Publishing
Report from the Faculty/AP Un-retreat
January 7, 2014
Report prepared by: Merinda Hensley, Sarah Shreeves, Nancy O’Brien, Sue Searing, Lynn Wiley
Session leaders: Sue Searing, Lynn Wiley (substituting for Nancy O’Brien)
Session participants: Atoma Batoma, Kirk Hess, Bill Ingram, Jenny Johnson, Kathleen Kern, Jameatris
Rimkus, Lynne Rudasill, Wendy Shelburne, Sarah Shreeves, Kelli Trei, Dan Tracy, Mark Wardecker,
Christie Wiley, Sarah Williams, Steve Witt
Summary of session discussions
The session discussions centered on several questions:
-
What do we mean by “library publishing?”
The University Library is already engaged in a number of activities that could be labelled “library
publishing.” IDEALS is the first place of publication for UIUC graduate theses and dissertations,
as well as a handful of technical report series. The Scholarly Commons is embarking on a new
program of supporting undergraduate research journals using the Open Journal System (OJS).
IDEALS has also collaborated with the University of Illinois Press to publish supplementary
content for monographs (such as the Modern American City Verse, 1905-1925 published as a
companion anthology to How Did Poetry Survive? The Making of Modern American Verse by
John Timberman Newcomb at http://handle.hdl.net/2142/30014).
What the Library has not done is to support traditional (or untraditional) scholarly journal and
monograph publishing outside of the examples above. The Library has also not been able to
support the ‘publication’ of faculty digital scholarship outside of these traditional formats. While
the Scholarly Commons offers faculty and students access to the hosted Omeka platform
(omeka.net), we have not been able to support more intensive support for faculty digital
scholarship because of lack of technical and people resources.
-
The role of the Library and the University of Illinois Press
Several participants in the sessions raised questions about the role of the Library vis-à-vis the
University of Illinois Press. There was some sense that we should clarify the role of each to
understand where the Library could best support publishing efforts.
-
What could the Library bring to the table as a publisher?
We should consider what is unique or distinctive that the University Library could bring as a
publisher. Many aspects of publishing – supporting a software platform, copyediting, organizing
peer review, providing long term access and preservation – are not distinctive or unique
attributes. However, librarians possess knowledge of our collections’ content and of the faculty,
research centers, etc. that we serve. We are well positioned to identify underexposed areas of
scholarship and colleagues who could benefit from publishing support. For example, some
potential local sources of material are:
-
-
Departmental white papers and similar series of grey literature;
Proceedings of conferences hosted on campus;
Student work (e.g. Ethnography of the University);
Data that will be deposited. There is potential for creating and curating coherent,
contextualized collections of data sets;
Pre-1923 content in our collections – potential for digital scholarly editions;
Content created by library faculty (e.g., scholarly guides to our signature collections,
such as historical textbooks, public library annual reports, Illinois historical materials,
graphic novels from South Asia). This could both facilitate discovery of rich collections
and enhance our reputation;
Slavic and global studies;
Units that are hosting their own journals (the Library could offer to host these); and
Disappearing digital content from small, under-resourced societies or from individuals,
such as retiring faculty and researchers.
Among the strengths the Library has are:
-
-
Metadata expertise;
Bibliographic knowledge of disciplines and subjects;
Knowledge of how information is used, read, and cited (esp. by faculty);
Deep knowledge of scholarly communication systems and emerging trends in scholarly
publishing;
OJS installation to support journal publishing (although this is a new installation, and we
do not have deep expertise in OJS);
Long term preservation and access; and
Consortia, e.g. the CIC.
What challenges exist to the expansion of library publishing?
The sessions also spent a fair amount of time discussing potential challenges to the Library as
publisher. These include:
-
Library not viewed as a publisher by campus units;
Lack expertise in many areas of editorial management: copyediting, peer review, graphic
design/branding, predicting market and intellectual trends;
Lack expertise in the business of publishing: understanding of the marketplace, what
drives revenue streams, etc.;
Would need deeper expertise in copyright management;
Lack technical infrastructure, including IT personnel;
-
Publishing projects are unlikely to generate profits. Some projects may achieve costrecovery, but others may require ongoing subsidies from the Library or other unit(s).
Lack leadership in this area. While the Scholarly Commons and IDEALS are doing some
work, there is not a coordinated publishing effort.
Recommendations
There was some agreement on next steps for the publishing program with some further suggestions
from Merinda Hensley and Sarah Shreeves who are currently working in this area.
1) Create and share a “who to contact about what” directory: This will help subject librarians and
liaisons connect academic faculty to library faculty and staff who can collaborate on publishing
projects (e.g., Scholarly Commons, DCC, Archives, etc).
i. Timeframe: This could be done immediately.
ii. Responsible person(s): Sarah Shreeves and Merinda Hensley
2) Strengthen our existing publishing efforts for grey literature on campus and within Library:
The Library should make a concerted effort to see that grey literature publication series such as
technical reports and working papers are published through IDEALS. This will ensure long term
access and preservation to these locally produced publications. In addition, the Library could
publish library generated content (e.g. research guides to our collections) as demonstration
projects to determine costs, test workflows, etc.
a. Process: Subject liaisons should work with the IDEALS coordinator to identify potential
grey literature publication series to include in IDEALS and to contact departments,
research centers, and other publishers on campus to assess interest. This could be
completed through the environmental scan process (see no. 4). In addition, we should
be looking carefully at content generated by the Library and what might be publishable.
i. Timeframe: Fall 2014
ii. Responsible person(s): IDEALS Coordinator and subject liaisons. The Collection
Development Committee could coordinate this process to assure full
participation.
iii. Does this require funding or other support to complete? Funding may be
needed to help with the ingest of publication series into IDEALS, particularly if
there are backfiles. In particular, metadata support may be needed.
3) Assessment of current journal publishing program (undergraduate research journals): The
Scholarly Commons should continue the work of the undergraduate journal program, and
prepare an assessment of the experience working with OJS to better understand the resources
the Library would need to have in place to institutionalize and expand the program.
i. Timeframe: An early assessment could take place in the Summer of 2014,
however this will be only one publishing cycle. A more thorough assessment
would take place at the end of Fall 2014.
ii. Responsible person(s): Merinda Hensley and Sarah Shreeves.
4) Charge a task force to conduct an environmental scan and recommendations on next steps:
The discussion at the unretreat made very clear that there is not agreement on what we mean
by library publishing, and what areas the Library should focus on. We recommend that a task
force be charged to do three things:
a. Coordinate with subject liaisons to conduct an environmental scan of their areas. This
could help identify journals or other series that are published in house where support
from the Library would be useful (see no. 2). It could also help to identify potential
digital scholarship that does not fit into standard journal or monograph models.
b. Determine the needs and opportunities across the state, particularly at other statesupported colleges and universities. In particular, the task force should assess the
synergies between a Library publishing program and mandates for deposit of, and open
access to scholarship. This should also include potential collaborations or synergies with
the University Press.
c. Drawing on the knowledge gained from the environmental scan, assessment of the
undergraduate journal program, and demonstration projects, frame directions for the
Library’s publishing initiative, with specific goals, strategies and mileposts for the next 5
years. The task force should recommend the technical infrastructure needed to build
and sustain a robust publishing program, the personnel needed to build and sustain a
robust publishing program and an organizational structure, addressing such issues as
how to involve campus faculty, University administrators, and/or non-UI experts in the
ongoing management and assessment.
i. Timeframe: Charge task force immediately; report would be due at end of Fall
2014 or in Spring 2015.
ii. Responsible person(s): Recommendations for membership of task force: Sarah
Shreeves, Merinda Hensley, Dan Tracy, Maria Bonn (or other representative
from GSLIS), Beth Sandore (as responsible AUL), representative subject liaison.
APPENDIX A: Pre-retreat document
APPENDIX B: Selective list of resources and readings
Appendix A
Background document
Publishing
(building a scholarly publishing and communication program)
Prepared by Sue Searing and Nancy O’Brien
University Library Faculty/AP Un-Retreat
January 7, 2014
Dean John Wilkin asserts that 21st-century academic research librarianship rests on four “pillars” –
content, discovery/access, space, and publishing. While Illinois has long excelled at the first three, we
lag behind our peers in assuming a lead role in publishing.
1. What opportunities does the Library have to expand its publishing role in the short- and midterm? (Think in terms of partnerships with Illinois teaching faculty, other on-campus and offcampus partners, existing content, eager audiences of readers, etc.)
2. How can we situate our publishing program within our broader mission to support and improve
scholarly communication?
3. What traditional functions can we scale back in order to re-direct resources to publishing?
4. What new positions and/or organizational structures do we need to create to carry this work
forward? Or can existing positions and units be re-conceptualized to support publishing
endeavors?
5. What publishers—library-based or not--would we like to emulate? Why?
6. Are there specific opportunities for librarians, and University faculty generally, to shape and
participate in Library-led publication projects--for example, scholarly guides to our unique
collections? What support will be needed for this work?
Appendix B
Selective list of resources and readings
Brown, A., Oberlander, C., Pitcher, K., Uttaro, P. (2013). Library Publishing Toolkit. IDS Project Press:
Milne Library, SUNY Geneseo. http://opensuny.org/omp/index.php/IDSProject/catalog/book/25
Includes a section on publishing in academic libraries discussing trends and essentials, trends and
ebooks, journal publishing and organizational development.
Library Publishing Coalition. (2012- ) URL: http://www.librarypublishing.org.
This organization of academic libraries is dedicated to advancing the field of library publishing.
Activities include research, sharing of documents (such as MOUs and job descriptions),
community-building meetings, and more. Its first conference will take place in March 2014:
http://www.librarypublishing.org/events/annual-forum. Our library is not a member.
Library Publishing Directory. (2013) URL: http://www.librarypublishing.org/resources/directory-librarypublishing-services
A project of the Library Publishing Coalition, this directory identifies and describes 115 academic
libraries with active publishing programs, primarily in the United States and Canada. Provides
information on organizational structure, staffing, funding sources, types of publications, campus
partners, publishing software platforms, and many other factors.
Mullins, J. L., Murray-Rust, C., Ogburn, J. L., Crow, R., Ivins, O., Mower, A., Nesdill, D., Newton, M. P.,
Speer, J., & Watkinson, C. (2012). Library Publishing Services: Strategies for Success: Final Research
Report. Washington, DC: SPARC. http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/purduepress_ebooks/24/
This report reports data and makes recommendations data funded through an IMLS grant to
the University of Utah, Georgia Institute of Technology and Purdue University. From the
introduction: “The project had four components: 1) a survey of librarians designed to provide an
overview of current practice for library publishing programs; 2) a report presenting best practice
case studies of the publishing programs at the partner institutions; 3) a series of workshops held
at each participating institution to present and discuss the findings of the survey and case
studies; and 4) a review of the existing literature on library publishing services. The results of
these research threads are pulled together in this brief research report.”
Walters, Tyler. (2012). The future role of publishing services in university libraries. portal: Libraries & the
Academy, 12, no. 4: 425-454.
Building on the views of university library directors, library managers responsible for publishing
services, and library association personnel and consultants involved in publishing, this study
developed four detailed scenarios for university library publishing in 2026 and explored their
implications.