16 · SPEC Kit 299
devote to a SC campaign. As was noted earlier, most
librarians who are tasked with developing an SC
education initiative have added this to an already
full plate of responsibilities. Several respondents
seemed to feel their SC education initiatives would
fail until their library administration made SC edu-
cation a real priority, providing money to fund a
position that would be primarily or solely devoted
to SC issues. Another major stumbling block that
many mentioned is the difficulty of “educating li-
brarians so they are equipped to engage faculty in
discussions of issue.” It was acknowledged that SC
is made up of many complex issues about which it
is difficult to keep up-to-date.
Assessments of Success
Only 5 respondents (9%) indicated that they had
made any evaluation of the success of their li-
brary’s SC education activities. In several instances
these were just the quick “what did you learn”
evaluations that are often requested after a class,
workshop, or symposium. In one case, the evalu-
ation was a part of the yearly evaluation of the
SC librarian. Another mentioned that they believe
slow but steady growth in the deposit and usage
statistics of their IR is a measure of their success.
Only one responding institution appears to have
done a comprehensive evaluation, saying that their
“Office of Scholarly Communication has done sur-
veys of faculty across all the campuses on scholarly
communication issues in both 2004 and 2006.” The
content of these surveys was not provided.
Demonstrable Outcomes
The respondents were invited to relate any demon-
strable outcomes (such as statements from faculty
governance bodies, changes in promotion and
tenure criteria, author’s switching to open access
journals, etc.) related to the library’s SC education
activities. Twenty-three institutions listed one or
more outcomes for a total of 37 examples. The most
frequently mentioned outcome (9 responses) was
the passage of a Faculty Senate Resolution on SC.
The focus of the resolutions varied. Several focused
on bringing down the cost of journals, including
one that supported “increased funding for library
acquisitions.” Others encouraged their faculty to
“use open access publications whenever possible
another was endorsing the Tempe Principles to
work toward transforming scholarly communica-
tion and others were endorsing the use of copy-
right addenda by their researchers. Whether part
of a SC Faculty Senate resolution or not, increased
support for using copyright addenda to retain the
rights to one’s published materials was mentioned
as a significant outcome by at least 6 of the 23 re-
At least five institutions mentioned that their
faculty are developing open access (OA )journals
using online journal publishing platforms sup-
ported by the library. The support and increased
usage of local institutional repositories was also
cited by at least five respondents as evidence that
the SC message is reaching the faculty and admin-
On respondent is clearly frustrated with the
seeming glacial speed with which real outcomes
are discernible: “We have some general resolutions
and statements, etc., but many of us have stacks of
these stuck away in our bottom drawers. What I’d
like to see is more OA journals &books based in
IRs and action from funding agencies that require
OA reporting of results.” But another was pleas-
antly surprised that, “The [local] editors and board
members are genuinely pleased the library is tak-
ing an active role.”
Final Comments from the Respondents
In their additional comments, quite a few of the re-
spondents indicated that they felt they were “early
in the process” of scholarly communication educa-
tion efforts. Several have just hired a SC librarian
or are just setting up institutional repositories or
digital presses. They expect to be making serious
strides in their SC education efforts in the near fu-
ture, though. As one explained, “We have been en-
gaging in SC activities for some years but only in
2007 have we begun formalizing these activities in
Previous Page Next Page