time to perform this work, keeping track till August
  3. Brief updates from or questions for groups with subject overlap (Reminder: limit updates to scholarly communication topics and be mindful of time. Topics requiring more time can be added as a separate agenda item) - deferred to email