77 lines
4.7 KiB
Markdown
77 lines
4.7 KiB
Markdown
---
|
||
title: 'New Texts'
|
||
date: '2007-06-05T14:14:52-04:00'
|
||
permalink: /new-texts/
|
||
tags:
|
||
- conferences
|
||
- mediacommons
|
||
- publishing
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
Session 2: New “Texts”
|
||
|
||
Lynne Withey, director, UC Press; Catherine Candee, director of strategic publishing initiatives, California Digital Library
|
||
“New Texts, New Tasks: A Case Study from the University of California”
|
||
|
||
6-8 year collaboration; three kinds of projects (backlist titles online in XML — not being kept up; specialized monographs put online through eScholarship repository via PDFs; critical/documentary editions such as the Mark Twain project)
|
||
|
||
have reached limits of these three projects — replicating old forms
|
||
|
||
launched new project: systemwide committee on scholarly communication units with view toward offering services, operating more efficiently
|
||
|
||
findings based on: reflection, experience, use data, faculty survey, campus visits — determining what role of university publishing should be in 21st century
|
||
|
||
reflections:
|
||
— economics of scholarly publishing are still troublesome for nonprofit producers and consumers
|
||
— new technologies offer possibilities for innovative and more cost-effective publishing
|
||
— pressures and opportunities create new challenges for UC services in support of research and teaching
|
||
— experiments have extended as far as existing organizational structures (UC Press and CDL) and budgets will allow
|
||
|
||
article: Diane Harley, et al, [“The Influence of Academic Values on Scholarly Publication and Communication Practices”](http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=jep;view=text;rgn=main;idno=3336451.0010.204)
|
||
|
||
principles for university involvement in publishing services:
|
||
— the university must provide a research infrastructure that ensures productivity and stimulates innovation
|
||
— publishing is more than the production of an archival record; it is an integral part of the research infrastructure (must be provided by uni!)
|
||
— publishing must embrace a suite of production activities, some of which will be revenue generating
|
||
— publishing must enable faculty to create and distribute works via the most appropriate method
|
||
— publishing must enable the discovery, use, \*and re-use\* of content in support of research, teaching, and learning (publishing not as end point, but as marker along way of ongoing projects)
|
||
|
||
faculty survey:
|
||
— faculty in arts and humanities have the deepest concerns about publishing matters; those in the natural sciences are more content with the current system
|
||
— the tenure and promotion process inhibits faculty actions that might better address the scholarly communication crisis (MUST address peer review!)
|
||
— faculty want better university support for publishing books, journal articles, monographs, and, to a lesser extent, conferences papers and dissertations
|
||
|
||
findings from task force:
|
||
— surprising amount of formal publishing activity on campuses, in research centers and departments
|
||
— difficult to catalog and classify the existing publishing activities across UC campuses
|
||
— interdisciplinary work is burgeoning
|
||
— many UC faculty are desperate for support for creating, validating, publishing their digital scholarly research output
|
||
|
||
more findings… few surprises:
|
||
— faculty, especially in humanities, make a distinction between in -process communication and formal ‘archival’ publication
|
||
— prestige and visibility are crucial to faculty participation in new publishing initiatives
|
||
— in any new publishing forms, approval of tenure and promotion powers is critical
|
||
— UC press imprimatur is seen as valuable in most new publishing initiatives
|
||
|
||
specific needs:
|
||
— venues for born digital content; tools for content management
|
||
— slide changed too fast!
|
||
|
||
UC strategy:
|
||
— align UC publishing services with the UC academic enterprise
|
||
— broaden the capacity of the university press; reclaim its original role in service to the academic enterprise
|
||
— coordinate planning across the UC system; develop intersections in IT planning; digital stewardship, research data support, publishing and preservation
|
||
— develop publishing services to be interoperable with services for research data
|
||
|
||
UC Publishing, 2007-2008:
|
||
— seek efficiencies across traditional publishing modalities, to invest savings in R&D for emerging publishing modalities
|
||
— provide a more robust journal publication service
|
||
— formalize a collaboratory structure for UC press and CDL to focus efforts in strategic publishing initiatives
|
||
— employ cost-recovery mechanisms where necessary; secure open access options where appropriate
|
||
— establish methods and procedures for non-standard publications
|
||
|
||
Two brief case studies:
|
||
John Herbert and Karen Estlund, University of Utah
|
||
me, MediaCommons; peer-to-peer review
|
||
|