9/2/2020 ULC SCTF Meeting Agenda

1. Announcements
2. Review report figures + captions
3. Review draft slide deck images with script
4. Review customized slide draft (Considerations):
   • OVPRP-Prov-Pres 
   • Faculty-Grads
5. Make decisions on report
   • Brainstorm title
   • Discuss/decide outstanding questions
   • appendix/appendices
   • Bibliography/References
   • Links
   • Formatting
6. First glance at draft website
7. Action Items/Next Steps 

Pre-Meeting Work

1. Brainstorm potential titles for the report
2. Review report: are there additional places where we should have links? Indicate in comments

9/2/2020 Meeting Notes

Attending: KRS, Claude Miller, Michael Bemben, Darren Purcell, JP Masly, Jen Waller, Caroline Schroeder, Katherine Pandora

1. Announcements
   • Mike shared an example of investigating what he believed was likely considered a predatory journal. This exercise was guided by the process included in the aid that Jen provided entitled Think, Check, and Submit. Went to the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), did not find it, checked a couple others (MedLine, & Journal Citation reports) not listed. Jen shared that she would definitely classify this as a predatory journal as they also charge a withdrawal fee for your paper to be withdrawn. Evaluating Publishers will be listed in the report
2. Review report figures + captions
   • JP discussed the figures that he included in the report
     • Figure 2 was useful to show the contrast of the profit margins that publishing companies make. Suggested to find a company with significant less profit than one might expect.
     • Figure 3, potential concern regarding Hybrid OA due to the lack of hard and fast rules related to this type. Resolved to move the figure up to where Hybrid OA is explained.
   • Caroline recommended a figure that referenced the decreased library budget would be useful. Karen will look for a slide from ARL about libraries in general and then if not will use OU library data.
   • Claude suggested the Advantages of OA graphic included in slide 16 of the slide deck. 
   • Question of whether the 111 institutions that have an OA policy should be shifted to a spreadsheet in appendix A where peers and aspirational peers are highlighted.
3. Discussion was held regarding the utilization of testimonials in the report. Resolved to reach out to the VPRP’s office for a source at the forefront of OU’s research community. Karen will investigate.
4. Review draft slide deck images with script
   • Review customized slide drafts
   • Slide 2 - Jen and Karen to add items to the University Libraries box at their discretion. Recommend alternatives for the word “maximize.” Hope for 3 points in each section, including "Visibility for justifying further research"
   • Slide 5  Discussion of whether/which other logos should be added.
   • Slide 9 needs a graphic. Regarding passive voice, Karen agrees that phrasing items as actions is a good idea, she will look at use of active voice vs passive throughout
   • Slide 16 to be separated into 2 slides
5. Other items tabled.
6. "Table Read” for presentation will take place at the next meeting.

8/5/2020 ULC SCTF Meeting Agenda

1. Announcements
2. Review + Discuss Timeline
3. Review comments to Zoom script
4. Determine + Discuss charts, graphs necessary for report
5. Wrap up, next steps, next meeting(s)

Pre-Meeting Work:

1. Review notes from our previous meeting.
2. Glance at the draft timeline and be ready to volunteer and/or act as a lead (on the tasks for which we are all responsible)
3. Review and comment on the draft Zoom script. We will be using the script to shape our slide deck, and we will be recording a Zoom presentation using the script.
4. Review our draft report and determine where charts, graphs, figures, illustrations would be beneficial

8/5/2020 Meeting Notes

Attending: Michael Bemben, Lee Fithian, J.P. Masly, Darren Purcell, Karen Rupp-Serrano, Jen Waller, Tyler Young (all via Zoom)

1. Announcements
   • ​KRS announced that she has accepted Interim Dean position at University Libraries
   • Introduced her Executive Assistant Tyler Young who will attend future meeting and take notes
2. Discussion of Timeline, Tasks
   • Jen introduced the timeline, explained that she broke it down into due date, review and comment, then revision by responsible party
   • Originally hoped to be completed by Oct 1st, but now have additional wiggle room with ULC 
   • Many will be items everyone will need to participate in but will need a lead to shepherd along.
   • Go through the report and decide where we may need graphs and charts. Michael’s edits are reflected in the GoogleDoc
   • Lee agreed to produce slide deck (Item 13)
   • Agreed that the September meeting should include a dry run of the presentation prior to the ULC meeting in late October.
   • Jen and Karen will help supply data for Lee to help with finalizing graphs, charts (Item 10)
3. Review comments to Zoom script 
   • Discussed revisions to slides
   • Noted need to make clear that with Open Access necessity to make clear that the author (faculty) still has a choice in where this is published. Also should be clear, if there is a policy that there is an opt-out
   • Discussion of how audio would work with Powerpoint. Would record a Zoom session as a presentation with the slides in the background that we would make available online. We would also do the same presentation live via Zoom, which would allow for live Q&A.
   • General agreement to promote executive summary as most will understandably not read the full report.
   • Will create one general, “canned” presentation - one or two bullets for each audience vs live having multiples for different stakeholders/audiences (admin/faculty/GAs). Opportunity to leave people with “What is the most important thing?” 
   • Agreed to wait to create until visuals are completed.
   • Reinforced the need to make sure that language is inclusive throughout that does not exclude GAs, etc that would lead them to believe it does not pertain to them. Then have specific last slides for those separate groups.
4. Determine + Discuss charts, graphs necessary for report
   • Since J.P. offered to do the above task, instead the group will work to finalize the report.
   • Members of Karen’s team are working to update charts on page 5. Link is correct.
   • Jen will track down graph/chart that tracks commercial publisher profit percentages, possible for Tyler to research this as well 
   • Discussion regarding whether to include a comment about COVID-19 exacerbating the situation, fear that it might date the document so if necessary must be specific. 
   • Resolved existing comments on the report.
   • Recommendation to be added to the end of the report by Jen and then fill in Appendices A and B
5. Wrap up, next steps, next meeting(s)
   • Tyler to review member course schedules next week and send 2 doodle polls for 2 September meetings, then regular meeting times for Oct, Nov, and Dec.
   • Karen expressed appreciation to everyone especially considering that this has probably been more than what everyone originally signed up for.

7/14/2020 ULC SCTF Meeting Agenda

1. Announcements
2. Report:  Communication section
3. Wrap up/next steps

Pre-Meeting Work:
We will be focusing on the communication tools needed to present the taskforce report to the University Libraries Committee, the Faculty and Grad Student Senates, university administrators, academic departments, etc.  If you have not yet done so, we ask that you set aside some time in the next week to think seriously about what you will need to make effective presentations, resources you need created to which you can refer, etc.  Please look at the communication section we discussed at our last meeting to assist you in this.

We need your help in developing the toolkit you will be using as you support this report and foster discussion on it.  YOU must be comfortable with the tools at your disposal so that you can effectively represent the work the taskforce has been focused on for nearly a year.  We encourage you to draft what you would want to see—make a first rough draft of some slides, FAQs, etc., either on your own or working with other task force members.  Share what you draft within the Communication + Toolkit module we have created in our Canvas course so that, as a group, we can develop what is needed to build a campus consensus on the value an open access policy, and your other recommendations, will be to our community.

7/14/2020 Meeting Notes

Attending: Michael Bemben, Lee Fithian, J.P. Masly, Darren Purcell, Karen Rupp-Serrano, Jen Waller (all via Zoom)

1. Discussion of “Communication” section of report
   • General agreement that our presentation should be a PowerPoint that summarizes the report and shares what we will already be making available (report, website).
   • Powerpoint should be simple
     • Discussion point: different constituencies will be interested in different things, different ways of presenting will be more/less meaningful to different departments. For example, some disciplines will resonate more with data; other disciplines will resonate more with stories.
     • Do not try to tailor the ppt at this time. Instead, include links (in report) and a pdf of the report ahead of time so that people can find the information that is most meaningful to them.
   • We will be doing the presentations in Zoom with ppt slides as a background. In addition to holding live presentations, where we have the ability for Q&A, we should also record our Zoom presentation.
   • Be mindful that we are just trying to clarify and provide information, not answer every single question that comes up.
   • We will need infographics in the body of the report. We should reuse these in our presentation slide deck.
     • Infographic idea: citation advantage of OA
   • Online guide = a website. Jen is working on a multi-page site.
   • Darren will work on a script for a Zoom “video” recording that will then inform the slide deck.
   • Lee believes she has as student who can work on the look/feel of the slide deck. She will confirm.
2. Broadcasting the news
   1. Once the web pages are up and we have presented to the ULC, we should have a news item ready for the various newsletters:
      • Provost’s Academic Bulletin
      • OVPRP Weekly Update
      • CAS newsletters
      • What are other Colleges’, Schools’  newsletters? (Darren is aware of a GEO newsletter; Lee is aware of an Architecture newsletter). We will put out a “call” to all SCTF members to help create a list of newsletters.
3. We will need a letter/email to go to the Provost’s Office and other offices briefly introducing the report and asking for a time to present to them. Lee will craft a draft email.
4. Discussion of pilot departments and what is needed for piloting
   • What are the 3-4 most essential things you’ll need to talk to faculty in your departments and begin a pilot project?
   • Short discussion of challenges (or lack thereof) in Architecture, BIO, HES.
   • Short discussion of timing - fall faculty meetings and retreats are being planned NOW and happening SOON.
   • Agreement that involving specific departments, especially of SCTF members, is critical. But to do so before presenting to ULC is premature. Piloting in departments will happen in spring semester after presentations to ULC, FSEC, FS, Graduate Student Senate EC, GSS
   • We will need to reach out to ULC soon to get on their October meeting agenda
5. We need a timeline of what needs to be done when with major milestones - Jen will create and share. Items to be included on timeline include:
   • Final formatting of the report
   • Presentation schedule
   • Creating an FAQ section for the website
6. Important that we tweak the presentation (if needed after feedback from ULC), not tweak the final report.
7. Next meeting - we need to meet before classes begin.

5/29/2020 ULC SCTF Meeting Agenda

1. Announcements
2. Decision: date for June meeting (6/26, 10:30?)
3. Discussion: Report – Recommendations Section
4. Discussion: Report next steps – Communication section
5. IF time allows: Report – outstanding revision questions
6. Wrap up/next steps

4/24/2020 ULC SCTF Meeting Agenda

1. Announcements
   1. Note-taker
   2. Upcoming meetings
      • summer availability
      • reading/email vs. meeting
      • solo? group?
2. Item for Provost's Academic Bulletin
   • web page drafts
3. Revisions to draft report 
4. Recommendations & Communications sections of report
5. Wrap up/next steps

3/27/2020 ULC SCTF Meeting Agenda

1. Announcements
2. Discussion of draft report
3. Next steps

2/28/2020 ULC SCTF Meeting Agenda

1. Announcements
   • Note-taker
   • Questions re:  January meeting minutes
   • Upcoming meetings
2. Discussion of readings
3. Game plan:  How do we move forward to craft a report, develop toolkits, and pilot them with departments (and which departments)?
4. Draft paper outline

2/28/2020 Meeting Notes

Attending: J.P. Masly, Claude Miller, Katherine Pandora, Darren Purcell, Karen Rupp-Serrano, Carrie Schroeder, Jen Waller (remote)

1. Announcements/Updates​​  
   • No questions on last meeting minutes
   • ​Note-taker: Jen
   • Upcoming meetings - March 27, 10:30-12; April 17, 10:30-12.
2. Discussion of readings
   • Not a lot of P&T literature; all our readings were from same authors. This means there are lots of opportunities for our task force to make recommendations in our white paper.
     • Comment: Committee A’s shouldn’t be just looking at impact factors, but this becomes problematic with external letter writers. The department chair could write a letter to external reviewers, but different institutions have different opinions about OA that probably couldn’t just be addressed by a letter from the chair.
     • Question: What about books? How are those counted in P&T in the disciplines that require them? The reputation of the press does play a part, but reviewers need to look at quality of work and reviews. Most are still reading the entire work, for the most part. Digital scholarship projects are often the equivalent of writing a book, but those projects aren’t always undertaken by a press. So for digital scholarship projects, do they count site visits? Not necessarily. For example, a niche project might be extremely important – foundational, even – to 100 scholars. NEH has started asking for impact metrics in their grants, but those numbers are always contextualized (i.e. “The number of scholars in my field are n, and I’ve had this many number of site visits”). Also need to indicate why it’s important to the field.
     • It’s a big issue - we have to decide what we would make recommendations on. Perhaps a few minutes spent with Committee A members when doing Provost Office training to address what OA is, etc. Come up with some language they could use - model language in document. But understand that different disciplines will have different requirements. For example, biology has really high quality OA journals and has had them for a long time. But OA isn’t even mentioned in P&T documents for biology. There’s just an “understanding” in the discipline. It’s not encouraged; they don’t dissuade. It’s just not recognized. Journal landscape in bio has evened out. Still important to publish in top tier, but there are OA journals that are rising.
     • Lower stakes option - look at it for annual review. The tenure review is a series of annual reviews. So every year they’re thinking about open access. We do have a training every year for Committee A, so that may be the place where we have that discussion.
3. Game plan: How do we move forward to craft a report, develop toolkits, and pilot them with departments (and which departments)?
   • Draft paper outline
   • Elements in a kit: what are the kinds of things you need?
     • Cliff notes from our report
   • Idea: work with UL Communication to get a news story out in Provost’s Academic Bulletin about task force, link to additional information. Make the topic salient to the community and provide counter-arguments ahead of time.
   • No matter what, it pays to be really prepared and not rush. We learned this from the speaker from Kansas at our last meeting. We need to heed that advice.
   • What kind of timeline is ULC looking for?
   • Provide a heads-up to departments in their last meetings of the semester
   • Create a web page (do not use existing Canvas site) that explains the Task Force charge, has a link to readings and to explanations.
   • Potential timeline could be (no dates discussed):
     • Story for Provost’s Academic Bulletin
     • Webpage
     • Draft report to ULS
     • Pilot 2-3 departments
     • Final report (in Fall 2020)
   • Karen and Jen will make a first stab at sections of the report up to the recommendations. Karen and Jen should not be the ones making recommendations. They will share with task force members via email for discussion at our next meeting.
   • Aren’t there library reps in each department? We should be sharing with them as well. Yes - there are librarians assigned to each department, and there are faculty members in nearly every department (if no rep, we work with the chair). They are just one of the groups we need to identify to help get the word out. This perhaps goes in the “communication plan” section of our report?

1/24/2020 ULC SCTF Meeting Agenda

1. Announcements/Updates
   • Note-taker
   • Upcoming meetings
2. Guest Speaker: Ada Emmett
3. Discussion of readings
4. Discussion of last meeting’s minutes/recommendations
5. Wrap Up/Next Steps

1/24/2020 Meeting Notes

Attending: Lee Fithian, J.P. Masly, Claude Miller, Darren Purcell, Karen Rupp-Serrano, Carrie Schroeder, Jen Waller

1. Announcements/Updates
   • Welcome back!
   • Note-taker: Jen
   • Short discussion about attendance. Second meeting with only half the members (although this month it is largely a different half). Attendance will be critical as we work on the draft report, even though we are taking longer to do it. Also, the imperative to become experts in this arena so that task force members can act as advocates and answer questions within their departments.
   • Upcoming meetings - want to get meetings set for the rest of the semester. Karen can see when you’re teaching but will send an email to determine other conflicts.
   • Short discussion of faculty survey about open access, scholarly communication. Helps to get terminology and an awareness in front of faculty; might help taskforce better understand where gaps in knowledge and/or misconceptions are. Concern was expressed over barrage of emails and taking the time to complete the survey. Might be more successful if it was sent from the Provost Office.
2. Guest Speaker: Ada Emmett, University of Kansas
   • Introductions
   • Background – There is a history of support for scholarly communication and open access at KU. Former Provost, Dave Schulenberger, was active in this arena in the late ‘90s, so there’s a long history of administrative support. He was instrumental convening a symposium on OA and then established KU’s institutional repository in 2005. Faculty, with Provost guidance, then designed and passed a “declaration of principles.” In 2005 or 2006 KU started supporting OA journals. Then KU’s faculty senate became interested in OA policies being passed at places like Harvard and MIT. A committee began a two year iterative process designing an OA Policy. In 2009 KU Faculty Senate passed a policy, but they asked the committee to back with a better version that included more outreach.  Another policy was created to address initial concerns, even though the initial policy passed. Therefore, KU has passed an OA policy twice.
   • Two years to get the policy through was too hard and too short of a timeline. Now over 75 institutions have policies, and KU is going back to do the work they didn’t do in the past. The policy is just a lever and it can be “garbage in/garbage out.” If you don’t do the work before the policy is passed, you’ll have to do it afterwards - like figuring out the mechanisms for how the policy is actually going to work, be enforced, how opt out works, how articles get into the institutional repository. None of these things were figured out at first, which is why they had to do a lot of work after the policy was passed (twice). The collective will has to be shaped before a policy can be passed, but a lot of the details don’t need to be. But the details will need to be addressed at some point. A lot of the work has landed in the KU Libraries, but it was very collaborative with faculty governance, Provost’s Office and IT working with the Libraries.
   • Question: Were there discussions about other places to manage this process besides the Libraries? 
     • There wasn’t, because the Libraries and librarians already had the expertise and the long term commitment to hosting the repository. But there are some institutions that established completely new, separate Offices of Scholarly Communication that aren’t necessarily managed in the Libraries. For example, Harvard’s Office of ScholComm is not in the Libraries. Every campus has its own culture, but in general the Libraries are where the policies are administered with assistance from other units. Where will faculty be most trusting? In most places, there’s a distrust for administrators to be handling it. Libraries are seen as a neutral place.
   • Question: If you’re reviewing your OA Policy every three years, who is on that review panel?
     • Our review process is not robust; it hasn’t really needed to be, but the University Senate Library Committee makes up the panel. Every three years, Ada/the OA Policy Task Force creates a report for the University Senate Library Committee. Report covers things like how much is in the repository? What is holding us back from getting more in the repository? Sometimes it’s a presentation instead of a report. Nothing has ever needed to be changed as a result of the report, but the idea of a review is important for multiple reasons - faculty need a way to provide feedback, and we all need to determine –  is this still useful?
   • Question: What are the biggest problems and things to avoid in the process of generating a policy and getting people on board?
     • I wish we had done more legwork ahead of time. I wish that during the first round of creating the policy there was a much bigger committee working on it. We needed a more robust committee of faculty and administrators interested and curious about a policy before coming to the Faculty Senate. This is important, because faculty may unwittingly try to strike words from the policy that defeat the strength of the policy. There is model language that is used by nearly every institution with an OA policy, and it’s important that the language stays the same. The more time you give yourself to build expertise, address misperceptions, address copyright issues, etc. the better off you will be. If you do that well in advance, the more likely the policy will pass and will be effective. OA requires infrastructure and expertise generally from librarians, but it also requires authors to think differently about what they’re doing. The more people who are helping to shape the conversation the better. Different disciplines approach this differently and have different barriers and different interests in it. Yes, it takes a longer time with more people helping to shape.
   • Question: What were the units that were more intractable, for lack of a better word?
     • Historians and English Departments weren’t intractable, but they were generally more concerned about the policy, because they – again in general – don’t write journal articles; they write books. All the policies right now only speak to journal articles, they don’t speak to books. But this still had some of the faculty in these departments worried.  Social scientists generally were interested and scientists were interested, because open access boosts citation rates. Humanists tended to not be as interested, because they’re writing books, and open access policies don’t address books.
   • Question: Would one response to humanists be talking about electronic books?
     • There are lots of pilot projects for open monographs. There’s movement there too. The diversity of where people are experimenting is large. There’s an author pays model for books as well, but the experiments for open book and monograph publishing aren’t nearly as common as OA in the journal world. Humanists’ worlds are also changing. With or without a policy, there are still ways to make research more openly available (e.g. CC licenses). But electronic books don’t exactly address the issue. It’s important not to conflate open with online or open with digital. I would tend to leave electronic books out of the conversation - not because they’re not important, but because they aren’t necessarily open, and they’re not what OA policies address. In this way, sometimes humanists are the easiest to deal with, once they understand that to some extent OA policies don’t apply to them, unless they are publishing journal articles.
   • Question: Can you talk a bit more about the outreach and the resources you needed? Who did you need to convince? Did it go in parallel with the policy?
     • Our Dean of Libraries was very supportive but stayed in the background, because faculty needed to talk about this. But Ada’s position – as chair of committees – was “offered up” as the Scholarly Communication librarian. Now this is a common position in most academic libraries, but back then it wasn’t, and it was needed so that someone could help organize and advise faculty members. KU already had a repository. We needed simple boots on the ground to do this outreach effort. KU operated on a shoestring, and to some extent still does. Repository support = 1.5 FTE or maybe 2 people if you talk about IT people, so a lot of the outreach had to be organized by Ada but come from faculty members. This is unlike someplace like Harvard where they hired graduate students to knock on faculty office doors to put their papers on flash drives to deliver to the Libraries. You’ll want to think about - What human resources will we be able to offer that will sustain an OA Policy? KU does this organically. They found early adopter departments to build organic interest. They found department chairs who were on board and could prod faculty. Outreach is critical. If we don’t have it before the policy, you have to do it afterwards. Individual faculty and departments may have to do things differently, sometimes a lot differently, and you want to consider this. But a basic policy will allow you to consider this after the policy is passed. The policy really does work for all departments; it’s just the implementation that we’ve had to figure out afterwards. Everyone wanted to know “How do you know when we’ve been successful? How will we measure this? We know that KU faculty publish 2000 papers/year. So how many of those are available in the repository?
   • Question: One aspect of OA for some faculty is data - in your experience at KU are investigators open to making their data open? What about faculty that do technology development for defense contracts? Is there a resistance?)
     • KU’s OA policy doesn’t address data, nor do most other policies across the U.S., although some institutions like MIT are starting to investigate this. But there’s another side to this – for faculty who are getting grants for their research, many of their outputs including data must now be made public – faculty who are trying to comply with NSF policies, for example.
   • Question: So data from KU researchers is not in the IR?
     • KU’s IR holds a lot of other materials in addition to what the OA policy generates and covers - articles from journals that KU hosts and student work, for example. KU’s repository does hold data; just not huge data sets and probably not the data that needs to be in compliance with White House directives.
   • Question: What are some of the best strategies you’ve been able to employ when you encounter faculty resistance?
     • They had to learn on the run. Important for committee members to be listening to what the concerns are. It was important for the committee to understand people’s circumstances in advance, and understanding those concerns when facing a department or discipline helped them alleviate misperceptions. It also demonstrated, to the best of their ability, that they understood the unique challenges. It was also important to have the ability to address misunderstandings about copyright. Different disciplines have different relationships with copyright and publisher agreements. The committee members also focused on a diversity of responses, so that people can see open access as a suite of tools, not just one thing. For example, you’re an art historian and can’t do “x,” but here are other ways we can support opening your scholarship, like putting a Creative Commons on their work or supporting their journals.
   • Question: How to address the skeptics?
     • If you don’t want to make your work openly available, don’t! All OA Policies I’m aware of have an opt out mechanism, which is one of the things you should be thinking about - including the infrastructure - in advance. There’s no open access compliance officer. But also, there are ways to address skeptics who say things like, “The four scientists who understand my work will get to read it.” A lot of it was just having conversations and talking about it and, over the years, some of these skeptics have become strong supporters of oa, especially after they’ve given it a chance. Sometimes people will blurt something out that they don’t even fully understand. It may take time. Skeptics are often skeptics because they’re experts in one area but not in the scholarly publishing world. They’ve done things the way they were taught, and they don’t have experience doing it any other way. This is part of an outreach campaign that is slow and nurturing. You’ve heard that people need to hear a message seven times before understanding it?
   • Question: What about the tenure issue?
     • At KU, p&t is decentralized - departments have the narrow view, and they are generally the ones who recommend tenure/promotion. The committee never had concerns about it when developing the OA policy, because these questions are easily addressed. Faculty can publish wherever they want. Publish where you have to to do your job. There are different flavors of open that can be arranged with or without publishers, but it won’t dictate where you’re publishing. Now it’s even easier, because we can talk about metrics about how much open access work has been downloaded.
   • Question: On a similar note, when you’re trying to get stakeholder groups - are doctoral students and postdocs - was that a group you reached out to?
     • We have, but we don’t have a policy that specifically addresses graduate students. A big focus has been on faculty talking to their graduate students. We are shaping and messaging our outreach to focus on increasing the visibility of their scholarship vs. “how to use the IR.” Stakeholders are generally faculty. Administrators and librarians are both critical to the process. Grad students are sometimes easy to reach, because they grew up with sharing. 
3. Discussion of readings
   • What are the takeaways from the readings?
     • It seems like a lot of what we will need is a marketing campaign
     • None of the articles talk about the failures. Are there situations where OA policies did not pass? What was learned from those experiences?
     • Our repository could use “rebranding.” It doesn’t speak to OU. Is that because we also share it with OSU and UCO?
     • It seems like we will need a person to deposit everything
     • Maybe come up with some pilot testbeds by May?
     • Where are the places we need to be having discussions?
       • Chair of Faculty Senate (Joshua Nelson, Amy Bradshaw)
       • Center for Faculty Excellence
       • Provost’s Office, VPRP (part of the mission, wants us to compete with other institutions)
4. Discussion of last meeting’s minutes/recommendations
   • Group does not think we can be done by May – we’ve spent time better understanding OA policies, but we couldn’t write on all the other points.
   • ULC is not waiting on this report. Let’s be realistic and do what we can – it is this group’s recommendation that we work through the end of 2020. 
5. Wrap Up/Next Steps
   • Next month’s readings will be about promotion and tenure
   • We will discuss the things we will want to report to ULC sooner rather than later.
   • Be thinking about recommending specific departments as early adopters. What are the first steps for early adopters? We need some kind of rudimentary kit for departments.
   • Identifying the people we need to talk to in addition to the departments. Who are the “nodes in the network?” What should the strategy be and the timeline for that? VPRP and Senate Executive Committee ahead of time, but who else?

12/13/2019 ULC SCTF Meeting Agenda

1. Announcements/Updates
   • Note-taker
   • Upcoming meetings
   • Guest speaker - question generation
   • Google Doc for collaborative questions
2. Discussion of readings
3. Deliverables discussion
   • Begin outline for white paper
     • What is important for campus to know?
     • What should we be recommending in regards to best practices?
   • Committees to address outlined items
4. Wrap Up/Next Steps

12/13/2019 Meeting Notes

Attending:  Raphie Folsom, Katherine Pandora, Karen Rupp-Serrano, Carrie Schroeder
Notetaker:  Karen

1. Announcements/Updates
   • January and February meeting dates were confirmed: 
     • January 24, 2020, 10:30 am
     • February 28, 2020, 10:30 am
     • Meetings will be in Bizzell LL2111.
   • Ada Emmett, Director of the Shulenburger Office of Scholarly Communication & Copyright at the University of Kansas, will join the January 24 meeting via Zoom.  Taskforce members generated questions which will be shared with Ada ahead of the meeting so that she can be prepared to address them.  These include:
     • How is the 3 year review process for the KU OA policy conducted? What has been changed through the review, if anything? 
     • How did/do you approach conversations in art history and other fields that use images with restrictions?
     • When discussions occurred prior to the policy approval, what kinds of discussions were encountered regarding monographs? Or was all the discussion centered on peer-reviewed articles?
     • What campus stakeholders were consulted? Did people feel that the OA policy impinged on the robustness of their IP agreements?
     • Are grad students covered by the policy? NOTE: No, grad students are not covered by the policy.
     • Where did the impetus for the OA policy come from?
     • What is KU’s budget and infrastructure for supporting the repository and adding materials to it?
     • How has OA been addressed in tenure and promotion policy at KU?
2. Discussion of readings – Minimal discussion of the readings occurred. 
3. Deliverables discussion
   • Most of the meeting was devoted to a discussion of the deliverables outlined by the taskforce charter.  Members in attendance found the summary of peer information provided for the meetings was helpful.  Members indicated they were prepared to summarize the scholarly communication environment but did not feel they were sufficiently prepared by the readings and discussion engaged to adequately address:
     • Actions and best practices from peer institutions that OU faculty members and graduate students can take to have the most positive impact upon the creation of an open and sustainable system of scholarly communication
     • Identification of relevant practices, initiatives, and/or policies that can most effectively contribute to increased awareness of scholarly communication issues on campus
     • Communicating findings to faculty and graduate students along with recommendations for pursuing opportunities for future developments, while simultaneously incorporating mechanisms for effective feedback
     • Considering and recommending how open access publication should be regarded in tenure, promotion, merit and post-tenure review
   • Teaching faculty members favored recommending to faculty senate, via the University Libraries Committee, that an open access policy for OU should be proposed.  Library faculty were deeply concerned that moving too quickly on an open access policy, without sufficient campus engagement on the scholarly communication issues involved, would result in a failed attempt to get an OA policy approved.
   • As the discussion drew to a close, teaching faculty members:
     • Requested the next set of readings should focus on how other institutions are addressing open access publication in tenure, promotion, merit and post-tenure review (February meeting, since January will feature a guest speaker).
     • Discussed the possibility that an open access policy be researched and proposed in conjunction with:
       • an initiative to identify and work closely with several academic departments (from the arts and humanities, social sciences, and sciences) to educate them on scholarly communication issues and open access
       • as a way to learn how best to approach such subject matter with the wider campus community and prepare more individuals to serve as open access advocates
     • Suggested the taskforce create and submit a summary of the scholarly communication environment to the University Libraries Committee (ULC), along with a recommendation that the taskforce continue throughout 2020 in order to address all the deliverables, as the proposed timeframe in the current taskforce charter is not adequate to do so
4. Wrap Up/Next Steps
   • Karen will share with Ada Emmett the questions generated by taskforce members.
   • Because attendance was so light, the deliverables discussion will be continued at the January meeting.
   • Readings on how KU and other institutions passed an OA policy, and the steps they took to prepare their campuses so that successful passage could be secured, will be provided for the January meeting.
   • Information related to OA publication in promotion, tenure, etc. will also be provided for the February meeting.

11/8/2019 ULC SCTF Meeting Agenda

1. Announcements/Updates
2. UL Faculty Newsletter item 
3. Set Dates for December, January, February meetings
4. Discussion of uploading to SHAREOK and using SHERPA/RoMEO
5. Discussion of Readings
6. Questions, wrap-up

11/8/2019 Meeting Notes

Attending: Mike Bemben, Lee Fithian, Raphie Folsom, JP Masly, Claude Miller, Katherine Pandora, Jen Waller  Absent:  Darren Purcell, Karen Rupp-Serrano, Carrie Schroeder
Lee Fithian volunteered to take meeting notes.

1. Announcements/Updates
   • The 11/15/19 University Libraries Faculty newsletter will contain an item about this group, including a list of members’ names. The Taskforce reviewed and approved announcement
   • The group set tentative dates for future meetings. Jen will follow up with a Doodle Poll. (POST-MEETING UPDATE: future meeting dates will be):
     • December 13, 2019, 10:30am
     • January 24, 2020, 10:30am
     • February 28, 20020, 10:30am
2. The group discussed the “Uploading to SHAREOK” assignment
   • Jen and Karen received enough comments and questions about the assignment that led them to believe they did not explain or position the assignment well enough. Jen discussed the terminology of words such as “students” (in Canvas) and “assignments” and reiterated that all members of the Taskforce are seen as colleagues, not students. In their co-facilitator roles, Jen and Karen have assigned readings and homework and facilitated discussion to make sure everyone had a common understanding of the landscape before moving on to writing the report. The role dynamics will soon be changing as the Taskforce begins taking on the actual deliverables. 
   • The thought process behind asking Taskforce members to upload work to SHAREOK was to provide a better understanding of another, more sustainable way that open access is happening right now. Jen acknowledged that even though Taskforce members were asked to do this, there is evidence that faculty generally don’t upload to their institutional repositories, even when they have voted in an open access policy. Librarians have largely taken over this process on behalf of faculty.
   • The group discussed mechanisms to help make faculty deposit happen, including better awareness of the OU Impact Challenge chapter on uploading to SHAREOK; a better understanding among faculty about preprints, postprints, and their rights in the works they author; leveraging the FAS; providing a service that makes it part of the faculty workflow; better understanding among faculty about the value and role of SHAREOK.
   • Jen discussed the current challenges with University Libraries inability to hire/replace personnel tied to SHAREOK, specifically those who have skills at automating such a service.
   • Some Taskforce members had questions and issues when they uploaded their work to SHAREOK. They will correct those issues, and Jen will work with them to do so.
3. Discussion of Readings
   • The group began the discussion with the following prompts as a guide:
     • How would you feel if you worked in the UC system? Proud? Worried? Do you have colleagues who work in that system? Have they talked about their experiences? Is there talk about it within your scholarly societies?
     • MIT has had an OA policy for years. The recent taskforce report recommended additional steps - sharing data, software, and educational materials. Are there barriers to sharing these items? How do you think people at OU would feel about sharing these outputs?
   • MIT and many other academic institutions use the same software that OU uses to run SHAREOK (DSpace). Most institutions have mediated uploading where librarians and library staff upload on behalf of faculty members, either by hand or through automated solutions. MIT’s open access policy originally covered journal articles, but they are now making data and software publicly available in their repository. The group members discussed potential roadblocks and problems with uploading data, including Department of Defense and other government contracts, embargo periods. An opt-out mechanism solves these issues.
   • SHAREOK is not designed for certain types of data, like large frames with millions of records. SHAREOK also cannot stream video at the moment. The group discussed OSF and MyMedia as alternatives but had some concerns about MyMedia.
   • Publishers are beginning to ask for data and data sets, but they often can’t host them either. Instead, they want authors to point to the data. There is an OU Impact Challenge chapter about sharing data, and the group was encouraged to review it.
   • There was additional discussion about how to grow faculty participation in uploading to SHAREOK. , and automation seemed like a good option, although the current Libraries’ staffing was again raised as a current barrier. There was discussion about uploading to SHAREOK being tied to  faculty members’ service evaluations (as part of teaching, research, and service). Some disciplines, like Physics, have been uploading to disciplinary repositories for years.
4. Wrap Up
   • The next meeting’s readings will focus on open access policies that other institutions have implemented. Karen and Jen are discussing a possible guest speaker for the group, and Taskforce members indicated they might be interested in hearing from the chair of the MIT group that authored the readings and policies from that institution. The Taskforce needs to remember that there are other recommendations they can make to Faculty Senate besides the recommendation to explore an open access policy, although several members expressed that an OA policy should be included in the recommendations. Many other academic institutions already have open access policies. The Taskforce members asked Jen and Karen to assemble a list of these institutions (with links), with special attention to the Provost’s peer and aspirational institutions and those in the Big 12. The Taskforce also asked Jen and Karen to provide an outline of what should be covered in the ULC SCTF report to Faculty Senate.
   • The next meeting will take place on Friday, 12/13/2019, from 10:30am – 12:00pm.

10/18/2019 ULC SCTF Meeting Agenda

1. Announcements/Updates (5 minutes)
2. Discussion of Readings (30 minutes)
3. SHERPA/RoMEO Demo (30 minutes)
4. Questions, Assignment, Wrap Up (20 minutes)

10/18/2019 Meeting Notes

Attending: Lee Fithian, Mike Bemben, JP Masly, Claude Miller, Katherine Pandora, Darren Purcell, Karen Rupp-Serrano, Carrie Schroeder, Jen Waller 

1. The taskforce’s Canvas site is up. Most members were able to access the site, and those who hadn’t were sent an invitation to join. There was discussion of the site’s organization and the role/permissions taskforce members should have.
2. The group discussed the assigned readings using the following questions as prompts:
   • How deeply do you feel a desire or a duty to share your research with colleagues, other researchers, and the public?
   • How deeply do you believe in “the maintenance of control over the uses of your own work, including maximizing reuse for teaching and the development of derivative works or republication of originals.”
   • Do you read your publishing agreements before you sign (or click through) them? Do you know what rights you are transferring to your publishers? Do you know what rights you retain?
   • Do you think that negotiating your publishing agreement is easier or harder depending on where you are in your career? 
   • Do you think Author Rights workshops would be beneficial across campus? What would be the best way to pursue those? 
3. Taskforce members agreed that sharing their work was important, but it was often done via email. One taskforce member had already uploaded work to SHAREOK; other members hadn’t felt the need to upload or didn’t think about it. Instead, they sometimes shared via other methods, such as scholarly social networks. Some disciplines are small and the people with whom one might want to share are already a tight-knit group of colleagues. There was additional discussion and concern that making certain work publicly available could continue to make already marginalized academics more vulnerable.
4. The suggestion was made that the university could have an office that negotiates publishing contracts on behalf of faculty authors. Such an office might serve to get the best terms for authors, and it would allow the authors to remove themselves from what could be perceived as potentially sticky negotiations.  This suggestion led to an explanation of campus-based open access policies. Such policies address publishing contracts by providing the university with a nonexclusive, irrevocable right to distribute scholarly articles written by faculty for any non-commercial purpose. These open access policies allow for authors to opt-out on a case-by-case basis.
5. There was a short discussion of the term “self-archiving.” It may not be a term that all authors understand.
6. There was general agreement that Author Rights workshops would be beneficial, and the best way to pursue those would be to present within the departments at faculty meetings. There was acknowledgement that different departments operate differently, and some departments may not be willing to devote enough time for a workshop. If the workshop were couched as a university initiative, there would be a higher incentive for department chairs to schedule such a workshop.
   • The timing of such a workshop was discussed, and it was raised that perhaps talking to Committee A’s at faculty members’ third year reviews might be good timing. It was acknowledged that third year review is not consistent across all colleges and that members of Committee A’s would need to better understand why “openness” and “author rights” matter.
7. Additional suggestions included creating a video about retaining and negotiating rights and providing a $250 stipend for faculty members to attend a workshop, because “what we spend our money on is attached to our values.” It was also suggested to get it into the academic program review cycle. 
8. Jen Waller provided a demo of the SHERPA/RoMEO tool using several different journals and publishers. She pointed out a loophole that Elsevier created when they established their self-archiving policies, and she explained how the loophole has been used at OU.
9. There was a brief discussion about the assignment for the next meeting. Assignments and readings will be posted in Canvas with a duplicate email also being sent to the taskforce members.
10. The next meeting will take place on Friday, 11/8/2019, from 10:30am – 12:00pm.

9/20/2019 ULC SCTF Meeting Agenda

1. Introductions
2. Review charter – appointment letters forthcoming
3. Group expectations
4. Set November meeting
5. Discuss readings

9/20/2019 Meeting Notes

Attending:  Lee Fithian, Raphie Folsom, JP Masly, Claude Miller, Katherine Pandora, Darren Purcell, Karen Rupp-Serrano, Carrie Schroeder, Jen Waller 

1. The meeting was called to order and attendees introduced themselves.
2. The group reviewed the charter.  Claude explained that the University Libraries Committee decided to appoint a task force in spring 2019 based on conversations surrounding the continuing increases in journal subscription costs and the actions of some universities, particularly the University of California system, to address issues related to ‘big deals’ with publishers, such as double-dipping (subscription and OA article processing charges).  Karen noted that while those conversations inspired the appointing of a task force, the initial responsibility of the task force is to help faculty and graduate students understand the changing scholarly communication landscape in order to navigate it effectively, now and in the future. The task force purposely represents scholars from the arts & humanities, social sciences, STEM, and professional programs, and will seek to address problems common to all these areas while also acknowledging that some issues are unique to specific areas.
3. Jen Waller addressed expectations for task force members:  
   • Attend all meetings (generally one per month, although meetings may occur more frequently as deadlines approach)
   • Read materials provided
   • Engage in civil discussions
   • Ensure all members have an opportunity to participate
4. Others outside the task force may be invited to participate in small group work as deliverables are prepared
5. It was decided that a chair will not be utilized for fall meetings; the membership will reconsider this possibility in the spring.  
6. October and November meetings were set:
   • October 18, 10:30-noon, Bizzell LL2111
   • November 8, 10:30-noon, Bizzell LL2111
7. Discussion inspired by the assigned readings focused on the economics of journal and book publishing, the impact of P&T in publishing, and the tendency to utilize publication venue as a proxy for the quality of research outputs.  Several noted that scholarly communication issues vary significantly across disciplines. It was suggested that information on publishing costs and company structures, where available, be provided to members. A request was made that readings and other resources be accessible in Canvas. It was recommended that Ithaka S+R reports be included in the resources, as well as links to SPARC information. Karen and Jen will work on this for the next meeting.   
8. Readings and an agenda for the October meeting will be sent out the week of October 7.