ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries 786 / C&RL News ■ December 2002 SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION ACRL takes up the challenges of scholarly communication The year ahead for the new program officer by Susan K. Martin S purred by the increasing num ber o f com­plex issues relating to scholarly communi­ cation an d the realization th at academ ic and research libraries o f all sizes an d types w ould ultim ately n e e d to address th ese challenges, th e ACRL B o a rd o f D ire c to rs la s t y e a r a c ­ c e p te d th e re c o m m e n d a tio n o f th e ACRL Scholarly C o m m u n icatio n T ask Force to 1) establish a standing Com m ittee o n Scholarly C o m m u n ic a tio n , 2) in s titu te a d is c u s s io n g r o u p o n th e sa m e to p ic , a n d 3) c re a te a p a rt-tim e p o s itio n o f p ro g r a m o ffic e r fo r scholarly com m unication, to e n a b le th e as­ so ciatio n to d e v o te significant tim e an d at­ te n tio n to th is critical to p ic. Action has proceeded rapidly in response to these recom m endations. T he com m ittee and the discussion g ro u p m et for the first time at the ALA Annual Conference in Atlanta in June, continuing to define the issues and discuss the highest priority activities for th e association. The program officer position was filled in Sep­ tem ber 2002, and a w ork plan w as defined for the current fiscal year. The w o rk p lan Follow ing th e reco m m en d atio n s o f th e task force, I—as newly appointed program officer— have w orked w ith the Scholarly Comm unica­ tio n C om m ittee a n d the ACRL ex ecu tiv e d i­ recto r to identify tasks a n d a tim e fram e for activities for the current fiscal year. In addition to internal ACRL activities and co m m u n icatio n s, th e focus o f th e p ro g ram officer’s responsibility is four-fold: 1) ed u ca­ tio n al activities, 2) advocacy, 3) coalition- building, an d 4) research. I w ould like to dis­ cuss each of these areas and describe the work intended to take place in each area during fis­ cal 2003. • Education. Considerable w ork has been d o n e to provide librarians an d faculty m em ­ bers w ith tools that will allow them to becom e know ledgeable about and actively supportive of appropriate and n eeded changes in the sys­ tem of scholarly comm unication. Most of this work, how ever, has b een do n e by and on b e ­ half of large research libraries. While m uch of th e s e efforts can b e u s e d b y o th e r kinds of academic and research libraries, the ACRL lead­ ers believe that there is a real and distinct need to address the differing needs of different types an d sizes o f academ ic libraries (just h o w w e determine these differing needs is addressed in the section o n research). The major task in the area of education is to develop a Web-based scholarly communica­ tion toolkit to support individual library cam ­ A b o u t the author Susan K. M artin is ACRL program officer fo r scholarly communication, e-mail: martin@skmassociates.net mailto:martin@skmassociates.net C&RL News ■ December 2002 / 787 pus comm unications on these various issues, especially for front-line librarians w ho com ­ m unicate w ith faculty, and for faculty them ­ selves. T here is n o intention o f duplicating work already accomplished. Rather, the w ork done by SPARC and ARL will be built u p o n to address the broader academic audience and to suggest specific ways faculty, librarians, and administrators might be most effective in pro­ mulgating positive change. In addition, the program officer is working w ith the Scholarly Comm unication Commit­ tee to develop positions u p o n w hich to base papers, briefings, and key messages for ACRL speakers on scholarly comm unication issues, w ith a focus on the academ y reasserting con­ trol over its ow n scholarly inform ation. The outreach of this program will encom pass the training of speakers on scholarly comm unica­ tion issues; facilitating presentations, seminars, and w orkshops on appropriate topics; and es­ tablishing an informal advisory service for li­ brarians w ho need assistance w ith or answers to questions as they address these matters on their own campuses, using means such as a Web site, electronic lists, mentors, and one-on-one support. • A dvocacy. Probably the m ost dynamic a n d fluid o f the four focus areas, advocacy will include participation in efforts being un ­ dertaken by colleague associations such as ARL, AALL, CNI, and others. Among my first duties as program officer w as to c o o rd in ate ACRL responses to the D epartm ent of Energy’s pro­ p o sal to elim inate PubSCIENCE an d to the blue-ribbon committee’s report and recommen­ dations regarding the N ational Agricultural Library (NAL). Because p ro p o sed legislation cannot be easily predicted, it is difficult to sug­ gest tasks o r time frames; how ever, those al­ ready immersed in these issues believe that 2003 will be a very active year, with UCITA, DMCA, the responding DMCRA, and other legislative initiatives all requiring the close attention and reactions of the academic community. During the year, the current ACRL legisla­ tive agenda will be review ed in cooperation w ith th e G overnm ent Relations Comm ittee, an d I will stay in reg u lar co n tac t w ith staff and committee members as the following year’s agenda is being developed. The current opera­ tio n of the ACRL legislative n etw ork will be assessed, and, as necessary, w e will formulate strategy and plans for an im proved ACRL ad­ vocacy response on legislative issues that re­ late to scholarly communication. For example, the Science and Technology Section w as con­ tacted b efo re ACRL re s p o n d e d to th e NAL report, as they are the experts in this particular area. It is expected that other segments of the association will play a similar role as particular issues arise. • C o a litio n -b u ild in g . T he program of­ ficer an d com m ittee will review a n d assess ACRL and its existing liaison relationships with higher education associations and disciplinary organizations in term s o f th eir p o ten tial for cooperative action or programming related to scholarly com m unication issues. In a related effort, I will m eet at th e M idwinter M eeting a n d Annual C onference w ith the C ouncil of Liaisons and the leadership o f subject sections that have established liaisons to disciplinary organizations. ACRL will d evelop contacts an d w orking communications with organizations concerned w ith scholarly com m unication issues. In late O ctober and early November, I m et w ith rep­ resentatives o f th e A ssociation o f R esearch Libraries, the Council on Library and Informa­ tion Resources, the Digital Library Federation, the N ational Initiative for a N etw orked Cul­ tural H eritage, th e Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition, and the Spe­ cial Libraries Association. These meetings were exceedingly productive, and will lead to fruit­ ful p artn ersh ip s. It is an ticip ated that these relationships will continue and that further coa- lition-building, particularly w ith higher e d u ­ cation associations, will take place. • R esea rch . The Scholarly C om m unica­ tion Program will initiate a review o f existing statistical data and research that can document th e effects o f th e scholarly com m unication crisis on all types of academic libraries, includ­ ing trends in serials expenditures and num ber of serials subscriptions, m onographic expen­ ditures and purchases, and implementation of less-desirable forms o f access to scholarly re­ sources in resp o n se to budgetary pressures. W hen this review is com plete, it is expected that ACRL will have in han d a report sum m a­ rizing these data and informing the toolkit de­ velopm ent process mentioned earlier. As these data are gathered and synthesized, the Scholarly Communication Committee will w o rk w ith m e to identify g ap s in the data (c o n tin u e d o n p a g e 793) C&RL News ■ D ecem ber 2002 / 793 w o rse is th e b o rd e r b e tw e e n p ro d u c e rs o f in tellectu al p ro p e rty o n th e o n e h a n d and th e p u b lic in terest a n d rights o f u sers o f intellectual p ro p e rty o n the other. B etw een th e Sonny B ono C opyright T erm E xtension Act (PL 105-298) an d th e D igital M illen­ n ium C opyright Act o f 1998 (PL 105-304), rights o f u se rs h av e been constricted. A re­ new ed relationship betw een producers and users o f intellectual property, especially intel­ lectual property created and distributed in digi­ tal form, seem s unlikely, especially given the aggressively adversarial stance of the entertain­ m ent conglomerates that have influenced the direction of U.S. copyright law in recent years. R eference service has alw ays involved b ridge building an d relationship cultivation am ong inform ation seekers, librarians, infor­ m ation resources, an d pro d u cers o f infor­ m ation sources. T he borders have changed over time. G ood relationships can build good bridges across new borders. W hat m ak es a fen ce o r a b o rd e r g o o d , particu larly in re fe re n c e service? T he b e n ­ efit o f th e n e w b o rd e rs d e sc rib e d a b o v e (a n d o th e rs) is th at e a c h o n e o f th e m id e n ­ tifies a c h allen g e w e n e e d to w o rk o n to ass u re th a t re fe re n c e serv ice m eets o u r u s e r s ’ n e e d s in th e cu rre n t w ire d w orld. Each o f th o s e c h a lle n g e s calls fo r a b rid g e b u ilt from n e w relatio n sh ip s. N o te s 1. Steve Jones et al., “The Internet goes to college: How students are living in the future with today’s technology.” Pew Internet And American Life Project, 15 Septem ber 2002, h ttp ://w w w . pewinternet.org/reports/toc.asp?Report=71 PDF file, p. 12. 2. Ibid., 13. 3. G loria E. A ndzaldúa, “B ey o n d T radi­ tional Notions of Identity,” C hronicle o fH igher E ducation, 11 O ctober 2002, sec. 2, B ll . ■ ( “ACRL takes up the challenges..." ”continued firom pag available to th e p rofession a n d will w o rk to articulate and find funding for projects intended to fill in these gaps. In addition, there will be a n effort to create case studies o f individual academic and research libraries of all types and sizes to docum ent the effects of th e scholarly communication crisis in a concrete and under­ stan d ab le (to th e lay p ublic) m ann er. O nce these sets o f inform ation are available, ACRL ho p es to develop a profile of faculty research in liberal arts colleges, m ed iu m -sized an d smaller universities, and community colleges. Regional accrediting agencies will be con­ tacted to d eterm in e the ex te n t to w h ic h ac­ creditation at some institutions may be affected du e to deficiencies in library resources. The findings of this survey will b e incorporated in the case studies mentioned above, as appropri­ ate, and will be conveyed to librarians and aca­ demic administrators for their use in planning. C o n clu sio n . . . o r a b e g in n in g ACRL has ta k e n a g ian t ste p in identifying scholarly comm unication as an issue requiring th e im m ed iate a n d in te n se a tte n tio n o f its membership and in providing support for a pro­ gram officer position. With only tw o m onths’ experience under my belt, it is already obvious to m e that it will be trem endously effective to have som eone w hose responsibility is fully to e 787) pay close attention to these issues o n behalf o f th e ACRL m em bership. Most librarians w h o are co n cern ed about scholarly com m unication— and that accounts for the vast majority, one w ould suspect—have m ultiple responsibilities a n d are not able to give the time and attention to these questions and concerns that they perhaps w ould like. A few organizations have devoted all or part of a p osition to scholarly com m unication; ARL is o n e o f th ese. But th e re are n o t a sufficient num ber o f library advocates to address all the m any an d various issues that arise constantly in this w o rld o f inform ation that is changing even more rapidly than w e had projected. In th e ro le o f p ro g ra m officer, I h o p e to m ake ACRL very visible w ithin academ ia and with our colleague organizations as an associa­ tio n w ith a clear and distinct focus o n schol­ arly com m unication issues and w ith sufficient voice to b e heard on this continent and poten­ tially w o rld w id e. T he ACRL le a d e rsh ip has provided the groundwork; the Scholarly Com­ m unication Committee an d discussion group are providing the ongoing support an d direc­ tion. As the task force originally hoped, their rec­ ommendations and subsequent ACRL action will allow ACRL to play a prominent national role in shaping the future of scholarly communication in partnership with other groups. ■ http://www