v25 #5 And They Were There

by | Dec 5, 2013 | 0 comments

Reports of Meetings — 32nd Annual Charleston Conference

Issues in Book and Serial Acquisition, “Accentuate the Positive,” Francis Marion Hotel, Courtyard Marriott Historic District, Addlestone Library, and School of Science and Mathematics Building, College of Charleston, Charleston, SC, November 7-10, 2012

Charleston Conference Reports compiled by:  Ramune K. Kubilius  (Collection Development / Special Projects Librarian, Northwestern University, Galter Health Sciences Library)  <[email protected]>

Column Editor’s Note:  Thank you to all of the Charleston Conference attendees who agreed to write short reports that highlight sessions they attended at the 2012 conference.  All attempts were made to provide a broad coverage of sessions, and notes are included in the reports to reflect known changes in the session titles or presenters, highlighting those that were not printed in the conference’s final program (though some may have been reflected in the online program).  Please visit the Conference Website, http://www.katina.info/conference, for the online conference schedule from which there are links to many presentations, handouts, plenary session videos, and plenary session reports by the 2012 Charleston Conference blogger, Don Hawkins.  Visit the conference blog at https://www.charleston-hub.com/category/blog-posts/charleston2012/.  The 2012 Charleston Conference Proceedings will be published in partnership with Purdue University Press in 2013.

In this issue of ATG you will find the final installment of 2012 conference reports.  The first four installments can be found in ATG v.25#1, February 2013, v.25#2, April 2013, v.25#3, June 2013, and v.25#4, September 2013.  Watch for 2013 Charleston Conference reports to begin next year in the February 2014 issue of ATG. — RKK



SCOAP3: Going Live with the Dream — Presented by Ann Okerson (SCOAP3 Steering Committee Member, and Senior Advisor to CRL, Center for Research Libraries)

Reported by:  Ramune K. Kubilius  (Northwestern University, Galter Health Sciences Library)  <[email protected]>

In this brief plenary session, Okerson familiarized attendees with the SCOAP3 project — its formation by a coalition of stakeholders operating under a fair share principle, each country contributing its own.  From initial consultations in 2005, the project developed an early business model, received “expressions of interest,” with bids and evaluation, and publishers opting in.  The “go live” date will be Jan. 2014 with a “reconciliation facility” for redirecting cost reduction increases.  In a wider context, SCOAP3, though physics subject-oriented, can serve as an observatory, a case study, and libraries cannot afford to “opt out” of this trend.  This type of activity can decrease subscription costs and provide a voice in governance, become part of the IR, and the larger OA community.


Find > Search —Presented by Marjorie Hlava (Access Innovations);  Elisabeth Leonard (SAGE Publications Ltd);  Meg White (Rittenhouse Book Distributors, Inc.);  Stanley Wilder (UNC Charlotte);  Elizabeth Willingham (Silverchair)

Reported by:  Ramune K. Kubilius  (Northwestern University, Galter Health Sciences Library)  <[email protected]>

White served as moderator and the panel provided input to questions she posed — How do organizations view “search and find?”  How are we doing?  Can we do better, etc.?  Leonard, representing vendors,  stated that data must be analyzed — it explains usage, the patterns of authors, users, readers.  One can’t sit with the user every day.  Willingham mentioned that “search” starts at the authoring process:  that is why it is so hard.  Hlava maintained that designing a search algorithm is 5% discovery and 95% knowing what the users want.  Wilder argued that there is an element of “attitude” and “churn,” and that after building consensus on the centrality of issues, resources are poured into that area.  Google sets the bar.  As for the tolerance for false positives, there seems to be an expectation of “surprise me” rather than a definitive answer.  “Don’t change the search, but where they go” (are led).  Can users be educated about taxonomy, “library science meets computer science,” MARC vs. field data…?  Consumers will look and look (for shoes or airline flights), but for medical searches, they want to know when “they are there”…  Quoting an earlier plenary speaker (Arnurag), White cited the phrase “the blessed content gets found.”  During the Q&A, issues of privacy were raised regarding data being collected by user systems — how it is, could, or should be mined.  In answer to the question “Is MARC dead?,” Hlava responded “yeah.”  Wilder opined that libraries are moving away from “search skills” and Leonard shared her feeling that the key is understanding that users “want to do something.”


Changing the DNA of Scholarly Publishing ― The Impact of the Digital Leap — Presented by Rolf Janke (SAGE/CQ Reference);  Lisa Jones (Georgia Gwinnet College);  Damon Zucca (Oxford University Press)

Reported by:  Robert Matuozzi  (Washington State University Libraries)  <[email protected]>

Zucca (Oxford University Press) began with the new Oxford Handbooks Online series.  Responding to information overload across scholarly disciplines, these edited Handbooks offer review essays on the current state of the literature.  A collaborative approach including end-user research behaviors emphasizes the independent publication of chapter-level content and online access to similar content across OUP online products.  Jones (Georgia Gwinnet College) described building a working collection of best available resources (streaming video, for example) with teaching faculty tapped as subject specialists, tight curricular integration of library resources, and participation in a 32-instituion consortium.  Janke (SAGE/CQ Reference) contrasted the static “container” print monograph typically available to one user with digital and electronic ubiquity, evolving dynamic content, mobile apps, and enhanced format design.


Interstitial Publishing: How Mobile Computing Changes What Publishing Does Presented by Joseph Esposito (Processed Media)
NOTE:  The speaker changed his presentation title to “5 Minute Fiction: Interstitial Publishing and Mobile Platforms.”

Reported by:  Ramune K. Kubilius  (Northwestern University, Galter Health Sciences Library)  <[email protected]>

Esposito modified the title of his presentation and opened his remarks with the comment that the session would probably have no practical use for what they, attendees, hear, since it was more a speculative discussion.  Still, he held the audience’s interest as he discussed technical and structural issues of the “born mobile” world, mentioned current mobile endeavors.  A “detour” took the audience into audio publishing and the keys to its success.  Esposito argued that “interstitial” publishing may provide opportunities in the world of fiction (5-10 minute “chunks”), and also may hold potential for certain parts of the scholarly publishing world, though he acknowledged there are types of content (e.g., STM) for which it might not be effective.  “Interstitial” publishing can serve us during daily unplanned, but inevitable and opportune moments between larger events.  Cumulatively, those moments make up hours each day.  Presentations are often effective when presenters share stories, and Esposito did so with his personal anecdote about his reading (device) practices.  How do we get from there to here (intersititial, mobile device-
ready content)?  There is value to legacy content, content needs to be “chunked,” there needs to be a new category of metadata, searching needs to be at the paragraph, not chapter level.  As with anything else, users’ experience needs to be built upon and studied.



Fast Tech Talks Session – Project MUSE — Presented by Tashina Gunning (Project Muse)

Reported by:  Margaret M. Kain  (University of Alabama at Birmingham, Mervyn H. Sterne Library)  <[email protected]>

Project MUSE, well known for its collection of John Hopkins University Press journals, is now selling eBooks.  As of the date of this discussion, the new platform allowed access to 15,000 eBooks that had been integrated into the Project MUSE’s journal collection.  Beginning the first quarter of 2013, libraries will be able to purchase single eBook titles through YBP.  One new subject collection has been added, Ecology and Evolution, as well as seven new area studies collections been added.  Content has added to the research area Language and Linguistics, providing access to titles in copyright years 2011-2013.  In 2013, eBooks from seventeen new University Press Content Consortium [UPCC] Publishers and more than 23,000 titles in the UPCC book collection will be added.  In addition to the growth of eBooks, thirty new journal titles and eight new journal publishers will be added in 2013.


Fast Tech Talks Session – Thomson Reuters, The Data Citation Index — Presented by Charles Watkinson (Purdue University);  Tim Otto (Thomson Reuters)

Reported by:  Ramune K. Kubilius  (Northwestern University, Galter Health Sciences Library)  <[email protected]>

Watkinson provided an overview to the research data landscape, with the NSF data management plan requirements.  Researchers manage the data at their own levels, but professionalization of data management provides a potential role for libraries as well (“data hygiene issues”) — as instructors, consultants, facilitators, subject selectors, and collection managers for long-term data collections.  He moved on to highlighting the use of Data Citation Index at Purdue, and how it is an integral part of the Purdue University Research Repository (PURR).  The challenge is to create incentives for deposit, and the catalyst for library involvement is expertise in standards and raising the status of data.

Otto reviewed the Data Citation Index product (launched just weeks before the conference), its relationship to Web of Science, geography (approximately evenly distributed between North America and Europe), and the subject discipline balance (life sciences comprises almost half of the approximately two million records).  The goal of the product is to provide a single point of access across disciplines, repositories, globally.  At launch time, almost 70 repositories were participating, and about 40 are in the pipeline for each year (the preference is consortia).  In answer to one participant’s question, he indicated that research analytics is a growing part of the business, and in answer to another question, he responded that 90% of the repositories are Open Access, while others may require membership, registration, or in a few cases (e.g., ICSPR or Roper) — subscription is required.


Fast Tech Talks Session – The New Udini Alumni Access Program: Position your University as a Lifelong Research
Partner for your Graduates
— Presented by Jane Burke (ProQuest and Serials Solutions)

Reported by:  Ramune K. Kubilius  (Northwestern University, Galter Health Sciences Library)  <[email protected]>

Some Charleston Conference Saturday morning “tech talks” can be not only about “tech” aspects of newly-released or upgraded products and services.  Experienced conference attendee Burke described Udini, a product earlier available to individual researchers, and for the past eight months, available for institutional licensing.  She broadened the discussion to highlight why such an information product is desirable — to alums, libraries, development offices, and universities.  Per Burke, Udini seeks to address the needs of alums with broad ranging subject interests, and who may need information from various sources — journals, news publications, reports.  Strategically, from the company’s perspective, was the development of a product that permits views of “free” full-text available (part of the licensed product), and also the “pay-per-view” option so searchers can access additional desired content.  Burke highlighted points made at an earlier conference session on products and services for alums.  She advised libraries to be strategic, “get the alum office to pay” for the product (the price is probably the cost of an annual alum dinner).  Session attendees asked about the tiered business model, the “recruited content” for the product, and the recommended target group of alums, learning the development office jargon phrase, “addressable alums” — that is, all living alums.


The Long Arm of the Law Venue — Presented by William Hannay (Schiff Hardin LLP);  Ann Okerson (Center for Research Libraries);  Winston Tabb (The Johns Hopkins University);  Nancy E. Weiss (Institute of Museum and Library Services)

Reported by:  Ramune K. Kubilius  (Northwestern University, Galter Health Sciences Library)  <[email protected]>

Some conference plenary sessions are like vitamins, “good for you,” and this session did not disappoint.  In this third annual foray into the world of “library impacting legal cases,” moderator Okerson introduced the expert panel of three.  Tabb and Hannay used presentation slides to illustrate their talks, and in his slides, Hannay displayed the words to his humorous “words adapted to known show tunes” songs that made even more memorable the cases he described.  This year, a global view was particularly emphasized, and Tabb started his presentation highlighting the work to date of WIPO (the World Intellectual Property Organization) by asking why do we care and how do we prepare?  He highlighted IFLA’s Core Values (balance in authors’ vs. users’ intellectual property rights), and how the April 2011 TLIB (Treaty on Copyright Exceptions and Limitations for Libraries and Archives) is a “floor, not a ceiling.”  Hannay’s iPad Thai was “an intellectual meal” that featured highlights of an eBook price fixing case, first sale doctrine, fair use, and reserve policies.  Though, unfortunately, Weiss did not illustrate her information-heavy presentation with slides, she made salient points about — challenges and opportunities in copyright, the tension between U.S. copyright laws and policies (compared to international), U.S. justices who need to “grapple” with the laws.  The audience and panelists entered into a brief dialog on various topics — the implications of the U.S. elections and copyright, the pressures and clauses in fair use rights regarding the disabled (pressure and clauses in contracts), the implications of derivative works, and the big and small rights of authors in various countries and the EU.  (Viewing the two presenters’ slides that are available and linked in the conference site will provide more detail about the many cases, rulings, and specific points made during this plenary session.)


All Together Now: Using an Internal Google Site to Streamline Workflows — Presented by Christa Poparad (Addlestone Library, College of Charleston)

Reported by:  Ramune K. Kubilius  (Northwestern University, Galter Health Sciences Library)  <[email protected]>

Although not strictly about collection development or acquisition-related use of technology, this presentation by Poparad offered a case study on the use of Google Apps for Education (Desk Google) in one library with a large student worker population (and a 30% turnover).  The application described was designed with input from 6 staff members, and its intent is to coordinate, inform, and train students who work in a merged information desk environment (formerly Student Computing Support Desk and the Reference Desk), to ensure they had to information they need to serve users.  To stay in touch with student workers, their use of mobile devices was built into the designed application.  The design was to ease scheduling and coordinate shift coverage, there was an emphasis on linking, not duplicating, disparate information.  A Table of Contents in the Wiki assists in finding the spot to help answer questions at the desk, to provide easy access to library policies (including an affiliates’ table), and a secure place to store computer log ins and passwords.  Reference questions are handled in a triage format, and consultation requests are encouraged.  There is live chat, a knowledge base for questions, and links to reporting library technology problems, requesting ILL and media, booking library classes, etc.  The Learning Management System has a checklist for student workers to learn library skills.  Electronic resource problems are reported in the appropriate forms for further action.


Hyde Park Corner Debate: The Traditional Research Library Is Dead Presented by Rick Anderson (University of Utah);  Derek Law (University of Strathclyde)

Reported by:  Ramune K. Kubilius  (Northwestern University, Galter Health Sciences Library)  <[email protected]>

This year a Hyde Park Corner Debate replaced a “what I learned at the conference and wish for next year” wrap-up session featured sometimes in this session timeslot.  (The Rump Session later in the afternoon was available for those who wished to discuss the conference just concluded.)  Two friendly foes, Anderson and Law, presented their viewpoints.  Anderson argued that it’s not a format question but more of relevance.  Our current system of classification is a mastodon.  The practice of seeking out, gathering, and organizing (information) is no longer relevant.  Although librarians help to construct research, that model is not scalable.  Library interfaces to content are “hostile.”  Reality won’t conform to our ideals.  As we emerge from the ashes, the world of research will be the better for it.  Law argued the “plus ca change” position, that the concerns of 12th-century Bologna still apply:  faculty have budget concerns, students worry about tuition, rights holders are concerned about massive copying.  Research institutions and their libraries are not children’s playgrounds and not democracies.  Crowd sourcing and self-taught students are “lost boys.”  Tradition is as it should be — marked by adaptability and flexibility.  Ranganathan’s fifth law of library science still applies: “to provide the right information to the right user at the right time.”  Audience members were invited to vote online, both at the beginning and end of the debate, and, it turned out, changed their votes from “no” (48% to 33%) to “yes” (52% to 67%) in the end — the traditional research library is dead.


Rump Session – Charleston Conference Resolutions

Compiled from notes taken by JoAnne Sparks  (Macquarie University)  <[email protected]>

As the last conference session, in recent years, the Rump Session has given those “last standing” (still in Charleston) an opportunity to share views about the conference just concluded and provide input on ideas for future conferences.  This year, the discussion was moderated by Katina Strauch (College of Charleston and Charleston Conference founder) and Tom Gilson (College of Charleston, emeritus).

Participants liked the 2012 Web conference schedule, but still want the print program book.  Plenary Sessions struck a chord:  an entertaining lawyer can make a “boring topic” energizing, and it would have been interesting to hear from a provost who may not have been sympathetic to libraries.  Traditional values are still relevant and some first-time conference attendees’ eyes were opened.  Resolutions and lessons learned?  Librarians need to be trained to make a case, to recover the buyer role and learn political skills, to be more assertive and less passive, to share information from the conference.  Suggested future conference topics included: the implications of SCOAP3, the global issues involved in copyright, and earmarks of a successful institutional repository.  Also, some suggested, perhaps the conference should have a New Orleans style funeral for MARC, since it’s been declared dead.  Some rump session attendees were intrigued by the quote “the train wreck has pulled into the station.”


Well this completes the reports we received from the 2012 Charleston Conference.  Again we’d like to send a big thank you to all of the attendees who agreed to write short reports that highlight sessions they attended.  Presentation material (PowerPoint slides, handouts) and taped session links from many of the 2012 sessions are available online.  Visit the Conference Website at www.katina.info/conference. — KS


Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share This