lib-ir: IR Minutes 7/7/03 correction

[Barbara Jenkins <jenkins@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU>]

Note:  I accidently added Andrew to the
"present" list and he was not there.

Institutional Repository Group

Minutes, 7/7/03

Present: Heather Briston, Barbara Jenkins, JQ Johnson, Andrew Nicholson

Summary of Responsibilities Listed in Minutes

- JQ drafting IR time line through Dec 2003

- Barbara drafting short document to set IR in context within larger scholarly publishing issue

- Carol is reviewing RePEC metadata

JQ indicated that he & Carol wanted to regain some momentum on the IR initiative, but it is hard in the summer.

JQ - Technical Update

Things are on-track with the IR technology.  Expects the server that will be set up by next week can be used through 2004.

Back-up plan system also figured out

JQ - Update on Meeting with Deb

JQ and Carol met with Deb last week.  Deb's goal is to have the IR effort be able to be shared with the University Library Committee

in early Fall and get them on board re:  a pilot project moving forward as a regular library effort.  However it will still be called a pilot project through December 2004.  Deb agreed with JQ and Carol that the major issue is getting teaching faculty buy-in for the IR project.

Scholarly Communication Issues

The relationship between scholarly communication and the IR development is important to place in context.  There is a strong perspective in librarianship that the institutional repositories are the "fix" for the scholarly communication problem.  However, there is a growing perspective that the institutional repositories will not be the panacea for scholarly communication.  Rather they contribute an important effort to facilitating the change in scholarly communication.

The IR Group felt it was important to have a short statement that outlined the role of the IR in scholarly communication and addressed the IRs in the context of the larger scholarly communication issue.  The IR Group should take as part of its current role the continued education of library faculty and increasingly teaching faculty regarding these complex interconnected issues.  Barbara agreed to draft a short (1 page document) that will facilitate setting the IR in context within the larger scholarly communication issue.

Update regarding Bill Harbaugh and the Economics Working Papers Pre-Pub Effort

JQ has been talking with Bill Harbaugh, UO Econ Professor regarding the RePEC (Research Papers in Economics) web site. 

RePEC is an internationally developed site for pre-pub economics working paper submissions. Bill is the coordinator for submitting the

UO economics papers.  Given the importance of RePEC to the international economic field, it is doubtful that Bill will want to use the IR

for this process.  He doesn't want to compete in any way with the RePEC effort.  There may be some other opportunities with RePEC in the future (not at this time).  Carol is reviewing the RePEC metatdata organization.

Update re: FERPA, Rights & Licensing

Heather reported that Registrar, Herb Chereck, seems to connect IRs directly with the concerns regarding student directory information.  Heather 's expectation is that the Library will have the student submitting the document to the IR sign something indicating that the Library has the right to make it accessible via the Internet.  JQ noted that Andrew should be clear regarding the PPPM Department making the students submitting terminal projects aware of the fact that the Library would be mounting the terminal projects on the Internet.  The terminal projects would then be available to anyone using the Internet (the Group discussed the need for a more formal awareness by students after the IR pilot).  The IR Group discussed two specific potential problems:

- FERPA

Heather expects that this is not a major issue given that the history of students submitting dissertations to the Library and the givens present in the student and university relationship, the student expects that the university would typically accept, store, and make available the dissertation. 

-Copyright Infringement

The understanding here is that we should think of the Library's IR as being an ISP (internet service provider).  This means the Library can take advantage of the DMCA copyright protection that says "the ISP is not responsible for individual submitter's copyright infringements".

Self-submissions will take care of many copyright and FERPA issues - we need to move as fast as possible to a self-submission mode.

Retraction Issue - MIT already has a standard for manual retraction and "tombstone" creation

Issue Needing Clarification

IR Group agreed that we need a clearer sense of the time line for the IR project.  JQ will send a draft out via email. 

We will continue to meet every 2 weeks, but Heather gone Aug 18-22 and JQ gone Aug 16 - Sept 1

Submitted by Barbara Jenkins