ERC ST 040712Electronic Resources Steering Team Meeting July 12, 2004 Phone meeting Members attending by phone: John Creech, CWU Heather Whipple, Reed Emily Miller-Francisco, SOU Susan Hinken, Univ of Portland Tim Jewell, Univ of Washington Greg Doyle, Orbis Cascade Alliance (notetaker)
Members not present: Barbara Valentine, Linfield Diane Carroll, OHSU
1. ICOLC’s Proposal for support of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) The SEP is an academic-maintained digital reference work that has been supported by NEH funding. Funding is ending and ICOLC has proposed that the academic community create an endowment over three years that will provide ownership and make the SEP freely accessible. ICOLC is proposing that the academic community commit $1 million a year for three years. It’s believed this, in combination with an additional $1 million raised by Stanford’s Development Office, will provide enough annual operating revenue to make the resource free starting in 2007. The proposal calls for 3 annual contributions of: $2,500 to $8,000 for philosophy PhD degree granting institutions; $1,000-$3,000 for MA granting institutions; $500-$1,500 for BA granting institutions. The question before the Steering Team is if the Alliance should support this proposal, and if so, how should we do it. Tim indicated UW has been discussing the proposal internally. There is support for the proposal by the Philosophy Dept while the library’s Subject Specialist questions the value of the SEP in relation to the amount of contribution that is being asked. In general, the following concerns were raised: Cost: this was raised by Emily and Heather. Emily mentioned that SOU doesn’t even subscribe to Philosopher’s Index Online, but does have in print. Heather said Reed faculty are satisfied with the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Ability to commit acquisitions money to an endowment: Tim and Susan mentioned that institutional policies might be a barrier to spending money in this way. Support for scholarly communications in general: Tim mentioned that there are many efforts being tried in the area of scholarly communication. It’s difficult to choose between different projects. Specifically, Project Euclid, BioOne, SPARC were mentioned as projects that also deserve support and might be easier to focus on. Greg noted that SPARC has lent its support for this proposal. There is general consensus that two efforts move forward: 1) Treat the proposal as we would any proposed electronic resource. Greg will send information about the proposal to the ER Committee to ensure everyone knows about the proposal. A call will be made to see which institutions are willing to commit. 2) Present the proposal to Council for their consideration and support. It was felt that Library Directors should be on board with this and help generate support by their faculty. Greg will talk to John to see how best to bring this to Council’s attention. 2. Kluwer journal proposal The proposal for a shared group of Kluwer journals is moving forward with a tight deadline. A meeting with the Kluwer rep, Bob Boissey is scheduled for July 27. Greg sought guidance on how important the success of the proposal is and how we might select a subgroup to work on dealing with duplicate credits. Points made by the members were: 1) While it would be good to complete the deal, if it fails we’ll at least have gained some experience in journal projects that will be useful in the future. 2) Let the group self identify who wants to spend the time dealing with duplicate credits. Institutional time pressures and workloads will limit who can devote additional time to the project. 3) Do the big things that help the project get started and sweat the details later.
3. ICOLC Statement of Current Perspective and Preferred Practices ERST committee members reviewed this document and found it worthy of support. There were a few suggestions for revision that Greg will send to the ICOLC list to make sure they’ve been addressed: Conflicting statements about suggested pricing for electronic plus print were identified in two sections: “…combined price of E + P will not substantially surpass the original print price…” and later “The combined electronic and print price is no more than current print-only formats.” Tim noticed a grammar problem and capitalization of COUNTER. 4. Minutes process We discussed how we deal with approving minutes and getting them posted to the ER website: 1) Note taker sends draft of minutes to the ERST list with a week’s deadline to review and suggest changes. 2) Changes are considered by the note taker after the deadline and makes a final revision. 3) Revised notes are forwarded to ERST Chair. 4) Chair makes any last corrections and/or approves minutes. Sends the minutes to the ER Program Manager with a note that minutes are approved. 5) ER Program Manager sees that minutes are posted to the ER website and announced to the ER Committee. 5. Next Steering Team Meeting Telephone meeting scheduled for Thursday, September 16, 2004 from 10:00-11:00 a.m.
Minutes prepared by: Greg Doyle, July 13, 2004 approved: Tim Jewell |