SPEC Kit 332: Organization of Scholarly Communication Services  · 15
for scholarly communication services will continue
to evolve.”
Other notable roles in SC that librarians and li-
brary staff play include offering a sponsored readings
course for graduate students about SC issues, col-
laborating with non-library faculty on grant propos-
als related to SC issues, convening campus special
interest groups (e.g., a campus serials interest group),
and participating in needs assessment activities of
the libraries.
One respondent nicely summarized the library’s
organizing roles: “We are campus leaders in support-
ing media software for the creation of new types of
scholarly works. We are also the primary place on
campus for preservation of digital content. We are
the leaders in the open access movement, but we rely
heavily on faculty input. We are advisors when it
comes to copyright, but leave the final decisions up
to the content creators. We convene a faculty group
that sets copyright policy for campus.”
Several respondents acknowledged the role that
individual faculty members and/or departments have
in supporting SC efforts. One respondent stated, “As
we have identified champions and supporters of open
access and new means of scholarly communication,
they have been asked to advocate library services in
support of SC among their colleagues and graduate
students.” Another respondent wrote, “Faculty often
support themselves by learning about and using tech-
nology creatively to suit their SC needs,” and another
offered, “…I think it’s fair to say that the science, en-
gineering, and architecture colleges all provide some
SC support in their own units which are more ap-
propriate to their own expertise and faculty.” Several
respondents identified an additional role related to
faculty: that of participants in faculty governance, in
which they discuss and vote on institutional policies,
such as open access resolutions.
Respondents also singled out institutional infor-
mation technology offices, the office of research, the
general counsel, provosts, and graduate schools as SC
service providers. Centers for teaching and learning
were also identified more than once as partners, espe-
cially in referring faculty to the library for SC advice,
or inviting the library to offer SC-related workshops or
other programs. Many who identified outside offices
or units said they play a role in developing data man-
agement strategies and data management plans.
Organizational Changes since 2007
Since 2007, when SPEC Kit 299 was published, nearly
three-quarters of the institutions responding to the
current survey have undergone organizational chang-
es intended to improve library support for SC services.
Of the 39 respondents who described their organiza-
tion’s changes, 24 created at least one new library or
administrative position (either adding a new position
or changing position descriptions of an existing posi-
tion) with SC responsibilities. Sixteen created a new
SC department or unit, or significantly rearranged the
duties of an existing one. Eight libraries created at least
one new working group or team to plan and support
SC efforts. One institution rearranged space to provide
a centralized location for SC services.
Two institutions provided specific information
on a reorganization involving Special Collections de-
partments. In both cases, after the reorganizations,
Special Collections reported to the administrator, or
became part of the unit, with SC leadership responsi-
bilities in the library. Both institutions reasoned that
because digitization, digital publishing, and e-records
archiving are significant aspects in Special Collections
services, sharing expertise and coordinating efforts
would be more efficient if Special Collections were in-
cluded in the same department or reporting structure
as the institutional repository, digital library initia-
tives, and so on.
Assessment of SC Services
Only eight libraries have evaluated the success of their
SC services; however, 18 others say they plan to. Five
of the eight have surveyed faculty, open access fund
recipients, and/or workshop participants. Seven use
annual reports, individual performance reviews, and
statistics on use of services (e.g., institutional reposi-
tory or open access fund) in their assessment activities.
Among those who are planning to assess their SC
services, three institutions are considering surveys,
and four institutions will be or have been gathering
statistics related to participation in or use of SC ser-
vices, such as numbers of users asking rights-related
questions. Two others will be undergoing an audit
Previous Page Next Page