Home 9 Against the Grain 9 v31#1 And They Were There-Reports of Meetings — WikiCite 2018 and 38th Annual Charleston Conference

v31#1 And They Were There-Reports of Meetings — WikiCite 2018 and 38th Annual Charleston Conference

by | Apr 12, 2019 | 0 comments


Column Editors:  Ramune K. Kubilius  (Galter Health Sciences Library & Learning Center, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine)  

and Sever Bordeianu  (Head, Print Resources Section, University Libraries, MSC05 3020, 1 University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM  87131-0001; Phone: 505-277-2645; Fax: 505-277-9813) 

WikiCite 2018 — Theme: possibility/posibilidad/possibilité — November 27-29, 2018 — Berkeley, CA

Reported by Laura Soito  (University of New Mexico)

WikiCite 2018 was held in Berkeley, California November 27-29, 2018.  Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation and the Sloan Foundation, this third meeting of the WikiCite initiative brought together 115 participants to work towards the vision of a community-built, open citation database to serve free knowledge projects both within and beyond the Wikimedia community.  The three-day event featured a conference highlighting work with existing data collections, tools, and content gaps;  a summit to work through three possible scenarios for the future of WikiCite;  and a Do-a-thon for individuals and teams to engage and actively participate in making citation data more open.

While this effort intersects many different stakeholder groups and information needs, from my perspective, this meeting presented opportunities to imagine library collections beyond the boundaries of traditional cataloging and authority control.  The goal of free, open, and linked bibliographic data is important to libraries as they seek to improve access, discoverability, and interoperability of collections and works. These data collections also provide opportunities to ask new questions and new mechanisms to support knowledge production.

Dario Taraborelli, Director of Research for the Wikimedia Foundation, set the stage for WikiCite 2018 with the opening keynote.  He shared examples of the important role citations play in verifying information, contrasted with the challenges current citation systems face in providing the context and reliable access needed to perform verification.  In providing a brief history of the project, he explained that a vision for this project was originally proposed in 2005, but only recently has technical and social capacity made it feasible to begin tangible development.  While the bibliographic data content added to Wikidata has been impressive, Dario concluded by identifying gaps, including missing data models for sources like TV programs or oral sources, missing tools for large-scale curation and disambiguation, research needed to understand source quality and bias, and solutions for using these data to annotate other projects like Wikipedia.

Moving into the conference, the first session focused on corpora and databases.  Alicia Fagerving of Wikimedia Sverige presented an example of how the National Library of Sweden, the first national library to implement BIBFRAME 2.0, is working to create Wikidata for the most frequently referenced books in Swedish Wikipedia.  Similarly, Jason Evans, a Wikimedian-in-Residence for the National Library of Wales described an effort to include metadata for all books published in Wales.  Both of these projects show promise for improving the number of books represented in Wikidata.

Considering workflows, Honor Moody, Harvard Library, and Bruce Washburn, OCLC Research, discussed a 16 library pilot project to examine workflows for connecting legacy bibliographic data to linked data entities via a Wikibase.  Similarly, from the multi-library, Linked Data for Production (LD4P) project, Michelle Futornick, Stanford University, and Christine Fernsebner Eslao, Harvard Library, shared ways that Wikidata can be a part of the effort for libraries to adopt linked data in their workflows.  These projects demonstrated opportunities for using authorities not represented in traditional library cataloging.

Considering how these data sets can be used to provide new benefits to library users, Gloria Gonzalez of the Library.Link Network shared how libraries are already including linked data networks into their catalogs.  For example, she demoed how the DC Public Library’s catalog contains author cards based on Wikidata.  In the final talk of this session, Daniel Mietchen of the University of Virginia, shared examples of other corpora that have or could be created such as all works related to a particular topic, created by a specific author, connected to a specific intuition, or written in a specific language.  These corpora may allow people to combine bibliographic data in new ways and ask questions that go beyond what current tools allow.

The second conference session highlighted tools and workflows for creating, querying, and analyzing citation data.  Finn Årup Nielsen, Technical University of Denmark, and Daniel Mietchen presented Scholia, a tool that allows users to query, aggregate, and visualize scientometric data typically used in academic profiles.  Mairelys Lemus-Rojas, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, presented a specific case study for using Scholia to create profiles for faculty members at her institution.

Considering how WikiCite interfaces with other collections, citizen scientists Siobhan Leachman and librarian Katie Mika, now of the University of Colorado Boulder, demonstrated workflows for connecting Biodiversity Heritage Library content on New Zealand moths to Wikimedia projects.  Freelance developer Thomas Arrow demonstrated Open Knowledge Maps, a tool for building 2D visualizations of a topic that can then be used to query literature databases.  Maxime Lathuilière, the creator of the book inventory tool inventaire.io, demonstrated how this tool’s interface aids the addition of crowdsourced content in Wikibase.  Ivan Heibi, University of Bologna, presented on OSCAR and LUCINDA, two tools developed by the OpenCitations for searching and browsing triplestore data including those from Wikidata.

The final conference session helped us to be mindful of gaps in the existing content and challenged us to find ways of overcoming bias.  Simon Cobb, University of Leeds, discussed connecting authors to their works.  Miriam Redi, Wikimedia Foundation and King’s College London, discussed user experience work to understand how readers of Wikipedia currently use citations.  Wikimedian Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight, shared her work with the Gender Diversity Visibility Community User Group and efforts to make sources that support this work more available, such as the creation of a lending library.  Finally, Kenneth Seals-Nutt, shared his work on ScienceStories.io, a tool for visual storytelling based on linked data.

The day concluded with a keynote by Katherine Maher, Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation.  She highlighted the importance of our efforts in supporting a free knowledge ecosystem.  Wikipedia is one of the most commonly used entry points to the scholarly literature, a critical source for medical information, and a source of Linked Open Data.  While Wikipedia has become a highly trusted source for establishing truth on the internet, she also highlighted its many gaps, particularly bias towards the global north, lack of gender representation, and barriers to accessing content cited in Wikipedia.  Wikidata and the underlying infrastructure Wikibases, hold new promise for achieving the vision of Wikimedia Foundation — “a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge.”

Throughout the meeting, many participants provided lightning talks highlighting other efforts:  John Mark Ockerbloom, University of Pennsylvania, presented an inventory of first copyright renewals for journals that can be used to identify when content enters the public domain;  Mark Graham of Internet Archive shared a project to provide controlled digital lending and make source material more readily available;  Martin Klein of Los Alamos National Lab shared Memento, a tool for browsing linked content, as it existed when the link was created;  Telugu Wikipedian Pavan Santhosh Surampudi, described efforts to use Wikidata to serve as a catalog for physical books from libraries in South India;  Benjamin Bober, ABES (the French higher education bibliographical agency), described developing a national production tool for Linked Data creation;  Paula Domínguez-Font of Wikimedia Uruguay highlighted opportunities for global collaboration in the development of Autores.uy, an open source collection of Uruguayan authors and their work;  and Pierre Godefroy of the ISSN International Centre described efforts to connect ISSNs to journal data in Wikidata.

The summit, on day two, explored future visions of WikiCite.  Phoebe Ayers, MIT Libraries, opened the day by sharing the importance of citations in helping us document what we claim to know.  She emphasized the necessity of recognizing gaps in our metadata collections, in that knowing these helps to inform the questions we can answer with these data.  Her presentation closed with an exercise to explore three potential futures for WikiCite.  First, WikiCite as an effort to manage citation data specific to Wikimedia projects.  Alternatively, WikiCite as a federated collection of bibliographic corpora.  Finally, the moonshot, creating the commons to capture all bibliographic data.

Throughout the remainder of the day, teams dug into the three scenarios or attended tutorials to learn more about Wikidata, including how to ingest and query data.  In facilitated breakouts, teams worked through questions of purpose, scope, hopes and fears, partnerships, and timelines to accomplish this work. From these discussions, many ideas for projects were developed for the final day of the meeting and beyond.

During the final day, a Do-a-thon, participants broke out to work on over 30 project ideas.  Among these: using the Mix’N’Match tool to disambiguate Wikidata; developing Library Carpentry and other training to teach librarians how to use Wikidata;  improving Wikipedia coverage of local newspapers; exploring synergies between Wikidata, Scholia, and VIVO; developing outreach approaches to obtain access to new data sources;  and identifying new Wikidata properties to describe bibliographic sources.

All conference presentations, the tutorials, lightening talks, and share-out sessions were live-streamed and recordings are now available on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLN4mEhpy3b8Sayl_QsSjpa8H1wqo82hxr).  In addition, slides and discussion notes are linked from the conference program:  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiCite_2018/Program.

Beyond the meeting, WikiCite is a community with on-going participation.  Additional information about how to participate is available from the project webpage at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiCite.  It is possible to follow community conversation via Twitter (https://twitter.com/WikiCite).  In addition, there are opportunities to learn more through other upcoming library and information science conference presentations.

Issues in Book and Serial Acquisition, “Oh, Wind, if Winter comes, can Spring be far behind?” Charleston Gaillard Center, Francis Marion Hotel, Embassy Suites Historic Downtown, and Courtyard Marriott Historic District — Charleston, SC, November 5-9, 2018

Charleston Conference Reports compiled by:  Ramune K. Kubilius  (Galter Health Sciences Library & Learning Center, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine)  

Column Editor’s Note:  Thanks to all of the Charleston Conference attendees who agreed to write short reports highlighting sessions they attended at the 2018 Charleston Conference.  Attempts were made to provide a broad coverage of sessions, but there are always more sessions than there are reporters.  Some presenters posted their slides and handouts in the online conference schedule. Please visit the conference site, http://www.charlestonlibraryconference.com/, and link to selected videos, interviews, as well as to blog reports written by Charleston Conference blogger, Donald Hawkins.  The 2018 Charleston Conference Proceedings will be published in 2019, in partnership with Purdue University Press: http://www.thepress.purdue.edu/series/charleston.

In this issue of ATG you will find the first installment of 2018 conference reports.  We will continue to publish all of the reports received in upcoming print issues throughout the year. — RKK

2018 Trendspotting Initiative

Reported by Audrey Powers  (University of South Florida)  

The 2018 Trendspotting Initiative included a Trend Storm, Trend Lab, Trend Talk and Trend Texts.  Trend Storm Beginning with a Trend Storm took place prior to the 2018 Charleston Conference.  On June 19, a Trend Storm webinar led by Lisa Janicke Hinchliff (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign), explained the 2018 ATG Trendspotting Initiative and asked participants to engage in the process by proposing a disruptive trend in our industry.  The submitted trends were collated into nine categories and discussed at the 2018 Charleston Conference Trend Lab.  The objective of the Trend Lab was to facilitate a brainstorming session in which trends impacting our industry were identified and discussed.  Additionally, the intent was to establish an ongoing process for forecasting industry trends. The culmination of the Trend Lab identified and earmarked trends in society that would impact organizations in our industry and prepare us for change.

The trends identified in the 2018 Trend Lab included:

  • All About Analytics and Algorithms
  • Who Really Knows Anyway?
  • Everything is Computational
  • You Call That Content?
  • The Carbon Imprint
  • Securing the Record
  • The Common Good Dissolves
  • Just For You and Just for Me
  • The Researcher’s Way

At the Trend Lab, participants were clustered by trend and were asked to think about, discuss and report on how the trend presents itself in scholarly communication, publishing and academic libraries.  What are the impacts of this trend on scholarship, content creation, quality control, publishing, purchasing/licensing, discovery and access, and information use?

An additional session, Trend Talk, was held on Thursday of the 2018 Charleston Conference (https://sched.co/GB36) in which the results of the Trend Lab discussion were reported, with comments provided by a panel of three librarians.

The ATG Trendspotting Lab, along with its inception and a link to the trendspotting website is described in a blog report by Donald Hawkins (https://www.charleston-hub.com/2018/11/atg-trendspotting-lab/).


Opening Keynote – The Future of Research Information: Open, Connected, Seamless — Presented by Annette Thomas (Clarivate Analytics) and Anthony Watkinson (CIBER Research, moderator) — https://sched.co/G65r

Reported by Ramune Kubilius (Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Galter Health Sciences Library & Learning Center)  

Thomas noted that it had been six years since she last spoke in Charleston.  Now in a new position as a chief information officer (and a university trustee), she reviewed her former and current roles, as researcher, editor, publisher, and chief executive officer, noting that research enriches us all.  Current challenges (crises plus associated questions) include: the university identity crisis (who are universities for, who should pay, what are universities for); the researcher credibility crisis (political hostility, should research serve the economy or political culture);  a publishers’ contribution crisis (why publish so much by so few, why publish only positive results, how can we be part of the solution rather than the problem). The core principles that continue to be relevant for the Web into the 21st century: connectedness, openness, seamlessness.  Thomas argued for opportunities of scale, but for its talent and diversity, not size and conformity.  Moderator Watkinson raised a question on behalf of the audience regarding the announcement earlier this year about the “reconstituted” ISI (Institute for Scientific Information), founded decades ago by Dr. Eugene Garfield.  What is its place in Clarivate, a commercial entity?  Thomas responded that she sees ISI as an academic think tank, editorial in nature, with an independent approach, supporting the use of metrics “in the right way,” standing for integrity, collaboration, and innovation.  The Charleston Conference blog report about this session by Donald Hawkins can be found at:  https://www.charleston-hub.com/2018/11/opening-keynote-the-future-of-research-information-open-connected-seamless/.

Open Scholarship Initiative Update — Presented by T. Scott Plutchak (UAB, retired) and Anthony Watkinson (CIBER Research) — https://sched.co/G65t

Reported by Nicole Eva (University of Lethbridge)  

Watkinson introduced Plutchak who provided a brief summary of the origins and direction of the Open Scholarship Initiative.  To date, there are 400 participants from about 250 institutions and 24 countries. Open solutions of all kinds are contemplated, including Open Educational Resources.  There have been three conferences (by invitation) and a call for the next one will be in December 2018. The group has four basic principles: to mitigate the consequences and share costs between all parties;  to include everyone (libraries, publishers, researchers); that everything is connected (tenure & promotion practices, intellectual property — all figure into the equation); and that open is a spectrum. He encouraged interested persons to sign up for the email discussion list at oisglobal.org, where there are links to blogs, and issue briefs.

The Charleston Conference blog report about this session by Donald Hawkins can be found at:  https://www.charleston-hub.com/2018/11/open-scholarship-initiative-osi-update/.

Data Expeditions – Mining Data for Effective Decision-Making — Presented by Ann Michael (Delta Think), Ivy Anderson (California Digital Library) and Gwen Evans (OhioLink) — https://sched.co/G65u

Reported by Ramune K. Kubilius (Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Galter Health Sciences Library & Learning Center)  

The focus of presentations by Anderson, Evans, and Michael was briefly introduced by conference director, Ann Okerson.  Michael, the session moderator, noted that data is a tool to use with skill and finesse, to help work the best with what we have, as an asset.

Anderson reminded the audience of the scope of CDL (as the 11th university library) with 10 campuses and 100 libraries.  She highlighted two uses of data — a journal value analysis, and an open access modeling study.  The first is an algorithm, a holistic approach, to help grapple with the variety of usage data: utility, quality, cost effectiveness.  Within packages, titles value is assigned a score, and it helps with title swapping exercises and regression analysis. The OA transformation studies included UC publication output, what authors are spending on APCs (author publication charges), the UC Pay It Forward Study, and what is an appropriate APC cost.  It was determined that 80% of output is with 25 publishers. The modeling tool helps with scenario modeling.

Evans described different views of data at OhioLink libraries, a consortium encompassing 118 libraries, 90 institutions, and a state library, as well as Cleveland Clinic.  It was determined that there was much duplication in the five “at capacity” (full) storage facilities. The flipping of perspective was done to view uniqueness, not duplication, to increase the risk level.  A grant will help compress the focus to one facility (at Ohio University).  Monographs have been looked at, but now the challenge is to identify serials.  The second project involved textbook pricing, identifying a “target” (desired) collection.  The OhioLink Bookstore was established (use of Verbaconnect for three weeks), to identify retail, inclusive access.  Consortia only exist in the aggregate. Data analysis is becoming a core competency for jobs, she contended.

Evans agreed that librarians want to see all the data, but the needs of legislators and taxpayers may be a snapshot and visualization (and 3rd grade level, simple text).  Some data is institution-specific. Manage storage before it is managed for you, Evans argued.

It is a struggle for consortia not to give away competitive intelligence, but during Q&A, one attendee made a plea not for the data itself, but for sharing of methodology on studies like these, so smaller institutions could also consider it.


Spring is Here! Cultivating Agency Through Emerging Community-Owned Solutions: Usage Analytics, Institutional Repositories, and Resource Sharing — Presented by Jason Price (SCELC, Statewide California Electronic Library Consortium), Sebastian Hammer (Index Data LLC), Kirsten Leonard (PALNI-Private Academic Library Network of Indiana), and Jill Morris (PALCI-The Pennsylvania Academic Library Consortium, Inc) — https://sched.co/G8SD

Reported by Angel Clemons  (University of Louisville)  

Price moderated the session in which Hammer, Leonard, and Morris discussed three community owned technology solutions aimed at addressing the needs of libraries and consortia.  PALCI, along with nine other consortia, are developing CC-Plus (Consortia Collaborating on a Platform for Library Usage Statistics), a platform for collecting, displaying, and analyzing usage data for consortia members.  The project is being funded by an IMLS grant which extends through 2020. Leonard discussed two low cost collaborative IR solutions that PALNI is currently partnering on — hyku and Islandora.  Hyku, a partnership with PALCI, is in development and will be designed to focus initially on ETDs and OER. Islandora, a partnership with WRLC, is production ready and designed to collaboratively manage digital assets.  Project ReShare, still in its infancy, is a collaboration of consortia, libraries, vendors, developers, and others whose goal is the development of a community owned resource sharing platform. It is due to be implemented in 2020.

Metadata2020: A holistic approach to metadata improvements for scholarly communications — Presented by Anthony Watkinson (CIBER Research, moderator), Chris Erdmann (Data Carpentries), T. Scott Plutchak (UAB, retired), and Howard Ratner (CHORUS) — https://sched.co/G66B

Reported by Ramune K. Kubilius  (Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Galter Health Sciences Library & Learning Center)  

The session highlighted the Metadata 2020 collaboration (http://www.metadata2020.org/) and focused on reports from a few of its working groups.  Sparked by CrossRef, its purpose is to enrich the research process.  In 2018, phase 1 is concluding after workshops, workflow diagrams, and a metadata game (metadata as fun).  Community groups encompass researchers; publishers; librarians; data publishers & repositories; services, platforms & tools;  funders. Each group had about four meetings, came up with problem statements, and conceived cross-committee projects that, to date, included research communication, metadata recommendations and element mappings, defining of terms, incentives, best practices, and metadata evaluation.

Plutchak highlighted “Defining Terms,” common languages, and Phase I key:  a survey, and a review of varying terminology in different schema, with an eventual metadata glossary.

Rattner highlighted the work of “Best Practices and Principles,” with its goal of building a set of high level practices for using metadata and deliverables in 2018 of collecting annotations of best practices, listing frequently required elements, and ultimately (in 2019) producing a best practices and principles guide.

Meadows began the update on “Researcher Communication” with a 2017 Cameron Neylon blog quote:  “As a researcher…I’m a bit bloody fed up with Data Management” (https://cameronneylon.net/blog/as-a-researcher-im-a-bit-bloody-fed-up-with-data-management/).  The purpose of the working group is to align efforts between communities.  Phase 1 projects included a literature review done by a student member that describes what is present and absent in the literature (the second includes informal sharing).

Discussion:  Participation in Metadata 2020 fluctuates — some are watching, some are working.  Vendor decisions do not always consider the downstream (metadata) effect of their decisions.  Bibliographic and semantic metadata are “apples and oranges.” Do we want to become metadata police?  Though we want gains, no, was the answer.


Accessibility & Publishing:  Practices for equitable access and maximum impact — Presented by Susan Doerr (University of Minnesota Press), Stephanie Rosen (University of Michigan Library), Peter Alan Smith (College of Charleston School of Business), and Emma Waecker (EBSCO Information Services) — https://sched.co/GB3U

Reported by Mallory Kasinec  (Boston University, Fineman & Pappas Law Libraries)  <[email protected]>

This session, organized by Rosen, began with each panelist describing why accessibility is important to them and how it impacts their current work.  The discussion moved to each panelist providing an ideal vision of how they would approach accessibility projects in the future;  Doerr and Rosen discussed the library and university press side, while Waecker mentioned the publisher’s role, and Smith provided a user’s point of view.  It was noted that the process of creating accessible eBook resources is twofold;  eBook content and eBook platforms both need to be accessible. This can be done by choosing the best format for accessibility and preservation (EPUB), focusing on eBook file metadata (creating alt-text, describing images/graphs, labeling buttons, providing transcripts and closed captioning), and providing a variety of user experience accommodations (audio, large print, dyslexic font and color contrast toggling).  A discussion of who is responsible for the accessibility tools and metadata ensued; is it the library, author, or publisher? It seems to be agreed that this is going to require cooperation, effort, and training on all sides.


Adapting Library Workflows to Accommodate Transferred Journals — Presented by Christine Davidian (Rowan University) and Jennifer Matthews (Rowan University) — https://sched.co/GB3R

Reported by Angel Clemons  (University of Louisville)  

Four years ago, transferred titles (i.e., titles that are discontinued by one publisher then picked up by another publisher) were not part of any workflow at Rowan University’s Campbell Library.  Holdings were not accurate, there were lots of support issues, and publisher changes were dealt with on a case by case basis.  After identifying the impact this had on user experience, Rowan librarians initially started tracking changes in a spreadsheet by recording the title, ISSN, old and new publishers, effective date of transfer, action taken, initials, date entered, notes, etc.  This has evolved into an extensive workflow that now involves multiple individuals or departments. Changes are tracked using the Transfer Alerting System (a product of ISSN.org), Ebsconet Transfer Notifications, and transfer notifications by content providers.  Davidian and Matthews discussed the multiple challenges encountered in this process (e.g., loss of coverage, contract constraints, etc.) as well as lessons learned (e.g., consider the big picture, be proactive, have a regularly scheduled decision process).  Next steps in the process include conducting follow up testing on a regular basis and documenting decisions more fully.

Advancing Discovery Throughout the Scholarly Communications Workflow — Presented by Amira Aaron (Northeastern University Libraries), Daniel Hook (Digital Science), and Jaco Zijlstra (Springer Nature) — https://sched.co/GB3T

Note:  Daniel Hook joined the session remotely from Germany.

Reported by Ramune K. Kubilius  (Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Galter Health Sciences Library & Learning Center)  

Zijlstra quoted Elsevier’s Karen Hunter “you are not your customer” as he discussed a customer-centric focus on making research findings accessible (think-make-check).  Springer Nature has done its part with “Shared It,” “Bookmetrix,” and “Librarian Portal.”  Mobile interface options have increased.

Hook shared his credentials as a researcher, indicating that he still publishes at least one paper a year, and has a book forthcoming.  At DigitalScience, the challenge is how to support research at large in three areas:  conceptualization, implementation & analysis, and dissemination. The research life cycle is not simple and imposing order is hard, publication as touchtone is evolving.  Increasingly, the data set or software becomes more important than the publication. There is a complex world of objects. He described Dimensions (new in Jan. 2018, free, with a more complicated version for a fee) which joins other projects and tools such as figshare, Altmetric, UberResearch, and GRID.  The purpose is to de-silo; provide a context page, analytical views, and multiple facets.

Aaron talked about the increasing number of tools and shared uses of PRIMO that include related reading recommendations and resource recommender.  It is difficult to lead students to specialized (topic level) information, to direct linking, and research guides. The challenges are about granularity, which needs to be exposed.  Metadata needs to be richer and more granular, publishers and vendors are not sharing metadata, and ther is no content neutrality. Her plea was for sharing, with a future in open linked data.

Flipping the Model:  A Values-Based, Consortial Approach to Journal Negotiations — Presented by Beth Blanton-Kent (University of Virginia Library), Cheri Duncan (James Madison University), Edward Lener (Virginia Tech), and Genya O’Gara (Virtual Library of Virginia) — https://sched.co/GB3O

Note:  Co-author Georgie Donovan (William and Mary Libraries) was unable to attend the conference.

Reported by Janice Adlington  (McMaster University)  

The panelists, drawn from VIVA’s Sustainable Journal Pricing Task Force (https://vivalib.org), outlined the impetus behind this committee, and described the expected next steps in the consortium’s negotiations.  As an illustration of the sustainability issue, the first speaker projected a librarian salary over ten years at the vendor’s 7% increase rate, showing the gulf between librarian and vendor realities.  Rather than accept business as usual, the task force recommends flipping the normal process to start with the consortium’s proposal, based on member values, including pricing adjustments commensurate with open access authorship;  price increases capped at standard inflation measures; no price increases for unsolicited content; strong author rights; and transparency. Spends will be reduced with publishers that do not accept these provisions. Next steps involve financial modeling and building consensus among the 72 VIVA institutions.  While the goal is to reframe relationships as partnerships in scholarly communication, to transition to a more open and equitable ecosystem, this is an incremental approach to the ongoing sustainability crisis.


Know when to Hold ‘Em, Know when to Fold ‘Em: Using Data to Streamline Weeding — Presented by Dawn Mick (Iowa State University), Kimberley Robles Smith (California State University – Fresno), and David Tyckoson (California State University, Fresno) — https://sched.co/GB3L

Reported by Danielle Aloia  (New York Medical College)  

The take-aways from this session were:  if you have the money, Greenglass is a great product from OCLC that can analyze your collection and compare holdings between institutions.  Also, it enables you to set criteria for autoweed and autokeep: not to include Faculty Pubs, dissertations, etc.  If you have limited funds, collect your own data: circulation stats, in-house usage, etc. There are different collections to weed:  Main, journals, reference, and specialized. Make it fun: create a team, make a weeding kit with a narrative, that includes who uses the collection, average age of the books, and how much was spent overtime on the collection.  Don’t ask faculty about books but definitely ask them about serials!

That’s all the reports we have room for in this issue.  Watch for more reports from the 2018 Charleston Conference in upcoming issues of Against the Grain.  Presentation material (PowerPoint slides, handouts) and taped session links from many of the 2018 sessions are available online.  Visit the Conference Website at www.charlestonlibraryconference.com. — KS



Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Share This