CAUL Meeting 2010/1
25-26 March, 2010
with associated meeting on 24th, 25th and 26th March
University House, The Australian National University, Canberra
Minutes
(Finalised 3/9/10)
949. *Introduction & Welcome. Cathrine Harboe-Ree welcomed members, especially those attending their first meeting as delegates of absent members.
950. *Attendance & Apologies.
1
CAUL Meeting 2010/1 – Canberra – 25-26 March, 2010 - Minutes
From CAUL:
*Jim Graham, ACU
Vic Elliott, ANU
*Wendy Abbott, Bond U
Graham Black, CQU
Ruth Quinn, CDU
*Alice Ferguson, CSU
Imogen Garner, Curtin U
Anne Horn, Deakin U
Dan Archibald, ECU
Ian McBain, Flinders U
Lyn Bosanquet, Griffith U
Heather Gordon, JCU
Ainslie Dewe, La Trobe U, Deputy President
Maxine Brodie, Macquarie U
Cathrine Harboe-Ree, Monash U, President
Liz Burke, Murdoch U
Judy Stokker, QUT
Craig Anderson, RMIT U (day 1)
*Stephen Gillespie, RMIT U (day 2)
Des Stewart, SCU
Derek Whitehead, Swinburne U
Ray Choate, U Adelaide
Leeanne Pitman, U Ballarat
Philip Kent, U Melbourne
Barbara Paton, UNE
Andrew Wells, UNSW
Jan Gordon, UNSW@ADFA
Greg Anderson, U Newcastle
Keith Webster, UQ
Helen Livingston, UniSA
* Sue Craig, USQ
John Shipp, U Sydney (day 1)
Alex Byrne, UTS (day 2)
Sandra Jeffries, USC
#Margie Jantti, UoW
Ralph Kiel, VU
In attendance:
Diane Costello, CAUL
From CONZUL:
John Redmayne, Massey U;
Gail Pattie, UCanterbury
Larraine Shepherd, AUT U
Sue Roberts, VUW
Guests: (26 March only):
Dr Glenn Withers, CEO, Universities Australia;
Clare McLaughlin, Manager, eResearch, Research InfrastructureBranch, Department of Innovation, Industry,Science and Research;
Paul Sherlock, Director, Information Strategy and Technology Services, UniSA & Deputy Chair, CAUDIT;
Bruce Jennings, Director, Equity and Indigenous Programs, Equity Performance and Indigenous Branch, Higher Education Group, DEEWR;
Dr Andrew Treloar, Director of Technology, Australian National Data Service;
Richard Northam, General Manager, CAUDIT;
Apologies:
& Linda Luther, UTas
& Liz Curach, UWS
Alan Smith, USQ
Grace Saw, Bond U
Chris Sheargold, ACU
& Adriana de Groot, Lincoln U
Shirley Oakley, CSU
& Stephen McVey, UNDA
& Margaret Jones, UWA
& Anita Crotty, U Canberra
& not represented
% first meeting as CAUL Member
# Acting Director
* Delegate of CAUL Member
1
CAUL Meeting 2010/1 – Canberra – 25-26 March, 2010 - Minutes
951. *Arrangement of the agenda. Items were starred for discussion. For those items not starred, all items for noting were considered noted, and all recommendations considered approved.
952. Minutes of Previous CAUL Meeting CAUL 2009/2. The minutes were included in the agenda papers. This item was not discussed, and the minutes are deemed accepted.
953. Minutes of CAUL Executive Meetings 2009/6, 2010/1. The minutes were included in the agenda papers. This item was not discussed.
954. Business arising from previous meetings, not otherwise listed on the agenda. There were no items raised.
STRATEGIC PLAN
955. *Review of the Strategic Plan. The draft of the revised plan was included in the agenda papers. The President recorded thanks to Imogen Garner for bringing together the feedback from members at the last CAUL meeting. She asked members to consider actions that should be included but are not. She also invited members to submit any editorial corrections within the next week. (Action: All)
In discussion, the following issues were raised:
RE: 59. Contribute to a greater understanding of the value proposition of university libraries through support of the GO8 Outsell study. (Executive, 2010)
It was noted that CAUL’s contribution had taken the form of a $20,000 contribution to the cost of the research. Further consideration of how the understandings gained from the research will be undertaken following the presentation by Vic Elliott later in the agenda. (Action: Executive)
RE: e-book readers. It was noted that e-books are covered under content and copyright, but not as technological infrastructure. It was suggested that the technology of hand-held and mobile devices was becoming critical and should be considered under any teaching and learning agenda. It was suggested including this in the Information Resources section of the plan. (Action: Executive)
RE: 35. Work with NHMRC to plan for the inclusion of preprints in institutional repositories. (President, COSI, CAIRSS, 2010)
It was noted that this should refer to post-prints rather than preprints. COSI had earlier agreed that it be broadened to research outputs. (Action: COSI)
Recommendation to CAUL: That the draft CAUL Strategic Plan 2010 – 2012 be accepted. Agreed.
Support for Research
956. *DIISR (Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research). The presentation from Clare McLaughlin, Manager, eResearch, Research InfrastructureBranch, DIISR is available at http://www.caul.edu.au/content/upload/files/org/caul20101diisr.pdf She outlined the current government policies and programs for research infrastructure and related them to CAUL’s activities. In particular, two bodies advise the government at different levels – the NRIC (National Research Infrastructure Council) to provide high level strategic advice to the minister, and AeRIC (the Australian eResearch Infrastructure Council) advising the department and moving away from implementation. She added that the ARC also funds some infrastructure. The Research Infrastructure Branch funds infrastructure which is too big for any individual institution or group of institutions to fund. The uses to which universities put their block funding tells DIISR how much priority they place upon research infrastructure.
The revised NCRIS roadmap helped to identify what had been achieved, what had been successful, new capabilities and unfinished business e.g. data storage, large-scale digitisation, etc. The humanities and the social sciences are not covered under the Super Science program, partly because the case for large scale infrastructure has not yet been made. Super Science does include building skills, as do other NCRIS projects, but the EIF (Education Investment Fund) funds the physical infrastructure only. ARCS funding will provide large-scale data storage and collaborative infrastructure, though the model is yet to be determined. The appointment of lead agencies for such large projects is always difficult – they need a combination of the ability to work on behalf of all institutions and also to fulfil local priorities. The state-based eResearch agencies would seem to be best placed to take on this role, but in practice is not always the case.
Clare McLaughlin foreshadowed a discussion paper from NRIC later in the year seeking advice on better models for infrastructure support, and perhaps on some unfinished business emanating from the ERCC (eResearch Coordinating Committee). She would welcome further engagement with CAUL at its meetings, to assist the department to make stronger arguments for support. (Action: Executive)
957. *CAUDIT support for research. The presentation from Paul Sherlock, Director, Information Strategy and Technology Services, UniSA & Deputy Chair, CAUDIT is available at http://www.caul.edu.au/content/upload/files/org/caul20101caudit-research.pdf He outlined CAUDIT’s involvement in eResearch and reported that study tours in 2005, 2006 and 2007 had been very successful. They have developed a framework to look at eResearch components from national, state and institutional perspectives. He noted some overlap in services between ANDS, ARCS, AAF and AARNet, adding that researchers should not have to know which of these their service is coming from.
In reference to the Australian Access Federation (AAF), Paul Sherlock encouraged CAUL members to encourage their institutions to join in 2010 while there was still central funding available to support the implementation. (Action: All) The AAF is currently led and driven by CAUDIT, and is working towards a sustainable business model. There are currently 35 full members.
CAUDIT and CAUL have proposed a joint workshop on eResearch. The engagement of the university research offices in this activity was considered vital. (Action: Executive) CAUDIT has a standing committee on eResearch and they will establish a technical reference group. He asked whether CAUL should be included.
958. *ANDS Metadata Stores. The presentation from Dr Andrew Treloar, Director of Technology, Australian National Data Service is available at http://www.caul.edu.au/content/upload/files/org/caul20101ands-treloar.pdf He outlined the purpose of the stores, essential to drive and enable re-use of data. He looked at standards-based approaches to defining collections and data objects to make it possible to harvest metadata into a collection registry – to build “Research Data Australia.”
It was suggested that a workshop be organised to look at data management, different options for institutional repositories and the relationship with research management systems. Attendees would also include personnel from research offices. (Action: Executive)
959. *Institutional support for research – The University of Melbourne. The presentation from Philip Kent is available at http://www.caul.edu.au/content/upload/files/caul-doc/caul20101kent-research.pdf He set the context by outlining the university’s research strength and described a number of projects aimed at making it simpler to gain a full accurate picture of its research output. These include the ORCID (Open Researcher and Contributor ID) project with Thomson Reuters, Seeding the Commons to provide comprehensive data about university researchers, and data capture projects under ANDS. He highlighted the linkages between the university and a large number of research institutes in the local area.
960. Institutional Repositories.
a) *CAIRSS (CAUL Australian Institutional Repositories Support Service). Judy Stokker recommended that members review the CAIRSS quarterly reports, available from the CAUL website. She highlighted the volume of communication with repository managers, the positive responses to the first Community Day and the plans for the next, the repository software sandbox that all could use to test options, the now-available copyright guide, the forthcoming copyright workshop, working with the ARC/ERA and Carolyn Drury’s appointment by ANDS as its CAIRSS liaison officer. She added that a review of the program was to commence soon, targeting the current and future needs in this area, reviewing the ROI, and looking for options for funding. The recent CAUL submission to DIISR on Collaborative Research Networks, prepared by Diane Costello, recommended that a CAIRSS-like service would be suitable for funding under this program.
b) *Australasian Digital Theses (ADT) Program. Helen Livingston spoke to the recommendations relating to the migration of theses from the remaining institutions using VT-ETD to their institutional repositories. The recommendations are included in the presentation at http://www.caul.edu.au/content/upload/files/adt/caul20101adt.pdf These included the communication to various stakeholders – CAUL members, the ADT Policy Reference Group including DDOGS and CAPA, CONZUL, the National Library – and the creation of an ADT information webpage describing the ADT service and contribution details which would link to the NLA Trove thesis facet. (Action: DC) The key issue for CAUL members is to ensure that all theses are migrated to their own institutional repositories by the deadline as the current VT-ETD software is no longer being supported. The full background report to these recommendations was circulated to members the previous day. (Action: All Members)
In discussion it was reported that the retention of the ARO (Australian Research Online) brand within Libraries Australia was still undecided; it was suggested that Australian theses retain their own brand; bibliographic data for all ADT theses should already be available in Trove.
Members acknowledged UNSW’s many years of support for the management and hosting of the ADT.
961. *COSI (CAUL Open Scholarship Initiative). The presentation from Maxine Brodie and Judy Stokker is available at http://www.caul.edu.au/content/upload/files/scholcomm/caul20101cosi.pdf Maxine Brodie reported on progress with the establishment of COSI under item 30 of the CAUL Strategic Plan. It was recognised that engagement in this area was quite varied across member institutions. The terminology “scholarship” was deliberately used instead of “access” to emphasise the inclusion of teaching & learning and research data, rather than just publications. The program will provide an overarching framework, and engagement with the large amount of work happening elsewhere in the USA, Europe and the UK. A close relationship with CONZUL is envisaged, along with close lines of communication with CEIRC and CAIRSS with respect to engagement with publishers and institutional repository issues.
Judy Stokker spoke to the terms of reference as refined at the meeting earlier in the day.
- advocacy – the benefits of open access, toolkits for members potentially adapted from those developed elsewhere;
- collaboration – connections with similar organisations perhaps through membership or collaboration or just a watching brief;
- facilitation – sharing good practice, support and resources.
Planned activities include revising the 2004 CAUL statement on open access, reviewing the work of other organisations, working with CAIRSS re infrastructure and CEIRC re publishers, devising a lobbying/communications plan for all stakeholders e.g. funding bodies, researchers, etc COSI will meet at CAUL meetings and via teleconference.
Members noted significant differences in the views about open access, including the different meanings of the term. It was suggested that researchers who may not be interested in open access would be more likely to engage in open scholarship.
Cathrine Harboe-Ree reported briefly on a recent meeting with members of the APA’s Scholarly Journals Group, triggered by their concerns about open access. They were reassured that the open access of some content would not be sufficient for libraries to cancel required journal subscriptions. The meeting was also attended by Ainslie Dewe, Andrew Wells and Diane Costello.
Cathrine Harboe-Ree also reported the high level of interest in participation in the COSI group, such that some members missed out. All members were encouraged to nominate for CAUL working groups in their areas of interest.
962. CEIRC (CAUL Electronic Information Resources Committee). A report from Andrew Wells was included with the agenda papers.
a) *CEIRC plan 2010-2012. Andrew Wells drew members’ attention to the new CEIRC plan, included in the agenda papers. He mentioned the various major negotiations to be undertaken over the next couple of years, the progress of the CEIRC portfolio rationalisation, the review of the risk management plan, the work on the Lexis Nexis licence, etc. He reminded members to share success stories, such as successful changes to problem licences. He referred members to the fact that some smaller, low-usage institutions are still paying very high fees for IEEE’s IEL – there has been push-back from CEIRC, but it needs reinforcement from the affected institutions. He noted CEIRC discussions with NPG regarding Scientific American, and the resistance to offering any consortial options.
Recommendation to CAUL: That CAUL endorse the CEIRC plan 2010-2012
b) *CAUL-Industry Think Tank 2009. The report of the Think Tank was included in the agenda papers. Andrew Wells highlighted the importance of keeping the momentum going, particularly with reference to working with selected publishers on new pricing models. A number of items in the revised strategic plan evolved from the Think Tank. He identified a number of publishers who had expressed willingness to work with CAUL/CEIRC over the next couple of years, and asked members to let him know if they were interesting in participating in discussions with particular publishers: RMIT Publishing, CSIRO Publishing, TandF, Springer. (Action: All) He advised members that he himself was working with Elsevier in an international working group and that John Shipp was participating in a Wiley-Blackwell working group. Philip Kent will be attending the Springer Library Advisory Board in April; the Go8 currently is currently in a separate agreement from the rest of CAUL/CEIRC, with a single price and internal cost allocation, but there is potential for combining the two at the next contract renewal.