Child pages
  • October 15, 2014 Notes
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Scholarly Publishing Common Knowledge Group. 

Meeting Notes

October 15, 2014 1:00 pm - 2:00 pm.   

Notetaker: (UCR – Rhonda Neugebauer)


  1. Roll Call: Nancy Stimson, Amy Studer, Diane Gurman, Mary Wood, Mitchell Brown, Rhonda Neugebauer, Anneliese Taylor, Christy Hightower, Katie Fortney, Jackie Wilson.


2.  Announcements (All)

  • OA Week Harvester webinars – October 20 10-11:30am), Oct.21 (2-3:30 pm). These webinars are mainly for librarians and staff as opposed to faculty/general. UCI will show it locally and explain what faculty will see and give us a chance to look at before it’s live.  In November, we may roll out formally at UCI.  The emails to faculty are drafted already; different groups on campus wanted to see the text of those letters.  We also want to make sure our linkages/data/element is working properly.  We will do a soft release, in mid-November.  Emails to faculty will start then followed up with a more formal email.
  • Other announcements:  Nancy announced she is retiring in January 2015.  Mitchell: With Nancy’s retirement, we’ll be looking to replace the co-chair position.  Also, we may need to go back to a rotation around mid 2015.  We used to do that and rotate the chair each year.


3.  Discussion of Part 1 preliminary report from the Transformative Publishing Models Pilot Review Team (Nancy).

Sent out by email to get feedback to incorporate into the report and help us decide how to move forward.  Author hasn’t received any feedback from people yet.  Send comments by Oct. 16 or early Oct. 17, so she can collate by 5 pm.  Report structure:  the charge of group was to revise an earlier document’s ‘criteria determining US support for transformative models’ (earlier reports were issued in 2005 and another in 2008).  First stage was to update the criteria – you can see the table of criteria that we were looking at both indicators (about initial investment) and indicators (about whether we should continue to invest in that model).  Charge also gives guidelines for considering transformative publishing models (appropriate to UCs? Particularly from the systemwide perspective).  Took quite a bit of time to update these documents and determine criteria. Some indicators are general; others are specific.  This is only a part of part one of the charge of this group.


Other part is studying the criteria by running certain publishers through the model.  Then we will need to develop a review process, a communication process and a timeline --- all this is yet to come.  Feedback is welcome.  We also were proposing to expand the scope beyond just publishing, it is to include scholarly communication (ORCID, Impact storage).  We want feedback on the expansion of the scope.


Mitchell:  …  challenges the definition for transformative…

Nancy:  Process we used to come up with the definition that we have there.

Christine:  two part definition there.  A. ?     B. Economic impact

Approval of the expanded scope to SC, then we will be able to …  tweak indicators.  Chart – important “investment by ……”  Sometimes faculty are used to different tools and are very supportive of them and do not want to change.

Jove is trying to use technology to overlay over their “old” product; and it is transformative in that sense.


Thanks to everyone for your ideas; feel free to send more ideas.

Think about ways to improve this document (format, content, organization) so that it’s more useful in giving us direction and giving us solutions.  MB:  PeerJ is an example …  part of the question is – do we have faculty engagement when using that?  This report will help us with our local conversations.

Q:  Is there any overlap between this site and the OAFundPilot sites?  Jackie: The monies CDL was thinking of funding this more, but the ULs and others want the monies to go to other resources.  Not sure yet how that will turn out.


4.  Outreach materials that support the OA for Open Access Week 2014

· SPARC Theme for International 2014 – “Generation Open”

· Link from previous SCO wiki: UC Open Access Week Activities ( We all added our events to the Wikipedia site.  Do we have two sites archiving these materials?  MB:  that was to save space on the front page.  We may keep them for a while.  UCI:  there were a couple directions he could have gone and he ended up having to go with more internal and more librarian-focused events (doing them first before outreach to faculty).  We are doing OA Week a little later, and focusing on internal audiences.  Anyone else doing things with early-career and grads during OA Week?  UCSF is partnering with a group sponsored by publisher services providers.  That will be our theme.

· Continuing rollout of communication support materials for UC OA Policy

   MB:  Most of that topic is about additions to the SC website.  Blog ideas too (a longer term project).  We’d like to use the blog as a communication and outreach tool, and also post news and comments.  Product CHORUS (repository program for capturing federally funded research).  As we continue rollout to next seven campuses, we have some materials that you may find helpful.  Also, we will share our experiences with you.  That will be a mid-Nov roll out.

· Communication with faculty for Phase I

      Anyone have any experiences or plans to share?  This is the start of a long process. 

    • UCSF:  Notifications will go out in November.  We are working on our promotional materials right now.  Phase 1:  the manual submission and the early rollout; Phase 2 is largely the automated harvesting tool rollout, introduction and use.  MB: On Nov. 13, we will present at the Deans level and if they approve, we will launch the next day or after that. 
    • At UCSD:  we’re starting phase 1.  Our committee working on this will begin to roll out to faculty.  We will hold several and are waiting RSVPs and only 2 faculty and 1 librarian signed up. 

    • UCSC:  We don’t have support of faculty, deans or senate to do some messaging for us to their peers.  We have little momentum – we’ll do presentation on Science.  Since it is a faculty policy, I feel library is isolated; I don’t know if faculty have any plans to move on this.  Not being a department head, it’s hard for me to reach out as well.  Not a lot of momentum right now.
    • UCSF:  Anneliese-we are in a similar situation here.  Impressed by getting faculty support.  Seem to be willing to let librarians do this rollout.  Marketing ideas are to have faculty visit and also faculty explain it to other faculty.  We have support for the policy, but we don’t have the same momentum while planning our outreach to campus (and it is a faculty policy!). 
    • UCSD:  We were lucky with our two co-chairs of the library committee because they became strong advocates and began doing their own educating/pushing of other faculty members.  The co-chairs are following up individually with each faculty to make sure they have all seen the presentation on the new OA policy of the UCs.

· Outreach materials (flyers, information cards, event plans)

·  Phase II communications for Irvine, Los Angeles, San Francisco


adjourned 2:00 p.m.

  • No labels