The Committee reviewed last-minute details and preparation for the ALA Annual Conference program, “Perspectives on Demand Driven Acquisitions in a Consortial Environment.” The members then developed programming ideas for next year’s Annual Conference and discussed the possibility of hosting an ALCTS e-Forum in early 2014.
Continuing Resources Cataloging Committee
Due to the interaction between the section's liaison to CC:DA and the Continuing Resources Cataloging Committee (CRCC), the CRCC requested that the CC:DA liaison be made an ex-officio member of CRCC. As a member, the liaison will be added to the committee's email list and the Connect page making interaction with the liaison easier.
The CRCC discussed plans for its update forum on Monday, July 1, 2013. The theme for the forum was RDA and serials cataloging. The speakers were Becky Culbertson, Electronic Resources Cataloging Librarian, California Digital Library; Regina Romano Reynolds, Director of the U.S. ISSN Center and Head of the ISSN Section at the Library of Congress; and Shana McDanold, Head of Metadata Services Unit, Georgetown University. Coverage of this forum is included in the Programs section of this newsletter. The committee brainstormed possible topics and speakers for the update forum at next Midwinter.
Peter Fletcher reported on the work of the PCC series review group.
Regina Reynolds asked to discuss issues related to ISSNs and series, MARC coding, and the possibility of having MARC field 022 be repeatable.
Education, Research and Publications Coordinating Committee
Those attending the committee meeting included three new members, along with one outgoing member and one continuing member. To provide background for those new to the committee, the chair reviewed activities the committee is currently working on. All areas of the committee charge were touched on, with decisions as to how we can address the different areas (research, education, and publication) in the next year.
We reviewed progress on the video on continuing resources that is being developed to explain what a continuing resource is for those new to the field. The video will be posted on the CRS website later this summer and it was suggested we look into posting the video also on the ALCTS Continuing Education committee's website. We also discussed the guide for authors, to be posted on the CRS website later this year. Another area the committee has worked on is sending out calls for publications on discussion lists. We did not receive any response to the two calls that have been sent so far.
Finally, we reviewed the outcome of a chat session in May to determine possible topics for monographs. It was felt that journal articles or conference events would provide more timely information than a monograph, but that a series of introductory texts on the various areas within technical services might be useful. The idea was proposed to the ALCTS Publications Committee and we were asked to investigate whether any series on technical services topics already exists. If not, the idea will be brought again to the Publications Committee for consideration.
A major part of the meeting was devoted to planning a program on best practices for electronic resource management for ALA Annual in 2014. The committee submitted a proposal to the ALCTS Program Committee, but since our topic was quite general, we were asked to firm up the proposal and resubmit it. Revising the proposal and deciding on a program chair(s) will be our first priority in the next couple of months.
Highlights of the Continuing Resources Section’s activities for this year include the following.
The CRS Nominating Committee did a fine job of filling the election slate; Jennifer Young (Chair-Elect, 2012–13) and Christopher Walker (Member-at-Large).
Beverley Geer, Collection Development Manager at YBP Library Services, was selected for this year’s Ulrich’s Serials Librarianship Award.
Jennifer Castaldo Hill of John Hopkins University, Maryland was selected for this year’s First Step Award.
The CRS Committee/IG Participation Task Force was created as an ad hoc group to review and document expectations for committee members and chairs. This work was undertaken at the request of the chair in order to promote and facilitate virtual participation in the CRS section. The CRS Participation Guide was created by the Task Force and was approved for distribution by the Executive Board at the Annual Conference. The full text of the guide will be posted in ALA Connect.
The College & Research Libraries Interest Group meeting at Annual Conference consisted of a panel discussion addressing “Sustainable Models of Open Access Publishing.”
The Continuing Resource Cataloging Committee’s Update Forum included brief updates from representatives of the ISSN Center, the Library of Congress and CONSER Program, and CC:DA. The remainder of the forum focused on aspects of RDA and serials.
At the ALCTS Membership Committee’s ALCTS 101 event, the CRS representatives noted that some attendees were not familiar with the term “continuing resources.” Members of the Education, Research, and Publications Coordinating Committee, with the assistance of other CRS members, are working on creating an informational video added to the section’s website.
The Education, Research, and Publications Coordinating Committee held chat meetings several times during the year, in order to update each other between conferences. The committee created a guide for authors to provide information to those coming to the site on ALCTS publishing opportunities. Links will be provided to the more detailed authors guide on the ALCTS website. The committee is planning a program on electronic resource management for Annual 2014.
The Holdings Information Committee sponsored a forum at the annual entitled, “Leveraging Your Linked Data: How Promotion of Linked Data Initiatives Gives Small Projects Big Visibility
The Standards Committee held a successful “Continuing Resources Standards Forum” at Annual Conference. One was also held at Midwinter.
The Policy and Planning Committee has been reviewing the ALCTS Strategic Plan, reviewing the structure and function of other sections’ committees, and doing brainstorming activities to come up with areas that CRS could undertake to improve section responsiveness.
Holdings Information Committee
We welcomed our two new members, Jeremy and Violeta, who had participated in the forum in Seattle.
The committee agreed to do a final review of the minutes from the Midwinter meeting in Seattle (as submitted to CRS). No changes have been subsequently requested.
The committee finalized logistics for the forum: “Leveraging Your Linked Data: How Promotion of Linked Data Initiatives Gives Small Projects Big Visibility.” It was agreed that Selina Lin would take notes from an audio recording made during the presentation. Sandy Chen also agreed to videotape the slides of the session for later posting on YouTube.
After an update from Carolynne and Genevieve about the task forces being put in place, the committee reviewed the Committee Participation Document that would be considered in the Executive Committee session. Sandy Chen suggested that there might be a conferencing function available in Blackboard that might be useful to consider in future.
The committee reviewed some potential forum ideas for Midwinter Meeting in Philadelphia. Ideas included shared print initiatives, in particular broadening of projects within the U.S. and lessons that could be learned from European efforts.
The Holdings Information Committee Forum was held from 3 to 4 p.m. on the same day, Saturday, June 29. [See the program report] for details and links to the videos.
Policy & Planning Committee
As the chair is one of the members cycling off, the meeting time was used to review and assess the activities that the committee undertook during the 2012–13 term. During this term, the committee generated recommendations for increasing the visibility of the CRS as well as recommendations related to continuing education. The committee members who were present also generated ideas for the committee to undertake during the 2013–14 term. These ideas include committee charge review and generating recommendations related to how CRS committees use their ALA Connect spaces.
Continuing Resources Section (CRS) Interest Groups
College and Research Libraries Interest Group
Sustainable Models of Open Access Publishing
- Ann Okerson, Senior Advisor on Electronic Strategies, Center for Research Libraries
- David Crotty, Senior Editor, Oxford University Press
- Matt Straiges, Regional Sales Manager for the Americas, Royal Society of Chemistry
- Jonathan Nabe, Collection Development Librarian, Southern Illinois University
The program was led off by Ann Okerson, Senior Advisor on Electronic Strategies, Center for Research Libraries, who provided some background on open access (OA) and some of the sustainable models that currently exist. She gave two reasons why we are talking about open access: (1) The Web has made global distribution cheap and easy (though producing the content is still costly), and (2) This low distribution cost has spawned a political/legal context that puts OA squarely on the agenda by making it desirable for research, teaching, and ethical reasons.
Okerson went on to describe how talking about sustainability is a version of talking about fear. With regard to sustainability and scholarly publishing, we have five big fears:
- That carefully built brands of premium journals and publishers will be undermined and thus we will lose critically important markers for both authors and readers and that the ability to determine what has been reviewed and edited is increasingly difficult.
- That libraries’ carefully built preservation systems will fail and we will lose too much of the important past.
- How can we afford OA?
- The absence of clear, consistent models may lead to confusion.
- What if our jobs or roles are no longer needed?
She encouraged audience members to consider the financial sustainability arguments of OA carefully. Finally, she suggested we are just at the beginning of Open Access—it’s not our first day on the job, but it may be only our first week or month. Later, in speaking of Okerson’s work with SCOAP3, she said this is one model of working with OA, but not the model. It’s one of many approaches to the changing publishing environment.
David Crotty discussed the ways in which success and influence is measured in the publishing community. He cited ImpactStory as one newer version of measuring impact. While some have suggested article-level metrics as a way to approach impact, he endorsed Altmetrics of many different sorts to address needs depending on circumstances; there isn’t a one-size-fits-all approach but a need for custom metrics to meet the need at hand. He also gave an overview of recent government mandates such as the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, which requires those receiving federal grants to make the information and data available via open access. The revenue stream is very important with regard to OA—consider what might replace funds generated from advertising, licensing in an OA environment.
Matt Straiges gave background on the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) Gold for Gold initiative, which has more than 48,000 members. They want to lead a transition in publishing and be a part of a solution. RSC Gold allows institutions to subscribe and receive credit vouchers to distribute to campus to help with OA publishing costs. Libraries can be the ones who distribute these vouchers to their communities.
Jonathan Nabe spoke about the SIU COPE (SIU Carbondale Open-Access Publishing Equity) Fund. This fund provides financial support to cover the fees charged for open access publication for members of the SIU Community. They see this as a force for positive change with students having access to all SIU research and everyone having access to the research coming out of SIU. He recommended the SPARC OA site for campus OA policies. At SIU, they’ve had twenty COPE awards in two years. One issue they’ve had to consider if they’ll support hybrid OA–subscription based journal submissions. Also, the impact factor as a measure of value causes stress on the whole OA system since publishers are still trying to chase a metric that academia has put in place.
Questions and answers from the audience followed.