September 2014 Full Issue

NASIG Newsletter, Sep 2014

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:

http://tigerprints.clemson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1621&context=nasig

September 2014 Full Issue

NASIG Award Winners May President's Corner - I would imagine that many people, if they’ve been in the workforce for a few years, have been in a job where the job description and/or job title didn’t match what they actually did. When I started a paraprofessional job at UNC-Chapel Hill in 1994, my job description called for spending half of my time filing new cards in the card catalog, even though the card catalog was in the process of being dismantled and new cards had not been added to it in years. You could say that NASIG’s vision and mission statements are sort of our organization’s job description. As job descriptions, they’re not as out of date as my card-filing job description was, but they could use a little freshening up. While NASIG remains very committed to serials, we are also quite involved with electronic resources, licensing issues, and scholarly communication issues that do not quite neatly fall under the term “serials.” In short, we need to update our job description. To that end, earlier this year, the board appointed a task force to look at revising our vision and mission statements to better reflect where NASIG is and what our concerns are as an organization. The task force consists of experts in the field of continuing resources from both inside and outside NASIG, award-winning librarians, and many past presidents of NASIG. The chair of the task force is Steve Oberg, and the other members are Rick Anderson, Betsy Appleton, Patrick Carr, Lauren Corbett, Tina Feick and October Ivins. The plan is for them to have revised versions of the vision and mission statements ready for the membership to vote on (and hopefully adopt) at the business meeting at the 30th NASIG Conference in Washington, DC in May 2015. That addresses updating our organizational job description, but what about our organizational title? There has been discussion among the membership for several years that the full name of our organization, the North American Serials Interest Group, is no longer apt. The term “interest group” seems to diminish the scope of our organization, and makes it sound like we are a smaller sub-group of a larger organization, when we are really an independent society. Also, the term “serials” in our name can be somewhat misleading. The truth is, when some people hear “serials” in our name, they think that we only deal with print serials, instead of the wide range of resources and issues that we deal with (electronic resources, licensing, scholarly communications, and, yes, print serials). The Executive Board would like to propose that we consider officially changing the name of our organization to just plain NASIG, without a meaning attached to the individual letters. This would mirror what our older sister organization UKSG did, as well as OCLC. There is brand equity built up in the name NASIG, so we would not want to abandon it entirely, but we think that the name North American Serials Interest Group may be losing its usefulness. The board has done some initial investigation, and the process of changing our name is quite simple from a legal point of view, and costs only a small filing fee. We invite the NASIG membership to discuss this issue over the coming months in any of the NASIG forums, especially NASIG-L. The board hopes to be able to ask the membership to consider a motion to officially change our name to NASIG at the business meeting at the 2015 conference, along with a motion to adopt the new vision and mission statements. My hope is that we can get our job description and job title updated as we celebrate the previous 30 years of NASIG history and prepare for the next 30 years. And while we’re on the topic of celebrating 30 years of NASIG, it’s not too early to start making plans to attend our 30th Annual Conference in Washington, DC, May 27 through May 30, 2015. If you’ve quickly consulted your 2015 conference schedule, you may have noticed that the conference does not fall in our normal Thursday to Sunday pattern, but rather runs from Wednesday to Saturday. That is because we will be having our firstever joint conference programming with another organization. The 2015 NASIG Conference will begin on Wednesday, May 27, with joint programming with the Society for Scholarly Publishing (or SSP). There will be no extra fee in your NASIG registration for you to attend this special joint programming, and all conference attendees are invited. We have booked a large block of rooms for Tuesday, May 26, so you can fly in, get a good night’s sleep and be ready for the joint programming on Wednesday morning. On Wednesday evening, we will have a regular opening of the NASIG Conference, and NASIG-only programming will begin on Thursday morning. The conference will run until noon on Saturday. After the conference closing, we will have post-conference workshops available for the afternoon of Saturday, May 30 and the morning of Sunday, May 31, to take the place of our usual pre-conferences. Our Conference Planning Committee will also provide information about museums and Grayline tours for folks who want to stick around and check out the town after the conference. In addition, there will be an evening event celebrating NASIG’s 30th anniversary on Friday, May 29, which you won’t want to miss. We have a 30th Anniversary Celebration Task Force that is cooking up something special. Don’t worry, you won’t have to remember all that. It’s just the first push in an ongoing campaign to let everybody know that the 2015 NASIG Conference will be a little bit different from previous conferences, and hopefully very memorable. One last thing, if you have an idea for a presentation you’d like to give at the conference, keep an eye out for the Program Planning Committee’s call for proposals, coming this fall. NASIG Taking over Moderation of SERIALIST Steve Kelly NASIG is pleased and honored to announce that we will be taking on the moderation of the long-standing listserv, SERIALST, as a service to the serials community. The sudden and tragic passing of Birdie MacLennan last March left a hole in NASIG and in the wider serials community. Birdie was a founder and the list owner of the SERIALST listserv, and her passing threw the future of SERIALST into doubt. Birdie’s home institution would like to transition the list elsewhere, and the remaining moderators, Ann Ercelawn, Bob Persing, and Stephen Clark, thought NASIG might be a good match. In April the SERIALST moderators began discussions with the NASIG Executive Board to see if NASIG was interested in taking on the management of SERIALST. NASIG will be a good home for SERIALST, and our Communications & Marketing Committee (CMC, formerly ECC) already have the expertise of managing the NASIG lists. Beth Ashmore, currently on the CMC, has graciously agreed to be the main SERIALST moderator for NASIG, with the rest of the CMC available to back her up and assist. Because NASIG is not tied to a particular academic institution, the future of the list will not be tied to the presence of a SERIALST moderator at a particular institution. The NASIG Executive Board is very excited about this opportunity to provide the valuable service of managing SERIALST to the serials community. On July 14, 2014 the NASIG Executive Board unanimously passed a resolution that NASIG take on the management and moderation of SERIALST. We have signed an agreement with L Soft International, Inc. to provide the hosting service for SERIALST. This hosting will include access to the full archives of SERIALST. In order to cover the considerable expense involved with managing SERIALST, the Board voted to designate the funds NASIG receives from Taylor & Francis for publishing our conference proceedings in The Serials Librarian to pay for the management of SERIALST. Please join the NASIG Board in offering enormous thanks to Ann Ercelawn, Bob Persing, and Stephen Clark for their years of diligent service in maintaining SERIALST. We hope that you will join us in celebrating this exciting news about NASIG's future. Essay for the 2014 NASIG Horizon Award Sol M. Lopez 2014 NASIG Horizon Award: What it Means to Me Recognition, whether in the workplace or within the profession, is certainly very satisfying. For someone like me, who is just beginning in the profession, it was very meaningful when I learned I was the recipient of the 2014 NASIG Horizon Award sponsored by EBSCO. Not only did it mean that, yes, I was able to write up a good essay on the current state of electronic resource management and where it’s headed and why it’s important to stay abreast, it also means that I have chosen the right path in a highly specialized library science field. Having just arrived back home from Fort Worth, Texas, where the conference was held, I now get to sit back in my office chair and absorb the experience. I greatly admired the friendliness of the NASIG community. To my advantage and surprise, the first person that I spoke to soon after arriving was Steve Kelley, now President of NASIG for 2014/2015, who was walking alongside me to hop on the shuttle to Billy Bob’s, where the opening reception was held. When I told him my mentor was Leigh Ann DePope, he made it a point to search for her to introduce me. After meeting both of them initially, I knew that my experience as a first-time attendee would be memorable and very welcoming. Leigh Ann then introduced me to Dana Whitmire, who handled all the travel arrangements of the award winners. We were all then cheerfully led to the opening session area to prepare for the awards portion of the session. It was a privilege meeting and getting to know the other award winners, like David Walters, Angel Guzman-Contreras, Yayo Umetsubo, Stephanie Rosenblatt, Emily Cable, and Jamie Carlstone, many of whom are from other countries. The remainder of the night was much fun--the Marshall’s enthusiastic storytelling of the beginnings of Fort Worth, coupled with the delicious Southern-inspired food--really helped to set the tone for what the remainder of the conference would be like. During the conference the next day, someone recognized me as an award winner and congratulated me, asking if it made me feel uncomfortable that my picture, along with the other award winners, was being projected ahead of the first vision sessions. I said no, and explained that although I was not used to having that much attention, as I had never won an award before, it was actually nice because it made networking a tad easier! The sessions I attended were excellent, and the speakers were clearly experts in their fields. The vision sessions gave me much to think about and learn, from web archiving and trends in scholarly publishing and open access, to the importance of developing outreach skills in order to better communicate what we do and why we do it. It is overwhelming, yet exciting, to see where we are headed in the digital environment. I appreciated that there were enough sessions to choose from each time slot. Although there were few sessions on cataloging itself, as a serials cataloger and someone who works very closely with the electronic resource management team, choosing a relevant topic for a session was not a difficult decision. All of the attendees I met were also from academic libraries, which made it very easy to discuss common practices and to share thoughts and ideas. I look forward to becoming a NASIG member and interacting with the serials community. I now have to think about what skills sets I have that (as suggested by now Past President, Joyce Tenney) I can share, as well as gain, by volunteering with NASIG! Thanks again NASIG for selecting me for the award. My experience there was terrific, and I can now tell my boss, who had been encouraging me to attend, that she was right -- it’s a highly valuable conference and organization to participate in. Interview with Kathleen McGrath, the 2014 Merriman Award Winner Please start by describing your current position and how you’ve been involved with serials? How did you react when you found out that you were the recipient? I am currently the acquisitions librarian at the University of British Columbia (UBC) in Vancouver, Canada. In this role, I oversee monograph and serial acquisitions, and provide leadership and support for the library’s epreferred collections program. I’ve worked at UBC for over twenty-five years with a few title changes, but have always been involved in some aspect of serials management. What initially led you to NASIG and why you continue to stay involved? Shortly after I began at UBC, I recall receiving a bulletin, possibly from one of our subscription agents, introducing NASIG and announcing the conference at Oglethorpe. As a new serials librarian, this seemed like the perfect organization for me. I joined immediately and was hooked after attending my first conference at Claremont College in Scripps, California in 1989. Hosting the conference at UBC in 1994 has been one of the highlights of my career and led me to the privilege of serving a term on the NASIG board. Through NASIG I have developed professionally, travelled to places I’d never imagined, and made lifelong friends. What prompted you to apply for the Merriman award? I have longed to attend a UKSG conference ever since I first heard stories from John Merriman himself at Claremont. I’ve always enjoyed meeting the UKSG delegates when they attend our NASIG conference and listened wistfully as they described their event. My fantasy was fed by UKSG e-news bulletins that kept me informed of the activities of the organization and UK/European counterparts. Receiving the Merriman award was a dream come true. I was absolutely thrilled. I received the email on my birthday. I can’t imagine a better gift. What were your first impressions of the UKSG conference? UKSG staff members Karen Sadler and Alison Whitehorn gave me a warm welcome. I had the chance to meet them and the UKSG Continuing Education Committee at dinner on the evening before the conference. I was keen to learn more about how UKSG provides its impressive roster of CE events throughout the year. Throughout the conference, the Exhibition Hall served as the centre of activity. Space here was coveted, and word has it, booths were sold out months in advance on the day they were released. The large hall featured spacious and attractive booths, plus plenty of room for demos, formal business meetings, and casual conversations with vendors. Delicious noontime meals and cocktail receptions were served here each day. How do you think the experience of attending the UKSG will affect your career? I hope this won’t be the last UKSG I attend. It has stimulated my curiosity about UK and European academic libraries and desire to learn more of the different approaches they are taking to serve their users. How was the UKSG conference different from the NASIG conferences that you’ve attended? The UKSG conference is clearly an important venue for doing business. It has developed as a strategic opportunity for vendors, publishers, and librarians in the UK and Europe to meet collectively. The sharing of ideas, professional development, and networking are equally important; however, these goals are also met by UKSG continuing education events and a one-day conference held in the fall. The NASIG conference is more informal, though that has certainly evolved as we’ve moved from dorm room to hotel accommodations. One feature of the NASIG program I value is the many occasions it offers delegates to get together outside the sessions – providing time and venues for informal discussions, late night socials, and exploring the local sights. What was your favorite USKG session and why was it your favorite? There are so many highlights to mention. David Nicholas and Carol Tenopir’s insightful investigations of trust and authority in scholarly communication are touchstones for all aspects of the academic enterprise. In his talk on the “Impacts of impact,” Ernesto Priego, City University of London, delivered countless quotable quotes, though his comment, “Publishing: where content goes to die,” is one that haunts me still. I was especially taken by the presentations of Anders Soderback of Stockholm University “The Library Happens Elsewhere,” and Simone Kortekaas of Utrecht University’s “Thinking the Unthinkable – Doing Away with the Library Catalogue.” Their message to “focus on delivery” has stayed with me. Anders peppered his audience with provocative questions and enthusiastically led us through a series of 2-minute breakout sessions that contributed to a lively discussion. It was fascinating though sobering to hear Guilhem Chalancon, a data scientist and PhD student at Cambridge, describe his knowledge management habits. He didn't mention a library once. Ed Pentz, of CrossRef served as an ebullient Master of Ceremonies for the traditional Quiz and Curry Night held in the fabulous Royal Hall. What are the differences between the two organizations, UKSG and NASIG? UKSG is not just the elder sibling NASIG; there’s also a hint of old world, new world realities – just as we’ve come to appreciate in fine wine. UKSG operates within a comparatively small geography, and serves many institutional and organization members. NASIG membership is diverse in institutional size and geographical range. The professional development focus is more centered on library practices and standards. For those who might be interested in going to UKSG and perhaps applying for the Merriman award, what advice would you give them? Go for it! UKSG will be held in Glasgow next year. As the date approaches, review the program and list of exhibitors to discover what interests you. I enjoyed meeting some of the UK and European-based vendors whom I have worked with by email and phone. I can now place a face to a name. The UKSG website has heaps of information, including a conference website with the full program, and links to presentation videos and SlideShares. It’s definitely worth checking out. Is there anything else you’d like to share with us about your experience as a Merriman award winner? chance to meet with some who had known him well and related fond memories of bygone years in serials publishing and the founding of UKSG. His spirit lives on, as NASIG and UKSG continue to do wonderful work in bringing people together to debate and address common problems, and ensuring that fun be had in the process. Congratulations to David Walters of Kings College London, my UKSG counterpart, who had the good fortune to go to NASIG this year in Fort Worth, Texas. My sincere thanks to Taylor and Francis for their generous sponsorship of this award. Upcoming Conference News CPC Update: NASIG at 30: Building the Digital Future Mark Hemhauser and Ted Westervelt, CPC co-chairs NASIG’s 30th annual conference will take place in Washington, DC from Wednesday May 27th through Saturday May 30th, starting with a joint session with the Society of Scholarly Publishing on that Wednesday. The conference will be taking place at the Hilton Crystal City, which is located within easy walking distance to shops, restaurants, and the Crystal City Metro Station. All of the Washington, DC attractions are a short Metro ride away! Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport is the most convenient of the three airports in the area with the hotel offering its guests complimentary shuttle service. The other two airports are Washington Dulles International located in Chantilly, VA and Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport located 32 miles northeast of D.C. in Maryland. Please contact the Conference Planning Committee if you have any questions and we look forward to seeing you along the Potomac next May! PPC Update: Call for Proposals October 1 – November 15 Anna Creech and Danielle Williams, PPC chair and vice chair The Program Planning Committee will hold one Call for Proposals from October 1 – November 15, 2014 for the 2015 NASIG Annual Conference. The decision was made last year to reduce the number of Call for Proposals to a single call in order to alleviate confusion and to streamline the proposal process. More information regarding the proposal submission process will be available in the coming weeks. The 2015 NASIG Annual Conference will have at least one day of overlapping programming with the Society for Scholarly Publishing conference. This is an exciting opportunity for us to try a few new things with our own programming, in part because we will need to make some adjustments to our schedule to accommodate the shared time. PPC will be sharing more on this as the details are ironed out. PPC is currently discussing potential vision speakers around the conference theme, as well as practical, hands-on workshops for the post-conference sessions. We are looking forward to carrying on the tradition of bringing thought-provoking Vision Speakers, exciting workshops, and innovative sessions to the NASIG Annual Conference. Please contact the PPC Chairs at if you have any questions or recommendations. Post Conference Wrap-Up Submitted by 2014 Evaluation and Assessment Committee: Jennifer Leffler (chair), Bridget Euliano (vice-chair), Sally Glasser, Derek Marshall, Jane Smith, and Kathryn Wesley The 29th annual NASIG (North American Serials Interest Group) conference was held in Fort Worth, Texas. The conference offered three pre-conferences, three vision sessions, thirty-six program sessions, four “Great Ideas Showcase” sessions, four snapshot sessions, and vendor lightning talks. Other events included an opening reception, first-timers reception, informal discussion groups, and a vendor expo. In total, 152 surveys were submitted from 346 conference attendees. This 44% response rate is a significant drop from the 68% response rate for 2013. Survey respondents could enter a name and email address for a chance to win a $50 gift card. Jeff Kuskie from the University of Nebraska at Omaha was the winner. Below is a summary of the survey results. Overall Conference Rating 2014 2013 2012 4.31 4.39 Respondents were asked to give ratings on a Likert scale of one to five, with five being the highest. The overall rating of the 2014 conference was 4.42. This is higher than both 2013 (4.31) and 2012 (4.39). Facilities and Local Arrangements Social events Breaks Meals Hotel rooms Meeting rooms Geographic location All ratings for the 2014 conference were higher than 2013, except social events. The geographic location question saw the highest jump. The 2014 rating was 4.42, while Buffalo saw a rating of 3.72 and Nashville a rating of 3.89. Fifty-one comments were entered on the survey about local arrangements and facilities, some of which touched on multiple issues. Issues with HVAC and wireless access were noted. Many compliments were received on the hotel and Ft. Worth in general. Some expressed displeasure with the shuttle services. The abundance of food available at breaks was commented on by several, some in a positive light, while others would have liked to see less food. Comments about the meeting rooms were generally positive, mostly focusing on the tables being available for those who wished to type during sessions. Multiple commenters did ask that speakers remember to use microphones in the room to aid attendees’ ability to hear adequately A total of 71% of survey respondents brought a laptop or a tablet to the conference. Many commented on whether wireless access in the meeting rooms was a necessity. Some thought that as long as it was available in the rooms, paying for connectivity in the meeting rooms was not necessary. Others, however, stated that wireless access in the meeting rooms was such a necessity, it should not even be a survey question. Website, Blog and Schedule The majority of survey respondents (123) thought the program’s layout and explanation were easy to understand. The Sched online program received both praise and complaints in the comments. The conference website received high marks at 4.17. The conference blog was rated less highly at 3.68. Many of the commenters did not know that a conference blog was available. Pre-Conferences Three pre-conferences were offered at the 29th annual conference. Ratings ranged from 3.82 to 4.78. Comments were generally positive. A few participants cited technical difficulties. Vision Sessions Three vision sessions were a part of the 2014 conference. All were highly rated, ranging from 4.16 to 4.48. One commenter went so far as to say, “The vision sessions were my favorite part of the conference. They were all excellent and timely.” Katherine Skinner’s high energy was noted in several comments. The topical interest of her talk was questioned by some, while others noted that it was nice to receive new information. Herbert Van de Sompel’s session was thought-provoking to many. Comments on Jenica Rogers’ session were mixed; several praised it, while other were not as impressed. Other Sessions NASIG offered thirty-six concurrent sessions during the 29th annual conference. Twenty-eight of those (78%) received an overall rating of 4.0 or higher. The number of sessions offered was higher than in Buffalo. Most comments were positive, or offered specific, constructive criticism of an individual session. Feedback was shared with presenters upon request. 2014 marked the second year of the “Great Ideas Showcase,” formerly called poster sessions. While seventeen participated in 2013, there were only four in 2014. Commenters noted that space and timing were not ideal for this type of session. There were also comments about posters, or the “Great Ideas Showcase” being a good thing to continue for those starting out in the profession. Comments indicated that there was confusion over this session and the snapshot session. The 29th conference was the first to offer snapshot sessions, “designed for 5-7 minute talks in which projects, workflows, or ideas are presented.” There were four participants, none of whom were rated 4.0 or higher. Due to an oversight by the Evaluation & Assessment Committee, there was no comment box for the snapshot sessions. Another new type of session for 2014 was the vendor lightning talks. 81% of survey respondents would like to see them continue; the overall rating was 3.89. Comments were mostly positive. Suggestions were offered through the comments to open the session up to more vendors, move the timing, and structure the session around a theme. The survey requested that responders rate and comment on ideas for future programming. Comments were entered with general and specific ideas for concurrent, preconference and vision sessions. A detailed summary of feedback has been submitted to the board. Events The first-timers reception received a rating of 3.98. An overwhelming 89% would like to see this event continue. Comments submitted about the event ranged from gratitude for allowing newcomers a chance to connect with other conference attendees to complaints about location and timing. There were ten information discussion groups, one of which was added on-site, and therefore not included in the survey. Seven groups received a rating of 4.0 or higher. Requests for other types of discussion groups NASIG Newsletter September 2014 were submitted via the comments as well as feedback that one leader did not arrive. Comments on the business meeting were varied. Many were thankful for a short meeting, while others requested that a more substantive agenda be prepared for the annual conference. The vendor expo is another event that the majority of survey respondents (88%) would like to see continue. Several comments were received about the timing of Respondent Demographics1 8% 8% 3% 6% the event. Many think it should be scheduled later in the conference as several missed it this year due to travel schedules. There were also suggestions that the vendor expo be coupled with the vendor lightning talks. The dine-arounds did not have a specific section on the 2014 conference survey. They were, however, mentioned several times in the comments as a positive way for conference attendees to socialize. 75% Academic Libraries Vendors and Publishers Other 1 To ease the reading of the demographic chart, several categories offered on the survey were condensed: Academic libraries contains: College Library, University Library Vendors and Publishers contains: Automated Systems Vendor, Binder, Book Vendor, Database Provider, Publisher, Subscription Vendor or Agency Specialized Libraries contains: Law Library, Medical Library, Special or Corporate Library Government Libraries contains: Government, National, or State Library Others contains: Public Library, Student, Other Several other categories were available, but not selected by a survey respondent. As in previous surveys, academic library employees continue to represent the largest group of respondents at 75%. This is the same percentage held by academic libraries for the 2013 conference. Respondents were asked to “describe your work” using as many of the twenty-three given choices as necessary (including “other”). The 2014 conference marks the first year that “electronic resources librarian” garnered the highest number of responses (72). Serials librarian (64), acquisitions librarian (47), catalog/metadata librarian (39), and collection development librarian (32) round out the top five responses. When asked about the number of years of serials related experience, “more than 20 years” received the majority, at forty-five responses. Thirty-four respondents have 11-20 years of experience with serials. It is interesting to note that the years of experience does not necessarily translate to comparable experience with NASIG. Ninety-three respondents (61%) have been to five or fewer NASIG conferences. Report on the 2014 NASIG Award Winners Dana Whitmire, Awards & Recognition Chair and Megan Kilb, Awards & Recognition Vice-Chair During the 2014 conference in Fort Worth, the Awards & Recognition Committee presented the following awards: Fritz Swartz Serials Scholarship; John Riddick Student Grant; Serials Specialist Award; Horizon Award; Rose Robischon Scholarship; and the John Merriman Joint NASIG/UKSG Award. As with past years, all awards winners were asked to complete a survey after NASIG conference. The committee asks for comments, suggestions, and any feedback the current award winners are willing to share. The responses to the Awards & Recognition Committee survey are included below. • • • • • • • • Why do you feel it is worthwhile for newcomers to the field of serials to attend a NASIG conference? Attending this conference is very important because students have different opportunities. Students can: 1) have a chance to talk to different serial/eresources librarians (how they obtained their current positions, what kind of backgrounds they had had before their current jobs, the responsibilities of their positions, and what kind of qualifications and skills the jobs require); 2) obtain better ideas about how to frame their future career perspectives. The MLIS program does not always teach them practical information while the conference focuses on current issues, challenges, and opportunities; 3) learn about professional services and research activities in support of promotion and tenure requirements. It was a worthwhile introduction to all the current issues with serials. It was also a great way to meet other serials people. It's the only conference I've been to that gives information specifically tailored to the work we do with ER and serials. The quality and variety of sessions makes it worth it. Every attendee is usually an experienced serials librarian so networking is highly beneficial. How did attending the conference benefit you personally? Before the conference, I was not sure to what extent that I needed to develop my skills to meet the job requirements as a serial/e-resources librarian. The different sessions in the conference gave me the confidence to recognize that my skills are of a high enough quality to serve. However, I need practical experience to transfer my skills to my specific job area. I made friends at the conference, and I learned a lot in the sessions. Learned new things about stats, etc. and made new contacts I took a lot from the vision sessions and from other people I met. It made me be more aware of the issues facing all serialists. Yes. Since the conference, I have found the area of serial/e-resources very interesting. For example, I would like to know more about the relationship between vendors/publishers and librarians, as well as issues and opportunities that pertain to open access. I work mostly with print materials, and the conference made me consider how I might want to work with electronic resources in the future. No In a way I suppose I considered the possibility of working as an ER librarian or at least collaborating on projects with one. What can NASIG and/or the Awards & Recognition Committee do to improve the NASIG Horizon Award program? • Librarians with whom I spoke mentioned that they acquired the skills necessary for their positions only after they had been hired. But currently, there is no entry-level position for serial/e-resources librarians. As far as I know, my MLIS program does not encompass direct skills necessary to apply for these positions. Job descriptions include: - Experience with acquisition and management of electronic resources, including E-Resource Management Systems (ERMs); Familiarity with current and emerging content-linking and authentication standards, including: Z39.50, EZProxy. Therefore, I would appreciate the opportunity to take part in hands-on workshops for us to learn more about these areas. • Everyone was very friendly and approachable. They were able to guide us newcomers very well. What could NASIG and/or the Awards & Recognition Committee do to improve your conference experience? I really enjoyed my conference experience and my mentor kindly and effectively facilitated my experience at the conference. It was a great experience! I am very grateful for the award. I can't think of anything that would make it better. Did attending the conference influence your career plans? If so, how? Do you have any other suggestions or comments? Please tell us about them here. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • It would be great if NASIG members could visit MLIS programs and provide their presentations. Some of the application requirements on the webpage were unclear, so it might be good to review the wording of the applications before next year. I also applied for multiple awards, so I had to fill out a different application for each one; since a lot of the awards have similar requirements, it might be nice to have one application for all the awards (similar to how ALA does it). This might draw a larger pool of applicants. How/where did you learn about NASIG's awards? University of Toronto’s iSchool Website NASIG's webpage I had visited the website and looked for the opportunity. Where should NASIG be promoting awards? I have already asked our Dean of the Faculty to post the awards information on its website Web page, listservs, twitter Listservs AUTOCAT, LIS schools, ACRL, ALCTS, OLAC 29th Annual Conference (2014) Business Meeting Minutes Hilton Fort Worth, Fort Worth, TX May 2, 2014 1. Call to Order 2013/2014 NASIG Executive Board: President: Joyce Tenney Vice President/President Elect: Steve Kelley Past President: Bob Boissy Secretary: Shana McDanold (absent) Treasurer: Jennifer Arnold Treasurer Elect: Beverly Geckle Members at Large: Chris Brady, Clint Chamberlain, Tim Hagan, Selden Lamoureux, Sarah Sutton, Peter Whiting Christie Degner was introduced as Parliamentarian. 2. Highlights from the Past Year and Report from Board Meeting, Presented by Joyce Tenney Tenney opened the meeting with a moment of silence in memory of Birdie MacLennan, long time NASIG member. The Executive Board has charged the Awards & Recognition with developing an award in honor of Birdie MacLennan. This award would focus on electronic resource management qualifications. The 2014 NASIG Proceedings will be dedicated the memory of Birdie. In conjunction with the 30th Anniversary of NASIG, the annual conference next year will offer a day of joint programming with the Society for Scholarly Publishing. Also, a task force has been appointed to plan various anniversary activities at that conference, May 27-30, 2015 in Washington DC. As with all strong organizations, turning thirty is a time for review and reflection. The Executive Board has had several discussions on the long term vision and mission of NASIG. In order to facilitate a broader discussion within the organization of these issues, a Vision & Mission Task Force has been appointed to offer a roadmap for discussion on this. This task force is chaired by former NASIG President, Steve Oberg, and draws on several past NASIG Presidents, and others who have been affiliated with NASIG. More information on this will be relayed to the membership, as their discussions progress. Many committees were very active this year. Thanks to all for their hard work on behalf of NASIG. The Electronic Communications Committee had an especially challenging year and came through a major website and attached management system migration with flying colors. This has offered a fresh and more professional look to the NASIG website. ECC deserves a 14 NASIG Newsletter huge round of applause for their efforts. In keeping with the changing nature of their activities, ECC has requested a name change to better reflect their current activities. The board approved the request and the new name for this committee is the Communications & Marketing Committee. The board is continuing discussions on author and speaker contracts and hopes to have additional discussions in the coming year on these issues. 3. Treasurer’s Report, Presented by Jennifer Arnold Arnold reported that NASIG finances continue to be healthy, and the investment account has again made moderate gains over the past year. Webinars continue to be well-attended and provide NASIG with an additional source of revue. Conference attendance and membership numbers are stable. As of this meeting, NASIG total liabilities and equity is $535,282.27; as a comparison to last year at this time NASIG total liabilities and equity was $530,512.14. Finances for the 2014 conference look positive. Total sponsorships for the conference totaled $24,700.00, and we have ten Organizational Members for a total of $15,000. Thanks to all of our sponsors for their support! Committee expenditures are under budget estimates at this point in the year. Revenue from our two webinars totaled $4,075.00. Thanks to the Continuing Education Committee for managing these programs. Williams introduced new incoming members the 2014/2015 NASIG Executive Board: Vice President/President Elect: Carol-Ann Borchert Members- At-Large: Eugenia, Beh, Maria Collins, Wendy Robertson DePope and Whitmire thanked the outgoing board members for their service on the NASIG Executive Board: Past President: Bob Boissy Treasurer: Jennifer Arnold Members-At-Large: Chris Brady, Tim Hagan, Selden Lamoureux DePope and Whitmire recognized the following outgoing committee chairs for their outstanding service: Archives, Photo Historian: Deberah England Awards & Recognition: Leigh Ann DePope Bylaws: Sharon Scott Conference Planning: Michael Hanson, Janice Lindquist Continuing Education: Todd Enoch Database & Directory: Alice Rhoades Evaluation & Assessment: Jennifer Leffler Electronic Communications: Carol Ann Borchert, Kathryn Wesley Financial Development: Rob Van Rennes Membership Development: Pat Adams Mentoring: Danielle Williams Newsletter: Angela Dresselhaus Nominations & Elections: Kevin Furniss Proceedings: Sara Bahnmaier Program Planning: Kelli Getz Student Outreach: Kate Seago 6. Call for Old Business None None 7. Call for New Business There was no additional business. The meeting was adjourned at 12:25pm. Respectfully submitted by: Joyce Tenney NASIG Executive Board Conference Reports Preconferences Big Deals & Squeaky Wheels Vision Sessions Critical Moments Reaching New Horizons Conference Sessions 10,000 Libraries, 4 Years Digital Collections at the Library of Congress Actions & Updates on Standards and Best Practices E-Only Collection Development Policies for Books Converting Your E-Resource Records to RDA Core Competencies to the Rescue Challenges of E-Serial Management The Impact of Reorganization on Staff Lassoing the Licensing Beast The Licensing Lifecycle Meeting the Challenge through Collaboration Opportunities beyond E-Resource Management ORCID Identifiers Personalizing Library Service Planning for the Budget-ocalypse The Power of Sharing Linked Data Database Overlap at the Journal Title Level Rounding Up Those Prices Taming the Information Frontier Techniques for Tracking Perpetual Access Global Research Management in the Cloud The Unbearable Insecurity of the E-Res. Librarian Why Can’t Students Get the Sources They Need? Yer Doin’ it Wrong: How NOT to Interact with Vendors, Publishers, or Librarian Preconferences Big Deals and Squeaky Wheels: Taking Stock of Your Stats Angie Rathmel, University of Kansas Lea Currie, University of Kansas Reported by Stephanie Viola This program was a combination of a presentation and a workshop in order to guide electronic resource and/or serials librarians in gathering, standardizing, assessing, and presenting Big Deal usage statistics for making the best possible collection development decisions in the face of increasing costs and decreasing budgets. Approximately twenty-five attendees came prepared with laptops and/or tablets. The speakers began with a brief history and literature review of libraries’ experiences with Big Deals, including studies done by various university libraries in the first decade of the twenty-first century. Libraries that cancelled Big Deals were able to lower their costs and remove low use journal titles from their collections without any major increases in interlibrary loan (ILL) spending. The disadvantages found in cancelling Big Deals included increases in a-la-carte prices and/or low representation of discipline-specific content, which created difficulties at some institutions in attaining accreditation. The presentation continued with a look at University of Kansas’ (KU) demographics and a discussion of recent assessment activities there related to collection development strategies. Collection assessment data at KU includes COUNTER-compliant usage statistics for electronic journals, information stored in the electronic resource management system (ERMS) and integrated library system (ILS), and turnaway statistics. Excel spreadsheets are used for processing and data dissemination. 16 The presenters reported on their own study at KU concerning two of their Big Deals. Using both usage statistics and pricing data, they were able to create a forecast of spending for their Springer and Wiley packages. They used this information to compare the cost of their current Big Deals with keeping only the regularly used titles and fulfilling ILL requests for the cancelled titles. They found that breaking up the Big Deals would result in steep price increases over a period of five years; however, keeping the Big Deals in place would mean a much more gradual increase over the same period. The presenters noted that this may have been largely due to the high use rate of KU’s Wiley package – 98% of all titles in the package received some use over the past two and a half years. The program then changed its focus to hands-on practice with forecasting. Attendees were provided with two spreadsheets. The first was a visualization example where usage data could be transformed into graphs to easily share findings with administrators. Unfortunately, the spreadsheet failed to appear on the projector, so attendees could not perform the exercise during the session. The presenters, did, however, include an example in their slides. The second spreadsheet was an example of downloaded usage statistics that needed to be normalized, processed, and analyzed to perform forecasting for various scenarios. Again, the spreadsheet was not able to be displayed, but, with the help of formulas from the presentation slides and oneon-one assistance from the presenters, attendees were able to work through the exercise. The results were a forecast of spending for the next four years on both Big Deal package subscriptions and related ILL costs for five scenarios: 1. Keeping the Big Deal in place 2. Cut journals with less than 200 uses at 1% ILL borrowing 3. Cut journals with less than 100 uses at 1% ILL borrowing 4. Cut journals with less than 200 uses at 10% ILL borrowing NASIG Newsletter 5. Cut journals with less than 100 uses at 10% ILL borrowing A cancellation scenario based on cost-per-use was also discussed, but not presented. The exercise proved difficult, but useful, in projecting costs and providing decision-makers with meaningful data. Small mistakes in calculations or formulas will result in incorrect data, as demonstrated in the spreadsheets provided by the presenters. After the session, a new, corrected, and completed spreadsheet was provided to the attendees. The major takeaways from this preconference were that usage statistics can be made more meaningful when analyzed and used for forecasting, as well as the very good advice to adapt the presentation of Big Deal usage information to each unique audience. Vision Sessions Critical Moments: Chance, Choice and Change in Scholarly Publishing Dr. Katherine Skinner, Educopia Institute Reported by Esta Tovstiadi The opening vision session focused on how chance, choice, and change can guide information professionals in transforming the current scholarly publishing landscape into one that is beneficial for all stakeholders. Skinner began the session with a discussion of the current information landscape, focusing on a number of “field formation principles” that emerge during times of change. The first principle was to “Beware changes in the modes of communication,” because this often leads to the formation of new fields. As an example, she discussed how printed communication, made possible by the invention of the printing press, drastically changed society. The second principle she discussed was that “Innovations don’t come from the center; they come from unexpected locations.” To illustrate this point, she discussed the phonograph, a technology that became less popular in the United States after the radio became common, and the Great Depression made it more difficult for individuals to purchase records. However, thanks to the jukebox, this technology made a comeback. Additionally, the jukebox featured more African-American music which brought “new voices into the national conversation.” Finally, the last field formation principle discussed was that “Cultural processes of production, distribution, and reception depend upon networks of people.” She elaborated on this by using the example of Barcelona castellers (human towers) who rely on “closely integrated chains of interdependence.” Skinner then discussed how the internet has revolutionized communication in modern times, creating more challenges, opportunities, and innovation in scholarly publishing. She stressed the importance of engaging all stakeholders, aligning key players, and connecting systems and communities in order to continue to support and sustain access to scholarship. She asserted that scholarly publishing is currently in a “crisis mode,” where chance and choice matter, and encouraged all stakeholders to make choices that support the values of everyone involved in scholarly publishing. Skinner concluded with several ways in which we can make changes to the current system. She noted the opportunities offered by library publishing, and highlighted the work of the Library Publishing Coalition’s Library Publishing Directory as an example of growing support for this. Additionally, she challenged librarians to play a more strategic role in web archiving and preservation of all content, noting that current mechanisms in place are insufficient for capturing the scholarly record. Another possibility discussed for changing the current system was exploring and participating in innovative open access funding models, such as Knowledge Unlatched. Reported by E. Gaele Gillespie Rogers began her presentation with a quote she has heard from numerous librarians – “I could never do what you did,” in reference to her institution’s decision to cancel their American Chemical Society package (and “several other things [she’s] done in [her] career”). She asserted that anyone can do what she did, and that librarians as a community need to work together to bring about bold, thoughtful change. Rogers noted that the ability to make hard decisions with confidence requires knowing both yourself and your environment. Several components of one’s environment to be aware of include the technology horizon, user needs, changes in publishing and scholarly communication, and trends in higher education. She reiterated that knowing who you are and being confident in yourself and your goals is fundamental to taking the first steps towards making the hard decisions that need to be made. Once environmental, personal, and professional frameworks have been defined and detailed, the next step to bringing about change is to consider all resources available. Specific advice included: Hold on to your capital, including your expertise and authority. Claim and demonstrate your expertise and authority. Pay attention to your demeanor, your presence, your 18 NASIG Newsletter Questions from the audience included how to address the controversy of open access in regards to the tenure process; the role consortia might play in changing the scholarly publishing landscape; the relationship between library presses and university presses; and how the library community might coordinate large-scale web archiving projects. Reaching New Horizons: Gathering the Resources Librarians Need to Make Hard Decisions sense of humor, your passion for scholarship, and your conversations. You can draw on all of this later. You need a reputation that will allow others to believe in you. • Gather data. Be the expert on your problem. Knowledge is power, and facts are ammunition. You must be able to back up your assertions with solid data. Jenica Rogers, State University of New York at Potsdam • Make friends. • • Other people are also important resources. Make friends. Such friends can include faculty, vendors, administrators, other librarians – not only at your own library, but also at other libraries. It helps to connect with people, and build friendships as a support system. Rogers then moved on to tactics for bringing about thoughtful change. Specific tactics included: • Start immediately. There is no such thing as too early, but too late is real, and it can have a negative effect on all that you’ve carefully constructed. Usually when people say they cannot do a particular thing, they mean they can’t do this yet. It takes a conscious effort, consistency, and thoughtful steps to lay out your tactics. Find common ground. Where do your issues touch your allies’ issues in meaningful ways? To find out, ask questions about what they do and what matters to them. Compare their responses with what matters to you, and find the places they intersect. Communicate effectively. Knowing yourself and knowing how to approach a person is important, as is how to do the talking. Having said that, realize that finding and approaching the right person is more important than the tactic. Always remember to keep the medium and the audience in sync. Find a way to resonate with the audience you’re speaking to. Rogers noted that any actions taken will produce reactions, and that how one reacts is important. She recommended that the audience embrace serendipity and be prepared to be surprised, and to respond well, and with compassionate, reasonable, knowledgeable decisions. She also advised that change requires us to evolve, even though it can be uncomfortable and unexpected. She emphasized that change needs to be based on the local community, the local climate and environment, and local goals. The more or the bigger the changes, the more important it is to be ready. Rogers’ final advice was to release fear. She noted that fear does not enable smart decisions – it supports safe decisions. She reiterated that her decisions are based on what is in the best interest of her library within her community, and nothing else. She concluded her presentation stating that there are no easy choices, but it’s almost always worth making the hard decisions. As Mahatma Gandhi said, “Be the change you want to see in the world.” Conference Sessions 10,000 Libraries, 4 Years: A Large Scale Study of Ebook Usage and How You Can Use the Data to Move Forward Michael Levine-Clark, University of Denver Kari Paulson, ProQuest Reported by Marsha Seamans Paulson was charged with merging EBL and ebrary at ProQuest and brought Levine-Clark in to analyze the available usage data. Levine-Clark’s analysis differs from previous research on this topic in that the data being analyzed for this presentation looked at worldwide usage in 2013, across academic, public, and special libraries. The study includes approximately 270,000 ebrary titles and 406,000 EBL titles, with ebrary having a larger percentage of titles in the arts and humanities, and EBL a larger percentage in the social sciences. Levine-Clark pointed out that some aspects of the ebrary and EBL packages are not comparable, such as the size of the collections; variations in title availability; and platform differences. This presentation focused on usage in academic libraries. Analysis of the usage data sought to provide answers to whether libraries are collecting the right material; whether the quality of the resource matters; if there are there patterns of use related to subject and/or discipline; and if those patterns can help us improve our collections and services. A variety of graphs were presented to try to answer these questions. Several were used to compare the availability of e-books within specific disciplines to the use (e.g. sessions) of the e-books within those disciplines. To assess whether the quality of an e-book mattered, the data was analyzed using the criteria of the publisher being a university press. The study also looked at intensive versus extensive use (breadth versus depth) by looking at the percentage of titles used within subject areas compared to the average length of time spent in a single session. A number of conclusions were presented from the current study: • Quality matters—university press titles were used more heavily than the overall collection. • Social sciences outperform humanities and STEM titles in percentage of e-books used and average amount of use. • STEM books show more actions per session • E-books in the humanities show longer session lengths. There are clear, but nuanced differences by subject. For example, users spend the most time using history e-books while users view a lot of pages in technology e-books in a short amount of time. Levine-Clark will soon be publishing a white paper that will include the data presented at this session along with additional data that will help answer the question of how we use the observational data to build better collections and provide better service. The white paper will be available on the EBL and ebrary websites. Acquisition and Management of Digital Collections at the Library of Congress Ted Westervelt, Library of Congress Reported by Linh Chang This presentation gave an overview of what the Library of Congress (LC) has done, and is currently doing, with its digital resources. The Library’s mission with regard to developing digital content deals primarily with custodial collections. (Custodial collections are materials for which the library is taking on curatorial responsibility; they are not licensed databases, subscription resources, or content that the library has digitized from print sources.) Westervelt began by talking about the different methods the Library of Congress uses in acquiring digital resources for its collections, including through the library’s transfer services from other agencies and organizations. The largest component of this cooperative program is the National Digital Newspapers Project. Web archiving is another means for the Library to add digital resources to its collections. In addition, updated copyright deposit regulations include onlineonly serials, so the Library now automatically collects these e-serials. Through a related program, the Library collects e-books as well. The Cataloging in Publication Program is another way for the Library to acquire digital content. Finally, the Library of Congress also purchases digital resources from various publishers, and receives a large volume of gifts in digital format. Westervelt then discussed the volume of the digital resources the Library acquires from these different sources. Through the library partnership transfer services, there are currently 116 million unique files, consisting of 274 petabytes of content. This content is growing at fifteen terabytes per day. Through web archiving, the Library has collected 8.6 billion files of 534 terabytes. To accomplish large-scale acquisition and maintenance of its digital resources, the library’s original approach was to start slowly, and to focus on the first steps in getting digital content into the library. The very first step was to identify what was out there. Westervelt emphasized the importance of initially identifying the intellectual content of resources, discovering the best place from which to get the content, and also of obtaining the right type of file format. Next, Westervelt introduced the document “Recommended Format Specifications.” It provides recommended file formats best suited for preservation and for long-term access. The goal of this document is to provide some parameters and standards for the greater community, especially libraries and vendors, to consider so that contents can more easily be preserved and accessed long term. The presenter also identified a suite of tools that play a key role in preserving and managing incoming digital content, including the integrated library system, the Electronic Copyright Office (ECO), and Bagger, which ensures the safe transfer of digital contents. Another product, Digiboard, manages licenses for web archiving. Content Transfer Services is an inventory management tool that stores all of the Library’s digital content and tracks it. Delivery Management Services was developed for e-serials that the Library of Congress receives under copyright, and allows staff to input serials metadata, such as volume, issue, article, and author. In addition, the Library now has a central inventory tool to track what has been received and provide metadata links to the content, which allows patrons to access it. user credentials to supply to PubGet. Finally, they suggested that potential WMS users begin to educate library staff and faculty. For example, there may be some lag time between automated updates and actual access to the resource. It is better if staff and patrons are aware of the access delays from the onset if considering WMS implementation. The Unbearable Insecurity of the Electronic Resources Librarian Stephen Buck, Dublin City University Reported by Michael Fernandez With the NASIG Core Competencies for Electronic Resources Librarians as a basis, Buck used his presentation to contrast theoretically desired skill sets with the daily realities of electronic resources librarianship. Drawing from his professional experiences as an electronic resources and periodicals librarian, Buck sought to demystify many of the processes that comprise e-resources management. Using a good amount of humor and self-effacement, Buck outlined some of the anxieties he confronted as a librarian new to e-resources management. Buck admitted to not being formally trained in some areas and detailed how much of his knowledge and skills have been gained on the job. For some competencies such as licensing and knowledge of information standards and protocols, Buck was able to develop an understanding through continuing education and conference attendance. At this point in the presentation, Buck, with some assistance, performed a skit of a dialogue between a vendor and a novice e-resources librarian. The dialogue progressed from some basic questions about the librarian’s institution, to a complex inquiry about metadata mapping and culminated with an escalating price quote. While exaggerated for comic effect, the skit served to illustrate genuine concerns that can confront a fledgling e-resources librarian. When starting a new job, an e-resources librarian may have to quickly 39 become adept with their institution’s ILS or ERM as well as be able to recall FTE and other information offhand. Additionally, they may lack knowledge of metadata standards or the ability to negotiate with vendors. Buck continued to outline more aspects of librarianship he had to learn on the job. For example, Buck described the need to determine the start of the institution’s fiscal year and the process for prepaying subscriptions and then reconciling balances at the end of the year. Other competency areas can be anxiety-inducing, such as effective communication, supervising, and management. Again, Buck used on the job experiences to illustrate these. In one example, he had to explain to a government official why a vendor was not awarded a contract. Another example entailed a misunderstanding between Buck and the team of assistants he supervised. This demonstrated the importance of making sure all affected parties are included in email communications. Much of an e-resources librarian’s work depends on the communication chain--whether it’s between faculty and librarian or librarian and vendor. Here, Buck emphasized the Core Competencies’ call for “a high level of tolerance for complexity and ambiguity” as an important personal quality for a librarian to have. Buck concluded his presentation by listing the duties that comprised his job description when he started and contrasting them with his actual daily work. While the initial job description detailed a large number of varied tasks, much of Buck’s actual work is more focused and consists of responding to e-mail, troubleshooting access issues, and gathering usage statistics. Concluding, Buck assured e-resources librarians that they could make a difference at their institutions by streamlining workflows through their strategies and ideas. Why Can’t Students Get the Sources They Need? Results from a Real Electronic Resource Availability Study Sanjeet Mann, University of Redlands Reported by Sharon K. Scott Mann spoke a bit about his early background in computer science and his work in IT on college campuses. In meeting and speaking with librarians on campus, he became interested in the field, and during this time decided to get his library degree. Combining his two interests, he became interested in availability studies. At his own institution, he confidently predicted that users have only a 41% success rate in finding the electronic resources they need. Availability studies for systems have existed for a long time. When this form of study is performed by trained library staff it is known as a “simulated availability” study. Another form of study is the qualitative approach, which is more of a usability study than an availability study. In this research method the user is observed by library staff as he/she attempts to locate the needed item. This research focuses less on the technical side and more on user behavior. Mann has done three availability studies - two simulated availability studies, and one study in which students participated. The methodology Mann employed with students was a combination of the two research types. Quantitative methods were used to determine the overall availability of resources. The usability research method, which is more user-focused, was employed to compare the way the student subjects attempted to retrieve full text as opposed to an “ideal” process developed by the University of Redlands librarians. There are significant differences in the way library staff, who are more familiar with the databases and interfaces, perform a search, and the method by which a typical student may attempt to find the same item. For example, Mann demonstrated this difference by 40 having the test group each search for the full text of a book chapter about the popular character, Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The student in his test group failed to find what he needed and moved onto the next item. The chapter was available, though finding it required a high level of understanding of how information in the library’s resources is structured. The test sample of seven students was given two searches with ten results each, culminating in 142 interactions. During this study, Jing (screen capture software) was used to capture interactions. The students were given a general set of guidelines for how to proceed, but were not monitored to see if they followed these steps completely; this provided a more realistic view of how students actually search. General results of the study showed that 25% of the users did not get the item, 43% went through interlibrary loan (ILL) to obtain the item, 3% did locate a physical item, and 29% were able to download the correct item. The error rate was about the same for system-error and user-error: 31% for system-error and 35% for user-error (there was also a 16% crossover with both system- and user- error). Severe examples of system errors were the following: • • A database was missing the OpenURL link, refused the OpenURL, or had bad/missing metadata. The knowledge base linked to only the title of the article, not the full text. There were also a few user errors such as the link was not tested, the local system was not used correctly, important information was overlooked, and/or the student gave up searching out of frustration. Availability studies can be used to examine various questions: How often do errors occur? Should changes be made in the technical infrastructure? How often do users need ILL? Is there enough full-text in the collection? Are users being taught what they need to be successful finding electronic resources? Yer Doin’ it Wrong: How NOT to Interact with Vendors, Publishers, or Librarians Anne McKee, Greater Western Library Alliance Katy Ginanni, Western Carolina University Jenni Wilson, SAGE Publications Reported by Katherine Eastman Beginning the session by sitting in three mismatched arm chairs taken from the hotel lobby, McKee, Ginanni, and Wilson, set the tone for an informal, back-and-forth discussion of negotiation etiquette. Each speaker introduced themselves, and then McKee explained the discussion-style format. She requested that participants remain respectful and anonymize their examples by “filing off the serial numbers and identifying features.” McKee began by reading the list of potential questions. The first group of questions focused on interactions from the librarian perspective. The following were some of the featured questions: Is it fair for librarians to give business to whoever wines and dines them the best? Can one discontinue business with a vendor due to hating the sales representative? Is it okay to not to inform vendors after selecting another product? The second group of questions focused on the purchasing interaction from the vendor point of view and included questions such as: Is it fair for a vendor to go over the head of a librarian and approach a dean, provost, or even a well-known alumna to get them to reverse a collections decision? Can the vendor quietly allow nonmembers into a consortium deal without first asking the consortium’s permission? Is it reasonable for the vendor to employ guilt tactics in order to coerce the purchasing librarian into selecting their product (my child/mother/panda is sick and I’ll lose my job if I don’t meet my quota)? The panelists began alternating between both groups of questions and provided anonymous examples of poor behavior and presented their opinion on the correct ways to handle these situations. The panelists concurred on many of their suggestions. They suggested we abide by the golden rule and be courteous and fair. However, some questions elicited a more raucous debate. For example, the panel addressed the following question: Is it fair for librarians to issue an RFP that is so narrow in focus that all vendors know it was written with a specific vendor in mind? While McKee considered this unfair, since new products and services that might serve users better would be missed by such an RFP, Ginanni proposed that often an RFP is red tape, and a library may not want to change their vendor. Several members of the audience stepped forward to affirm that they had to demonstrate due diligence in researching the most efficacious platform/product/service for their library, which included issuing an RFP. McKee suggested that those creating an RFP might consider an RFI because it does not have a mandatory award expectation. One question was related to a previous presentation regarding license negotiation: Is it fair for publishers to retroactively change or add to an existing contract? McKee asked Jane Smith and Eric Hartnett from Texas A&M University to discuss their experience with a vendor retroactively changing the agreement terms. Several attendees offered their experiences with similar situations. Notable insight came from the question: Is it fair to refuse to do business with a vendor because they’re making a profit? McKee presented the idea of a “fair profit”, i.e., that librarians need publisher content in order to provide the best services for their users. Vendors are in business to make a profit, but there are acceptable and unacceptable levels of profit, and librarians are encouraged to negotiate prices to reflect fair market value. Profile of Steve Kelly: President of NASIG Wm. Joseph Thomas Steve Kelley is the head of continuing resources and database management at Wake Forest University, where he has worked since 2002. His department is charged with serials receipt and cataloging, physical processing, authority control, and catalog database maintenance. Steve is also the liaison to the Russian and East European Studies Department. When asked what he did before he became a librarian, and what led him to library school, Steve started his answer with his undergraduate degree. He earned his B.A. in history, with a Russian minor, from Washington University in St. Louis in 1991. After Steve graduated, he worked as a temp for a while, and then found a “permanent” job at a sporting goods wholesaler. Steve said that he really didn’t enjoy working at the wholesaler. His older brother had been working as a copy cataloger at Washington University in St. Louis for a few years at that time, and seemed to really like working in a library, so Steve got a job at the same library in the Serials Department. In 1993, Steve moved to Chapel Hill, NC, to attend graduate school for history. That wasn’t a good fit, so he left the program. Having really enjoyed library work, he pursued a paraprofessional job at UNC-Chapel Hill in January 1994. Steve divided his time, working in the Backlog Unit of the Copy Cataloging Section in the morning, and in the Collection Development Department in the afternoon. It gave him an interesting view of multiple areas in libraries, and it inspired him to start library school that fall. He went to graduate school part time and continued to work full time, so he didn’t graduate until December 1999 (But at least he didn’t have any graduate school debt!). Steve’s first professional position was as cataloging librarian at Ball State University from 1999 to 2002. In 2002, he began working at the Z. Smith Reynolds Library at Wake Forest University. Prior to his current position, Steve worked at Wake Forest as a serials cataloging librarian and then head of resource maintenance. His job has gradually grown through the years; now he supervises periodicals check-in, binding and marking, and catalog maintenance (including withdrawals, batch loading, record corrections, and authority control). Steve noted that he likes “solving problems…figuring out processes.” A co-worker of his has called him a “junior Henry Ford” because he really likes figuring out a process for new areas of work. Conversely, the parts of his work he likes least are probably those things that are repetitive. He deals with them by listening to music while he works. He understands that other folks might find it distracting, but he feels that it helps him focus. Steve has been a member of NASIG since 2000. He first explored the organization because the dean of technical services at Ball State (and former serials cataloger) suggested that he go to the NASIG annual conference, especially to attend a serials cataloging pre-conference. Of course, the fact that the conference was held in San Diego, California that year might have helped draw him. Steve is an active member of the organization. Before being elected vice president/president-elect in 2013, he was vice chair and chair of the Membership Development Committee. In 2009, Steve was elected a member-at-large of the Executive Board for a term. He worked with the 2007 and 2009 conferences as well. Steve served as the audio-visual coordinator for the Conference Planning Committee for the 2007 conference in Louisville, Kentucky. He was then lucky enough, as he describes it, to be tapped to be the cochair (with Eleanor Cook) of the Conference Planning Committee for the 2009 conference in Asheville, North Carolina. Steve says his favorite NASIG conference was probably this conference, in Asheville. It was a huge amount of work, he says, but it was also a lot of fun. He continued, “Doing something like that is sort of a trial by fire, and you can really bond with the people you share the experience with.” Steve is also active in ALCTS and the North Carolina Library Association (NCLA). For ALCTS, he has served on the Continuing Education Committee of the Cataloging and Metadata Management Section, on the Continuing Resources Cataloging Committee of the Continuing Resources Section, and as a jury member for the Ulrich’s Serials Librarianship Award, Edward Swanson Memorial Best of LRTS Award, and the Esther J. Piercy Awards (whew!). Steve is still a member of the Continuing Resources Committee and in the third year of his membership of Cataloging Committee: Description and Access (CC:DA). As a member of the NCLA, Steve has been active in conference planning activities, managing exhibits for three NCLA conferences, and overseeing the conference store. How has NASIG supported Steve in his varying professional positions? Although his job has grown over the years and includes a variety of responsibilities, Steve describes himself as a serials cataloger at heart, saying that NASIG has been enormously helpful in keeping him up to date on changes in serials cataloging, as well as keeping him informed about the serials world in general. The service opportunities that NASIG provides have also been a huge help, and the professional contacts he has made have been very valuable to Steve. When asked about his hobbies and special interests, Steve admits to being a “general purpose music nerd,” a big music fan who mostly listens to various forms of rock. He was a punk rock/new wave kid as a teenager (Do any pictures survive, Steve?). He goes to a lot of concerts and has been to the South by Southwest music festival several times. Steve also loves baseball, especially the St. Louis Cardinals. He described himself as “rather obnoxious when NASIG was in St. Louis in 2011,” and says he wore a different Cardinals shirt every day of the conference. He is also a comic book reader and collector. He hasn’t counted them in a long while, but says he probably has between thirty-five and forty thousand comics. When asked what changes he sees for serialists over the next five years, Steve replied, “That’s a tough one.” He thinks that we’ll see more resources that aren’t traditionally defined as serials becoming more seriallike. “That is,” he continues, “we’ll see more resources that are available through subscription payments rather than outright purchase (like a lot of e-book packages), and more electronic resources that grow over time rather than remain as static, clearly-defined things.” Steve further believes that serialists will be brought in more and more to help figure out how to manage these increasingly serial-like resources because serialists understand how to manage things that are paid for by subscription and how to describe things that change and add content over time. NASIG can help serialists be prepared for changes like these by continuing to provide great educational opportunities, especially through our conferences and webinars. Both help serialists stay aware of changes in the field. NASIG also provides a forum for discussion that he thinks is very important. Steve feels that the manageable size of NASIG helps this discussion flourish, because some organizations are so large that one can feel rather lost. And, as he noted earlier, Steve believes that serials and subscription-based resources are only going become more important in the library and publishing worlds, and NASIG is a great place to learn how to deal with them. Steve remembers a joking suggestion by Bob Boissy that NASIG adopt the tag-line, NASIG Newsletter September 2014 “NASIG: Because We’re 80 Percent of Your Materials Budget.” Steve observed that there’s a lot of truth to that rather tongue-in-cheek statement. He concluded with a short commendation for serialists and NASIG, noting that what we work on is important for our libraries and our institutions, and NASIG provides a community of support and continuing education for serialists. Columns Checking In Kurt Blythe, Column Editor [Note: Please report promotions, awards, new degrees, new positions, and other significant professional milestones. You may submit items about yourself or other members to Kurt Blythe at . Contributions on behalf of fellow members will be cleared with the person mentioned in the news item before they are printed. Please include your e-mail address or phone number.] NASIG! Please join me in welcoming the following new members: As metadata/electronic resources librarian at Marymount University, Viral Amin has been managing online continuing resources for the past two years. He has a background in developing digital collections and cataloging foreign language materials. He attended his first NASIG conference over a year ago in Buffalo where he learned that NASIG is not just about serials check-in and cataloging. He looks forward to upcoming NASIG conferences and activities, especially the 30th Annual NASIG Conference--which takes place close to home--to learn about trends and developments not just in serials management, but scholarly communication and publishing, as well. Viral Amin Assistant Professor Metadata/Electronic Resources Librarian Library & Learning Services Marymount University 703-284-1534 Susan Vaughan has been at the University of Dallas for twelve years and was appointed serials librarian in 2007. She joined NASIG to participate in learning more 44 NASIG Newsletter about how other academic libraries are keeping up with all the changes in acquiring, managing, and providing access to journals as publishing continues to change and evolve into new models. Susan Vaughan, Serials Librarian University of Dallas, Blakley Library 1845 E. Northgate Dr. Irving, TX 75062 Finally, Andrew Wesolek began his career in 2011 as scholarly communication librarian at Utah State University. In summer 2013, he took the newly-formed position of head of digital scholarship at Clemson University. In this capacity, he is responsible for initiating and developing Clemson Libraries' digital scholarship activities. These include launching and managing an institutional repository, educating faculty and promoting alternative publication models, serving as a resource for copyright education and compliance, and managing the activities of the Libraries' Digitization Lab. In addition, he is proud to serve as the layout editor for the NASIG Newsletter. Scholars communicate with one another largely through serials, so joining NASIG was a natural fit for Andrew. He also presented at the NASIG conference in Nashville and was blown away by the collegiality of the members of NASIG. He is very much looking forward to the opportunity to attend again in the not-too-distance future. Andrew Wesolek Head of Digital Scholarship Clemson University Libraries Clemson, South Carolina 29634 864-656-0317 Citations: Required Reading by NASIG Members Kurt Blythe, Column Editor [Note: Please report citations for publications by the membership—to include scholarship, reviews, criticism, essays, and any other published works which would benefit the membership to read. You may submit citations on behalf of yourself or other members to Kurt Blythe at . Contributions on behalf of fellow members will be cleared with the author(s) before they are printed. Include contact information with submissions.] As per usual, NASIG members are active in advancing the scholarship of the profession: Bob Boissy has the following citation: Boissy, Robert W. “Forces Shaping Scholarly Publishing.” In Rethinking Collection Development and Management, edited by Becky Albitz, Christine Avery, and Diane Zabel, 3-11. Santa Barbara: Libraries Unlimited, 2014. Kelli Getz published the following: Getz, Kelli, Miranda H. Bennett, and Nancy Linden. “Encouraging Entrepreneurism with Internal Small Grants: The Strategic Directions Microgrant Program at the University of Houston Libraries.” Journal of Library Innovation, 5 no. 1 (2013): 55-66, And, Angela Rathmel led a workshop with Lea Currie on analyzing COUNTER usage for Big Deals at NASIG's annual conference in April and May this year. Kurt Blythe, Column Editor [Note: Please report promotions, awards, new degrees, new positions, and other significant professional milestones. You may submit items about yourself or other members to Kurt Blythe at . Contributions on behalf of fellow members will be cleared with the person mentioned in the news item before they are printed. Please include your e-mail address or phone number.] It’s been a slow summer for movement among NASIG members, but we do have a few serious titles that have been added to our colleagues’ names: Susan Davis, acquisitions librarian for continuing resources at the University at Buffalo Libraries, is one of the inaugural recipients of the ALCTS Honors Award given by the Association for Library Collections & Technical Services of the American Library Association. The award recognizes “outstanding contributions at all levels within ALCTS, stellar dedication to service, uncompromising commitment to excellence, willingness to accept challenges, and a sustained and exemplary record of moving ALCTS forward.” Congratulations Susan for the well-deserved honor! (And for the new title of Honors Award winner!) Then, beginning July 1, Angela Rathmel has been named the interim head of Acquisitions at Kansas University, while also remaining electronic resources librarian until the permanent head is hired. Finally, a librarian new to NASIG (who I missed adding to “Checking In”), Andrew Senior, has been the e-resources librarian (acting) at McGill University for the past ten months. Previously a music cataloging editor, Andrew obtained his MLIS from McGill University in 2013 and finds his present position to be one involving the provision of and maintaining access to databases and e-journals. He writes: The NASIG web resources were greatly appreciated during my transition to a continuing resources environment and certainly reinforced my decision to join the organization. After almost a year of working with e-journals I can safely say that I have “caught the bug” and I look forward to attending future NASIG conferences. Serials & E-Resource News If you have never been to the Acquisitions Institute at Timberline Lodge, you are missing a rare treat. First, the location is beautiful. Second, because of the size of the conference, all attendees are present for all sessions. This makes it possible for more in-depth conversation to occur during breaks and meals. By the time the institute has come to a close, not only have you learned a lot, but you have also had time to meet new colleagues and make new friends. The conference this year was kicked off by keynote speaker Michael J. Paulus, Jr. from Seattle Pacific University with a thought-provoking presentation on libraries and culture. He highlighted the role of libraries from the Library of Alexandria to the dystopian view of libraries in literature. Paulus connected libraries to culture and highlighted their societal impact by explaining how libraries preserve the knowledge of the community through collections. The presentation closed with a lively conversation on how libraries fit into society and the role of libraries in literature, with special attention paid to dystopian literature. Conference presentations ranged from organizational management to evolving library collections and collection analysis, with a presentation on future trends in libraries and collections thrown in for good measure. Kristine Ferry and Keith Powell’s presentation, “Successful Leadership in Middle Management,” included information on the “Four Frame” model developed by Bolman and Deal, and the People Empowerment Pyramid. After introducing these two models, Ferry and Powell walked the conference participants through a series of case studies using these models. The case studies reinforced how to implement the models and helped participants understand their own strengths and weaknesses in regards to management. This was followed up by Martha Hruska’s presentation “Restructuring Collection Development & Content Acquisition at the UC San Diego Library.” The UC San Diego Library needed to reorganize because of budget constraints, but more importantly in reaction to format changes in the collection. It is no secret that e-resources are taking up more and more of a library’s collection. Changes were made to the organizational structure of the library. For example, interlibrary loan was merged with acquisitions to create a new department called Content Acquisitions & Resource Sharing. This natural collaboration has led to efficiencies and less duplication of work. This presentation included information on what worked well with the reorganization and lessons learned. Another session, “Tapping the Talent,” was a panel discussion comprised of vendors and librarians; they tackled the daunting task of laying out the skills needed to work in libraries today. These skills were contrasted with the need to get the campus community into the library. As stated during the panel discussion, “You can have the best collection in the world, but it won’t matter if it isn’t used.” This lively presentation energized and inspired conference attendees to find innovative ways to let go of the past and to find ways to reinvent the library and the perception of the library. Librarians must be out in the community and interacting with faculty and students through various outreach opportunities. The library needs to become personalized to each department and viewed as central to the campus. The panel advocated for creating “engaged liaisons who seek to enhance scholar productivity, to empower learners, and to participate in the entire lifecycle of the research, teaching, and learning process.” They encouraged all attendees to find out what motivates their university, not the library, and use that information to drive strategic planning and promotion of services. They also advised librarians to look for partnerships on campus and find ways to quantify goals and highlight successes. Deg Farrelly’s presentation, “Streaming Video: Results of a National Survey of Academic Libraries,” included key findings from a recent survey conducted by Deg and J. Hutchison. Streaming videos have clearly reached the tipping point and are offered by over 70% of academic libraries surveyed. This presentation highlighted important findings in the survey including budgetary implications of streaming videos and the variety of ways that libraries are providing access to this type of content. Brian Kearn’s presentation, “Electrifying Reference,” discussed how Allegheny College is analyzing the use of their reference collection and determining whether or not this collection should be converted to electronic format. The questions and concerns about making this change were presented and conference participants were asked to analyze the pros and cons of this type of change. They were also challenged to provide insight into the issues surrounding reference collections and the decision to move reference collections from print to electronic format. Scott Devine’s talk, “Preservation as Curation: The Evolving Role of Preservation in the Management of Print Collections” highlighted not only techniques used in preservation, but also a series of questions that can be used to determine how much preservation a particular title should be given. It is clear that while we are moving towards electronic versions of older materials, there are still titles that should be preserved, and libraries such as Northwestern University have developed a comprehensive program for determining which materials will have basic shelf preservation versus modified shelf preparation or conservation treatment. This preservation initiative will help keep older, rare materials available in the future. There was also discussion on what materials can be digitized with 47 limited damage and others that cannot be digitized at this time. We are making progress in digitizing older materials because of preservation initiatives Rhonda Glazier’s presentation, “Don’t Let Print Become the ‘Weeds’ in Your Collection,” articulated the need for libraries to continue to develop print collections. The presentation included information on how to analyze your budget and selection criteria that needs to be considered to ensure that your library is purchasing materials in the best possible format. It is one thing to build a collection for your own campus or community, it is quite another to build it for a national audience. Thomas H. Teper’ presentation “Building Research Collections in the Area Studies to Serve Nationwide Populations: The Case of University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,” articulated the challenges of identifying and analyzing language collections use relative to a large and diverse population. An analysis of the borrowing patterns for language materials was presented along with the challenges encountered by librarians as they try to meet the library’s unique mission. Heidi Nance’s presentation, “Buy More, Save More: Using ILL Data to Inform Collections Purchases and Reduce Costs,” focused on using ILL data to inform collection purchases and reduce costs. Heidi analyzed ILL data on requests and copyright costs to identify a set of journal titles to purchase. An analysis of the cost to purchase a title versus paying ILL fees was undertaken and by targeting titles for purchase it was possible to reduce ILL costs. Three different acquisition methods were employed: subscribing to a journal, pay-per-view, and using a commercial document provider. The actual use of a title was used to determine which method was the most cost effective. This presentation highlighted budgetary savings that can be realized when librarians take the time to analyze the data that, in most cases, already exists in their system. A panel discussion, “Exploring the Scholarly Communication Ecosystem,” addressed the future of library collections. Each panelist got out their best NASIG Newsletter September 2014 crystal ball and gave their predictions for the future. This lively discussion was followed-up by a presentation by Kim Maxwell from MIT on how her library compared the medical journal holdings of Harvard and MIT. These two campuses have a joint Health Science and Technology Program. By analyzing holdings, it was possible for the library to make more informed purchasing decisions. Her presentation included the methodology used to analyze the two collections and problems and issues encountered when trying to do this type of data analysis. Final conclusions included the need for selectors to work with technical services staff so that consistent coding of data and gathering of data can be done. In addition, it highlighted opportunities for collaborative collection development between campus libraries and perhaps a new discovery tool that can be used across institutions. The final presentation by Alexa Pearce, “Evaluation of A&I Services for Discovery and Access to Historical Literature,” described a citation analysis of history April 2014 Executive Board Meeting Date: April 30, 2012 Place: Hilton Fort Worth citations in Historical Abstracts / America: History & Life, ArticlesPlus, WorldCat, JSTOR and Google Scholar. Alexa’s goal was to investigate what the scholarly conversation in history looks like and where scholars go to find it. History researchers at the University of Michigan were asked what tools they use to access history articles. Then, 250 citations were checked against the main history research tools at the library. More work needs to be done before definitive findings can be given, but the consensus of the group was that initial findings warranted further investigation of the topic. The variety of topics covered and the opportunity to meet and have informal discussions with other attendees made this an enjoyable and thoughtprovoking conference. Conversations that began in the meeting room spilled over into breaks, lunch, and dinner. By the end of the conference, attendees had been treated to a series of stimulating presentations given against the backdrop of Mount Hood. Ex Officio: Angela Dresselhaus Guests: Michael Hanson and Janice Lindquist, CPC co-chairs Kelli Getz and Anna Creech, PPC chair and vice chair Incoming Vice President/President Elect: Executive Board Minutes 1.0 Welcome (Tenney) Tenney called the meeting to order at 8:30am CST. Introductions were made and ground rules for the meeting were discussed. 2.0 CPC (Hanson, Lindquist) Hanson and Lindquist discussed the logistics for the conference and special event arrangements. They reported that there is Wi-Fi in all of the meeting rooms, as well as Wi-Fi in sleeping rooms as part of the NASIG conference hotel rate. They will post information on access for Wi-Fi at the Registration Desk. The board thanked CPC for all of their work. 3.0 PPC (Getz, Creech) Getz and Creech reported on the process for speaker MOUs. They discussed the new programming features of the Vendor Lightening Talks and Snapshot Sessions. The logistics for these programs were reviewed. The board thanked PPC for all their work. 4.0 Sponsorship Vendor Update (Boissy) Boissy reported that there are 21 vendors this year. Sponsorships totaled a little over $24,000. We now have 10 Organizational Members and it was confirmed that $1,000 of each Organizational Membership will be applied to the conference sponsorship totals. That will bring our total for conference sponsorships up to $35,000. Boissy was thanked for a great job in increasing Organizational Memberships and the conference sponsorship totals. Boissy noted that for next year additional information for the Vendor Lightening Talks should be included in the solicitation information, as well as information on the benefits of non-commercial organizations becoming Organizational Members or sponsors. ACTION ITEM: Tenney and Geckle will work on process for the 2015 conference. 5.0 Secretary’s Report 5.1 Action Items Update The Action Items Report submitted by MacDanold was discussed in detail and many items were completed. A revised Action Items Report will be compiled after the meeting. ACTION ITEM: (All) A revised list of Action Items will be confirmed 5.2 Approval of Board Activity Report The following NASIG Executive Board Action Items List was approved by the board. NASIG Executive Board Actions February 2014 – April 2014 3/17 The Executive Board approves the dedication of the 2014 NASIG Proceedings to the memory of Birdie MacLennan. 3/21 The Executive Board approves a donation on behalf of NASIG to the Birdie MacLennan Memorial Fund at the University of Vermont. 3/21 The Executive Board approves the creation of the NASIG Birdie MacLennan Award for the 2015 annual conference. 3/21 The Executive Board approves the migration fee for the back issues of the NASIG Newsletter. 4/13 The Executive Board approves the ECC recommendation to change the name of the Electronic Communications Committee to the Communications & Marketing Committee. 6.0 Treasurer’s Report (Arnold/Geckle) Arnold reported that NASIG is in solid financial standing. Account balances will be confirmed after all of the conference expenses and deposits have been completed, but we have over $500,000.00 in our accounts at this point. Arnold reported that investments accounts are up from last year. NASIG Committees budgets are in good shape and the conference budget will most likely have a surplus. NASIG webinars have offered a strong positive influence on NASIG finances with a total income of $4,075.00 from webinars for the fiscal year. Arnold and Geckle will work on transfer of duties over the duration of the conference and Geckle will assume the duties of the Treasurer at the close of the conference. Arnold was thanked for her great service to NASIG over the past years. 7.0 Committee Reports & Issues Including Newsletter Migration and Consent Agenda Various issues from April NASIG Committee Annual Reports were discussed with the following outcomes/Action Items. Newsletter migration to Clemson University has hit some snags and will be in process for several weeks. Process is moving forward, just a little slower than expected. ACTION ITEM: Newsletter will make the link to the older issues of the Newsletter more prominent. A & R had several questions/suggestions on the Mexican Student Grant and the process attached to it. It was agreed that if a member will agree to spearhead the process it will continue. Borchert and Kelley will approach a NASIG member to see if it will be possible. There was a detailed discussion on methods of making the process/award more valuable for all involved. It was agreed that if there was no one able to spearhead the award, it would be put on hold indefinitely. The idea of making webinars available internationally to library school students was generally favored. ACTION ITEM: Borchert and Kelley will discuss with NASIG member the idea of spearheading the Mexican Student Grant process. ACTION ITEM: Chamberlain and Beh will ask CEC and SOC to try a pilot of making webinars available to library school students internationally. MDC had a variety of suggestions/questions. After discussion, the following information will be relayed back to MDC with thanks for their thoughtful discussions. Lifetime memberships will probably not appeal to entry level librarians, but the main focus for this category is more mid-career, so at this time we will keep the amount as proposed by FDC and see how it goes. The board encourages MDC to follow through on the suggestions to reach out to Library Directors and Deans and possibly Library HR Departments on the benefits of joining NASIG and provide testimonials on the benefits of a NASIG membership. Perhaps MDC would work with the 30th Anniversary Task Group on this part of the project. MDC is encouraged to work with SOC on the idea of providing information to library schools on the membership benefits of NASIG. Sutton will ask MDC for specifics of placement of information on membership benefits on the website. It was not clear what would improve the current placement of information on membership benefits. Finally, MDC proposed encouraging corporate or commercial members to promote NASIG on their social media pages. The board agrees this is a good idea, and if MDC has time to pursue this it would add visibility to NASIG. Sutton will remind MDC that if they need additional resources to pursue some of these ideas, to work with the Treasure to get money added to their committee budget. Thanks to MDC. N & E submitted a report of actions during the year and some suggestions/comments on the process. The committee will be working on a formal manual. During the year it was determined that the committee documentation was just a set of emails with some descriptive information. Each standing committee for NASIG should have a formal committee manual. N & E will pursue this action during the coming year. N & E was encouraged to develop a firm timeline in May 2014 to allow for the announcement of the new board members at least 6 weeks before the 2015 conference. This will allow for transition information and travel NASIG Newsletter September 2014 arrangements to be made in a timely manner. Also, a review of the vetting process to determine if any proposed updates or clarifications are needed to assist the committee as it moves forward. ACTION ITEM: Borchert will ask the committee to finalize their manual in the 2014/2015 year. Borchert will ask the committee to develop a timeline for the election process to allow for at least a 6 week period between the announcement of newly elected board members and the annual conference. 7.0 Student Rate for Conference (Brady/Sutton) SOC is working on the proposal for a Student Rate for the annual conference. After this conference closes and they determine how the process went this year, they will offer a detailed proposal. ACTION ITEM: Beh will encourage SOC to have their proposal ready by the fall board meeting. 8.0 Survey Updates 8.1 MDC- Survey for Members Not Attending Conference (Brady) Brady reported that MDC had completed the survey and was in the process of compiling the results. There was an excellent response rate of 30%. The survey went to NASIG members not attending the Buffalo conference to see what issues impacted their decision not to attend. Preliminary results indicated many responses on location and content, but several comments offered conflicting information. 8.2 SOC-Survey for Information School Attendees (Sutton) Sutton reported this is still in process. Additional information will be sent as available. 9.0 Serialst Home (Tenney) Tenney opened discussion on the proposal to move the Serialst listserv to NASIG. The moderators of the discussion group had sent a proposal to move Serialst to NASIG after the untimely death of Birdie MacLennan at University of Vermont. The board agreed that it was an excellent idea and a good fit for NASIG. Logistical issues were discussed. ACTION ITEM: Borchert and Kelley will discuss next steps and transition issues with current Serialst moderators. ACTION ITEM: Borchert will appoint a Serialst coordinator and a small number of additional members (1-2) to be a subgroup of CMC to manage the listserv. ACTION ITEM: Borchert will ask the appointed Serialst coordinator to investigate what is needed technically and logistically to run the listserv and develop an action plan. The current Beenet structure and the current set up at University of Vermont should be investigated. 10.0 Ideas for More Non-Library Based Member Engagement (Tenney) Tenney asked for ideas on obtaining nominees for the board from the commercial/non-library based membership pool. There was difficulty this year in obtaining nominees to run for office. It was noted that if NASIG had some administrative staff to ease the burden of work on board members, it might be easier to get broader participation. It was also noted that we need to expand the pool of those in nonuniversity/academic libraries to offer broader representation. A suggestion was made to offer a more attractive one or two day conference rate for public librarians. ACTION ITEM: Sutton will ask MDC to investigate ways to engage public librarians in the DC area. 11.0 Any Discussion Requests from Vision and Mission Task Force/SSP Joint Program (Kelly) Kelley reported on the initial discussions of the 30th Anniversary Task Force. The board agreed to a budget of $25,000 for special events for the 30th Anniversary Task Force during the conference. It was agreed that Friday evening would probably be the best day to have any special event, due to the scheduling of the joint meeting with SSP. Kelley reported that the Vision and Mission Task Force has started discussions. The Task Force is composed of the following people: chair, Steve Oberg, membersBetsy Appleton, Rick Anderson, Patrick Carr, Lauren Corbett, Tina Feick, and October Ivins. Additional information will be forthcoming from this group. Kelley reported on the SSP/NASIG joint program at the 2015 Annual NASIG Conference. There are a number of scheduling issues to be discussed. It is not clear if the joint program will be a full day or half day on Wednesday. There was a lengthy discussion of how the joint program and overall NASIG conference schedule could possibly look. Kelley will take suggestions back to the planning group. It was agreed that the hotel room block could be changed to incorporate more room nights on the Tuesday night and fewer on Saturday night. ACTION ITEM: Tenney will contact the Hilton in DC to discuss the change in room block. 12.0 Any Transition Issues Including Review of Old Action Items for Transfer to New Board Members Kelley noted that the Action Items updates were completed earlier in the meeting. There were questions on board reimbursements and the guidelines were reviewed. 13.0 Old Business Boissy reintroduced the discussion of having a paid administrative staff member for NASIG. In principle the idea was favorably received. Tenney will send the document from the Task Group that was charged with investigating this possibility several years ago. It was agreed that discussions on this issue would continue at future meetings. 14.0 New Business No new business was proposed. Tenney thanked the board for a productive year. Lamoureux moved to adjourn the meeting at 4:00pm CST. Hagan seconded and the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Tenney Approved 5/15/14 NASIG Board Conference Call June 24, 2014 Executive Board: Steve Kelley, President Joyce Tenney, Past-President Carol Ann Borchert, Vice President/President-Elect Shana McDanold, Secretary Beverly Geckle, Treasurer Members at Large: Clint Chamberlain Maria Collins Wendy Robertson Sarah Sutton Peter Whiting Regrets: Eugenia Beh, Member at Large Anne McKee, Conference Coordinator Kate Moore, Ex Officio The meeting was called to order at 3:05pm. Roll call. 2.0 CPC Update (Tenney) Tenney reports the CPC is currently working on a theme and logo. They had a recent tour of the hotel, and the renovations are complete. The CPC Chairs met the conference services manager and the changes to the room blocks have been completed. The CPC is now waiting on a schedule from the PPC for the conference and the SSP joint meeting schedule. discussion/topic tables, with the goal of mixing SSP and NASIG folks for networking/interaction. For NASIG the joint programming would be included in the conference registration; SSP will treat it as a separate pre-conference registration event. 5.0 30th Anniversary Task Force Update (Borchert) Borchert reports that the TF is just getting started and there's nothing to report yet. The group has been discussing t-shirts and other memorabilia. 6.0 Vision & Mission Update (Kelley) Tenney will email room confirmation for the Fall Board meeting when they are available. The Vision & Mission TF are deep in discussion, currently talking about tag-lines for the organization. 3.0 PPC Update (Kelley) Kelley reports there is no PPC activity yet. They are waiting on SSP information. 4.0 Joint NASIG-SSP Programming Update (Kelley) SSP took the initial plan to their Board, and Board was not comfortable with joint-keynote as opener (largely due to space requirements). SSP typically holds their keynote from 4-5pm. They have set it up so their conference will run concurrently with ours and the SSP Board wants to handle the joint programming as a preconference for their attendees. Tenney sent the proposed schedule, which has NASIG folks leaving the joint program at 4pm for our opening reception and first-timers reception. NASIG conference would start on Wed. evening and run through mid-day Sat. and would still have 3 vision speakers. The vendor expo will be over lunch and into the afternoon on Friday (break in Expo area; noon-5pm). The joint programming with SSP will not include the keynote. Instead it will run from 9am-3:30pm with each group having their own individual keynote after the joint program ends. NASIG will offer a box lunch with 7.0 Financial Update (Geckle) Geckle briefed the Board on her conversation with NASIG's financial advisor. He recommended moving a defined amount of our savings into a bond account to diversify our funds. There are no fees if we keep money in the bond account for at least 1 year. VOTE: Borchert moved to move $115,000 from savings into PONCX bonds account; seconded by Whiting. ACTION ITEM: McDanold will set up a Doodle Poll for the VOTE to move the monies. Vote by COB on July 3, 2014. Geckle is reviewing the 2014 conference financials, and current estimates show a $37,000 profit. 8.0 SERIALST Update Borchert has talked with BeeNet (runs on Lyris software) and L-Soft (ListPlex software) as possible hosts for SERIALST, which approximately 3,200 members. University of Vermont has indicated they need/want to hand the list off as soon as possible. L-Soft reports it would cost $500 to migrate to their servers, and $500 to host. Ongoing, the annual fee would be $500 for hosting and management, but NASIG would be responsible for moderation. They also charge a fee of $2.50 per message per 1000 delivery attempts. At approximately 3,200 members, it would cost $8 per message to distribute to subscribers. Additionally, L-Soft sends an error message if a message is rejected. BeeNet has no error message function. The transition from the University of Vermont's servers to L-Soft's servers should be smooth as they are the same service, just different hosts. Kelley proposes that we designate the Taylor & Francis conference proceeding monies ($14,000 to NASIG currently) to fund/support the SERIALST listserv. Borchert will also follow up with L-Soft about the list's archives and migration/management costs, currently also housed at the University of Vermont. VOTE 1: NASIG takes over SERIALST and designate the monies from Taylor & Francis proceedings publication to maintain the SERIALST listserv. Motion from Tenney; seconded by McDanold. VOTE 2: Pursue L-Soft as the hosting service for the SERIALST listserv. Motion from Borchert; seconded by Whiting. ACTION ITEM: McDanold will set up a Doodle Poll for the 2 VOTEs related to the listserv. Vote by COB on July 3, 2014. Borchert will follow up with L-Soft about migrating and managing the SERIALST archive. Anne Ercelawn, Bob Persing, and Steven Clark have the University of Vermont contact information and Borchert has contact with L-Soft. Borchert will work to put L-Soft and University of Vermont in touch to discuss details. ACTION ITEM: SERIALST ongoing coordination requires an additional individual assigned to CMC as the SERIALIST moderator position, with the committee as back-up. (Borchert) Kelley will begin conversation in next Presidential column in the Newsletter about changing the name and follow up with messages to NASIG and SERIALST listserv. Kelley will send the column draft to the Board for input before submitting. VOTE: Motion to begin discussions to change name from North American Serials Interest Group to NASIG from Borchert; seconded by Robertson. ACTION ITEM: McDanold will set up a Doodle Poll for the VOTE related to changing NASIG to acronym. Vote by COB on July 3, 2014. The goal is to vote on changing the name and adopt the new vision and mission statement at same time, preferably at the 2015 Conference to coincide with our 30th anniversary. Geckle contacted our accountant about financial issues and name change steps. He recommended we hire a lawyer to manage the name change to ensure nothing is missed for an organization with non-profit status. Tenney will begin inquiries about cost of an initial consultation with an association attorney. 10.0 Site Selection Update (Kelley) Site selection for the 2016 and 2017 conferences were discussed by the Board. 11.0 Anti-Harassment Policy (Robertson) Robertson would like to construct a more formal/extensive code of conduct statement that will be posted with a link to it on Conference pages (FAQ and registration pages). NASIG Board Conference Call August 13, 2014 Attendees Executive Board: Steve Kelley, President Joyce Tenney, Past-President Carol Ann Borchert, Vice President/President-Elect Shana McDanold, Secretary Beverly Geckle, Treasurer Members at Large: Eugenia Beh Clint Chamberlain Maria Collins Wendy Robertson Sarah Sutton Peter Whiting Ex: Officio: Kate Moore Regrets: Anne McKee, Conference Coordinator 1.0 Welcome 12.0 Core Competencies for Scholarly Communications Librarians The meeting was called to order at 4:14pm. The delay was due to technical difficulties. Roll call. A few examples of conferences that have policies: Secretary, NASIG Executive Board Example/template: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Conference_antiharassment/Policy Adoption: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Conference_antiharassment/Adoption Ada Initiative example: https://adainitiative.org/whatwe-do/conference-policies/ We have a brief statement as part of the Vision statement: http://www.nasig.org/site_page.cfm?pk_association_w ebpage_menu=308&pk_association_webpage=186 "NASIG is an independent organization that promotes communication, understanding, and sharing of ideas among all members of the serials information community. As such, we support a professional, courteous atmosphere for all. Should any issues or concerns arise, please contact a member of the executive board in person, at the conference, or at ." ACTION ITEM: Robertson will put together a draft for the NASIG Board to review. The Board agrees that we need to define a new Task Group to take on the Core Competencies for Scholarly Communications Librarians. Angela Dresselhaus is interested in being on the task force. ACTION ITEM: Draft a charge for Scholarly Communications Task Force for the Board to review. (Sutton) Meeting adjourned at 4:30pm. Minutes Submitted by: Shana McDanold 55 2.0 CPC Update (Tenney) Tenney reports that CPC is currently working on the logo design. Ted Westervelt will be the host for the Board dinner on Sun., Oct. 5, 2014 at 6pm at Café Italia (Arlington location is in Crystal City; http://www.cafeitaliarestaurantva.com/). ACTION ITEM: McDanold will set up a Doodle poll for headcount of dinner attendees after Labor Day. NASIG Newsletter September 2014 Kelley reports that PPC is currently getting in touch with potential vision speakers. The committee has submitted their newsletter update. SSP has asked for a 9am-3:30pm time frame for the joint programming day. They are currently discussing possibilities for programming but have nothing concrete yet. They are also working on title/theme for jointprogramming day. One possible title/theme under discussion is "Evolving Information Policies and Their Implications: A Conversation for Librarians and Publishers". 5.0 30th Anniversary Task Force Update (Borchert) Borchert reports the Task Force will be meeting by the end of August and have nothing new to report at this time. 6.0 Vision & Mission Update/Name Change Update (Kelley) Conference call set for next Friday (Aug. 22, 2014). Kelley's first column about the updates to the vision/mission statements and possible name change will be published in the Sept. newsletter. Moore reports the column is currently in copyediting and will be online by next week. Column contains vision and mission group, with roster, and discusses idea of name change. Kelley will email preview of the column to the Board. 7.0 SERIALST Update (Borchert) Borchert emailed update to Board with current status. The server changeover is happening on Monday, Aug. 18, 2014. The official announcement to subscribers is going out on Friday, Aug. 15, 2014. 8.0 Anti-Harassment Policy (Robertson) Robertson is working on a code of conduct policy draft. After discussion, the Board can approve the policy, release and publish it immediately after approval, with the note that if members have comments/questions to contact the Board. For the policy to be in effect for the 2015 conference, it must be in place before registration opens for the 2015 conference. 9.0 Core Competencies for Scholarly Communication Librarians (Sutton) Draft charge will be sent to Board for approval. Current draft charge: "Draft charge to the Core Competencies Task Force: To develop a statement for NASIG's endorsement that describes core competencies for librarians whose professional responsibilities include a large component of work in the highly collaborative environment related to digital scholarship and scholarly communications. The purpose of this/these statements is to provide librarian educators with a basis for developing curriculum with a specialized focus and to provide employers with a basis for describing these specialized positions and with criteria upon which to evaluate the performance of those who hold them. The statement will be based on current research and complement ALA's Core Competences for Librarianship. The statement will also be flexible enough to remain relevant in the face of constant change and advances in technology as it is applied to digital scholarship and scholarly communication." ACTION ITEM: McDanold will post a Doodle poll to approve the Core Competencies for Scholarly Communication Librarians charge. Send suggestions Task Force for members to Borchert. The Task Force will be formed once the charge is approved by the Board. Kelley forwarded an email to the Board about the Library Publishing Coalition (http://www.librarypublishing.org/). The Coalition has a "Strategic Affiliate" category that NASIG could join. Benefits for NASIG include exposure and cooperative activities. Robertson is on the Membership Committee for the Library Publishing Coalition. The focus is on scholarly publishing in the library publishing world. The LPC was officially launched in July 1, 2014. ACTION ITEM: Kelley will contact Katherine Skinner at the LPC for more information and to discuss what is involved. Whiting inquired about the Membership Development Committee survey of members that didn't attend the Buffalo 2013 conference. Have they sent a report to the Board? Sutton will follow up as MDC liaison to find out. The Board would also like them to survey the members that didn't attend the 2014 conference for comparison. ACTION ITEM: Sutton will ask the Membership Development Committee about their survey of members that did not attend the 2013 conference in Buffalo and ask them to also survey members that did not attend the 2014 conference in Ft. Worth. Collins shared an update about the conference proceedings. There is some inconsistent language on the Taylor & Francis website versus the NASIG author agreement regarding post-print and pre-print language in any depositories. The language will be made consistent to prevent confusion. Chamberlain provided an update on the NISO webinar partnership. Our 2014 webinars have been very successful thus far. NISO has contacted the CEC expressing interest in partnering again for 2015 webinars. The Board is in solid support of continuing the partnership. 12.0 Fall Board Meeting Please make your travel arrangements for the Fall Board Meeting Oct. 6 as soon as possible. If you need to change your hotel reservations please let Tenney know immediately so she can let the hotel know. Continental breakfast will start at 8am, and the meeting starts at 8:30am. CPC, PPC, and Site Selection will be the first three agenda items. Meeting adjourned at 4:52pm. Minutes submitted by: Shana McDanold Secretary, NASIG Executive Board Submitted by: Simona Tabacaru Members Susan Davis, chair (University at Buffalo-SUNY) Simona Tabacaru, vice-chair (Texas A&M University) Ann Ercelawn, member (Vanderbilt University) Maria Collins, board liaison (North Carolina State University) With the departure of the past chair and resignation of the in-coming chair from the committee, all current Mentoring Group members are new. However, we managed to quickly learn our responsibilities and continue the committee activities in an orderly fashion. A third member was added this year, which will help add continuity to future committees and will provide valuable assistance as needed, especially during the planning and coordination of the first-timers reception. Completed Activities For the first time, the first-timers reception was held at a location other than the conference hotel. There was some concern regarding the meeting, organizing and proper transportation of mentors and mentees to Billy Bob’s Texas Club. Mentors and mentees met in the conference hotel lobby and suitable transportation to the reception was provided. The First Timers/Mentoring Reception was well attended not only by pairs of mentors and mentees, but also by first-time attendees who had not registered as mentees before the conference. With the help of some experienced NASIG members at the reception, mentees were matched with mentors on-the-spot. In the future, we will continue to send out a call to those experienced NASIG conference attendees and invite them to attend the reception, even if they are not paired with a mentee prior to the conference. Our thanks goes to those NASIG conference attendees who did attend the 2014 reception (including several Board members and volunteers from the Continuing Education committee) and were gracious enough to step in as mentors at the last minute. After the 2014 conference, the Mentoring Group conducted a survey of 2014 mentors and mentees about their experience. The survey was conducted via the NASIG Admin website and we received a total of thirty-two responses, which represents a 51.6% response rate. The response rate is lower than in previous years and is likely due in part to the survey being administered a month after the conference closed instead of shortly after the conference. The unexpected resignation of the incoming chair impacted this year’s survey process, but we expect a more timely feedback process for 2015. A summary of responses to the 2014 Mentoring program evaluation survey is provided below: • Eighteen mentors and fourteen mentees responded to the survey. • In answer to the question “What was your favorite part of the experience?” mentors reported: o Meeting a new person o Sharing knowledge and experience, and learning more about their mentee o Helping or guiding someone new to NASIG; making first-timers feel more comfortable and answering their questions o “The chance to talk while taking the bus to our opening night, and also at the first timer's reception.” • In answer to same question, “What was your favorite part of the experience?”, mentees reported: o Being able to network and talk one-on-one with experienced librarians o Being introduced to other NASIG members and receiving information about the conference o “I met several people while waiting for our mentors in the lobby. That alone was valuable, but having someone to guide me was invaluable.” o “Had time to talk to my mentor about my career plan and obtained advice and information.” o “I had no mentor-relationship experiences at all; I did not have a favorite experience on which to comment.” • First Timers were also asked if the program was of value to them, and if the answer was positive or not, they were asked to comment why. o The program helped new comers to feel welcome, network, get answers to their questions before coming to conference, become comfortable (“It can be intimidating to attend a conference for the first time”) and even get involved during the conference. o The opportunity to discuss with experienced serials librarians was also mentioned • In answer to the question “Have you suggestions for improving the program?” mentors reported: o “It was really difficult for my mentee and I to talk because it was so noisy. I would much prefer a separate event, in a location where conversation is actually possible.” o “The method for meeting and matching up needs to be communicated beforehand. (If it was, I don't remember it).” o “Meeting up with the mentees in the hotel lobby was not very organized. After waiting around a while and not finding my mentee, I got on the bus and accidentally sat down next to him.” o “Probably a short speech of welcome from one of the Executive Board Officers would be nice. Nothing long, but maybe a few words about NASIG and a few words of Welcome.” o “I would like to be paired with someone in my contiguous region so there is the possibility to meet in person before the conference.” • In answer to the same question, “Have you suggestions for improving the program?”, mentees reported: o Reception held in a quieter place; due to loud music and noise - it was hard to have conversations with mentors and other mentees o “Giving a drink coupon to mentors would be really nice, since they put their time in initiating new conference members and make them feel at ease.” o “Have a back-up plan in place if a mentor or mentee has to drop out for any reason.” o “Nope. I thought it was very well-organized from my perspective.” • 90.6% (29) respondents confirmed they would participate in the Mentoring program again, while 9.4% (3) provided no response to this question. This may indicate that most mentors/mentees had a good experience, and it was gratifying to see that no respondent had a “poor” experience during the 2014 Mentoring program/reception. There were few other comments, noting that the NASIG community was very friendly and “everyone seemed quick to want to assist and guide first-timers.” Both mentors and mentees seemed to value the Mentoring program and suggestions made to improve the program were valuable. These suggestions will be carefully analyzed and considered by committee members for next year’s conference. The outgoing chair, incoming chair, vice-chair, new member and board liaison met during the conference to briefly discuss committee members’ roles and activities for the upcoming year. These included conducting and analyzing the Mentoring Post-Conference Survey, and writing the group’s annual report. Budget The Mentoring Group does not require funding for its activities for 2014/15. Submitted on: August 18, 2014 The NASIG Newsletter is copyright by the North American Serials Interest Group and NASIG encourages its widest use. In accordance with the U.S. Copyright Act's Fair Use provisions, readers may make a single copy of any of the work for reading, education, study, or research purposes. In addition, NASIG permits copying and circulation in any manner, provided that such circulation is done for free and the items are not re-sold in any way, whether for-profit or not-for-profit. Any reproduction for sale may only be done with the permission of the NASIG Board, with a request submitted to the current President of NASIG, under terms which will be set by the Board. __________________________________________________________________________________________ The NASIG Newsletter (ISSN: 1542-3417) is published 4 times per year for the members of the North American Serials Interest Group, Inc. Members of the Editorial Board of the Newsletter are: Kate B. Moore Indiana University Southeast Angie Rathmel University of Kansas Stephanie Rosenblatt Cerritos College Kurt Blythe University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Rachel A. Erb Colorado State University Libraries Sharon Dyas-Correia University of Toronto Libraries Wm. Joseph Thomas East Carolina University Andrew Wesolek Clemson University Rachel A. Erb Colorado State University Libraries Wendy Robertson University of Iowa Send submissions and editorial comments to: Kate B. Moore Indiana University Southeast Library New Albany, Indiana Phone: 812-941-2189 Email: Send all items for “Checking In”, "Citations," & “Title Changes” to: Kurt Blythe University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Email: was a special individual. I was lucky to have had the NASIG Newsletter September 2014 2014 Conference Evaluation Report Taking Stock May 1-4 , 2014 4. Introduction to the 2014/2014 NASIG Executive Board, Presented by Danielle Williams (Nominations & Elections Committee) 9.0 Organizational Name Change (Kelley)


This is a preview of a remote PDF: http://tigerprints.clemson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1621&context=nasig

September 2014 Full Issue, NASIG Newsletter, 2014,