Library Council
Annual Report for 2000/2001
Five
issues have commanded the Library Council's and the library administration’s
attention during 2000/2001: short-term
and long-term renovation of the Main Library facility; increasing digital
library initiatives; sustaining quality improvements to library collections and
services; helping reform scholarly communications; and the proposal that Library Council and the Bookstore Committee
be abolished in favor of a new Information Access and Learning Technology
Council.
Great
strides were made in the last year towards making short-term improvements to
the public areas of the Main Library.
New carpeting and new signage were added, walls were painted, furniture
refinished, security cameras and uniformed security monitoring added. Study spaces were created on several stack
floors, and public telephones and computer workstations were added to each
stack floor. A popular coffee bar
opened in the Southeast Wing of the Main Library.
We
are now into the second year of an eight-year, major project to totally
renovate the Main Library. An
architectural team (URS/Shepley, Bulfinch, Richardson, and Abbott) was selected
to prepare a feasibility study for the renovation, which is to be completed no
later than December 2001. Numerous
planning meetings and discussions--sponsored by Library Council--have been held
with the University community, and several visits were made to other research
libraries under renovation. The Main
Library Renovation Project appears to be on track; feasibility options are
being developed by the architects, and it is proposed as the number one
priority for 2003-2005 University capital requests.
The
Libraries in partnership with University Development hired a senior development
officer for the Libraries. The
Libraries' junior development officer was promoted to a mid-level rank
(Development Officer II), and this newly constituted Libraries Development Team
began an active campaign of prospect cultivation. The Library Director spent approximately 25% of his time on
development, and numerous local events and development trips were
conducted. The Libraries' major
prospect list grew from 40 to 160 between September and May 2001
The
Libraries was not successful in its bid (second attempt) for an Academic
Enrichment Grant to support digital library initiatives. However, a number of pilot projects and
research and development efforts were undertaken during the year in this new
area. Three digital projects--dealing
with John Foxe material in Special Collections, proceedings of the annual Ohio
State Spectroscopy Conference housed in the Science and Engineering Library,
and historic comic art material from the Cartoon Research Library--were
undertaken using internal funds and support from the Getty Foundation and the
National Endowment for the Humanities.
Library staff also prepared several grant proposals in partnership with
other units of the University for information technology projects. Overall the Libraries continued to prepare
for a more active role in information technology research and development, but
still faces challenges organizing for a more concentrated and sustained effort
in digital library initiatives.
In
2000 Ohio State University Libraries (including the Health Sciences and Law
Libraries) ranked 18th in the Association of Research Libraries (ARL)
Membership Criteria Index, and 11th among public, U.S. research libraries on
this list (one rank ahead of the University of Indiana Libraries). This is an improvement of two places over
the previous year's ranking when OSU Libraries was 21st, and an
improvement of eight places over 1995 rankings when OSU Libraries was
26th. The principle reason for this
advance in rankings has been the growing strength of the Libraries' print and
digital research collections, which had been supported by a reliable Indexed
acquisitions budget and supplemented by OhioLINK consortial resources. The 2002 conversion of “index” funding from
annual rate to cash and the forecast of budget reductions in library operating
and acquisition funding in 2003 do not bode well for sustaining this
strengthening of library collections and services.
In
May 2000 a document entitled "Principles for Emerging systems of Scholarly
Publishing" (/Lib_Info/scholpub.pdf)
was issued; this document resulted from a March conference sponsored by the
Association of American Universities (AAU), the Association of Research
Libraries (ARL), and the Merrill Advanced Studies Center of the University of
Kansas. The conference had been
convened "to seek agreement on a framework for re-shaping the current
system of scholarly publishing to contain its explosive cost increases and
improve its service to the academic community and the public at
large." Attendees at the
conference were university administrators, librarians, faculty members, and
university press and academic society publishers. The AAU Intellectual Property Committee endorsed a draft of the
document at its April meeting, and ARL endorsed the principles at its
membership meeting in May.
Two additional documents on
this issue are available: “Principles
for Emerging Systems of Scholarly Publishing” (http://www.arl.org/scomm/tempe.html) and “Declaring Independence: A Guide to Creating Community-Controlled
Science Journals”
(http://www.arl.org/sparc/DI/Declaring_Independence.pdf). Further information on this subject is also
available at the following Web sites: http://www.arl.org/scomm and http://www.arl.org/sparc. The latter is the Web site for the Scholarly
Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC), which, as defined on their
Web site, is “a worldwide alliance of research institutions, libraries, and
organizations that encourages competition in the scholarly communications
market.” SPARC introduces new solutions to scientific journal publishing,
facilitates the use of technology to expand access, and partners with
publishers that bring top-quality, low-cost research to a greater
audience. SPARC strives to return
science to scientists." The Ohio
State University is a founding member of SPARC. Council members and others are urged to look over the information
available in these various Web sites.
The basic problem with which
libraries have been faced is that their buying power has been eroded, buying
25% fewer books now than 10 years ago.
The prices of journals, particularly in the sciences, have increased at
a staggering rate; the Library Materials Index here at OSU has allowed the
Libraries to continue subscriptions, but other research libraries have not been
so fortunate and have been faced in some instances with massive cancellations
of journal subscriptions. The pressure
to publish helps drive the system, but scholars shouldn't be giving their
research results away to commercial publishers who then turn around and charge
high prices to individuals and universities to buy back that information. Many publishers will not agree to publish
unless the author signs over the rights, but once ownership is signed over,
authors may not be allowed to use their own materials without buying them back. In many instances, copyright fees as high as
$5 per page are being charged for photocopying journal articles. Alternatives--new publishing venues such as
preprints and Web publishing--that will do as well for the researcher and
his/her publishing needs, but will cost less to purchase, must be explored.
It is imperative that the
Faculty become involved with this issue.
Electronic publishing has become more and more prevalent, but it has
implications for the promotion and tenure process, and raises the need for a
change in the academic culture. All possible avenues for informing the Faculty
must be explored—presentations to Committees and Faculty meetings, inclusion of
articles in newsletters, etc. As a
further effort, the Libraries and Library Council are planning to sponsor a
series of lectures that will present the relevant issues to the University
community. These lectures will be
sponsored by the Libraries and Library Council; other departments or
organizations that are interested in the topics to be discussed are also
welcome to become co-sponsors.
Library Council could
benefit from some change and revitalization.
Except for the chairs, a few stalwart members, and library
administrators, Library Council attendance, participation, and interest is
anemic. Expanding the Council’s role to
the broader concern for information access and learning technology may create
renewed interest. However, the library
is still central to the academic enterprise, with responsibilities for place
and collections in addition to information access and new technology. A Senate Council on “Libraries and
Information Technologies” might be more appropriate.