46 · Survey Results: Survey Questions and Responses
The library has shifted from a centralized support for scholarly communication services (1 FTE faculty librarians plus
1 FTE staff) to distributed support for scholarly communication services. This distributed support is coordinated by
a Scholarly Communication Committee, composed of representative members from Public Services departments
(Humanities, Social Science, Science, Information Commons), Special Collections, Technical Services, and the IR
manager. Each of the committee’s 10 members is responsible for being a consultant on scholarly communication issues
within her/his library department. Though the committee has 10 members, the total FTE investment is likely 1–2, since
each individual dedicates a portion of time to scholarly communication endeavors.
There is not one designated person who provides this kind of training and services. Instead, different librarians spend
part of their time on providing the training and services.
These services fall under other new roles that were created, but the new roles were not focused on scholarly output
assessment. These roles were created through reallocation.
This work has been incorporated into the existing subject specialist librarian positions.
We are creating a unit called E-Resources and Digital Services that will be more responsible for tracking a lot of these
metrics. All librarians have some skill in these areas and have multiple contacts within the library from Information
Technology staff who do web analytics to system-wide contacts outside the library of institutional repository staff who
can provide analysis.
We currently are accepting applications for a new position of Scholarly Assessment Librarian.
We have 3 full-time librarians who work on a research guide covering scholarly output assessments, but this is a very
small part of their overall responsibilities.
We have a project manager for training and implementing the campus faculty profile system, which includes training on
the assessment tools provided therein. I am not sure how this breaks down into FTE percentages.
We have no staff whose primary job focus is scholarly output assessment, as any services or training are provided on an
ad hoc basis by some subject librarians. The Institutional Repository does have more focused staff support.
We have staff involved in different areas of scholarly output assessment. Library administrators are involved at the
planning and university-wide level, liaison librarians provide services and training to faculty and students, and a
Metadata Management Librarian manages our institutional repository.
When we hire a Scholarly Communications Librarian, we expect this to be part of that position.
PARTNERSHIPS WITH THE PARENT INSTITUTION
20. Has your library partnered with specific units of your parent institution on scholarly output
assessment activities? N=75
Yes 40 53%
Not yet, but planning is in process 20 27%
No, the library tried to initiate a partnership but was unsuccessful 2 3%
No, the library has not done this 13 17%