Scholarly Communication Education Initiatives · 57
targeting cross-university groups such as the Association for Faculty Women and the Faculty Association for
Scholarship and Research. The intention is to speak to individuals at after-hours meetings/social gatherings
and to get time for presentations at these meetings. Other non-departmental programs such as the
Sustainability Program have been contacted to consider deposit in our IR.”
“Consortia in which the library holds membership.”
“During fall 2006, the university hosted delegates from the CIC faculty senates our dean moderated a panel
on scholarly communications featuring our provost, a faculty member, and the Senior VP for Research. This
partly led to the CIC Provosts statement.”
“Faculty Senate Library Committee, Library Representatives, [university] Scholarly Communications Committee,
Copyright Committee, Dean’s Student Advisory Group.”
“Three state regents institutions.”
“[We are] part of a regional effort to plan a scholarly communication institutional planning event, with [two
partners], for Fall 2007. This one-day event targets librarians, faculty and administrators from New England
institutions. It is tentatively called ‘A Day of Scholarly Communications.’ Planned sessions at the Special
Libraries Association conferences in 2004 and 2006. The 2004 session was a panel on Open Access with three
well-known speakers (David Goodman, LIU Chuck Hamaker, UNC Charlotte David Stern, Yale.). Attendance
was the highest of any session in the BioMed division that year. At the 2006 SLA annual conference two
panelists spoke on ‘Institutional Repositories: In-house Versus Outsourced.’ This program presented institutions
aspiring to establish their own repositories with crucial behind-the-scenes information about the pros and
cons of using a commercial repository product, like Digital Commons versus a home grown product like
DSpace.”
“We are working with GWLA to survey editors of open access journals on our campus.”
“While we have not yet developed specific plans, the issues checked below are of interest.”
Indicate which topics below were addressed to members of this audience. Check all that apply.
N=9
Economics of scholarly publishing 8 89%
Benefits and examples of open access journals 8 89%
Implications for teaching of giving away copyright 8 89%
Future of scholarly society publishing 8 89%
Author activism (e.g., refusing to publish in expensive journals) 7 78%
Author rights management 7 78%
Impact of new models on peer review, promotion and tenure, etc. 7 78%
targeting cross-university groups such as the Association for Faculty Women and the Faculty Association for
Scholarship and Research. The intention is to speak to individuals at after-hours meetings/social gatherings
and to get time for presentations at these meetings. Other non-departmental programs such as the
Sustainability Program have been contacted to consider deposit in our IR.”
“Consortia in which the library holds membership.”
“During fall 2006, the university hosted delegates from the CIC faculty senates our dean moderated a panel
on scholarly communications featuring our provost, a faculty member, and the Senior VP for Research. This
partly led to the CIC Provosts statement.”
“Faculty Senate Library Committee, Library Representatives, [university] Scholarly Communications Committee,
Copyright Committee, Dean’s Student Advisory Group.”
“Three state regents institutions.”
“[We are] part of a regional effort to plan a scholarly communication institutional planning event, with [two
partners], for Fall 2007. This one-day event targets librarians, faculty and administrators from New England
institutions. It is tentatively called ‘A Day of Scholarly Communications.’ Planned sessions at the Special
Libraries Association conferences in 2004 and 2006. The 2004 session was a panel on Open Access with three
well-known speakers (David Goodman, LIU Chuck Hamaker, UNC Charlotte David Stern, Yale.). Attendance
was the highest of any session in the BioMed division that year. At the 2006 SLA annual conference two
panelists spoke on ‘Institutional Repositories: In-house Versus Outsourced.’ This program presented institutions
aspiring to establish their own repositories with crucial behind-the-scenes information about the pros and
cons of using a commercial repository product, like Digital Commons versus a home grown product like
DSpace.”
“We are working with GWLA to survey editors of open access journals on our campus.”
“While we have not yet developed specific plans, the issues checked below are of interest.”
Indicate which topics below were addressed to members of this audience. Check all that apply.
N=9
Economics of scholarly publishing 8 89%
Benefits and examples of open access journals 8 89%
Implications for teaching of giving away copyright 8 89%
Future of scholarly society publishing 8 89%
Author activism (e.g., refusing to publish in expensive journals) 7 78%
Author rights management 7 78%
Impact of new models on peer review, promotion and tenure, etc. 7 78%
