September 2016 Full Issue

NASIG Newsletter, Nov 2016

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:

September 2016 Full Issue

President's Corner Past NASIG Conference Proceedings Now Free Merriman Winner Interview: Clint Chamberlain Upcoming Conference News CPC Update PPC Update Post Conference Wrap-Up June President's Corner First of all, it was great to see so many familiar faces in Albuquerque this year, as well as so many new faces. I remember sometime around my 9th NASIG conference that I realized all the greetings and hugs and smiles on the first day felt a bit like a family reunion. I'm glad to see our “family” continue to grow and evolve over the years. The work that the Albuquerque Conference Planning Committee put into the organization of this conference was evident to me, and that was also reflected in the glowing responses to the feedback survey. Additionally, this was an excellent program put together by the Program Planning Committee. I left the conference feeling inspired, and with a still growing to-do list prompted by the things I heard there. - Of course, the annual conference isn’t the only thing that has been keeping us busy this past year. NASIG is continuing to move forward with our expanded scope and mission. We joined NISO as a voting member, and we’re establishing a Standards Committee to facilitate engagement with NISO and other standards organizations (COUNTER is on the horizon). The Board had a very productive strategic planning day with October Ivins last winter, and we established a Strategic Plan Implementation Task Force to flesh out the ideas and create a plan to fulfill them. Drawing on the charge laid upon us by 2015 Vision speaker Anne Kenney, we created a task force to identify ways in which NASIG can raise awareness of and develop tools for reducing the risk of losing vulnerable digital scholarly content. taxed too much with the volunteer work needed to keep the organization running smoothly. The Board is taking two approaches to address this over the next year or so. We’ve asked the Evaluations & Assessment Committee to develop a self-evaluation process for committees to assess whether they have enough support to do what they are tasked to do, as well as whether there are tasks that could be outsourced. The latter point is the other approach, and we are expanding some of the responsibilities for Non-Profit Help, an organization that has been assisting with some of the logistical tasks for the Conference Planning Committee and the Awards & Recognition Committee. Ultimately, our goal is to free up member volunteer time for participation in more content-related work, such as the core competencies development and standards development/enhancements. These are the kinds of things that will have a positive impact on the profession. These are exciting times to be involved with NASIG! Thank you for giving me the opportunity to provide leadership to this organization. I have some (literally) big shoes to fill, but thankfully, Carol Ann Borchert is still here in a past-president capacity to keep me from tripping in them. Past NASIG Conference Proceedings Now Freely Available Leigh Ann DePope, NASIG Publicist NASIG is pleased to announce that the past volumes of the Conference Proceedings in Serials Librarian are now freely available on the Taylor & Francis website. Future issues of the Conference Proceedings will be available by open access after a six-month embargo. NASIG worked closely with Taylor & Francis to bring about this change. We support open access publishing and are excited to be making this step. Interview with Clint Chamberlain, the 2016 Merriman Award Winner Please start by describing your current position and how you’ve been involved with serials? What initially led you to NASIG and why you continue to stay involved? My current title is educational resource support officer, which makes me feel as if I should be wearing a uniform with epaulets. Title aside, I’m basically the head of Technical Services for the Dallas County Community College District. There are seven colleges within the district, each with its own library; some of the colleges have satellite campuses with their own libraries as well. We have a centralized tech services operation for all of them. I got my start on this path to technical services years ago prior to going to library school, but I didn’t really discover my love for serials until 1997 or so in the Boston University (BU) School of Theology Library, where I was a student worker while working on a graduate degree in archaeology. It was while I was working with serials at the BU School of Theology Library that two friends and former coworkers, Beverley Geer and Bea Caraway, encouraged me to apply for one of the student travel grants. They were both involved in NASIG at the time; I think Beverley was currently the president or the past president. I applied and was lucky enough to be selected for one of the travel grants, which took me to the conference in San Diego, where I met some folks who are now friends for life. I continued to be involved through my time as a serials librarian and into roles in which I am not directly involved with managing serials or e-resources, but I manage folks who do work directly with serials and e-resources – I like to stay involved with NASIG so that I can remain current on issues of concern to the staff I manage. What prompted you to apply for the Merriman award? In a nutshell, I really wanted to go to UKSG again. I’d been fortunate enough to have presented there once, ten years ago, with Jill Emery and Dana Walker. It was an excellent conference, and I wanted to experience it again. How did you react when you found out that you were the recipient? I was thrilled. Then I immediately went into a panic because I realized that my passport had recently expired and I had only a few weeks in which to get it renewed. Fortunately, passport renewal is a lot faster these days than it used to be. What were your first impressions of the UKSG conference? I felt very well cared-for as an award winner. On the day the folks with UKSG were told that I had been selected as the recipient of the award, they contacted me and made sure I had everything I needed to make my hotel reservations and begin planning for the conference. Then, when I got there, the hospitality was wonderful. Everyone I met and spoke with was so kind and welcoming. The members of the Education Subcommittee invited me to dinner the night before the conference started, but I wasn’t able to attend due to having already made dinner plans with a friend; even so, it was nice to know that they were looking out for a newcomer like me. That set the tone for the rest of the conference. How do you think the experience of attending the UKSG will affect your career? I’m not sure. I do know that after I attended UKSG ten years ago, it opened my eyes to the different ways in which our colleagues in other countries work together to solve problems, and it made me aware of some of 3 NASIG Newsletter the great things that have come out of the UK in terms of dealing with scholarly communication issues. Although the community college setting I’m in doesn’t lend itself to much work with those same issues, it’s inspiring to see what’s going on in the wider world of scholarly communication in all its forms. How was the UKSG conference different from the NASIG conferences that you’ve attended? One thing that stood out at UKSG were the sessions focused on research (e.g., on user behavior and user experience; use of hard and soft metrics in library decision-making) and what might be called, for lack of a better term, theory (the psychogeography of libraries). Whereas, in my experience, a lot of NASIG sessions are more about day-to-day practical or hands-on stuff that attendees can replicate at their home libraries. It also seemed like there may have been more sessions at UKSG focused on scholarly communication issues, which I know NASIG is actively encouraging as well. What was your favorite USKG session and why was it your favorite? It’s hard to pick a favorite because there were so many good sessions. One that particularly stands out in my memory was the first plenary session, which was presented by Ann Rossiter, the executive director of SCONUL. It was entitled “Managing relationships between libraries and publishers for greater impact.” Her presentation identified key areas in which effective collaboration between librarians and publishers could effectively change the landscape of scholarly communication for the better, and I left there with a lot of food for thought. What are the differences between the two organizations, USKG and NASIG? The two organizations are obviously similar in many ways, but one thing I noticed and liked a lot about UKSG is the presence and active participation of so many vendors and publishers. For those who might be interested in going to UKSG and perhaps applying for the Merriman award, what advice would you give them? DO IT. Seriously. The application process is simple and straightforward. If you’re not selected, all you’ve lost is a bit of your time that was spent completing the application form, but if you are selected, you’ll have a fantastic experience. Upcoming Conference News CPC Update: What Says “Indianapolis” to You? Danielle Williams and Sue Wiegand, CPC Co-Chairs The Conference Planning Committee (CPC) is excited about the program for the upcoming conference in June 2017 in Indianapolis, Indiana. Sue and I took a trip to the hotel in August to scout out restaurants, social activities, and recreational possibilities. We’ve got our eyes on several locations for the opening reception already and promise to make it as exciting and inviting as possible. Suggestions welcome! (See for suggestions to start thinking about all the exhilarating possibilities!) Indianapolis is known for racing, of course, but here’s the thing: it’s also a major crossroads, plus there are great biking trails and nature walks, fantastic food, fascinating museums, activities galore, parks, theatre, malls, arts, jazz, Monument Circle, gamers’ conventions, amateur and professional sports, landmark architecture, and a vibrant coffee scene! So whether you’re an “urban adventurer,” a “history buff,” or “into the wild”—or maybe you encompass all that and more—plan to come to NASIG in Indy to learn and share serials information while enjoying some lively amenities. The committee is eager to get started on the 32nd annual conference next June. We’ll report back with developments in the coming months. PPC Update: Call for Proposals September 30th – November 15th Steve Kelley, PPC Chair Violeta Ilik, PPC Vice-Chair The Program Planning Committee will hold one “Call for Proposals” from September 30–November 15, 2016 for the 2017 NASIG Annual Conference. More information regarding the proposal submission process will be available in the coming weeks. PPC has identified three potential vision speakers who have been approved by the Executive Board, and we are now in the process of finalizing arrangements with these speakers. We hope to have news on this front in our next update. PPC is also discussing practical, handson workshops for the preconference 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 31st Annual Conference (2016) Business Meeting Minutes The business meeting took place on Saturday, June 11, 2016 at 4:30 pm. BUSINESS MEETING AGENDA (4:30-5:30 pm) Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 4:31 pm. Christie Degener served as parliamentarian. Highlights from the Past Year, Presented by Carol Ann Borchert Borchert listed out many of the accomplishments from the 2015-2016 year. The logo and tagline were changed to Transforming the Information Community. A new logo was created. New banners and t-shirts were printed with the new tagline and logo. A pilot project to offer free student memberships was trialed in 2016. Over 400 students registered as NASIG members. The Board voted to continue this program in perpetuity. Vision speakers are now offered a two year complimentary NASIG membership. The Board participated in a strategic planning session in January, and a Strategic Planning Implementation Task Force has been created to develop a new strategic plan. Starting with the 2016 conference, vision sessions will now be streamed. There are more plans in place to expand conference streaming in the future. A new petition process and suggestion form are on the NASIG website.                     NASIG is now listed in Wikipedia thanks to CEC and Shana McDanold. Many thanks to Susan Davis and Kevin Balster for expanding the entry’s content. NASIG members can add extra content to the entry. The new search box on the NASIG website now searches both the site and the NASIG Newsletter. NASIG joined NISO as an organizational member. A new Standards Committee will be formed to vote on the NISO standards. NASIG is in the process of becoming a member of Project COUNTER. The contract for the Conference Proceedings was renewed with Taylor & Francis. The Conference Proceedings will now become open access six months after it is published, authors can put a version into their institutional repository, and the older proceedings will be made open access. NASIG is an advisor for Library Publishing Coalition on an IMLS grant proposal, “Developing a Curriculum to Advance Library Publishing.” NASIG has written a letter of commitment for participation in the grant. A&R: There are two new awards: First-Timers Award and the Capstone Award. All award descriptions have been broadened in scope to include e-resources and scholarly communications, along with serials. The bylaws revisions passed. CPC held a Q&A webinar for first-timers. D&D completed a big database cleanup of expired records. Site Selection has now posted criteria for selecting a site on the NASIG website. There are several task forces in progress: The Archives Task Force, the Financial Planning Task Force, and the Scholarly Communications Core Competencies Task Force. There will be two new task forces and a new committee formed over the next year: Digital Preservation Task Force, Strategic Planning Implementation Task Force, and the Standards Committee. Treasurer’s Report, Presented by Beverly Geckle As of May 2016, there are 403 student members, 589 regular members, and 17 organizational members. Conference sponsorships brought in over $37,000. Webinar profits from 2015/2016 are $5,950. The bank account savings is $108,299, and there is $133,792 in the checking account. NASIG has approximately $80,000 of operating expenses. Overall, NASIG is in good financial shape. Introduction to the 2016-2017 Board, Presented Maria Hatfield and Patrick Carr (Nominations & Elections Committee Co-Chairs) Incoming Vice President/President-Elect Steve Oberg was announced in addition to the four incoming Members-at-Large: Betsy Appleton, Chris Bulock, Angela Dresselhaus, and Adolfo Tarango. Recognition of Outgoing Board Members and Committee Chairs, Presented by Megan Kilb and Mary Bailey (Awards & Recognition Committee Co-Chairs) Board members: Eugenia Beh (Member-at-Large) Maria Collins (Member-at-Large), Beverly Geckle (Treasurer), Steve Kelley (Past President), and Wendy Robertson (Member-at-Large) Bylaws: Tessa Minchew Communications & Marketing: Julia Proctor Conference Planning Committee: Betsy Appleton, Mary Ann Jones Conference Proceedings Editor: Angela Dresselhaus, Angie Ohler Continuing Education: Esta Tovstiadi Database & Directory: Christine Radcliff Evaluation & Assessment: Derek Marshall Membership Development: Trina Holloway Mentoring: Simona Tabacaru Nominations & Elections: Maria Hatfield Program Planning: Danielle Williams Registrar: Lisa Martincik Student Outreach: Shannon Regan               Strategic Planning Report and Discussion, Presented by Carol Ann Borchert In January, the Board attended a strategic planning session facilitated by October Ivins. The current strategic plan expired in 2008, and the Board felt that an updated strategic plan was needed due to the change in the vision and mission statement. A number of ideas were generated during the session including:          Becoming a member of NISO. A one-time database cleanup. Increasing our marketing plan with assistance from NonProfit Help and developing an elevator pitch. Streaming the conference. The vision sessions will be streamed for the 2016 conference. However, the Board would like to expand streaming to include more conference sessions. Rotating the conference sites. By rotating between 3-5 conference sites, CPC will be able to better plan for the conference and NASIG will be able to develop better relationships with hotels if the conference regularly returns to a site. Creating a Fundraising Coordinator position. Currently, the Past-President is tasked with coordinating sponsorships. A Fundraising Coordinator would be beneficial because that individual would be chosen for his/her fundraising expertise, as well as providing long-term stability as a vendor contact. Creating more content. NASIG is known for making an impact on the profession by creating core competencies. This sets NASIG apart from similar conferences or organizations. Increasing student involvement. SOC recently surveyed the new student members to better understand what they hope to gain by becoming members. Developing an on-going mentor program. Many students requested an on-going mentor program. The new mentor program will first be available to students, and will later be expanded for all members.   Enhancing benefits for commercial members. It is important to make sure that the commercial members also receive benefits from their NASIG membership. Performing a committee audit. A large number of members currently serve on NASIG committees. A committee audit will be done to make sure that each committee has the appropriate number of members, which will hopefully prevent member burnout. Renewing our contract with NonProfit Help. Committees can develop delegation lists for work that could be outsourced to NonProfit Help. Business meeting attendees discussed the ideas that came out of the strategic planning session. One suggestion included moving the conference proceedings toward full open access. NASIG currently relies upon the Taylor & Francis staff to maintain the conference proceedings, but it is possible that NASIG might have the staff to handle this in the future. The main discussion revolved around the idea of 3-5 set conference locations, with the possibility of having a wild-card site. Benefits to returning to a conference location include working with a trained hotel staff and the ability to work from an existing location manual. If a conference site no longer meets NASIG members’ expectations, an alternate site will be added to the rotation. Disadvantages of rotating sites includes the same people would be on CPC every few years, some members like the variety of conference locations, and members would get tired of attending the same opening session venues. There was also the discussion of including Canada in the rotation. There would be specific challenges going to Canada because some U.S. institutions will not permit international travel, and attendees will have to have a passport. The current plan is for the Board to introduce the conference rotation idea to see if this is something that should be pursued. The Board will present a formal plan with more specific cost-savings information to the NASIG membership at the 2017 conference. NASIG members are encouraged to fill out the new suggestion box on the website if they wish to convey information to the Board on this matter between conferences. Discussion of Old Business, Presented by Christie Degener There was no old business presented. Call for New Business, Presented by Christie Degener A suggestion was made to reconsider the dates for the conference. However, any date selected would conflict with other conferences, which is why the NASIG conference continues to be held at approximately the same time each year. Susan Davis made a motion to adjourn. She was seconded by Denise Fergus, and the meeting was adjourned at 5:23 pm. Minutes submitted by: Kelli Getz Secretary, NASIG Executive Board Submitted by 2016 Evaluation and Assessment Committee: Derek Marshall (chair), Melody Dale (vice-chair), Clint Chamberlain, Deberah England, Michael Fernandez, Kathryn Johns-Masten, Trina Nolen The 31st annual NASIG conference was held in Albuquerque, NM. The conference offered six pre NASIG Newsletter September 2016 conference workshops, three vision sessions, thirty concurrent sessions, one “great ideas” showcase, one snapshot session and a vendor expo. Other events included an opening reception, first-timers’ reception, and informal discussion groups. 115 surveys were submitted from 327 conference attendees. Survey respondents could enter a name and email address for a chance to win a $50 Amazon gift card. Laura Secord from DeWitt Wallace Library, Macalester College, was the winner. Below is a summary of the survey results. Conference Rating Respondents were asked to give ratings on a Likert scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest. The overall rating of the 2016 conference was 4.48. This was the highest rated conference over the previous four years. Overall Conference Rating 4.28 4.31 4.39 4.42 4.48 4.1 4.2 2012 2013 4.3 2014 4.4 2015 2016 4.5 Facilities and Local Arrangements Geographic Location The 2016 rating was 4.35, a slight increase from the 2015 location of Washington D.C., which rated a 4.3. Forty comments were entered on the survey about local arrangements and facilities mentioning a variety of issues. Meals and snacks appeared to be a large factor with several attendees, noting that the snacks were impressive and would constitute an entire meal. Several comments stated that more social dining options would have been appreciated. While the conference hotel was well-received, there were several comments on the overflow hotels not meeting standards. Several respondents commented that the AC was too cold in the meeting spaces. There were also several complaints about the Wi-Fi Internet connectivity not working correctly. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION MEETING ROOMS HOTEL ROOMS MEALS BREAKS SOCIAL EVENTS 4.09 4.1 4.1 2016 Eighty-one percent of survey respondents brought a laptop or a tablet to the conference. Fifty-three percent of respondents rated a high importance on wireless access availability in meeting rooms. Website, Blog and Schedule The majority of survey respondents rated the layout and explanation of programs as 4 or higher on the Likert scale with 46.94% assigning a rating of 5. The conference website received a weighted average of 4.14. The conference blog was rated less highly at 3.88. Many of the commenters noted they did not take advantage of the conference blog or knew of its existence. Pre-Conference Workshops The six pre-conference workshops received a weighted average of 3.80 to 4.67. Comments were overwhelmingly positive, while only a small number of respondents mentioned that more time was needed to cover all that was necessary for particular topics. Vision Sessions Three vision sessions were a part of the 2016 conference. The average overall ratings for the three sessions ranged from 4.18 to 4.26. T. Scott Plutchak’s presentation was timely on Institutional Repositories with several respondents commenting on the excellence of his presentation. Many respondents commented on the timeliness of Heather Joseph’s presentation on Open Access and felt it complemented T. Scott Plutchak’s presentation. James J. O’Donnell’s “How Many Libraries Do We Need?” prompted many comments on the thought-provoking nature of his presentation. Other Sessions NASIG offered 30 concurrent sessions during the 31st annual conference. Twenty of those (67%) received an overall rating of 4.0 or higher. The number of sessions offered was lower than last year’s conference in Fort Worth. Most comments were positive, or offered specific, constructive criticism of an individual session. Feedback will be shared with presenters upon request. 2016 marked the fourth year of the great ideas showcase, formerly called poster sessions. There were seven participants in 2016. The overall rating for the great ideas showcase was 3.88. The showcase sessions did not generate many evaluation comments. However, among the comments were suggestions to include the topics in the evaluation survey. The Evaluation & Assessment Committee has noted this and will be sure to include this information in future surveys. The 31st conference was the third year to offer snapshot sessions, “designed for 5-7 minute talks in which projects, workflows, or ideas are presented.” There were five sessions, with weighted averages from 3.32 to 3.93. The survey requested that responders rate and comment on ideas for future programming. Comments were entered with general and specific ideas for various types of sessions. A detailed summary of feedback will be submitted to the board. Events The First Timers/Mentoring Reception received a rating of 4.07. An overwhelming 94.83% would like to see this event continue. Comments submitted about the event were positive, praising the networking opportunities; however, several comments noted that the space was too small for such an event. The Business Meeting received a rating of 3.87. Participants noted that the meeting appeared to be disorganized, while others noted that it was informative to understand the inner workings of the organization. The Vendor Expo received a rating of 3.97 with the majority of survey respondents (84%) wanting to see it continue. Respondent Demographics1 RESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHICS Academic Libraries Government Libraries Specialized Libraries Vendors and Publishers Other 6% 3% 3% 9% 79% As in previous surveys, academic library employees continue to represent the largest group of respondents at 79%. This is a marginally higher percentage than was held by academic libraries for the 2014 conference at 72%. Respondents were asked to “describe your work” using as many of the 24 given choices as necessary (including “other”). 2016 marks the third year that “electronic resources librarian” garnered the highest number of responses (53). Acquisitions Librarian (42), Serials Librarian (40), Catalog/Metadata Librarian (28), and Technical Services Manager (28) round out the top five responses.    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. When asked about the number of years of serials related experience, “More than 20 years” received the majority at 40 responses. Years of Serials-Related Experience More than 20 years 11-20 years 7-10 years 4-6 years 1-3 years Less than 1 year 0 10 20 30 40 50 Thirty-one percent of respondents noted they have attended one to five past conferences. PAST CONFERENCES ATTENDED 0 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 More than 20 8% 7% 19% 10% 25% 31% Report on the 2016 NASIG Award Winners At the 2016 NASIG annual conference the Awards and Recognitions Committee presented the following awards: the John Riddick Student Grant, the Fritz Schwartz Serials Education Scholarship, the NASIG grant for Mexican students, the Paraprofessional Specialist Award, the Rose Robischon Scholarship, the Birdie MacLennan Award, the First-Timer Award, the John 11 Merriman Joint NASIG/UKSG Award and the Horizon Award. Each award included a financial component offsetting award winners’ expenses to the conference. At the close of the conference each award winner was asked to comment on their experience. Questions were asked in the form of a survey, and a compilation of their responses is included below. Why do you feel it is worthwhile for newcomers to the field of serials to attend a NASIG conference?     As a newcomer to both the field of professional librarianship and serials management, attending the NASIG conference provided me with an invaluable networking opportunity. I am the only librarian working in serials at my institution and having an organization devoted solely to my area helps me stay on top of current trends in the field. The sessions were fantastic as well as the social events. I feel like I’ve made some great professional connections that will stick with me as I move forward in my career that I would not have met without attending the NASIG conference. Serials world (Electronic and print) is complicated. There are several presentations at this conference based on practical experience, so one can learn a lot. The NASIG conference program covered a variety of topics relating to not only serials but also important issues like open access, library system migrations, online resources, and vendor relations. While most topics focus on can focus on serials, this variety is a good start for different interests among the serials field. The attendance at this type of conference allows you to know another panorama, different contexts, and for other job prospects and skill. You see cases of real situations and problems which a librarian faces every day and the solutions they find. Also attendance allows you to meet people working in different countries, states, and institutions, and they have other ways to manage and view your world. You find new trends of work, new ways of development activities, and meet new sources of information. Above all, attendance allows the librarian stay at the forefront of changes. It's a great way to meet others in similar roles as well as leaders and reps from vendors. NASIG’s conferences offering a great mix of big picture presentations that help situate one’s work within the wider landscape as well as practical, view-from-the-trenches kinds of workshops with information that one can take back to the workplace and implement. NASIG attendees are generally warm and welcoming to newcomers, enabling those new to the organization to feel like they have found their place My impression from attending this year’s conference is that NASIG conferences are one of the most ideal conferences for newcomers, especially library school students. As a relatively small conference, activities are more or less spatially contained, which means it’s not an entirely overwhelming experience. For every first-time attendee, it felt like there were 2 long-time attendees who were enthusiastic to strike up a conversation with you based solely on the fact that you were a first timer --which creates an incredibly welcoming environment and a perfect icebreaker for any setting. My work in serials stems from the fact that I wanted work experience before attending library school, and serials-related positions are some of the most accessible positions to someone without an MLIS (or other Masters degrees). And as many serialists can testify, working with serials is hardly just processing magazines or standing orders. In my position, I get experience with all kinds of work--electronic resources, cataloging, scholarly communications--and attending this year’s NASIG conference allows me to keep up on issues across the board. As a new professional and grad student, this conference also served as a great introduction into librarianship as a whole. It can be hard to find professional development activities that speak directly to the work that I’m doing in such an inclusive way as NASIG does. And of course, communication never      stops at the conference’s end--if you miss a business card, there’s always SERIALST. The conference was great for a few reasons. I attended sessions on issues that were new to me and that I hadn’t ever thought of before. I also got to meet a lot of people and even spend time with people from my institution that I don’t see on a regular basis. I also found the whole conference very energizing, the atmosphere was so positive and encouraging that I came back to work very eager to share my experience and to tackle new problems. NASIG provides a great opportunity for newcomers to develop their professional network and to know the trendy topics in the field. How did attending the conference benefit you personally? Although I’ve been working in libraries since a teenager I just completed my MLIS May 2015 and started my first professional position in January 2016. Working in academic libraries is a change from public libraries for me and I haven’t had many opportunities to attend national conferences in the past. Being able to attend the NASIG conference as an award winner provided me with a huge confidence boost and allowed me to experience what it’s like to network in a national organization. I feel much more confident in my position now with the experience I’ve gained at the conference. I networked with my colleagues and attended sessions of my interest. The conference had many social opportunities that allowed me to meet librarians from cities and schools of different sizes. Learning about how organizations differ made me appreciate how our library functions and gave me ideas on how we, as an organization, can be more efficient and do things differently. For me as a student to attend this conference was very interesting since I met people with different perspectives on the profession, who had experience in the management of serials publications in the real world, and not just theory. Knowing the experiences of other librarians in their workplace allowed me to learn about the skills that I need to acquire. This conference also helped me see the different trends in serials and the work that exists around serials. I won this scholarship to support my professional formation, to reinforce my knowledge, to learn from others, and this conference allowed me to learn more about repositories, cataloging, metadata and e-books. I was able to discuss my research with others interested in OA topics. This is probably my 15th NASIG conference, so it was as always a good chance to catch up with old friends and colleagues and learn about what’s new in the world of serials. Being able to attend the UKSG conference allowed me to make new connections in the UK, while also providing me with a wider view of the scholarly communication landscape, particularly the different initiatives carried out in the UK. I met a lot of new people in the field. For a seasoned professional, libraryland may be small, but for a new professional, it feels impossibly large. Through conversations before sessions, during breaks and over meals, I received advice about grad school, career guidance, solving specific difficulties at work, and guidance on tackling more general issues at my job. As I remarked many times since the start of the conference--it was refreshing and amazing to learn so much that was directly relevant to the work I was doing, and to be able to see how much I could directly apply to my work. Trust me when I say I took a lot of notes. I made great connections and learned a lot about how other libraries handle issues in serials management. It also helped put me on the radar at my own institution since it became a talking point for me and provided an opportunity to talk with coworkers that I don’t usually get to see on a daily basis. I made great connections and learned a lot about how other libraries handle issues in serials management. It also helped put me on the radar at  my own institution since it became a talking point for me and provided an opportunity to talk with coworkers that I don’t usually get to see on a daily basis. I came to the conference with two clear goals: presenting on our approach of managing e-books and showing our local development of improving CORAL workflow at the CORAL user’s group meeting. It was immensely encouraging to see others show strong interests in our work and to see how our work would benefit the community. After talking to other librarians, I realized we were not the only one facing the challenge and issues in the e-book landscape. I’m looking forward to some potential collaboration with others. Did attending the conference influence your career plans? If so, how? When I started my search for a professional librarian position I went in with an open mind. My background is quite varied and I do have experience in serials working at the Wisconsin Historical Society managing their serials collection. My current positon at an academic library managing the print and electronic serials collections is great and constantly evolving. Attending this conference showed me that this field is thriving and although print serials are declining, electronic resources are one of emerging fields in librarianship. I think this will be an area that will keep me happy for many years to come. No, it did not. I am quite well stablished in my career and future plans. I am finishing up with library school and working in the e-resources, serials, and acquisitions field though many of the classes don’t focus on this area. Attending the conference definitely confirmed my interest in this area and made me feel at ease with fellow attendees. Before the conference I understood some aspects of serials, but the conference opened up my view of seeing and working with serials. Not really, as a mid-career person. No. I was and still am focused on scholarly communications. I was brought to this work through working with serials. I wasn’t expecting NASIG to be so entirely relevant and practical in relation to my current work and what I want to do as a career. Attending this conference validated and informed my future career plans all around--from the vision speakers to conversing with attendees who currently hold positions that are more or less dream jobs for me. Attending the conference definitely solidified my desire to be in Technical Services, I’ve always been interested in it but the sessions at the conference affirmed that this is definitely the area I want to be working in. As a career changer from a different field, I’m a new to academic librarianship. But I can tell this is a profession with constant change and it requires us to be able to embrace the changes. I believe it’s people who drive and make the change, so networking and collaboration will help us advance in this profession. The conference provides a platform to meet people and to get involved with committee work, which will in no doubt further my career. What can NASIG and/or the Awards & Recognition Committee do to improve the NASIG Horizon Award program? My experience was really positive and I didn’t think the application process was too cumbersome. I would say making it easier to book flights and providing award winners with their own hotel rooms would be a good idea. For NASIG: This year most of the programs related to e-resources management were scheduled for Sunday morning at the same time. I was interested in all of them but could attend only one due to the time conflict. I think you could do better with program planning and schedule e-resources management related sessions throughout the conference and not at one particular time. At this time, I am unable to recall if there were any e-resources management related programs on the previous two days of the conference. I understand that NASIG is mainly concerned with serials management and not e-resources management but scheduling all the e-resources related session towards the last leg of the conference is definitely not a good idea. Low attendance and schedule conflict is quite discouraging for the presenters and attendees. Scheduling the conference sessions is a hard job so this is just my humble suggestion and not a criticism by any means. For Award Committee: I personally think it is helpful to know how many applicant one was competing against in a specific award category. It kind of builds confidence. So, If NASIG could just add a sentence in the award letter stating “We received ___number of applications and you are the lucky winner” or something like that, it would be helpful. Or, you could announce at the inaugural session about how many people applied for the awards in various categories. Another suggestion is that NASIG members should be given a chance to serve on one of the NASIG committee of their liking or they could be nominated to the committee of their choice by the NASIG award management committee. I think, in the long run, a possibility of getting professionally involved in a committee of your choice is more rewarding than the money for attending the conference. This aspect also brings in commitment from the award winners and a gives them a chance to engage in continuous learning and fulfill their professional or scholarship responsibilities. Also, if you gave a chance to the award winners to speak for just about 1 minute while accepting the award, it would help them to connect with the audience and express their gratitude in front of a larger audience.  No suggestions for improvement.        The reimbursement model can be a little problematic. One thing that would be helpful for the Merriman Award is if the award winner could be selected and notified earlier in the year. I was notified on March 1 and had little more than a month in which to make travel plans for myself and my partner to attend UKSG, which might be fine for domestic travel but is a little tight for international travel. It would also allow the award winner a little more time in which to set aside money for the inevitable side trips and sight-seeing they might want to do before or after the UKSG conference. I can’t think of anything that could possibly be improved! I can’t really think of anything; I really appreciate that there are paraprofessional awards. I think the Committee did a fabulous job for the Award program. And I greatly appreciate they were able to accommodate everything I needed for attending the conference. What could NASIG and/or the Awards & Recognition Committee do to improve your conference experience? Unlike other conferences I never found myself sitting in a corner alone at NASIG. I did like the idea of the Dine Arounds but it might have been nice to group people by interest. It would also have been nice to have arrived the day before the conference started because with flight delays I almost didn’t make it to awards ceremony on time. There should be one session, where everyone comes together and discuss what they do and how NASIG could help them. We did have a breakfast session but very few people were there. It should be mandatory to attend. I felt that NASIG and the Awards & Recognition Committee were so welcoming during the time before the conference in planning for travel and accommodations and especially during the conference. I don’t think there was anything that could have made me feel more at ease or improve my experience. The winners can also present a lecture. Nothing, really. It was a blast. Nothing that I can think of You all did a fantastic job, and I’m greatly appreciative of all the work you put into the program! I had a great conference experience and appreciated how many award-winner events there were. The environment at the conference was also incredibly welcoming and supportive, so I can’t think of anything I’d improve. I had a wonderful experience at the conference and will definitely come back next year. Do you have any other suggestions or comments?                 I had a wonderful experience and I can’t say enough how grateful I am for the opportunity to attend as an award winner. I feel this gave me a boost professionally and a boost in confidence in my new position. Everyone in the organization is welcoming and kind and I made connections that I can ask questions of later. I hope to be able to attend next year too! You guys are awesome and thank you for providing such opportunities to librarians. No other suggestions or comments. That all the presentations that were given in the conference was recorded for that later were shared in his YouTube channel Nope Nope! No other suggestions. How/where did you learn about NASIG's awards? Website. I am a NASIG member and a previous award winner so I know about the awards through the emails and other announcements. Being a student member of NASIG taking advantage of the free student membership offered, I am on the NASIG listserv as well as SERIALST. My Where should NASIG be promoting awards? supervisor also forwarded me the award information encouraging me to apply. By means of the Asociación Mexicana de Bibliotecarios and by the teacher from Development collections of Escuela Nacional de Biblioteconomía y Archivonomía I think I first learned about NASIG’s awards way back in 1998, when a friend who was a member at the time told me about them and encouraged me to apply for the Fritz Schwartz scholarship. I applied for it (didn’t get it) as well as for a student grant, which I did get and which enabled me to attend the conference in San Diego. Through working on CMC Through research for library grad school scholarships. I can’t remember what exactly led me to apply for this one--maybe between ALA’s website and an email on a SERIALST? SERIALST listserv and from my supervisor. NASIG website Library schools for the awards for students and listservs for professionals. An increased social media presence might be a nice idea too. I think you are doing great job of promoting your awards. If not already, NASIG should use university LIS organizations to promote the awards. I’ve seen postings on forums in the course management systems for scholarships and job postings. This could be used to target applications for the student awards. Library faculty and promote more on the YouTube Channel I think the current promotion strategies are pretty good. Aside from the places where you’re already promoting them, I am not sure. Multiple listservs, grad school program coordinators, Facebook groups, the twitterverse Outside of listservs and maybe publisher websites (?) I’m not sure. I think that it’s just a matter of  people drowning in email and it can be hard to get through all of that. Maybe it’s a matter more of changing the subject line of the emails to make sure they get noticed. Listservs, website, and social media. Interview with Christopher Bulock, the 2016 Birdie MacLennan Award Winner Please start by describing your current position and how you came to be involved with information management (i.e. serials, e-resources, collection development, etc.). I’m currently the Collection Coordinator for Electronic Resource Management at California State University Northridge. I work on trial management, licensing, access, and evaluation for electronic resources. I’m lucky to have a lot of colleagues who also work with eresources, so I don’t handle metadata, acquisitions, or most activation tasks. We’re currently migrating to Alma, so it seems like a lot of my work right now is trying to configure the ERM parts of that new system. I first got involved with e-resources as an undergrad, working as a reference assistant. During down time, I would download usage reports from vendors and the proxy server, also working with the library’s homegrown ERMS. That was almost exactly ten years ago. What initially led you to NASIG, and why do you continue to stay involved? I was a very new professional and had almost no money for travel. I was in the St. Louis area at the time, and I could get just enough support to handle registration for NASIG’s St. Louis conference. It was a great experience, where I got to meet experienced librarians, other new professionals, and vendor employees besides my own sales reps. I had a lot to learn about journal management and evaluation, licensing, and more, so it was immensely helpful. I became a member of the Communications and Marketing Committee (well, it was the Electronic Communications Committee at the time), and I’ve been going to NASIG ever since. What prompted you to apply for the Birdie MacLennan award? I almost didn’t apply at all. It felt a little presumptuous to apply, as I still feel fairly new to the profession, but I met the qualifications for this mid-career award, so I thought I’d give it a shot. How did you react when you found out that you were the award recipient? Birdie’s work with SERIALST has certainly enriched my career, so I had a tremendous sense of honor. It has been very gratifying to get so much support and trust from NASIG and its members this past year. Which NASIG session(s) did you enjoy the most? Why? There were so many good sessions this year that it’s hard to pick. I’ll cheat a little bit and say that the pairing of T. Scott Plutchak and Heather Joseph’s talks was excellent. OA inspires a lot of vitriol and simplistic arguments from its supporters and detractors, so it was nice to get two talks which were at times opposed to each other, but both well-argued and nuanced. How might the sessions you attended at the NASIG conference influence your daily work? Getting back to that Alma migration, I managed to attend a couple sessions on that very topic and even snagged a couple audience members to speak about it further. E-book management within Alma (or really in any system) is a challenging affair, and it’s great to hear what others are doing. What advice would you give to anyone interested in applying for the Birdie MacLennan award? Just go for it! Your chances might be better than you think, but if you don’t apply you have no chance at all. John Riddick Student Grant Report Natasha Siu, University of North Texas As a first time attendee of a NASIG conference and the John Riddick Student Grant winner, I knew I was going in to the conference as a sponge, learning from the various sessions and the attendees with their vast experience in libraries. I was very impressed with the conference and grateful to have the opportunity to attend as an award winner. I really enjoyed learning about other institutions and their migration to new library systems. Coming from a library that is in the middle of data-cleanup in preimplementation, I was very curious to see how other libraries are handling the changes and what processes are working for them post-implementation. Though the library migrated to a different system, the presentation from Radford University by Kay Johnson and Jessica Ireland confirmed the need for the data-cleanup we are doing and proved to be beneficial in the end for Radford. Working primarily in acquisitions had me very interested in the use of evidence-based acquisitions (EBA), a method I had not known about previously. The University of Colorado consortia set up different methods of acquisitions in their streaming video services from Alexander Street Press (ASP) and Kanopy. My library currently has a DDA program with Kanopy, so the comparison with ASP’s EBA program was interesting to learn about, though having heard the details it would not be beneficial for our campus. Learning about other library’s explorations and similar situations is the best part of conferences in knowing what you should or should not try as a library. Both of the vision speakers on open access were interesting and both had valid points in supporting open access. I don’t currently know very much about our institutional repository (IR), but T. Scott Plutchak’s discussion of open access IR’s to support and complement the university sounded like an ideal use of IR space. Heather Joseph put open access in a different perspective for me in altering the question of having NASIG Newsletter September 2016 open access “in order to do something significant.” Giving purpose to supporting open access, besides the acquisition and licensing thoughts of saving time and stress, really makes the movement more valuable and worth fighting for continuous progress. I would suggest to students potentially interested in the e-resources or serials fields to attend NASIG. Again, I feel like the sessions were varied; there was always something to learn about or discover. As a student, I’ve enjoyed attending different conferences of various sizes, but attending NASIG has been my favorite because of the people and the environment and atmosphere the conference plans for attendees. Conference Reports Dialectic on the Aims of Institutional Repositories T. Scott Plutchak, University of Alabama at Birmingham Reported by: Susan Wishnetsky Vision presenter T. Scott Plutchak began by recounting his past and present work experiences – library director, editor of the Journal of the Medical Library Association, member of the Scholarly Publishing Roundtable which informed the U.S. government’s Open Access policy, and, currently, director of digital data curation strategies at the University of Alabama at Birmingham – which have taken him outside the library and into collaborations with different sectors of the “scholarly communication ecosystem.” These experiences have led him to view publishers and other stakeholders not as adversaries, but as partners who are willing to offer their expertise to find the best ways to innovate and improve the discovery and dissemination of information. Plutchak recommended the recently published Making Institutional Repositories Work, with a foreword written by Clifford Lynch, executive director of the Coalition for Networked Information. In the foreword, Lynch recalls his own 2003 paper “Institutional Repositories: Essential Infrastructure for Scholarship in the Digital Age,” which envisioned institutional repositories as nurturing innovation and providing homes for new forms of scholarly information previously unavailable to researchers. Lynch’s early vision stood in contrast to the view presented a year earlier in “The Case for Institutional Repositories: a SPARC Position Paper,” by SPARC senior consultant Raym Crow, which envisioned institutional repositories as mechanisms to move traditional scholarly publishing into academia, to compete with traditional publishers, and to support a transition to Open Access publishing. Both Lynch and Crow also saw the institutional repository as a mechanism to highlight an institution’s research activities. In recent years, however, research information management systems such as Vivo, Symplectic Elements, and Elsevier’s Pure have emerged, along with tools such as ORCID identifiers and Altmetric. (ORCID identifiers combined with Altmetric are capable of identifying faculty authors and pulling in metadata from their published works. The tools have analytic capabilities to provide a complete picture of faculty output, including information on grants and teaching as well as publications, and they offer collaborative tools to bring researchers together.) Plutchak maintained that such systems eliminate the need for the institutional repository to function as a showcase for an institution’s research output. Research information management systems cannot provide access to content restricted by license; however, in some cases, institutional repository managers are able to provide access to some version of their faculty’s published works through the institutional repository. Plutchak warned that posting additional versions of articles available elsewhere brings its own problems. For example, if the institutional repository’s version has not undergone peer-review, it may not be pointing patrons to the best, most authoritative version of the content. If the article submitted to the repository is later corrected or retracted, it is unlikely that the version in the repository will contain those updates. reviewed articles, with some libraries imposing mandates on their faculty to deposit some version of their publications. Due to the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) public access policy, federally-funded medical research is now being made openly available; other federally-funded research may soon follow. (The European Union is developing similar policies.) Since PubMed Central and other well-curated repositories are hosting this research, Plutchak wondered why institutional repositories duplicate their effort by hosting additional versions of the same content. As for Crow’s vision of moving the functions of traditional publishing into academia, Plutchak acknowledged the work of the Library Publishing Coalition and its members in that area, but concluded that we mostly remain dependent upon traditional publishers. Plutchak wrapped up by supporting the use of research information management systems to manage faculty metadata and promote institutional research, and calling for greater attention to the often neglected issues of interoperability among institutional repositories and the creation of a network of repositories. He urged a reduction in duplication of traditionally published content in institutional repositories and an effort to point patrons to an article’s version of record (or the closest version to it that is available). Plutchak concluded that the focus for institutional repository managers should be on making available more material that falls outside of traditional publishing. While today’s repositories house many of the types of unpublished material Lynch had in mind – theses, dissertations, multimedia formats, syllabi and other teaching material, and research data – there is still a widespread focus on obtaining versions of peer19 When asked what existing group might create the network of repositories he mentioned during his presentation, Plutchak pointed to the publisher group Clearinghouse for the Open Research of the United States (CHORUS) ( and the academic group SHARE ( as organizations already working along those lines. An audience member suggested that the NASIG Newsletter September 2016 “publish or perish” standard for faculty was leading to the rise of predatory publishers. Plutchak agreed, and said that the Open Scholarship Initiative ( was planning to reach out to university administrators to discuss reforming the process of promotion and tenure. In addressing a question on how much time libraries should spend creating metadata, Plutchak acknowledged that there are always more things that need doing than time or energy to do them, and advised focusing on areas where the most can be accomplished with the greatest ease to avoid areas that may cause roadblocks and frustration. One audience member mentioned smaller, less sophisticated journal publishers whose content tends to move around and sometimes disappear, and wondered if institutional repositories might play a role in preserving that material. Plutchak recommended that such publishers might be directed to other established repositories that specialize in preservation, but agreed that a library could take on such a role if they made a commitment to “adopt” the journal and take responsibility for it. Another audience member indicated that many faculty members are depositing material in ResearchGate, and ignoring the library’s repository. Plutchak admitted that despite ResearchGate’s faults, many researchers like the “social networking” features that library repositories cannot provide, and suggested that we need to reconsider the role of our library repositories in the information ecosystem. Several audience members asked about including undergraduate projects; Plutchak responded that giving citations and DOIs to these works provided a tremendous service to students. One commenter noted that there was little discussion of preservation in Making Institutional Repositories Work, and wondered if it had been overlooked. Plutchak opined that real long-term preservation was very tough and probably should not be the focus of a single, stand-alone institutional repository. 20 The Power of Open Heather Joseph, Executive Director, Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) Reported by: Rachel Miles Heather Joseph spent fifteen years as a publishing executive in both commercial and not-for-profit organizations before serving as SPARC’s Executive Director. SPARC (Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition) leads efforts in the U.S. and worldwide to create and maintain Open Access policies and practices. Access to information, data, research, and educational resources has never been more promising; yet, much of this crucial information is still concealed from the general public and the researchers most in need of using it due to publisher pricing, restrictive licenses, and prohibitions on reuse. Joseph opened the session with the current state of the Open Access (OA) movement, and in particular, the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI), which has worked for the past decade to “provide the public with unrestricted, free access to scholarly research” ( The original BOAI declaration asserts that “an old tradition and a new technology have converged to make possible an unprecedented public good” ( While the OA movement has certainly made great progress in the fourteen years since the BOAI declaration was written, there are still many complex barriers to overcome. Today, as in the past, scholars share their research and creative works without the expectation of compensation in order to build upon existing knowledge and to enhance their research skills and professional development. The concept of “open” removes the barriers to access by allowing everyone — the research community as well as the general public — to immediately and freely access and reuse content. Joseph described scholarship as an ecosystem of sharing. NASIG News Summary of Results from the New Student Members Survey, May 2016 In the spring of 2016 , the Board asked the Student Outreach Committee (SOC) to conduct a survey of the new student members who took advantage of the free NASIG membership offer to better understand what they wish to gain from a NASIG membership. Members of the SOC collaborated and created a short survey of nine questions. The survey was open from May 17, 2016 to June 3, 2016. Shannon Regan distributed the survey with a cover letter to the list of 400 new student members provided by the Database and Directory Committee. A total of 97 responses were recorded. Summary of Results Overwhelmingly, students learned about NASIG via email. Of the membership benefits that most inspired students to join, the majority responded that networking opportunities and discount webinars and educational opportunities were key factors in joining NASIG. The opportunity to network and have access to discounted educational webinars indicates that these are essential roles that students see a professional organization serving. One question asked students, “What resources do you wish NASIG offered that you do not currently see?” Opportunities for student specific programming, a mentoring program, and student specific participation beyond the scholarships are in particular demand. One respondent commented: “I am currently trying to publish works that I have completed in the final semester of my Master's degree, and I have found that some professional organizations have student-focused avenues, allowing student unique opportunities to publish work before moving into the professional world. Perhaps mentoring, or a special submission forum for aspiring authors would encourage greater involvement in scholarly publishing, as well as assistance and a place to display completed work.” Students were also asked to include where they attend library school and their future line of work. A full report was submitted to the Board in June 2016. Next Steps and Recommendations 1. Expand opportunities for students to network with NASIG members and learn more about continuing resources management with a mentoring program. 2. Continue to work with the Awards & Recognition and Program Planning Committees to debut Student Snapshot Sessions at the 2017 Conference in Indianapolis, Indiana. This will give students the opportunity to share their research, actively participate in the conference and gain experience public speaking. 3. Build upon NASIG’s strong information sharing and educational programming by continuing to collaborate with the Continuing Education Committee to create a webinar with a student audience in mind. The webinar will introduce students or new members to NASIG as an organization and an overview of continuing resources management. For this term, SOC plans to focus its energy on the first recommendations; the mentoring program and student snapshot sessions. We have approached the webinar topic with CEC and they are willing to help SOC when we begin to work on the content for a webinar. Respectfully submitted, Shannon Regan July 19, 2016 Student Outreach Members When the Survey was Conducted Chair: Shannon Regan (New York Public Library), 15/17 Vice-Chair: Melissa Johnson (Georgia Regents University), 15/17 Members: Katy Divittorio (University of Colorado, Denver), 14/16 Christina Geuther (Kansas State University) 15/17 Beth Guay (University of Maryland, College Park) 15/17 Hayley Moreno (University of Houston) 15/17 Board Liaison: Maria Collins (North Carolina State University) Serials & E-Resources News “The Role of Choice in the Future of Discovery Evaluations.” ER&L 2016, April 4, 2016. A Panel Discussion Featuring Neil Block, Marshall Breeding, Robert H. McDonald, and Curtis Thacker Reported by Andrew Senior Library consultant Marshall Breeding opened the panel discussion by outlining the historical and market contexts of integrated library systems, services platforms, and discovery layers, and addressed a question that represented conversations that were taking place in the industry: whether such systems should be available “bundled” together in a single product, or separately in an “à la carte” fashion. Beginning with the earliest library automation phase, Breeding showed a historical pattern of consolidation. First generation integrated library systems (ILS) were based around separate functions - specific modules for print management. This changed with the advent of electronic resources. OpenURL link resolvers, implemented through separate knowledgebases, replaced hard-coded links, and electronic resources management (ERM) systems appeared with varying longevity. Breeding argued that some ERMs, such as Ex Libris’ Verde, Serial Solutions’ 360 Resource Manager, Endeavor’s Meridian, and Innovative Interface’s EResource Manager, were a less successful genre of automation. A subsequent movement in discovery centered on improving patron interfaces. Rather than use the native ILS online catalog, separate discovery systems (examples include Endeca’s ProFind, AquaBrowser, and VuFind) proved popular with librarians, though less so with patrons. Breeding highlighted the complexity of synchronizing different front- and back-end systems at the time and how ultimately libraries often reverted to the ILS vendor’s discovery product. Index-based, webscale discovery layers such as ProQuest’s Summon, Ex Libris’ Primo, the EBSCO Discovery Service, and OCLC’s WorldCat Local/Discovery followed, leveraging knowledgebases that draw on a central index. More recently, there has been a move to a less fragmented model of resource management through bundled library services platforms that support workflows and multiple resource types. These are created by providers of pre-existing index-based discovery services that offer bundled products with an added cost benefit incentive such as, Ex Libris’ Alma, OCLC’s WorldShare Management Service, and ProQuest’s Intota. Breeding returned to the principle question of his part of the presentation: do index-based discovery and library services platforms need to be bundled together as a single product, or should there be an “à la carte” selection? He proposed the response could be argued both ways: bundling products has the advantage of built-in interoperability between discovery indexes and common knowledgebases, with only a single provider to contact when support is required. Disadvantages NASIG Newsletter September 2016 include potential disconnects between the desired discovery services and back-end management needs, as well as a lack of customization options. For example, one provider may offer superior indexing coverage, or libraries might wish to opt for an open source discovery solution apart from their provider’s product. Breeding also outlined some obstacles to leaving a bundled environment, such as obtaining support for nonintegrated systems and pricing or migration incentives that leave libraries feeling obliged to opt for a bundled solution. Current market dynamics display the prevalence of bundled systems in recent academic library platform choices. Ex Libris’ Alma/Primo and OCLC’s WorldShare Management/Discovery are the current dominant services. According to Breeding, ProQuest’s acquisition of Ex Libris means they are wellpositioned in the academic and research library market through a consolidated central index. Neil Block of EBSCO continued the presentation by stating what he considered to be the two big themes in discovery evaluation: choice and quality. Block urged attendees to become familiar with the substantive differences in web-scale discovery systems. Taking the level of trust we place in Google search results as an example, he enumerated the elements for evaluating quality, such as assessing relevancy ranking, metadata, user experience, platform interface and interoperability. He emphasized that there are key differences in the current marketplace to consider. For example, does the quality of metadata in the index and the relevancy ranking permit sophisticated search retrieval, thus driving user experience? Irrespective of the interface, the underlying technology should still return the correct search results and discovery platforms should be interoperable with the varying campus systems such as databases, institutional repositories, existing ILS, and the learning environment. Drawing on his role as Vice President of Discovery Innovation at EBSCO, Block mentioned that EBSCO maintains more than sixty partnerships that enable interoperability. constituent part (or drawer), while the original design was to function outside of that system. He argued this is a limiting choice for libraries that was unfortunately driven by marketing rather than technology. He juxtaposed this view with another image of a modern extensible bedroom shelving-storage unit which he likened to the future of discovery with new functionality, such as linked data interoperability, both flexible and adaptable to future trends. Block employed the analogy with a food product: did users want Kraft slices or Gouda cheese? Both represented the same product but with very different experiences and he hoped that libraries would avoid an equivalent experience in discovery. Robert H. McDonald from Indiana University then presented on the options of buying, building, or leasing discovery platforms in the context of a “dis-integration” between user experience and the management needs of libraries. He discussed how often the work that libraries had originally contributed to the discovery user experience was lost when their provider’s interface proved unsustainable by highlighting the number of products and technologies listed in Breeding’s early slides that were now defunct. Consequently, many libraries in that position have since tried to leverage open source interfaces drawing on search APIs. McDonald provided the context for Indiana University Libraries, currently using the EDS API, and their experience regarding whether to buy, build, or lease. Subscription models mean the university is buying less software outright, and more frequently using “software as a service” or leasing options. When assessing the feasibility of building a product, exploring the open source community was part of the process. In the context of leasing, McDonald contrasted a traditional loss of lease (and the work involved in moving physical materials) with that of a library system lease. Cloud-based discovery entailed moving data across platforms, a process which is currently a tenyearly cycle for many libraries. In the same way, Using a photo of a traditional purpose-built bedroom contingency plans for backup form the basis of IT dresser as an analogy for the library “all-in-one directors’ cloud migration strategies. Libraries must systems,” Block showed how discovery is currently one likewise be sure of their plan for future migration when 52 NASIG Newsletter September 2016 entering into a leasing arrangement and aim for greater agility around back-end management and the speed of such migrations. He continued by arguing for a “disintegrated” user experience design with control in the hands of institutions. Sometimes this is obtained through open source, but the key element to consider is interoperability. In mentioning the work of 501(c) (3) tax-exempt non-profit organizations for community source software, McDonald concluded with a question: “Where is that fabric of collaborative support in libraries that can sustain some of the open source community?” While not all ventures will need sustenance, libraries will need to build such a fabric for sustainability or embrace current options that may be longer-lived. Curtis Thacker from Brigham Young University concluded the panel presentation by first asking attendees several questions relating to their satisfaction with - and the performance of - their institutions’ discovery layer. He explained how the library at Brigham Young University decided to build their own discovery platform, first using Primo, and then EBSCO EDS for their central index. He suggested that there were many smaller reasons for doing this, rather than one single one. Taking real search examples, he showed how their discovery layer displayed variant formats of publications, with the simplicity of user experience belying complex back-end work. Accordingly, Thacker believed that hiding complex details from the user is part of the job of making discovery easier. Then, Thacker discussed open source in general and the commonalities between the Open Source Software (OSS) movement and libraries, such as shared values for open formats and information. Paraphrasing a paper by Kate Moore and Courtney McDonald, he pointed out that open source was only free in the same way that puppies are free, with hidden financial and time costs. To prove his point, Thacker discussed the survey in the ARL Spec Kit [340] he authored, in which 69% of respondents said that although they were in a position to implement an OSS project, they had chosen not to do so, for reasons ranging from time to community support, code quality, and external system dependence. Significantly, Thacker pointed out that over 50% of initiated OSS projects fail, but that none of these aspects were reasons not to invest in OSS projects. He reiterated that the shared values between the open source community and libraries were important reasons we should support OSS platforms. Finally, he suggested that the future of discovery will involve personalization, leveraging usage data for greater relevance ranking, and employing tools building on data mining and machine learning, utilizing already existing technological solutions. Thacker hoped that a combined effort will enable our communities to figure out solutions to current discovery issues. Executive Board Meeting Minutes NASIG Board Conference Call March 31, 2016 Members at Large: Eugenia Beh Christian Burris Maria Collins Laurie Kaplan Wendy Robertson Ex Officio: Kate Moore Regrets: Steve Oberg, Member-at-Large The meeting was called to order at 12:03 pm. 2.0 Treasurer’s Report (Geckle) The Board reviewed a list of individuals receiving conference compensation to identify any inconsistencies between NASIG policies and actual practice. A&R brought forth an issue regarding whether or not award winners were required to have roommates during the three nights that NASIG covers their hotel room costs. The award winner compensation information should be passed along to A&R, CPC, and PPC by their respective Board liaisons. Additionally, these committees may need to update their manuals to include this information. The Board also noticed that the Mexican Student Award is not on the website. Additionally, the Board would like A&R to announce the award winners since an announcement has not yet been made. ACTION ITEM: A&R will coordinate with CMC to include the Mexican Student Award on the Awards page of the NASIG website (Creech & Burris). ACTION ITEM: A&R will send out a message to the NASIG membership announcing the award winners (Creech). It was decided that much of the compensation information would be maintained by CPC. However, the NASIG website needs to be updated regarding the current compensation information. ACTION ITEM: Hanson will send a list of pages on the NASIG website regarding conference compensation to CMC to update. 3.0 Secretary’s Report (Getz) VOTE: Borchert made a motion to approve the minutes from the March 15 conference call. Burris seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. March 4, 2016: Board approves the registration rates for the half-day preconferences in 2016 at $75. March 8, 2016: Board approves giving $500 of financial support to the eBooks Festival at Wake Forest. March 9, 2016: o Board approves the creation of the Fundraising Coordinator position. o The Board approved the purchase of 3 physical banners to replace the banners with the old NASIG logo. March 11, 2016: o The Board approves the Bylaws revisions as presented to the Board on March 8. o The Board accepts the revised conference registration cancellation policy, including removal of the $50 processing charge. March 15, 2016: The Board elects to become a voting member of NISO for an annual fee of $1,800. March 17, 2016: The Board approves the minutes from the conference call on February 22, 2016. 3.1 Action Items Update (Borchert/Getz) The Board went through the list of outstanding Action Items. The Board documents have now been moved to a shared Board Google Drive account. ACTION ITEM: Board members will send their preferred Google Drive account addresses to Getz so that she can add them to the Board’s shared Google Drive account. VOTE: A motion was made by Burris for to upgrade the Google search box on the NASIG website to an ad-free version for $100. The motion was seconded by Robertson and passed unanimously. Room Block Discussion (Borchert/Kelley) Kelley and Creech are verifying that we have enough reserved rooms for the NASIG award winners. 4.0 Committee Updates (All) SOC: Nothing to report. Site Selection: Site Selection will be meeting next month. SCCTF: Nothing to report. PPC: Nothing to report. N&E: Nothing to report. Newsletter: Moore will be sending out the call for the Submissions Editor soon. Mentoring: Nothing to report. Membership: Nothing to report. FPTF: Nothing to report. E&A: E&A submitted their mid-year report. D&D: Nothing to report. Proceedings Editors: Kristen Wilson has been named the new Proceedings Editor. Dresselhaus       will be taking over as First Production Editor, with Pope serving as the Production Assistant. CPC: CPC is investigating potential off-site event spaces for the conference. CMC: Nothing to report. Bylaws: Nothing to report. A&R: Nothing to report. Archives Task Force: Nothing to report. Archivist: Nothing to report. ACTION ITEM: Board liaisons need to remind their committees that annual reports are due May 2. 5.0 Adjourn (Borchert) The meeting was adjourned at 1:04 pm. Minutes submitted by: Kelli Getz Secretary, NASIG Executive Board NASIG Board Conference Call April 25, 2016 Attendees Executive Board: Carol Ann Borchert, President Steve Kelley, Past-President Anna Creech, Vice President/President-Elect Kelli Getz, Secretary Beverly Geckle, Treasurer Michael Hanson, Treasurer-Elect Members at Large: Eugenia Beh Christian Burris Guests: Betsy Appleton, Incoming Member-at-Large Chris Bulock, Incoming Member-at-Large Angela Dresselhaus, Incoming Member-at-Large Adolfo Tarango, Incoming Member-at-Large Regrets: Maria Collins, Member-at-Large Kate Moore, Newsletter Editor The meeting was called to order at 10:02 am. 2.0 Treasurer’s Report (Geckle) 3.0 Secretary’s Report (Getz) The new physical banners with the new NASIG logo and tagline has been ordered. The banners should be printed before the end of April. 4.0 NISO Membership (Borchert) There was a discussion on NISO membership regarding our NISO representatives. Oberg and Creech are temporarily serving as NASIG’s NISO representatives. Borchert already announced NASIG’s NISO membership in the President’s Corner of the NASIG Newsletter, but a more formal announcement will be made after the Board develops a permanent plan for NASIG NISO representatives. CEC needed the Board to vote on whether NISO members would be allowed to get the NASIG member rate for NASIG webinars since NASIG members pay the NISO member rate for NISO webinars. VOTE: Robertson moved to allow NISO members to get a NASIG member rate for NASIG webinars. The motion was seconded by Hanson, and the motion passed unanimously. 5.0 Fundraiser Position Update (Borchert) Borchert provided an update on the new Fundraiser Position. Borchert hasn’t heard back from Tenney. Borchert will follow up with her to see if Tenney has contacted NonProfit Help yet. Collins had reported earlier in the day that an agreement with Taylor & Francis had been reached regarding their open access policy. ACTION ITEM: Borchert and Collins will draft a statement of the outcome of the negotiations with Taylor & Francis. They will run the statement by the rest of the Board for wordsmithing, and then they will send the statement to the Publicist to broadcast to the membership. 7.0 Committee Reports (All) PPC: Nothing to report. CPC: The Board discussed several of the conference logistics. Archives: Nothing to report. Archives Task Force: Nothing to report. A&R: Nothing to report. Bylaws: Voting on the proposed changes has begun. NASIG members can vote when they log into the NASIG website. CMC: Nothing to report.        CEC: o The Board has approved a new CEC structure that will be in place after the conference. o There was discussion about the committee chair training webinar and where the link should go. ACTION ITEM: CEC should send the link to the committee chair training webinar to CMC to put on the website. D&D: Nothing to report. E&A: Nothing to report. FPTF: A report and recommendation will be ready soon, although not prior to the conference. MDC: Nothing to report. Mentoring: Mentoring sent out a call for mentors. They encourage members of the Board to participate as mentors. ACTION ITEM: Beh will send out the link to the Board list where Board members can sign up to be mentors. Newsletter: The banner for the Newsletter has been updated. N&E: Nothing to report. SCCTF: They hope to have a report ready for the Fall Board Meeting. Site Selection: They will be meeting soon to discuss the recommendation regarding rotating sites. SOC: SOC will be sending out a survey soon to the new student members. ACTION ITEM Committee annual reports will be due Monday, May 2, 2016. 8.0 Adjourn (Borchert) The meeting adjourned at 10:48 am. Minutes submitted by: Kelli Getz Secretary, NASIG Executive Board NASIG Board Conference Call May 23, 2016 Executive Board: Carol Ann Borchert, President Steve Kelley, Past-President Anna Creech, Vice President/President-Elect Kelli Getz, Secretary Beverly Geckle, Treasurer Guests: Betsy Appleton, Incoming Member-at-Large Chris Bulock, Incoming Member-at-Large Angela Dresselhaus, Incoming Member-at-Large Adolfo Tarango, Incoming Member-at-Large Regrets: Michael Hanson, Treasurer-Elect Steve Oberg, Member-at-Large 1.0 Welcome (Borchert) The meeting was called to order at 11:02 am. The administration budget is higher this year than last year due to the Board’s Strategic Planning session on January 21 before the Board’s Winter Meeting on January 22. Additional expenses this year also include NISO membership fees, the purchase of recorders for the Conference Proceedings Editors and the Secretary, and the printing of new physical banners with the new NASIG logo and tagline. 3.0 Secretary’s Report (Getz) Board Activity Report: May 11, 2016: Board approves the minutes from the 3/31 and 4/25 conference calls. 4.0 NonProfit Help (Borchert) The Board will wait to discuss Marketing with NonProfit Help. NonProfit Help completed the insurance review. 4.1 Marketing 4.2 Insurance 4.3 Auditing The tax-exempt status for Indianapolis still needs to be completed. 5.0 Committee Reports (All) 5.1 PPC (Creech) Introducers have been assigned. Everything else is moving along nicely. 5.2 CPC (Kelley) The contract with the Balloon Museum has been signed. Outstanding contracts include transportation to the Balloon Museum and the balloon ride contract. At this point, over 300 people have registered for the conference.               Archivist/Archives Task Force: Nothing to report. A&R: A&R suggested some ways in which the application process could be streamlined, as well as designating a flat reimbursement rate for award recipients. The Board will discuss the suggestions at the Board meeting in June. Bylaws: Today is the last day to vote on the Bylaws changes. CMC: The Google site search is working. Proceedings Editors: Authors of the 2015 Conference Proceedings signed the previous version of the contract. CPE will be following up with those authors to have them sign the new license to publish. CEC: Nothing to report. D&D: The committee is updating the D&D manual with new procedures. E&A: Nothing to report. FPTF: Nothing to report. MDC: Nothing to report. Mentoring: The Mentoring Committee is working on organizing the First Timers’ Reception. Newsletter: The May issue is out. Also, a Submissions Editor is still needed. N&E: Nothing to report. SCCCTF: Nothing to report. SOC: SOC will be giving out gift cards as an incentive to get students to fill out the survey. The SOC report will be available to the Board before the Board meeting in June. 6.0 Site Selection (Borchert) A list of sites for potential conference site rotation has been developed and shared with the Board. 7.0 Adjourn (Borchert) The meeting was adjourned at 11:57 am. Minutes submitted by: Kelli Getz Secretary, NASIG Executive Board NASIG Board Meeting June 8, 2016 Hotel Albuquerque, Albuquerque, NM Executive Board: Carol Ann Borchert, President Steve Kelley, Past-President Anna Creech Vice President/President-Elect Kelli Getz, Secretary Beverly Geckle, Treasurer Michael Hanson, Treasurer-Elect Members at Large: Eugenia Beh Christian Burris Maria Collins Laurie Kaplan Steve Oberg Wendy Robertson Ex Officio: Kate Moore Guests: Betsy Appleton (CPC Co-Chair, Incoming Member-at Large) Chris Bulock (Incoming Member-at-Large) Angela Dresselhaus (Incoming Member-at-Large) Mary Ann Jones (CPC Co-Chair) Corrie Marsh (PPC Vice-Chair) Adolfo Tarango (Incoming Member-at-Large) Danielle Williams (PPC Chair) 1.0 Welcome (Borchert) The meeting was called to order at 9:05 am. 2.0 CPC/PPC Report (Kelley, Creech, Appleton, Jones, Marsh, Williams) CPC discussed the following: Approximately 320 attendees registered for the conference. CPC is under budget, and sponsorships are higher for 2016 than they were in 2015. One presenter was unable to fly, so she will be presenting via Skype. Bottles of water will be provided to attendees at the registration desk. PPC discussed the following: Two sessions cancelled [E-preferred approval plan in a large academic library & Assessment and collection development implications], and one session needed to be moved to another day. Half of the PPC members were unable to attend the conference. Vision sessions will be streamed and also available on the NASIG conference website after the conference. Two of the workshops were filled to capacity [A beginner’s guide to MarcEdit and Beyond the Editor: Advanced tools and techniques for working with library metadata].         The Board appreciates all of CPC and PPC’s hard work in making the Albuquerque conference a success. The Board reviewed Geckle’s budget to be presented at the Business Meeting. 3.0 Secretary’s Report (Getz) 3.1 Action Items Update The Board went through the list of outstanding Action Items. New Action Items include: ACTION ITEM: Dresselhaus will update the FAQ on the conference proceedings site to reflect NASIG’s new agreement terms with Taylor & Francis. ACTION ITEM: Oberg and Creech will work with PPC and CPC to identify a web liaison on each committee. The web liaisons will be in charge of updating the web presence for their respective committees. Additionally, this information needs to be added to both manuals. 3.2 Board Activity Report VOTE: Kelley moved to approve the minutes from the conference call on 5/23. Burris seconded. The motion passed unanimously. 4.0 Treasurer’s Report (Geckle)  Organizational memberships have increased from 11 in 2015 to 17 in 2016.  Active individual memberships (excluding student memberships) have increased from 517 in 2015 to 589 in 2016.  There are 403 student members.  NASIG now accepts American Express.  The IRS now has our correct name and address. 4.1 Non-Profit Help--Insurance Review 4.2 Auditing The company that does NASIG’s taxes advised Geckle to do a review instead of an audit. The review is routine, cheaper, and easier. Audits are typically only done if required for a particular purpose. 5.0 Committee Updates (All) 5.1 Archivist/Archives Task Force: Updates The Board reviewed the activities of the Archivist and the Archives Task Force. Peter Whiting was named as the Archivist-in-Training for the 2016/2017 year. 5.2 A&R: Flat Budget Reimbursement and Streamlining the Questionnaire There was a discussion around setting a flat amount of money for travel for the award winners. If the winners would go over the amount, they could then submit the receipts for additional compensation. There was also a discussion around streamlining the award questionnaire. A&R suggested collecting resumes/CV from award applicants. The Board agreed that this was fine as long as resumes/CVs are restricted to 2 pages. VOTE: Creech moved to set a flat $600 reimbursement for travel costs (including the $75 stipend for meals) for award winners (excluding the Mexican Student Award winner) with the option of getting reimbursed for additional costs. Oberg seconded, and the motion passed with 11 votes in favor and 1 abstention. ACTION ITEM: Bulock will notify A&R regarding the new flat $600 reimbursement travel policy. 5.3 SOC: Sponsorships for Potential Student Snapshot Speakers The Board decided not to pursue sponsorships for potential student snapshot speakers. However, SOC and PPC need to work together to organize the student snapshot speakers for the 2017 conference. There is also the potential that the student award winners would be offered a slot at the Snapshot Sessions in addition to having the option to write up reports for the NASIG Newsletter. ACTION ITEM: SOC will work with PPC to organize the student snapshot speakers for the 2017 conference (Oberg). A&R may need to be involved if student award winners are offered a slot at the Snapshot Sessions. Additionally, the Board agreed that it is important for SOC’s outreach ambassadors to communicate well with library schools in the Indianapolis area for the 2017 conference. There was a recommendation for SOC to work with the Publicist to send out blast emails to library school students and outreach ambassadors prior to the conference to publicize the student awards, the snapshot sessions, and any additional information of interest to student members. The Board also agreed that outreach ambassadors need to be copied in on any email sent to student members. ACTION ITEM Oberg will work to coordinate SOC and the Publicist to send out information of interest to student members and outreach ambassadors prior to the 2017 conference. ACTION ITEM SOC will review the list of outreach ambassadors to verify that the list is current, identify those schools for which there is no outreach ambassador, and include any Canadian schools that may not be on the list. Additionally, SOC will include the list of outreach ambassadors on the NASIG website. (Oberg) 5.4 Site Selection: Site Rotation Discussion There was a discussion of rotating sites. Benefits to rotating sites include the ability to create manuals for CPC on running the conference and better deals to be had if we return to a site. More will be discussed at the Business Meeting.    5.5 New Committee/Position Updates 5.5.1 Strategic Planning Implementation Task Force A Strategic Planning Implementation Task Force has been assigned. 5.5.2 Digital Preservation Task Force A Digital Preservation Task Force has been assigned. 5.5.3 Fundraising Coordinator The Board discussed the status of the Fundraising Coordinator position. A&R: The Board clarified that it is acceptable to have more than one student award winner per year. A&R can determine the number of award winners based on their annual budget. If A&R chooses to offer more awards than their current budget allows, they can contact the Board to request more money. Bylaws: The vote to approve the changes to the bylaws passed with only 2 votes against the changes. CMC: The Board recognizes the large amount of work done by this committee during 2015/2016. Conference Proceedings Editors: Dresselhaus reviewed the MOUs. There is need to change the language so that authors can choose to write their own papers. Also, the Proceedings Editors set the due date for the papers, and this needs to be updated in the MOU each year. ACTION ITEM: Dresselhaus will send the changes to the MOU to PPC. CEC: Nothing to report. D&D: Nothing to report. FPTF: Nothing to report. MDC: Nothing to report. Mentoring: Nothing to report. Newsletter: The Newsletter will be writing up profiles of long-time NASIG members. N&E: Nothing to report. SCCCTF: The timeline for their report was sent to the Board. The Board approved of the timeline. 6.0 NISO Representative/Project COUNTER Discussion (Borchert) The Board discussed the need to appoint a NASIG representative for NISO. Currently, the NASIG President and the Vice-President/President-Elect serve as NASIG’s representatives to NISO. All agreed that the NASIG representative should not be an elected person because the representative would need to be both interested in the position and knowledgeable about the NISO standards. The Board decided to create a Standards Committee. The NASIG NISO representative would serve on the Standards Committee and would both interpret the ISO standards and vote on NASIG’s behalf. The Standards Committee would be constructed of 5 individuals with terms ranging from 1-5 years, and the Standards Committee can select a chair and decide which person will serve as the official NASIG NISO representative. ACTION ITEM Oberg will appoint a Standards Committee. NISO did recommend that NASIG send out a summary of the standard to the NASIG listserv, not the entire standard. The Board discussed becoming an organizational member of COUNTER because COUNTER supports the work of e-resources and serials librarians. Becoming an organizational member of COUNTER would also give NASIG the ability to vote at general meetings and provide guides and trainings for NASIG members. The Standards Committee would be body that would be in charge of voting on NASIG’s behalf, and members of the committee could possibly serve on one of COUNTER’s working groups. VOTE: Oberg moved for NASIG to become an organizational member of COUNTER for $469. The motion was seconded by Robertson, and it passed unanimously. The Board discussed the streaming options for the 2017 conference. Currently, only the vision speaker speeches are being streamed. The goal is to eventually stream 100% of the conference, although incremental steps will likely be taken each year in order to get to 100%. Additionally, recorded copies of the conference sessions were discussed. CPC’s budget for A/V costs will likely need to be increased. 8.0 Conference Coordinator Overlap (All) Anne McKee continues to serve as Conference Coordinator, and she has agreed to serve as Conference Coordinator for the 2017 conference. There were some concerns about succession planning when McKee steps down, and the possibility of a Conference Coordinatorin-Training was discussed. The Board would like to make note of the hard work and time spent by McKee in making the NASIG conference a success. 9.0 Parking Lot Issues (All) The Board discussed the continuation of the free student memberships. All agreed that this program has been successful in getting more students to join. Over four hundred students signed up for the free student memberships for the 2016 year. ACTION ITEM: Hanson will work with D&D to update the membership renewal message to include information specifically regarding the student memberships. VOTE: Oberg moved to continue the free student memberships in perpetuity. Creech seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. ACTION ITEM: Kaplan will notify MDC to let them know that the free student memberships will continue in perpetuity. ACTION ITEM: Oberg will notify SOC to let them know that the free student memberships will continue in perpetuity. There was also a discussion about using Skype during the committee meetings so that committee members unable to travel to the conference could meet. The Board agreed that this can continue on an ad hoc basis and does not need to be standardized. The Board did agree that committee members on CPC and Mentoring do need to make a great effort to attend the conference. This should be communicated to committee members when they are offered positions on these committees. 10.0 Adjourn (Borchert) The meeting was adjourned at 5:20 pm. Minutes submitted by: Current Balance Sheet Also, in August 2014 NASIG began to host the SERIALST listserv. Since August the listserv has incurred $5489 in charges. Retrospective Comparison Also, in August 2014 NASIG began to host the SERIALST listserv. Since August the listserv has incurred $5489 in charges. NASIG Treasurer’s Report 31st Annual Conference, June 2016 Beverly Geckle, Treasurer Chase Deposit Accounts Checking Savings JP Morgan Investments Alternative Assets Fixed Income & Cash May 31, 2015 JP Morgan Investments Alternative Assets Fixed Income & Cash $ 599,498.46 $ 381,706.14 $ 181,117.04 $ 200,589.10 $ 242,677.52 $ 125, 212.40 $ 117,465.12 $ 624,383.66 2016 Organizational Members AIP Publishing American Chemical Society bepress Cabell's International De Gruyter Duke University Press EBSCO Information Services Harrassowitz IOP Publishing NA Publishing, Inc. Oxford University Press Penn State University Press Rockefeller University Press SAGE Publications Springer Taylor & Francis WT Cox Information Services 2016 Conference Sponsorships Total $37,675.00 2016 Webinar Income Total $5,950.00 Committee Reports/Updates Archivist Annual Report The NASIG photo archive is on Yahoo Groups as a private site that was set up in 2010. It contains some documents and clips as well. We tried Flickr for a public photo site before, but we experienced too many irrelevant comments and deleting them from the Flickr site got to be a burden. We will review the Yahoo site and sort out which files to move to a Dropbox account that can be accessed by the publicist and CMC to obtain image files for the website, and which ones to send to the UIUC archive. Dropbox is not an elegant solution but it buys us time to investigate other options: Apple Photo, Lyve, Shoebox, Adobe and Mylio, etc. Some are free; others require a low fee, less than $100. We’ll make a recommendation to the Board but cannot make a budget request at this time. Sara will be setting up a task calendar by August, assign tasks for moving the photo archives from Yahoo Groups to Dropbox and conduct monthly follow-up with committee members on their tasks and send deadline reminders as appropriate. Sara is tasked with sending updates on the history timeline to CMC for the website by August 1. The previous photo historian stepped down and Anna Creech put forth a call for volunteers and appointed two students to share the position and tasks: Carla Bywaters, San Jose State University and Zahra Saeedozakerin, working at Concordia Library and a graduate student at McGill. Neither of them could get institutional funding to attend the annual meeting but they agreed to collaborate on the photo historian role. Peter Whiting was appointed as the archivist-intraining to take over when Sara’s term ends in June 2017. In May, Sara attended a 3-day meeting on personal digital archiving with hands-on workshops to learn about availability of tools and feasibility of converting parts of our paper archive into digital format online so it can be more accessible to the board, committees and members. Photos of award winners were taken by Deberah England at the conference. Our deposit account with the Archives at University of Illinois shows $399 balance. This is more than sufficient to take care of the next deposit of papers from 20132016. Any additional deposit is at the board’s discretion. Questions for Board There are banners created for previous annual meetings that are currently stored in Kelli’s office. I believe she said there are four of them with old logos. The archive does not contain artifacts, just documents, but Kelli offered to have photos taken in her library and send them to this committee to be archived. What does the board want to do with the actual banners? Submitted on: June 24, 2016 Mentoring Group 2016 Annual Report Submitted by Sandy Folsom 2015/2016 Simona Tabaracru, chair (Texas A & M University) Sandy Folsom, vice-chair (Central Michigan University) Adolfo Tarango (University of British Columbia) Eugenia Beh, board liaison (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) 2016/2017 Sandy Folsom, chair (Central Michigan University) Trina Holloway, vice-chair (Georgia State University) Rachel Lundberg (Duke University) Adolfo Tarango, board liaison (University of British Columbia) Continuing Activities The Mentoring Group is working with the Student Outreach Committee on a proposal to create a yearlong mentoring program for student members of NASIG. A conference call for members of both groups and board liaisons took place on July 19. A follow-up call is scheduled for mid-September. The Mentoring Group will take the lead on developing mentor/mentee applications for the proposed program. The entire proposal is projected to be submitted to the Executive Board prior to the fall meeting. Completed Activities The mentoring program proved quite popular at the conference in Albuquerque. The final participation totals were 31 mentees and 27 mentors. Initially, there was a dearth of volunteers to mentor. Some more mentors volunteered after requests were posted to NASIG-L and the NASIG Facebook page and committee members directly asked individuals to volunteer. Also, some of the mentors agreed to work with two mentees. The First-Timers Reception was well attended. There was a drawing for door prizes, gift cards to Starbucks, Amazon, and Barnes & Nobles. Unfortunately, the room was a bit small. There was access to a patio but most attendees chose not take advantage of it. As a result, the room was quite crowded and noisy. This was mentioned in several of the responses to the mentoring program survey. Overall, the reception seemed to be an enjoyable experience but room size should be a consideration in future conference planning. After the conference, the mentors and mentees were asked to participate in a survey regarding the mentoring program. The survey was conducted via the NASIG web site. Notifications were e-mailed directly to all participants. A reminder was posted on NASIG-L and the NASIG Facebook page. There were a total of 31 responses, 13 from mentors and 18 from mentees. What follows is a summary of the results. There were two questions about how the mentoring program was publicized. The vast majority of respondents indicated that they learned about the programs via NASIG-L. When asked if publicity was adequate, most gave an affirmative response. When asked, “What was your favorite part of the experience?” most responses focused on mentor/mentee interactions. Some examples:  “Recommended some sessions based on my interests and the nature of my library”  “Helped me come out of my shell and start networking right away.”  “Meeting an experienced NASIG member-mentor and being able to touch base throughout the conference, secure in the knowledge that I would be able to ask ”newbie” questions if needed!”  “Learning new things from my mentee.” “Meeting with someone who was attending for the first time and being able to answer questions and encourage participation.” Mentees were asked if the programs were of value to them. Nearly all the responses were positive. Some examples:  “Yes. My mentor introduced me to a lot of people that I ended up talking to again, later in the conference.”  “Yes, made me feel welcome and included.” When asked for suggestions for improving the program, there were a number of comments about deficiencies in the venue for the First-Timers reception:  “Such a small place that it got too noisy and hard to hear each other.”  “The initial gathering was a bit awkward, but I think that was partially due to space constraints.” Several other participants suggested that there be follow-up opportunities later on in conference via another event for mentors/mentees. There were also some suggestions about the mentor/mentee matching process. Some indicated that they didn’t feel that they had much in common with their mentor or mentee and that the experience would have been improved if there were more common interests between them. Others suggested that the matching process occur earlier so there would be more time to communicate. Budget The Mentoring Group did not have its own budget in 2015/2016. The only expenditure was for $100 worth of gift cards that were door prizes at the First-Timers Reception. The gift cards were obtained by the Treasurer via a rewards program from the bank that NASIG uses. Move forward with the idea of including an option for mentoring participation on the conference registration. This may help alleviate the problem we had this year when there were not enough volunteers to mentor. When addressing the proposal for the student mentoring program, consider a name for the new program that is unique enough to distinguish it from the current mentoring program. If both names are similar, it will be confusing. Submitted on: August 5, 2016 Submitted by: Danielle Williams Members Danielle Williams, chair (University of Evansville) Corrie Marsh, co-chair (Stephen F. Austin State University) Marsha Aucoin (EBSCO) Lisa Blackwell (Chamberlain College of Nursing) Sharon Dyas-Correia (University of Toronto) Rene Erlandson (University of Nebraska, Omaha) Benjamin Heet (North Carolina State University) Kittie Henderson (EBSCO) Violeta Ilik (Northwestern University) Betty Landesman (University of Baltimore) Buddy Pennington (University of Missouri, Kansas City) Anna Creech, Board Liaison (University of Richmond) We began contacting potential vision speakers August, 2015. We received several suggestions from the board and the committee suggested several vision speakers. Ultimately, with the board’s approval, we asked Heather Joseph from SPARC, Jim O’Donnell from University of Arizona, and T. Scott Plutchak from University of Alabama to speak at the conference. Call for proposals was open from October 1 to December 15, 2015. There were 32 concurrent sessions with 65 speakers participating in sessions. One session had to be cancelled due to speakers’ inability to attend, and one session required the use of Skype to conduct their session. The Skype session went very well and I recommend Skype as an alternative for future sessions when speakers cannot attend. The use of Proposal Space to collect and review proposals made the process much more streamlined. The committee seemed to appreciate the ease of use and committee chairs greatly appreciated the ease of use. The committee also used Sched to create the conference schedule. The cost is minimal and the benefits are enormous. Conference attendees can easily identify what sessions they wish to attend and the program sends an email each day of the conference alerting attendees to the sessions they are scheduled to attend. In addition, the Conference Planning Committee encouraged attendees to use Sched in lieu of providing printed schedules for attendees. The CPC should continue to encourage attendees to use Sched or to print their own copies of the schedule instead of providing printed copies of the schedule. There were limited submissions for Great Ideas Showcase and Snapshot Sessions. Four speakers submitted proposals for the Snapshot session, but one speaker did not show up at the session. There were six submissions for Great Ideas Showcases, which were well attended. There were four pre-conference workshops presented and were well-attended. Eleanor Cook, Maria Collin, Shana McDanold, Terry Reese, Marlene Van Ballegooie, Kristen Wilson, Sheri Meares, Corrie Marsh and Dylan Wackerman presented five sessions. Shana McDanold and Terry Reese’s workshops on MARCEdit were very popular and I recommend offering additional cataloging and MARCEdit workshops at future conferences. The pre-conferences were held on Wednesday morning, Wednesday afternoon, and 69 NASIG Newsletter Thursday morning. I recommend that pre-conferences be held on Wednesday afternoon and Thursday morning. Submitted by: Sara Bahnmaier Members Sara Bahnmaier, Co-chair (University of Michigan) Peter Whiting, Co-chair (University of Southern Indiana) Eleanor Cook, member (East Carolina University) Jeannie Castro, member (University of Houston) Carol Ann Borchert, board liaison (University of South Florida) We are in the process of obtaining an access copy from the NASIG Archive of a recorded video from the 25th anniversary celebration in 2009. We are gathering updates to NASIG history from 20122016 including the 30th Anniversary Celebration, which will be written for the website. We are investigating the requirements and scope of undertaking a digitization project to create a NASIG online archive. The committee is charged with writing a report on moving the Archive and making it more accessible to members. CMC set up a mail list at The first conference call was held on April 8, 2016. Carol Ann met with Sara at the annual meeting in Albuquerque and recommended appointing Peter Whiting as Co-Chair. Conference calls ($0) Co-chairs will travel to the archive at University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign on a week day when the Archive is open and the Archivist is available for an appointment. No date is set yet. The requested budget includes mileage for personal autos, lodgings and meals. ($820) Submitted on: June 24, 2016 May 2015: 517 May 2016: 589 Student Memberships: May 2016: 403 The NASIG Newsletter is copyright by NASIG 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-forprofit. 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 Tina Buck University of Central Florida Stephanie Rosenblatt Cerritos College Kurt Blythe University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Rachel A. Erb Colorado State University Christian Burris Wake Forest University Andrew Wesolek Clemson University Faye O’Reilly Wichita State University Rachel A. Erb Colorado State University Nancy Hampton Xavier University of Louisiana Christian Burris Wake Forest University 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: 2016 Conference Evaluation Report NASIG 31st Annual Conference: Embracing New Horizons June 9-12 , 2016 1 To ease the reading of the demographic chart , several 2.1 Review of Conference Compensation (Geckle) 6.0 Rebranding/Marketing Update (Borchert)  Proceedings Editors: Nothing to report . NASIG Newsletter September 2016 7.0 2017 Conference Streaming (All)

This is a preview of a remote PDF:

September 2016 Full Issue, NASIG Newsletter, 2016,