SPEC Kit 332: Organization of Scholarly Communication Services · 57
offer input from their discussions with faculty. We track use of the COPE fund. We developed a section of the annual
“bibliographer’s report” where the subject specialists record information about trends in open access publishing, faculty
activity as editors, and needs for other scholarly communication support within the speciﬁc subject area.
Yearly evaluate of director’s performance. No formal assessment plan other than this as yet.
Answered Plan To
Because many of our programs are in the process of being developed, initial evaluation will focus on adoption rates
— analyzing how many people use the services and from what disciplines. Later evaluations will include surveys/focus
groups to determine success of particular programs.
Numerical data on rights-related inquiries, attendance at SC-related events, etc., had been collected over the past years,
and incorporated in the annual report of the section. Particular attention is given to faculty involvement. As part of your
strategic planning initiative, we are planning to gather data in a more systematic manner and to evaluate outcomes
Our current strategic plan includes some SC-speciﬁc activities or projects, and we have identiﬁed speciﬁc outcomes for
some of them.
To be determined.
Trusted Digital Repository audit.
Use of the IR, faculty choosing to publishing in OA journals or using OA funds to make work open access.
We are currently coding data from faculty interview about open access and the event our open access funding had on
their decision about choosing open access. With the appointment of our new scholarly communication ofﬁcer, we will
be looking at other assessment related to scholarly communication support on campus.
We have not done formal assessment but we monitor the growth of the institutional repository contents and use, and
review feedback from faculty about the repository.
We haven’t determined criteria/process yet.
We plan to, but haven’t deﬁned the metrics yet.
We will be seeking Trusted Digital Repository certiﬁcation. Evaluation is planned for SC services and will be developed in
consultation/collaboratively with assessment librarian.
We’re in the process of hiring an assessment librarian; we will be working with that person to develop a process of
evaluation. I think this will involve measuring awareness of services, in particular.
The no answer reflects the difﬁculty of assessing cultural change writ large. On the other hand, individual services
concentrating on understanding and lessening copyright barriers in the larger context of scholarly communication
beyond publication-centric deﬁnitions has been extensively used and welcomed.
The Open Access Publishing Fund Pilot Project (July 2010 – 2012) was evaluated March 2012.
We are in the process of developing an Open Access Awareness survey to administer to all faculty. One question will
speciﬁcally look at the services offered by the Centre for Scholarly Communication. This is a summer project and we
hope to have the results for discussion and promotion during OA Week.