June 12, 2019 Meeting of Library Faculty Meeting

Time and Location of Meeting

June 12, 2019

Agenda Details



University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Library Faculty Meeting Agenda
June 12, 2019
3-4:30 pm
66 Library


1.       Call or Order

2.       Standing Items

2.1   Adoption of the agenda
2.2   Approval of the minutes of the April 10, 2019 Faculty Meeting
2.3   Introduction of New Employees (John Wilkin)
2.4   Executive Committee Report and Discussion (15 minutes – David Ward)
2.5   Report of the University Librarian (15 minutes – John Wilkin)

3.       Discussion Items

4.       Lightening Talks

4.1 Kelli Trei and Jen-chien Yu – Student Learning Outcomes Assessment (SLOA) project (15 minutes)
4.2 Bill Mischo and Tom Teper – Article Processing Charges (APCs) (15 Minutes)

5.       New Business
5.1 Ellen Swain and Marek Sroka – FRC Documentation (15 Minutes)

6.       Announcements

7.       Adjournment


Minutes Details


University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Library Faculty Meeting Minutes
June 12, 2019
3-4:30 pm
66 Library
Notes taken by Sara Benson in the absence of Peg Burnette.
1. Call or Order

2. Standing Items
2.1 Adoption of the agenda
Tom Teper made a motion to adopt agenda. Lisa Hinchliffe seconded motion. So adopted.

2.2 Approval of the minutes of the April 10, 2019 Faculty Meeting
Nancy O’Brien moves for approval. Second from Lynne Thomas. So approved.

2.3 Introduction of New Employees (John Wilkin)
No new employees to introduce. Acknowledge those who were promoted with tenure.

2.4 Executive Committee Report and Discussion (15 minutes – Nancy O’Brien)
• EC has met 6 times since the April Faculty meeting.
• We discussed strategic planning progress, and details on the retreat.
• EC has launched a second round of ICR funding on June 3, applications are due by July 1st. Please note that we are asking applicants to consult with Chris Prom and Tracy Tolliver on potential IT impacts of any proposal prior to submission.
• EC made a number of PRC appointments, search committee appointments, and appointments to other committees with vacancies. The annual committee appointment cycle is coming up, please contact Kim Matherly if you wish to volunteer for any committees.
• EC discussed a proposal to allow GAs to experience academic committee meetings. We agreed that all open meetings of standing committees could host GAs as observers, and that GAs should contact chairs in advance. This information will be conveyed at the start of the academic year and during GA orientation.
• EC completed the AUL annual reviews.
• EC submitted the Dean’s 5-year review to the Provost’s office. We want to thank everyone who provided feedback throughout this important process.
• We had our regular AUL meetings, discussing the building project and IT planning updates, as well as ongoing developments with the ILS migration.
• EC reviewed the Library Student Learning Assessment Team Report and was in favor of the charge and ongoing work plan.
• EC approved a Strategic Framework Initiative (SFI) Award request.
• John shared ongoing BTAA updates, focusing on the Lorcan Dempsey white paper and improvements on Discovery to Delivery, shared collections, and the ongoing Elsevier licensing discussions related to California’s actions.

Question by Cindy Ingold, SSHEL: She thought the request for committee volunteering was due May 15. Correct, but EC has not begun appointment yet.
Question by Karen Hogenboom: Student Learning document, is it available? Yes it is, but it is not on the document chart on the EC page as pointed out by Lisa Hinchliffe, Info Lit.
2.5 Report of the University Librarian (15 minutes – John Wilkin)
John echoes the requirement from EC that the proposal coordinate with IT: if you have an innovation fund proposal that has a relationship to IT, ensure that you are talking to Tracy Tolliver and Chris Prom about any impact the proposal may have. This is not to ask for an endorsement from IT, but for some feedback and to ensure that IT knows about your proposal and that your proposal is well-informed. Encourage everyone to think about themselves not as an island, but as a coordinated effort with colleagues.
Amplifies what Nancy said about the strategic planning process—thanks Merinda Hensley and Clara Chu and Jen Yu for helping to move the process forward, as well as the divisional representatives. It was very successful and will help us to move to the next stage. In the fall, as a result of the work that will happen over the summer with AULs and the EC, the document will be finalized and we will launch the strategic planning process for the next 5 years.
The state of the state: You will have seen in the news various reports about the allocation to higher education. I want to clarify what you have heard. The 5% increase in funding from the state with result in an increase of 4.6% in state funding to the University. The state allocation is less than 20% of the University’s total budget. You can essentially divide the 4.6% by 5 to determine the increase to the overall budget. It is good news, but not as great as you might think, without the context of the total state budget allocation. Right now we are doing tea leaf reading, but I am relatively optimistic that because of that increase, we are not going to see a reduction in our budget. We will likely go forward with a flat budget with an increase in our collections budget, and likely support for our strategic requests as well. We are likely to see a 2% salary program for faculty and APs; it will be a merit program. We are at least a week and a half away from knowing exactly what this will look like.
The Altgeld Hall project renovation will move forward. It will have implications for us in the Math Library. There is also capital support for DPI, which will make Illini Hall more feasible. A number of deferred maintenance issues are being taken care of.
Library building project: campus group is meeting weekly. They schedule an hour but usually meet for two hours. JLK and brightspot, the architectural firms and design firm, have delivered to us a 50% draft of a conceptual representation of what we are looking for with the building project. Next stage: in the fall, after broad feedback and discussion, move to actual schematics to design the buildings and get campus feedback.
BTAA: Sara Benson, thank you for forwarding the Provost’s statement on the Univ. of California agreement. The Library Directors worked with the Provosts to strengthen the statement. Nothing like this comes out without unanimous consent from the Provosts. This says something about where they are right now. It is getting a lot of promotion in the community and they are impressed by the strength of the statement.
John is playing a lead negotiator role in the BTAA around a transformative agreement with a major publisher. BTAA has looked at our data about who we are and what we are in the Big 10. We produce 15% of all research in the US. We have as much funded research as all the Ivies and the University of California combined—those facts have been compelling to the publishers about formulating a model agreement. Too early to say definitively what form that agreement will take. Forthcoming statement from Library Directors around a White Paper on the “Collective Collection.” It will be clear when the whitepaper is finished. We have preliminarily drafted a statement of our intent for a more unified system allowing us to manage our collections as one. It is aspirational, as there are obviously many challenges with this as well.
Council of Deans: We have been discussing budget, state allocation, and investment for growth proposals. Most of our focus has been on the DPI and how we should engage vigorously with Chicago. The success of the DPI depends on the success of the University.
– Sara Benson, SCP: BTAA statement was a bit ambiguous—not specific. John: it signals intent. It is not more specific because the Provosts didn’t want to telegraph a strategy for negotiations.
– Lisa Hinchliffe, Info Lit: Given that our Provost is one of the signers, should we expect to see any campus-based initiatives as well? John: we won’t do anything without engaging with the campus broadly. When we start going down that path, we will vigorously connect with the campus.
– Lisa Hinchliffe, Info Lit: Will the Provosts office take a stronger voice about OA publishing, funds available, etc.? At a research priority level? John: when I said “we” I meant broadly “we” (more than the Library) and the Provost is informed about the issues and it will be broader than the library when we engage with this. I want to note that there will be a small invitational meeting taking place in August coordinated by the University of California and I will be attending with a campus faculty member. What we want to see is a dramatic change in the way the system works (not specifically about OA funding), but it is a broad-based effort.

Discussion Items

3. Lightening Talks
4.1 Kelli Trei and Jen-chien Yu – Student Learning Outcomes Assessment (SLOA) project (15 minutes)
See attached PowerPoint presentation.
Background: the Library team was appointed by EC to write SLOA. In 2018, they were recruited to implement it. They oversee assessment projects outlined in the SLOA plan and update the plan as needed and compile an annual summary report.
Questions to answer: What do students learn in library instruction sessions? After attending the sessions, how do undergraduate students apply what they’ve learned? How do these sessions bring global awareness to our students? How do undergraduate students access materials for coursework/research?
Works in progress—analyzing data relating to these 4 questions.
Work completed—Question 1: Rhet 105 & CMN 101 (Finding/Using databases-52%; Evaluate what I find-21%; Search strategies (including keywords)—12%). ESL classes (Finding/Using databases-45%; Evaluate what I find-11%; Search strategies (including keywords)—9%). This was from collecting over 100 minute paper assessments at the end of workshops.
Other things students learned: chatting with librarians on library chat; easy search, etc.
Work completed—Question 4: Analyzed Ithaka S+R Undergrad Survey Results (full report is available at go.library.illinois.edu/undergrad)
o Most used sources for coursework/research: e-books (46%); online educational resources that are not videos (41%); textbooks (40%)
o 40% attended a library session; 59% attended sessions that focused on finding sources of information
o 28% said their most recent interaction with a librarian getting help with finding resources (23% check out items)
o Important research skills to acquire: Using information ethically (68%); forming evidence-based conclusions (69%)
Questions: Karen Hogenboom: where is the work plan? Jen: We do have a website on the committee page (Library Student Learning Assessment Team). Membership and documents including instruction statistics from 2017-2018 listed by department and college along with number of people who attended the session.
Sara Benson, SCP: What do they mean by “using information ethically” because I am concerned about copyright implications, of course. Lisa Hinchliffe, Info Lit: In our statement on learning goals it means both, but in the Ithaka survey it doesn’t distinguish between those things. We would have to do a follow-up to find out what the students mean. I would suspect that it would mean plagiarism to them because it is so drilled into them.

4.2 Bill Mischo and Tom Teper – Article Processing Charges (APCs) (15 Minutes)
See attached PowerPoint.
This is from a presentation that we delivered at CNI last December. We were curious about how much the University is spending on APCs (Article Processing Charge). In some sense, what are we missing out on? Those are dollars that are spent on APCs and not on other things.
This campus has almost 50,000 students. Almost 2,000 faculty. $138 million in ICR income. Sponsored research in 2017: $462 million.
What is the status on OA on our campus and globally? We have a policy in place. We have partnerships with research administration on campus, Illinois Experts, the Illinois Databank. Broader environment of OA: publish and read agreements & international environment (Plan S, OA 2020); local Investments in SCOAP3, ArXiv, Knowledge Unlatched. We are developing a Library Publishing Program. We have no history of Library or OVCR paying APCs.
Questions in the study: How much OA publishing are we doing? How much is in Gold OA, Green, Hybrid, etc? What journals are we publishing in and who is paying the APCs? How much are we (Illinois) paying in APCs?
Several studies have tried to determine the percentage of literature that is OA (most are around 50%, with differences by country/subject). Where is Illinois?
Methodology: Extracted data from SciVal PURE database
o Extracted metadata from 37,805 UIUC researcher publications from 2014-2018
o 27,771 are research articles
o Metadata includes title, author, ISSn, EISSN, DOI
o Using DOAJ database/API, Ulrich’s, Unpaywall API we can correlate how many articles are OA.
Caveats: not pro-rated for non-Illinois authorship (typically the PI pays the entire APC charge). No page charges or color image charges considered. Preprint servers and IRs may not be the version of record (what Unpaywall is giving you or ArXiv may be pre peer review).
Results: 13.2% of articles (3,653) are in Gold OA journals. Only 9 of the top 100 Gold do not charge APCs. Total APC expenses were $4.958 million or $1 million per year (consistent with others). Average APC article charge was $1,530.
o How many of these are predatory journals? Some.
o Compares with $1,825 for Research I Universities in Pay it Forward Project
Scoap3 journals: CERN negotiates & tenders offers to 11 High Energy Physics journals. We only paid $10,203 in 2018 for UIUC Scoap3 access. It’s a lot of work and a lot of overhead. But it is a very successful model for OA.
Gold OA by year chart is pretty consistent across the board.
PLoS One is the most published in academic journal our faculty are publishing in (peer review “light”)—acceptance rate is something like 70%. They charge $1,495 per article. Scientific Reports is a Nature Journal. Big one is Nature Communications: $936,000 spent on it for 180 articles. American Chemical Science journal is free now, but likely will start charging APCs soon.
How many of our articles are OA: 43.8% (up from 40.9%) of all articles (12,175), which includes all kinds of OA (hybrid, green, etc.)
Next Steps: duplicate the study at other institutions. What does this mean for publish and read licenses? Who is publishing OA? Tenured faculty, tenure track faculty, graduate students? They can’t afford to pay for APCs anymore. So, many faculty are saying they will not continue to publish OA. How does this align with Plan S? Who will pay for this?
Questions: Merinda Hensley: Is it possible that these articles are being paid for twice? Bill: We are paying the subscription price and APC for the hybrid journals. For the Gold journals you cannot subscribe to them. Lisa Hinchliffe: I have been tracking Plan S and transformative agreements—I can’t help but notice that if we have spent $100,000 a year on PloS One, I’m wondering if there’s an issue about whether we as a campus can find ourselves in a problem with state auditors re: state spending regulations? Bill: interesting question. On the individual basis if it is less than $3,000 you can be invoiced for the APC charge. If it is more than that, you need to be invoiced with a purchase order. I assume this is flying under the radar with the auditors? Tracy Tolliver: If it is being funded with grant funds those are funded in a different way. Tom: The argument could be made that these are library materials and there’s an exemption for library materials. Alex Cabada: Do you know what the breakdown is for APC charges for hybrid versus gold charges? Bill: I don’t know. I can tell you that I paid $2,800 for a hybrid journal. I know Springer is along the lines of $3,000. When I looked at the Wiley contract they were paying $3,400. They are not outrageously higher, but they are certainly not lower.
3. New Business
5.1 Ellen Swain and Marek Sroka – FRC Documentation (15 Minutes)
Talked about things that we are going to change in the coming year. In the annual letter for the annual review process, we will eliminate the graphs. The graphs are not very effective and they are a lot of work to produce. We will still do the cohort tables, but the graphs will be eliminated. We also tried something new this year in terms of providing support for completing your annual report. We had four office hours instead of doing the workshop. We had four people attend those. We are going to have a workshop in January and then maybe do two open sessions for individual help.
Changes in membership coming up. Ellen’s co-chair term ends in December. Merinda Hensley is taking over as co-chair. Marek will continue until December. Joanne Kaczmarek will be involved as a Special Collections member.
Nancy O’Brien and Sarah Williams are also members.
Sara Holder, LIS: how do you come up with your ratings? Ellen Swain: It is in the website materials. Score from 1-10 on Librarianship, Research, and Service. Sara Holder: I was particularly interested in Librarianship because research is easier to score. Ellen: each of the faculty members score individually. We come together and discuss what the person did and may change scores to reflect the discussion.

4. Announcements

Lynne Thomas, RBML: Ruth Anne Miller curated this exhibit that begins June 17 and will be on display until the end of August. We are exhibiting typewriters from Roger Ebert and Hugh Heffner and other writing paraphernalia.
Tom Teper, AUL: Update on the Library building project Monday at 9am in Room 66.
Alex Cabada: VR Illinois Project proposal was approved and funded at$230,000 to refurbish space in the undergraduate for VR development.
5. Adjournment
Meeting adjourned at 4:21 pm.