Give 3 minutes, get back what matters

The ASERL ScholComm Interest Group’s priority is on building a community of practice within ASERL libraries for scholarly communication. You have 3 minutes to contribute what matters to you and your institution for future learning and development opportunities, right?

Ready, set, go:
ASERL SCHOLCOMM Professional Development Survey 2019

Survey closes on June 6, look for results and next steps after that.

Thanks!

 

SCUNC 2019 Moving to Fall

ASERL Friends:

The third Scholarly Communications Unconference, affectionately known as SCUNC, is being rescheduled for the fall. There are just too many competing opportunities this summer. We will coordinate with either DLF Forum or the Charleston Library Conference so that attendees can make the most of limited travel funds and opportunities.

 

Registration will still be limited to the first 50 people from ASERL member institutions who register.

Bookmark http://www.aserl.org/scunc19/ and the blog for continuing updates on registration, session proposals, and schedule.

Your SCUNC 2019 Planning Committee:

Ellen Ramsey, University of Virginia
Andy Wesolek, Vanderbilt University
Melanie Kowalski, Emory University
John Burger, ASERL (ex officio)

SCUNC 2019 Registration is Open

ASERL Friends:

SCUNC REGISTRATION IS OPEN! The third Scholarly Communications Unconference, affectionately known as SCUNC, is happening at Vanderbilt University this summer.

When: June 3 – 4, 2019 — Starts 3pm CST Monday, ends 3pm CST Tuesday

Registration is limited to the first 50 people from ASERL member institutions who register.

Bookmark http://www.aserl.org/scunc19/ and the blog for continuing updates on registration, session proposals, and schedule.

See you in Nashville for SCUNC 2019.

Your SCUNC 2019 Planning Committee:

Ellen Ramsey, University of Virginia
Andy Wesolek, Vanderbilt University
Claudia Holland, Mississippi State University
Melanie Kowalski, Emory University
John Burger, ASERL (ex officio)

Save the Date: SCUNC 2019 in Nashville

SCUNC_Logo_horizontal

PLEASE SAVE THE DATE! The third Scholarly Communications Unconference, affectionately known as SCUNC, is happening at Vanderbilt University this summer.

When: June 3 – 4, 2019 — Starts 3pm CST Monday, ends 3pm CST Tuesday

Like Orlando in 2015 and Atlanta in 2017, SCUNC 2019 will be a THATCamp-like format, focusing on issues in Scholarly Communication important to attendees.

Registration will be limited to the first 50 ASERL members who register, and the $50 conference fee will be billed by ASERL at a later time.

Watch this space for details on registration, session proposals, and timelines.

See you in Nashville for SCUNC 2019.

Your SCUNC 2019 Planning Committee:

Ellen Ramsey, University of Virginia
Andy Wesolek, Vanderbilt University
Claudia Holland, Mississippi State University
Melanie Kowalski, Emory University
John Burger, ASERL (ex officio)

Controlled Digital Lending: Technology Solution or Legal Pathway?

By Andy Wesolek and Ellen Ramsey

This month’s post is an interview-style discussion about Controlled Digital Lending, prompted by the recent post on the subject by Dave Hansen and Kyle K. Courtney on Duke University’s scholcomm blog.

Ellen’s questions are meant to reflect perspectives of librarians concerned about copyright, collection, and public services impacts of digital lending strategies. Andy’s responses are through the lens of a scholcomm leader who is skilled at translating complex policies and tools for faculty and library professionals from diverse specializations.

ER: What is Controlled Digital Lending, and how does it help libraries circulate books to readers? How does it “expand digital access to print library collections” ? 

AW: CDL is the legal case to allow libraries to digitize books that are not otherwise available in that form, and share them in the same controlled way that they might share a physical book (e.g., only lending out the number of copies (print and digital) that is equal to the number of print copies held by the library). Library print collections currently are only shared physically. CDL makes the case that digitized versions of physical books held by a library can be shared online similarly to print, thus expanding access to the library’s print collections.

ER: Is it solving a technology problem, a legal problem, or both? E.g., why would a library need/want to limit loans of a digitized book so that “only one user can use any given copy at a time, for a limited time”?

AW: CDL is using technology to solve a legal problem. So much of the content published in the 20th century is orphaned and in danger of being damaged, destroyed, lost, etc. CDL allows libraries to not only make preservation copies (which they can already do under the Section 108 exception) but to enhance access to those works by sharing them in the same way they would share a physical book. This approach expands access to patrons who are remote, or otherwise unable to travel to the physical library, while preserving the print copy by restricting its circulation.

ER: What is the difference between a digitized book and an e-book?

AW: “E-book” is a broad term that refers to any book that is available electronically rather than physically. That said, there are different types of e-books. A “digitized book” is available to be read and shared electronically, created from a print book that has been scanned and made available electronically — often as a PDF. Other types of e-books may be born digital, and take a variety of file formats, and may include value-added features like in-text hyperlinks, searchability, and in some cases multimodal components such as embedded media.

ER: What do the authors mean by “20th Century black hole”?

AW: The “20th Century black hole” refers to the halting of the advancement of the public domain in the early part of that century. The copyright protections on materials published prior to 1923 have expired and those materials have fallen into the public domain, meaning they are free from restriction and may be legally reused, remixed, shared, etc. When there is no market for these out of copyright materials, though, it is easy for them to become essentially unavailable. Through the course of the 20th century, copyright protections were extended multiple times and the requirement to register works for that protection was dropped. As a result, works were eligible for increasingly-lengthy copyright protection as soon as they were fixed in a tangible means of expression. Moreover, it was not until the founding of Creative Commons (CC) in 2001 that creators had an easy, free, human and machine readable way to broadly grant permissions to use their works online.

As a result, libraries and other cultural heritage institutions are able to digitize and make available works published in the 19th century, and share/re-purpose content published in the 21st century under CC licenses. However, the copyright status, and copyright holders of a great deal of content published in the 20th century is notoriously difficult to determine. As a result, much of the cultural heritage produced in the 20th century is in danger of being lost or damaged as a result of legal barriers to its reproduction and distribution.

ER: What are examples of improperly implemented CDL? What is a good use of CDL?

AW:  Hansen and Courtney say in their white paper that digitized versions of physical books that were shared in an uncontrolled or bad faith manner would be improperly implemented CDL. Examples might include sharing a greater number of digital copies than the physical copies held in the library, sharing both the physical and digital copy of a book simultaneously, or making the digitized version available openly online. In addition, sharing digitized books that are not held in a library’s physical collections would also be an example of an improperly implemented CDL.

CDL is a useful strategy for circulation of orphan works (whose copyright status or holder cannot be determined) that are no longer available commercially.


Andy Wesolek and Ellen Ramsey are the co-chairs of ASERL’s Scholarly Communications Interest Group.

5 Questions with… Carmelita Pickett

Carmelita PickettCarmelita Pickett, Associate University Librarian for Scholarly Resources and Content Strategy at the University of Virginia, graciously agreed to be our 15th profile in our 5 Questions with… series. Since her team at UVA includes ASERL ScholComm Co-chair Ellen Ramsey, both took the opportunity for a great conversation about local and national issues in our realm.

1. Describe your current position’s scholarly communication responsibilities.
I came to the University of Virginia as Associate University Librarian for Scholarly Resources and Content Strategy in July, 2018. Most recently, I held comparable roles at the University of Iowa and Texas A&M University. At UVA, I am responsible for the overall administration and coordination of the staff responsible for the lifecycle of the Library’s reference and circulating collections. In addition to selection, acquisition, metadata, digitization, stacks maintenance, Ivy Stacks, and interlibrary loan operations.  In a natural extension of collections work, I oversee the scholarly communications arm of the Library to build outreach and advocacy for the Library’s decisions in these areas.

2. What attracted you to a position with a scholcomm portfolio?
Before I interviewed for my current role at UVA, I made sure that scholarly communication was included in the collections-focused AUL’s portfolio as it had been at the University of Iowa. Scholarly communication is a natural extension of collection development work, and its outreach arm. Viewing collection decisions through the lens of scholarly communication helps the academic community come to terms with what is going on in the scholarly publishing ecosystem, and how it affects the choices libraries must make to be the best stewards of resources needed by their institutions.

It is very nice to have a team devoted to this work at UVA; I don’t feel like I’m borrowing people from other parts of the library for advocacy and outreach in support of our accountability-driven vision for collections. At Iowa, I coordinated work on ORCID, OER, information sessions on IP and copyright for faculty with support from within the library and connections across campus, but we did not have a team whose main focus was scholarly communication.

3. What is the most rewarding part of your job?
People! Connecting with people who do the work is the best way to map the impact of what we are doing. I also enjoy the collections part of my job, it feels like home and provides the context for everything we do. There are so many intersections in library work that you can’t help but have an affinity for all things, and having a solid starting place helps it all come together. Also, my colleagues here don’t engage with me as if I am new — which is a good thing and shows how quickly we are solidifying our team — but every so often I get to remind people I am still new enough here so some context is necessary, which leads to great conversations like this one.

4. If you had a magic wand and could change one thing in the scholcomm ecosystem, what would it be?
The goal to break the big deals is so important. That conversation is what drew me to UVA. I had negotiated, managed, and lived through those agreements at the University of Iowa and Texas A&M and was excited about John Unsworth’s reputation as a library dean who wanted to do something different about big deals, not just continue the status quo.

We do have a solid strategy in this area, with many groups involved and invested, so I’m hopeful about life after the “Big Deal”.  Once we are on the other side, we can help other institutions achieve the same kind of culture change. Faculty may not see immediate results, but when the benefits to their work are clear, they will appreciate what we are doing.

Libraries and librarians need training to make this change happen. Acquisitions is core work of the Library, but recent years have seen a decline in professional development and hiring in that segment of our work. We need to communicate, advocate, and plan with the long term effects of the changing scholarly environment in mind. Best practices mean not just answering faculty requests for immediate acquisitions, but really showing the long-term consequences of a well-considered, accountable strategy for acquiring and stewarding scholarly resources. Recent divestments from acquisitions and collections focus at individual institutions means we need more support from consortia. That means right now I am busy learning how VIVA is different from the Big 10 consortium structure. I strongly believe that collaboration on community advocacy is going to become more important and valuable to consortium members than the older model of economies of scale from combined purchasing power.

5. If you were NOT a librarian furthering scholcomm, what would you be?
If I weren’t a librarian, I think I would do missionary work, like my father did in Haiti during the mid to late 1980’s. Or I’d be a millionaire philanthropist supporting work like that of Brian Stephenson’s Equal Justice Initiative. His book, Just Mercy, inspired me to get involved with his organization, and if I had more time and money, I would use it to give more support to EJI’s commitment to “ending mass incarceration and excessive punishment in the United States, to challenging racial and economic injustice, and to protecting basic human rights for the most vulnerable people in American society.”