Microsoft word - lpc-adv-comm-20130301.docx

Meeting Minutes
Advisory Committee Call
1 March, 2013 /1pm EST
 
AGENDA
1. Welcome and updates (5 min.) 2. Advisory Committee: aims and actions (10 min.) 3. Definition and statement of mission and values (10 min.) a. Question for the committee: Are there any remaining big picture concerns with the definition and statement of mission and values? 4. LPC services and membership (30 min.) a. Question for the committee: What services/deliverables/benefits will LPC
SUMMARY MINUTES
LPC Services
o Case studies, workflows, templates o Generic, customizable outreach materials o Materials related to emerging areas (e.g., non-traditional formats, altmetrics, • Vendor and service provider information o Lists of institutions using a service provider
o Recommendations from institutions
o Print-on-demand
o DOI assignment
o Format conversion
• Directory
• Training and professional development
o Partnering with iSchools
o Referrals to publishing and other certificate programs
o Interactive webinars
o Focus LPC training resources on the distinctive aspects of library publishing
o Facilitate a peer-to-peer consulting service or “publishing clinic” for those o Research relating to sustainable business models a high priority
o Align research with other, more interactive efforts (like webinars)

FULL MINUTES
LPC Services
• Repository for documentation, case studies
o Sarah Pritchard (Northwestern): Documentation of successful pilots and models—not necessarily best practices, but project descriptions and the distinct contribution of a given project. • Recommendations of service providers
o Marisa Ramirez (Cal Poly): I’d go a step further—I have faculty who want copy- editing services, services that traditionally have not been strengths in the library. I’d like to document or provide various collaborators that the library could use o Allegra Gonzalez (Claremont Colleges): Are we (the LPC) vetting or o Isaac Gilman (Pacific U): We could have a disclaimer that the LPC is not doing that, but that an individual institution could. o Allegra: it would be helpful to have either a list of vendors and the institutions who use them (might be too much like endorsement though) or complete case studies where the whole workflow is present including vendors used—like a SPEC Kit. • Shared/discounted services
o Marisa: Print-on-demand: a lot of our journals want to give users the opportunity to have a print version, but many print-on-demand services are designed for monographs. A shared, but closed, place to put information about print-on-demand vendors would be useful. Also DOI assignment—it would be valuable if we could get a discount if we sign up as a coalition. o Allegra: Within the Southern California, member institutions leverage e- resources for members [SCELC]. It’s a great idea for LPC to leverage discounts across members for these types of services o Isaac: Format conversion either—services or best practices/workflow (specifically XML)—would be useful. That’s a huge time investment. o Marisa: The e-book side of things, getting a book on the Kindle. That’s not • Directory
o Isaac: What Sarah and Marisa suggested [repository of case studies, documenting vendor relationships] could work well as enhancements to the directory, so we could have all those in one place. You could have as part of directory a list of services and vendors that libraries work with for certain functions, if they want to recommend those. You could also have descriptions of homegrown services. • Resources for non-traditional publishing
o Allegra: Provide resources specific to new publishing platforms, nontraditional and not-yet-traditional areas such as the digital humanities. • Outreach materials
o Sarah: Keep it at a fairly general level. Faculty are so different from institution to institution. I suggest customizable templates focusing on very generic issues. For example, defining new formats or options, not actually telling faculty yet how to go about doing something. More awareness and FAQs, links to examples. We also might want to wait until the LPC is further down the road to produce documents. Initially the focus could be on collecting local documents that people have found effective. o Grace Agnew (Rutgers): I worry about taking time and effort to prepare documents that won’t be useful for long because things are changing so quickly. Faculty are so interested in new forms of publishing. We should focusing our energies on the emerging environment rather than codifying the existing one. • Training, professional development
o David Ruddy (Cornell): I like the approach of the iSchool certificates and trying o Stephanie Davis-Kahl (Illinois Wesleyan): I think we could also work with some of our professional organizations. It’s not just the graduates coming out, it’s librarians already in the field. I’d like to see more of an emphasis on continuing education for professionals. Everything we’ve mentioned in this meeting could be folded into some sort of educational opportunity. o Sarah: When would we want to recommend that people just get certificates in “publishing”? Some of the basic concepts are going to be identical; do we want to customize educational programs for an integrated library approach? There’s some room for that, but we could publicize things that exist already. Another good partner would be schools with MFA programs because those are also now looking at publishing and journal production as exercises for graduate students. o Grace: It’s important for us to know why libraries are engaged in this. Is there a reason other than that we have digital skills and the time? I think the other reason is open access and I don’t think that’s a basic tenet of the publishing profession generally. Students might not get that in a traditional publishing program. o Marisa: I looked at publishing courses at Yale and NYU to give me some needed background, so I could have street cred with faculty. The courses were too expensive and they don’t realize that there’s this wonderful market for librarians with the skills that they offer and the librarian ethos. LPC could offer webinars that are lower cost than a weeklong course. o Sarah: Focus LPC resources on education for what is unique about library publishing, and provide helpful referrals for skills and tasks that are common across publishing. o Grace: Three other distinctive features of library publishing are providing stewardship for the intellectual output for the university; promoting open access; and helping people explore and discover emerging models for publication. • Research
o David: A research area with real value would be business modeling—assessing costs and associated revenues that would support a publishing program, reporting on sustainable and successful models. o Stephanie: Research would be fantastic, but I’d want it aligned with other efforts that are more interactive. If white papers is all there is, efforts fall flat. A white paper accompanied by a series of webcasts would be better. o Grace: More interactivity and more discussion—but based on a bibliography and research, so people are speaking with some preparation. • Peer-to-peer mentoring, consulting services
o David: A consulting service would be valuable—almost real-time advice on specific problems that you’re having. This could just be participants in the LPC who would agree to make themselves available to give advice. While a ready store of documents is valuable, sometimes the problems are peculiar enough that you need to talk with someone. o Isaac: Publishing “mentors”. The directory could contain that information—type of program and type of expertise that individuals are willing to share. If we’re in a situation where I need help, and it’s a one-on-one interaction, it would be helpful if the LPC hosted some sort of central service where people who are seeking advice or showing how things work could do screen-shares. People could of course do that ad hoc, but it might be helpful to have a central system in place.
General questions about services:
• Should these materials be open or restricted to members?
o Sarah: A mix of open and closed areas. Projects that are not quite ready could be closed, and once it’s a done deal you could open it up. That could be a member’s choice. A library might be looking for shared services, or seeking out options within the community, but not in a position to advertise that publicly. We might need to be constantly vetting the site to make sure that confidential things move when appropriate to the public area. • What are the priorities that LPC should focus on?
o Marisa: in terms of prioritization: money talks. So if I were to say we were able to get a discount on x, y, and z, that would be an easier sell. o Sarah: Every topic we’ve raised, everyone says that’s a great idea. There’s a desire for information. The difficult thing will be deciding what to do first. At my institution, where we’re doing both traditional publishing and faculty driven special initiatives, I’d be most interested in the benefits of a clearinghouse—seeing people’s actual descriptions of software and business models. o Isaac: A priority would be anything that would help us do our jobs better, avoid making mistakes from being siloed. Sample workflows, documents, etc. would help provide some consistency across the community.

Source: http://educopia.org/lpc/images/6/61/Lpc-adv-comm-20130301.pdf