SCHOLARPUB-L Archives

Scholarly Communications CKG

SCHOLARPUB-L@LISTSERV.UCOP.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Mitchell C. Brown" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Date:
Tue, 20 May 2014 18:27:27 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (72 lines)
To SP CKG members,

SAG1/CLS are forming a working group to look at Transformative 
Publishing Models. There is a call for a SP CKG member to join the 
working group.
We will discuss on the call tomorrow (May 21) at 1 p.m.

Best,

Mitchell
---------------------

Hi Mitchell and Nancy - I’m passing along a request for membership on a new group, the Transformative Publishing Models Pilot Review Team. This group is being formed based on the charter that was drafted last month. I’ve pasted the charter below for review.

The proposed membership of the group is five people (SAG 1-appointed, CLS-appointed, CDL licensing group-appointed, SP CKG rep, campus representative).

So far Ivy Anderson is self-nominated as the CDL rep, and Christy Hightower has been nominated as the campus rep. SAG1 is considering our rep at this time. Your thoughts on a SP CKG rep would be much appreciated.

Thanks.

David.


****************

Transformative Publishing Models Pilot Review Team


Context:  In the previous advisory structure, CDC and the Scholarly Communications Officers jointly developed a set of principles to guide the UC Libraries’ strategic investment in emerging open access business models, including the identification of models appropriate for systemwide consideration and a recommended process for ongoing evaluation.  The most recent version of that document dates from 2009.  As these models have continued to evolve, both CDL and the campuses are contacted fairly regularly by publishers seeking support from UC for new open access business arrangements, including proposals from traditional publishers that complement existing license agreements.  In the past, CDL would have worked with CDC and the Scholarly Communications Officers group to review and vet these modelsand opportunities as they arose. In the new advisory structure, since open access issues fall under SAG 1 and licensing issues and funding fall under CLS, it seems appropriate to have a cross-SAG 1/CLS sponsored approach to reviewing these types of business models.


Proposal: CLS and SAG 1 propose the formation of a pilot group to review and make recommendations to SAG 1 and CLS regarding which open access business models are appropriate for UC to pursue, particularly from a systemwide perspective.


Membership: five members (SAG 1-appointed, CLS-appointed, CDL licensing group-appointed, SP CKG rep, campus representative)


Charge:

Part I

	• Review and make recommendations to update and revise the 2009 document "Joint CDC/SCO Task Force on Criteria to Determine UC's Support for TransformativeScholarly Publishing Models."
	• Consider emerging publishing models and aim to make the document as future-oriented and as broadly defined as is currently possible.
	• Share recommended revisions with stakeholder groups:  SAG 1, SAG 3, CLS, and the Scholarly Publishing CKG
	• Based on feedback received from stakeholder groups, update the criteria and share with SAG 1 and CLS for finalizing and publishing.
Timeline: May-June 2014

Part II

	• Using the revised criteria developed in the first part of their work, the group will review specific business model proposals (shared by the CDL) and will:
	• Develop a recommended review process for the proposals and a recommended communication process regarding proposal reviews (how will stakeholders know proposals are under review and how will campuses know if/when they can pursue opportunities on their own if the system is not pursuing, etc.)
	• Recommend a timeline and review process for assessing investment models; identify any additional criteria that may merit a review of a model.
	• Make recommended additional revisions to the criteria - as use cases make it appropriate to do so
	• Share the recommended process and any further revisions to the criteria with stakeholders for comment/revision
	• Update the process and criteria based on additional feedback
	• Publish final process.
	• Review the specific proposals and recommend adoption or rejection according to the approved procedures
Timeline: July 2014 – December 2014



-- 
Mitchell C. Brown, MLIS
Research Librarian for Chemistry, Earth System Science and Russian Studies
Scholarly Communications Coordinator
University of California Irvine Libraries
230 Francisco J. Ayala Science Library
P.O. Box 19557, Irvine, CA 92623-9557
ZOT Code 8200-40
Email: [log in to unmask]
Phone: 949-824-9732 Fax: 949-824-0605

ATOM RSS1 RSS2