v26 #2 And They Were There

Reports of Meetings — 33rd Annual Charleston Conference

Issues in Book and Serial Acquisition, “Too Much is Not Enough!” — Francis Marion Hotel, Embassy Suites Historic Downtown, Courtyard Marriott Historic District, Addlestone Library, College of Charleston, and School of Science and Mathematics Building, Charleston, SC — November 6-9, 2013

Charleston Conference Reports compiled by:  Ramune K. Kubilius  (Northwestern University, Galter Health Sciences Library)

Column Editor’s Note:  Thank you to all of the Charleston Conference attendees who agreed to write short reports that highlight sessions they attended at the 2013 conference.  All attempts were made to provide a broad coverage of sessions, and notes are included in the reports to reflect known changes in the session titles or presenters, highlighting those that were not printed in the conference’s final program (though some may have been reflected in the online program).  Please visit the Conference Website, http://www.katina.info/conference, for the online conference schedule from which there are links to many presentations’ PowerPoint slides and handouts, plenary session videos, and conference reports by the 2013 Charleston Conference blogger, Donald T. Hawkins.  Visit the conference blog at: http://www.katina.info/conference/charleston-conference-blog/.  The 2013 Charleston Conference Proceedings will be published in partnership with Purdue University Press in 2014. — RKK

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2013
PRECONFERENCE

SelfPub 2.0 — Presented by Mitchell Davis, Moderator (BiblioLabs);  Eleanor Cook (East Carolina University);  Bill Gladstone (Waterside Productions);  Deb Hoadley (MA eBook Project);  Robert P. Holley (Wayne State University School of Library & Information Science);  William Kane (Wake Forest University);  Leslie Lees (ebrary);  Michael Levine-Clark (University of Denver);  Bob Nardini (Ingram Library Services);  Matt Nauman (YBP Library Services);  Cyril Oberlander (SUNY College at Geneseo);  Joyce Skokut (Ingram Library Services);  John Shearer (UNC Press);  Charles Watkinson (Purdue University Press)

Reported by:  Eleanor I. Cook  (Assistant Director for Discovery & Technology Services, Joyner Library, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC)  

This preconference covered a range of angles reflecting upon the phenomenon known as self-publishing.  Current trends were examined and predictions made.  Here are a few highlights from a diverse set of speakers.  The session was sponsored and conceived by the folks who run BiblioLabs and BiblioBoard.  Papers from this preconference will be represented in the Charleston Conference Proceedings and another publication is also being spun off independently.

Mark Sandler, Director of the Center for Library Initiatives (CLI) for the Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC), served as the first keynote speaker.  Sandler made interesting observations about academic library collections, delivered with dry humor.  He noted that CIC, which includes fifteen large research libraries, cooperates on many fronts and as far as he knows, holds the largest single toilet paper contract in the world.  The CIC universities boast 108 Nobel laureates, and place a high value on research.  There is a great deal of money to be spent keeping up with all this research, and there are plenty of enterprises just waiting to help them to do just that.  Sandler notes that academic libraries are like giant reverse vending machines; they gather up not only the best of the best, but pretty much everything else except perhaps the very worst publications.

So, what happens to academic library collecting when scholarly communication begins to spread itself all over the place on platforms and in formats not easily gathered up as before?  There are so many new avenues of dissemination — such as Flickr, Hulu, and arXiv.org (among others).  This is a whole world not yet captured by academic libraries.  On top of this, over 40% of all new books today are self-published.   Therefore, vast quantities of possibly relevant materials are not being vetted by research libraries that probably need review, and may deserve acquisition and preservation.

Sandler made a creative analogy which was one of his best take-aways.  Academic libraries’ efforts to review, select, and promote scholarly content have, in the past, been like a mainstream grocery store inventory, which depends on national brands and low margins.  These stores buy brands from outside suppliers that help convey value to the store.  One might shop at Kroger and select brands such as Campbell’s, Del Monte, etc. (like libraries buying materials from ProQuest, Elsevier, Oxford, etc.)  In the Whole Foods model, which includes specialty brands and high margins, the store brand conveys its own value.  (Some traditional stores are copying this model as well.)  In this model, the enterprise controls the process from the means of production through the distribution.  Should academic libraries control the product from its inception?  Can academic libraries bring order to chaos and help democratize scholarship?  If not, we may see a continued co-dependence of big libraries, big research, and big publishers.

The second session was a panel with each presenter discussing libraries as publisher.  Several projects were described.  John Sherer from the University of North Carolina Press discussed a civil rights movement project which is Mellon grant-funded.  They are collaborating with several UNC library departments on this.  They view future monograph publishing in a completely new model.  Many of their publications are open access now and will be more so in the future.  The “information scarcity” model is no longer viable.

Charles Watkinson from the Purdue University Press described their two-pronged approach to the support of scholarly publishing.  The press is part of the library at Purdue.  Their PUP sector publishes branded, peer-reviewed works and their SPS sector provides publication opportunities for less formal works such as technical reports and conference proceedings.  In fact, the Charleston Conference Proceedings are now published through this channel.  He provided an example of how the Purdue Library and Press were able to save some transportation technical reports that were languishing in the hallway of a classroom building.  These reports are now available digitally and are being sought after and used.

Bill Kane, Director of Digital Publishing at Wake Forest University, described a digital publishing initiative that he is heading up there.  The publications are from the university community and draw from many disciplines and areas.  Many of the publications are open access and/or print-on-demand.  Since the university press focuses on Irish poetry as its specialty, digital publishing@Wake (http://digitalpublishing.wfu.edu/) provides additional opportunities for a variety of types of publishing.

The last member of the panel was Cyril Oberlander, the library director at SUNY-Geneseo.  There, the library is actively supporting and publishing faculty publications and is supporting a textbook production program that is SUNY-wide.  They were able to do this by reframing their technical services structure to assist with this.  They appear to have a robust support mechanism with the development of a “Library Publishing Toolkit.”

The next panel was moderated by Bob Nardini from Coutts and focused on vendor services to self-publishing.  Michael Levine-Clark (University of Denver) began the session by asking, “How radically will the scholarly book publishing landscape change in the next five years?”  As it is now, librarians rely on others in the publishing and distribution sector to assist them with vetting content.  The peer-review process, publishers, approval vendors, and eBook aggregators all have a hand in pre-selection of what libraries eventually acquire.  The explosion in self-publishing is bound to have some effect on this.  Will libraries want to provide access to self-published books?  This is a trend we simply cannot ignore, but there are questions.  If there are “good” academic books being self-published, then how do we find them?  Scholars’ attitudes towards self-published materials may be changing, and if so, how will we change with them?  It seems that niche scholarly areas could benefit from self-publishing opportunities.  Another question raised is how to deal with established scholarly authors who write off-the-wall books on topics outside their established areas of expertise.  An example: an electrical engineering professor who also publishes materials on holocaust denial.

Matt Nauman from YBP Library Services presented next.  He noted that the heyday of the vanity press, while not totally over, is forever changed by the huge increases in self-publishing opportunities.  He observed that self-publishing may be more about networking rather than book publishing, and that we need to monitor this and listen to what our customers want.

Joyce Skocut from Ingram presented next.  She illustrated that self-publishing is indeed part of a huge iceberg where mainstream publishers represent only the tip.  A number of famous authors started out with self-publishing.  Many talented writers never can break through the rejection piles of the big companies but turn to self-publishing as an alternative.  A number of successful self-published authors go on to get recognized by larger publishers once they have established a following.  So why do authors opt for self-publishing?  Skocut outlined a number of reasons.  More control over the finished product, the ability to control marketing, direct use of social media, delivery faster to market, and design control issues all make self-publishing attractive.  Of course the flip side to this is the author has to do all or much of the work, or employ author services companies to do pieces of it for them, which can be expensive.  However, with no publisher contract to deal with, the author makes all the money and can retain all the rights.

Skocut then went on to discuss librarians’ concerns about discovering these hidden gems.  Vendors should work with their customers to determine criteria and expectations for both library collection development goals and end-reader interests.  One concern is that a title might be discovered too late, but as one public library director was quoted, “If the work is good, it’s never too late to promote it.”  In order to develop regional and subject profiles, better metadata needs to be collected earlier.  She also mentioned a product called IngramSpark that her company was making available to independent publishers and self-publishing authors.  While academic libraries are developing self-publishing support programs for scholarly works, public libraries have been a bit slower to go in this direction.  However, a good example of a project developed by a public library was described.  Williamson County Library in TN published a children’s book that helps “sell” the library and the proceeds go to the Friends of the Library.

Deb Hoadley was the final presenter of this panel.  She serves as the eBook Project Lead for the Massachusetts Library System.  She discussed some of the challenges and opportunities presented when trying to put together a system-wide eBook collection.  A particular challenge she mentioned was restrictive licensing that makes it difficult to obtain access to certain kinds of content.

The next panel was moderated by Mitchell Davis and included Bob Holley (Wayne State University), Eleanor Cook (East Carolina University), and Leslie Lees (ebrary), who discussed “Finding Balance in Humanities and Social Sciences Acquisition.”  Bob Holley began the session by again reiterating the vast numbers of self-published titles that are being produced each year.  Bob’s remarks focused on academic subject matter that had niche interest, was highly collectable and important but hard to find in mainstream sources.  An example he gave was the memoirs of Vietnam veterans.  He outlined the advantages and disadvantages of going the self-publishing route for these kinds of scholarly works.  He agreed that libraries to this point have not been able to easily identify these kinds of materials for acquisition.  Eleanor Cook built her comments on Bob’s and agreed that, generally, academic libraries have ignored self-published materials except within the purview of special and regional collections.  Within that area, self-published works are quite common and sought after, since many genealogical materials are published in this fashion and they are a linchpin of regional collections.  Another dilemma faced is when identifying faculty authors for local recognition.  Many libraries hold such events and tend to recognize publications that are peer-reviewed and/or are published by established scholarly outlets.  The definitions applied for such reward need to be broadened, considering the trends we are seeing in how scholars choose to publish their works.  Both Holley and Cook agreed that library collection development policies need to include worthy self-published materials into the mix and that library vendors could contribute their expertise to assisting with identifying these materials up front.  PDA plans may start including such materials if vendors can find a way to vet them.  There are a number of alternative review sources that academic librarians could be perusing in order to find quality self- or independently published materials.  ForeWord Reviews and similar should be considered for potential acquisitions.  Perhaps a self-publishing approval plan could be developed.

Leslie Lees from ebrary suggests that suppliers of scholarly materials must embrace the entire ecosystem in order to find the best fits for libraries.  Monographic publishing does not map well to serial publication trends.  Peer review, grant funding, and scale are all totally different.  She applauded initiatives such as those developed by various university presses as well as OAPEN, Knowledge Unlatched, and Palgrave/Wellcome Trust.  She mentioned that her company is looking for ways to support open access publications.

William Gladstone was the final key note speaker of the preconference.  Gladstone is a literary agent and a self-published author himself.  He has worked with many notable authors and publishing projects and is a pioneer in the realms of print-on-demand and e-publishing.  It would be safe to say he represents a visionary viewpoint.  Gladstone was able to pull all the threads together from the other speakers of the day and wrap them up in a neat package of thought.  He made sure we understood that publishing as we know it is going to change and must change.  Roles are blurring.  While mid-list authors have been cut out of the commercial cycle altogether in the past, no one today needs to feel left out of the loop.  In an e-publishing world, self-publishing takes on a whole new dynamic.  Libraries have an opportunity to expand their custodial role in a positive way.  Gladstone left us hopeful and excited about what might happen next.

Throughout this preconference, Mitchell Davis was a present and supportive host.  Although he didn’t actually present his own paper, his introductory remarks during the panels he moderated set the stage for what turned out to be an amazing half-day.  We were able to glimpse at the future of publishing in a totally new light. I agreed to be a part of this preconference with very little knowledge of what I was getting myself into.  I was both pleasantly surprised and impressed by the positive energy and progressive thinking I found in all the presenters.  It has been several months since the conference and having finally come back to my notes in order to write this report, I find myself re-experiencing the excitement and wonder I felt while I participated.  I sincerely hope that the Charleston Conference will continue to build programming that addresses self-publishing trends.  This clearly seems to be a phenomenon we’ll need to watch.

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2013
MORNING PLENARY SESSIONS

Librarians in the Post-Digital Information Era: Reclaiming Our Rights and Responsibilities — Presented by Jenica Rogers (State University of New York at Potsdam)

Reported by:  Melissa Goertzen  (Columbia University Libraries)

The 2013 Charleston Conference kicked off with a bang when Rogers, Director of Libraries at the State University of New York at Potsdam, gave a passionate address about librarians’ rights and responsibilities in the postdigital information economy.  The session encouraged libraries to reclaim and redefine their role in the current digital landscape, particularly in regard to relationships with publishers and vendors.  Rogers said that libraries are currently in a passive position and allow information providers to “determine how our economic capital is spent.”

Drawing on her extensive work with library acquisitions on local and national levels, Rogers said that libraries have five rights in the current market: transparency in license negotiations, access to a free market, appropriate product pricing, free public speech, and respect.  As an example of how to exercise these rights, Rogers said that libraries should advocate for the removal of non-disclosure language from licenses because it limits communication and prevents transparency.

On the flip side, with rights come responsibilities.  With each new electronic resource offer, librarians must consider its potential impact on their institution and within their user community.  This work involves understanding clauses in licensing agreements and developing an awareness of negotiations taking place in consortia.

In her closing statement, Rogers said that librarians must think as advocates, demand rights, and take responsibility.  In the postdigital information economy, “the power of libraries lies not in our passivity but in our action.”

 

Discovery or Displacement?: A Large Scale Longitudinal Study of the Effect of Discovery Systems on Online Journal Use — Presented by Michael Levine-Clark (University of Denver);  Jason Price (SCELC);  John McDonald (University of Southern California)

Reported by:  Calida Barboza  (Ithaca College)

The researchers presented the results of their study of whether the implementation of a discovery tool impacts electronic journal use at academic institutions.  The data show that there is variation by institution within each discovery service, that there is variation by publisher within each discovery service, and that some publishers experienced an overall net increase in use, while others saw a decrease.  The data also show that discovery service and publisher as variables on their own were significant predictors of usage change and that interaction of discovery service and publisher was significant.  The results reveal that discovery tools affect the use of different publishers’ content differently; no discovery service increased or decreased usage across all libraries or all publishers.  The presenters’ future research will include a control group of libraries without discovery tools; institution size/enrollment profile as a factor; and it will account for aggregator full text availability, publisher size, journal substitutions, overall usage trends, and discovery tool configuration options.  A follow-up presentation will be given at UKSG in April 2014.

 

Scholarly Societies, Scholarly Publishing, and the New Information Ecology — Presented by Robert Kieft, Moderator (Occidental College);  Kathleen Fitzpatrick (Modern Language Association;  Brandon Nordin (ACS Publications);  Steven Wheatley (American Council of Learned Societies)

Reported by:  Chris Diaz  (University of Iowa Libraries)

Open Access (OA) publishing and other forms of online scholarship are shaping the new information ecology.  Nordin, Wheatley, and Fitzpatrick each took turns in providing updates on how their respective scholarly societies are addressing this movement toward openness.  Nordin, Vice President of Sales, Marketing, and Digital Strategy at ACS, prefaced his statement by noting that, because scientific output is outpacing library budgets, the ACS is beginning to increase their OA options.  This includes increasing their Hybrid OA options for their legacy journals, in which authors pay a fee to make their article OA in an otherwise non-OA journal, and launching a full OA journal in 2014, ACS Central ScienceWheatley, Vice President of ACLS, questioned the role of OA in the humanities given that subscriptions to small society journals are sustainably priced and relatively cheap.  OA is only an answer for a scholarly society if the scholarly society can sustain itself with an OA model, said WheatleyFitzpatrick, Director of Scholarly Communication at MLA, revisited the purpose of scholarly societies, which was to facilitate communication within a discipline.  As societies grew and the production of scholarly journals became more costly, societies turned to commercial publishers, who hold a different organizational mission.  The Web was explicitly created for scholarly communication, Fitzpatrick noted.  While the costs in producing scholarly works remain, the costs for reproducing those works have almost entirely diminished.  The challenge is for societies to reconcile the value afforded by internet technologies with disciplinary customs.  When questioned by the audience on why societies insist on continuing the print-production of journals, both Wheatley and Fitzpatrick noted the consistent demand from society members for print and that there are no plans from either organization to scale down this production.

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2013
MORNING CONCURRENT SESSIONS 1

Doing More with Less: Exploring Batch Processing and Outsourcing in Academic Libraries — Presented by Jeffrey Daniels (Grand Valley State University);  Patrick Roth (Grand Valley State University)

Reported by:  Melody Dale  (Serials Cataloger, Mississippi State University)

With the common problems of shrinking budgets and subsequent decreases in staff, Grand Valley State University (GVSU) aimed to find new ways of cost-effectiveness in their Technical Services department.  Daniels and Roth discussed GVSU’s use of outsourcing and batch processing to more efficiently handle both print and electronic books.  Vendor-provided marc records/updates for e-journals were one method of outsourcing used by GVSU.  While merely handling updates for their e-journals would have presumably taken one staff member around ten weeks (fifty work days), outsourcing significantly reduced that work load to around four hours per month.  In addition to the outsourcing done by GVSU, a “batch weeding” project was performed which required only four hours for record maintenance and two hours to do a batch load to remove holdings, as opposed to the conjectured 240 work days it would have taken to do a traditional weeding project.  While the speakers cited many benefits of outsourcing, they also discussed the importance of researching suppliers and mentioned one case in which records received were unsatisfactory and had to be re-cataloged.  The session clearly highlighted the pros and cons of the methods used and the importance of weighing return on investment when making those decisions.

 

Herding E-Cats—Emerging Standards in Electronic Book and Journal Publishing and Management — Presented by Betty Landesman (University of Baltimore)

Reported by:  Debra Hargett  (Wingate University)

Landesman opened the session by encouraging attendees to visit NISO (National Information Standards Organization) online to view the latest technical standards and applications related to e-resources.  Her session was a springboard to encourage cognizance of current topics in standards and practices for information professionals.  She gave an overview of acronyms and the alphabet soup of recommended practices, along with links for further explanation.  In one instance, Landesman shared the Recommended Practices for Online Supplemental Journal Article Materials known as NISO-RP-15-2013.  She provided a brief summary of why standardizing datasets and images in online journal articles is important.  Because hosting content can mean dealing with the instability of an online repository, an author’s Website, or even a publisher’s partnership with an aggregator, this practice calls for the use of DOIs and persistent identifiers.  Not only should this practice (when implemented) reduce the instances of broken links, it will increase the likelihood readers discover integral content associated with the supplemental material.  After a series of examples related to KBART, DDA, PIE-J, and others, attendees were encouraged to share insightful tips and experiences for navigating the jungle of standardization.  She concluded the session by reminding the group the complexity of herding e-cats could only be managed by awareness and implementation with the user in mind.

 

Knowledge Unlatched, One Year On: Toward an Open and Networked Future for Academic Publishing — Presented by Judy Luther (Informed Strategies)

Reported by:  Ramune K. Kubilius  (Northwestern University, Galter Health Sciences Library)

Veteran consultant Luther described the Knowledge Unlatched initiative, what some called crowd source funding of OA books.  She set the stage by reviewing the book-publishing landscape — the number of monographs being published has gone up, but sales have not followed the trend.  Publishers have had to spread costs, but an “author pays” or hybrid model is unlikely to work.  Recent mandates have predominantly been about journals.  KU is global (founding libraries were in Australia), and its partners include various organizations as well as libraries.  The goal is to find a sustainable route to OA for humanities and social sciences books, so they are as accessible as OA journals.  The visibility of authors and readership should go up.  The technique is to leverage existing models and share costs.  In this period of transition, a project like this gives publishers an opportunity to explore OA.  The KU model offers benefits: increased readership, visibility for authors, benefits for libraries and publishers as well.  This proof of concept pilot, though only 28 titles from 13 publishers, intrigued the audience members who asked many questions.  The pledge period by libraries ends soon after the conference (Jan. 2014) and libraries would be invoiced the next month.  Next steps for 2014 include:  review results, establish a library advisory committee, repeat the cycle with more books, and seek more library partners.

 

Let’s Talk About Streaming: Providing the Resources that Faculty and Students Request — Presented by Jim Davis (Docuseek2);  Christine Fischer (UNC Greensboro);  Elizabeth Stanley (Bullfrog Films);  Amanda Timolat (Baruch College, CUNY);  Michael Waldman (Baruch College, CUNY)

Reported byRoger Press  (Academic Rights Press)  

Fischer indicated that Greensboro makes streaming files available showing both paid links and free resources.  They have courses offered online — which created a problem if streaming video is not cleared for such usage.  There is budget for video but it is hard to track and monitor rights — there is a low response rate from publishers.  Therefore it is surprisingly difficult to spend the budget!  The documentaries and educational videos are easier to clear than feature films.

Timolat mentioned that Baruch is one of the 21 CUNY Colleges, and students speak 110 different languages.  Nine departments have purchased 50 Films, and they are mainly used by the Business school, Arts and Sciences.  The DVD library has to be non-circulating to protect it.  In 2009 Film Studies was launched as a program, and critical analysis of major films is required.  Modern Languages and English also require film.  The technical fee from students means a budget of $21,000 is available for film, but again there is a barrier locating rights.  Pricing is also widely divergent, from $500 to $5k per title.  Training faculty is the key — to clearly state their needs.  Half the films are licensed directly from the producer/owner — the tracking is done through IMDB and the films are mounted on the Cultura platform.  Perpetual licenses are easiest to administer but harder to negotiate.

Davis made a presentation about the Docuseek2 service.  Interactive transcripts are searchable, which is a great feature.  There is a change in the way video is consumed — so rights are available for 1 week, 1 year or 1-3 years.  They are not selling trees but selling forests and need to conduct more research to work out whether this solves faculty needs.

Stanley described Bulldog Films.  It has 900 environmental and social science videos and is the sole owner — simple to deal with.  Their legal department is responsive and are a great source of content for a wide range of courses.

Summary: video is very much in demand, but there are not good sources although some are developing.  The main barrier to increasing video resources is rights negotiation — even when there is a budget.

 

One IOTA at a Time: A Case Study of OpenURL Success Metrics — Presented by Adam Chandler (Cornell University);  Aron Wolf (Serials Solutions)

Reported by:  Calida Barboza  (Ithaca College)

In this session, Chandler provided a history of IOTA (Improving OpenURLs Through Analytics).  He explained that wanting to identify the source of OpenURL problems and the desire to define a methodology to find solutions to those problems led to the creation of the initiative.  Although the working group discovered a pattern to failures in OpenURLs, the IOTA study found that there is no objective cross-vendor metric to predict successful linking.  As a result, Wolf tested the SerialsSolutions link resolver 360 Link against itself.  He ran a script to look into the raw HTML for a particular string of characters that indicated if the OpenURL linking had been successful.  Wolf admitted that this is not perfect and doesn’t account for knowledge base inaccuracies.  In the final analysis, the presenters stated that addressing the OpenURL failures is a work in progress because publishers change things that will affect how OpenURL linking works.

 

Open Source Discovery Layers and the NextGen ILS: Collaboration, Integration, and Granularization — Presented by Ron Burns (EBSCO Information Services);  Robert H. McDonald (Indiana University);  Bob Persing (University of Pennsylvania)

Reported by:  Georgia Briscoe  (University of Colorado Law Library)

This presentation was about Kuali OLE (Open Library Environment) which is the first extensible, quality, software designed by and for academic and research libraries for managing and delivering intellectual information.  This enterprise-ready, open source ILS expects to celebrate version 1.0 in San Diego on November 20, 2013, at the Kuali Days Conference.  It is possible to download the source code and test drive the application from the Kuali Website now.  The project has funding from the Mellon Foundation and contributions from many university partners.  It is built, owned, and governed by Kuali member libraries.

The program included a history of Kuali from 2008, how the OLE service architecture works, and future plans for OLE.  Originally, OLE did not plan for a discovery layer but now it has one built with Lucene/Solr and Elasticsearch.  Libraries which plan to implement OLE in 2014 are Chicago, Lehigh, and Bloomsbury Colleges;  in 2015, implementation plans are at Duke, Indiana, North Carolina State, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Villanova.

EBSCO Discovery Service (EDS) is a partner with some Kuali partners where easy-to-use plugins and modules for discovery are available.  Other OLE partners use Viewfind, Blacklight, Moodle, or Drupal for home-grown discovery.  University of Pennsylvania Kuali OLE Project Librarian, Persing, described their home-grown discovery layer, which can integrate data from OLE with other data sources, and its enhanced browsing functionality.

 

Platform Providers Forum — Presented by Glenda Alvin (Tennessee State University, moderator);  Jonathan Hevenstone  (Atypon);  Mark Johnson (HighWire);  Toby Plewak (Publishing Technology)

Reported by:  Sallie Morrow  (Swets)

During this session, various providers discussed their current offerings to users and gave some insight into the future.  They emphasized that platforms are constantly evolving to meet the needs of their audience.  Some now permit purchasing only a single chapter and no longer require an entire book purchase, meeting the needs of their academic audience where professors might assign single chapters of pricey titles.  Other innovations are being able to rent chapters and/or entire books versus purchasing.

The spread of mobile device use is being taken into consideration and platforms need to change so they’re viewable on all devices without impeding the flow of information.  One solution is to design Websites that adapt to each device viewing the content rather than relying on native applications as there are too many devices.

Other new developments are the release of COUNTER4 and the use of ORCID.  HTML and XML were compared for use in math texts;  HTML5 show near print quality but people still want PDFs.

 

The Social Side of Research and Opportunities for Librarians — Presented by William Gunn (Mendeley, Inc.);  Jeffrey Lancaster (Columbia University Libraries)

Reported bySharon Dyas-Correia  (University of Toronto Libraries)

Lancaster, Emerging Technologies Coordinator, Columbia University Libraries, began this well attended session by introducing himself and Gunn, Head of Academic Outreach, Mendeley, Inc.  Lancaster indicated the focus of the session would be a consideration of how librarians can harness the power of social media tools in order to meet productivity needs of their researchers and help advance research workflow.  He discussed how research is inherently social and indicated that the meaning of social for research can be collaboration, public engagement, the creation of a public persona or professionalization.  He pointed out that librarians can participate by identifying and facilitating communities, accessing and developing better workflow management for researchers, developing and supporting services around technology and facilitating collaborative engagement.  Gunn presented perspectives on scholarly communication of early career academics and researchers, librarians and publishers and discussed how the social network provides opportunities for discovery and multiple relationships.  He suggested that library technology is empowered by open access and that products like Mendeley are bringing tools and user experience from other parts of the Web to scholarly communication, building an open infrastructure and the products are therefore instrumental in enhancing the research workflow.

 

Transforming a Print Collection — Presented by Fred Rowland (Temple University Libraries);
Ben Schoolar (Temple University Libraries)

Reported by:  Derek Marshall  (Coordinator of the Veterinary Medicine Library, Mississippi State University)

With the planning stages of a new library underway, Temple University Libraries took a closer look at their print collection in order to better inform their purchasing decisions of eBooks as well as to determine which items to retain in a browsing collection.   As the new library would house fewer materials to provide more study space for students, with many volumes stored in an offsite facility, Rowland and Schoolar looked for patterns in their circulation statistics to determine which items to move to storage and which items to retain in their browsing collection.  By studying the circulation trends over a ten-year period, determinations were made at a department level.  They found that a “broad brush can be too broad” as circulation statistics vary by narrower subjects within a department.  Through the statistics gathered, Rowland and Schoolar were also able to determine that certain departments had a higher number of circulations relative to the age of the item.  The presenters demonstrated their findings through numerous graphs and charts which showed that overall circulation of items assigned to a particular department is not necessarily reflective of the narrower subjects within that department.

 

What Content, Where?: Selecting Course Content: Tools, Permissions, Analysis, and Where Librarians Fit In — Presented by Joe Kelly (College of Charleston);  Franny Lee (SIPX, Inc.);  Bill Matthews (HighWire | Stanford University);  James Newhard (College of Charleston)

Reported by: Posie Aagard  (University of Texas at San Antonio Libraries)

The panel consisted of Kelly (Professor, Department of English, Senator for the School of Humanities and Social Sciences, College of Charleston), Newhard (Director of Archaeology, Associate Professor of Classics, College of Charleston), Lee (Vice President, University Relations / Product Development & Co-founder, SIPX, Inc.), and  Matthews (Director of Business Development, HighWire, Stanford University) who served as moderator.

During the first part of the session, several key points about trends in faculty selection of content in their courses were discussed:

1.  Traditional course readers have changed in the past years.  Faculty members are seeking content in different ways.

2.  For instructors choosing readings to assign at a college level, which tools are helpful to identify content?

3.  How does copyright status fit into faculty members’ content selection decisions?

Both panel faculty members use traditional sources of content for their courses: textbooks and lecture content to establish knowledge and peer-reviewed journal articles or newspaper articles for more dynamic areas, such as controversial topics.  If they’re unable to locate a particular article, they tend to simply select another article, rather than seek other options for the first article.  Both faculty members allow their students to use digital materials, as long as they have the proper level of focus (e.g., are peer-reviewed).

The latter part of the session was a show-and-tell by SIPX (Stanford Intellectual Property Exchange), an online course materials platform designed to address copyright issues for materials selected for use in courses.  SIPX has been used to provide PPV materials for online courses, including MOOCs.  The system allows users to create “copyright-intelligent” URLs that allow faculty members to view metrics, such as per-student article analytics.

A quick overview of other available PPV and university-wide content options, such as the CCC’s Get It Now service, would have served as valuable context for the session.

 

That’s all the reports we have room for in this issue.  Watch for more reports from the 2013 Charleston Conference in upcoming issues of Against the Grain.  Presentation material (PowerPoint slides, handouts) and taped session links from many of the 2013 sessions are available online.  Visit the Conference Website at www.katina.info/conference. — KS

Pin It

Comments are closed.