Page History

...

• Multiple authors do submit the same paper but typically it is a mistake. arXiv does have a fuzzy title-match in place to help avoid duplicates.
• Supplying submission data at the institutional or author level is problematic due to lack of affiliation information and author authority control issues. ORCID ID matches will be included in the future and are expected to help
• If a 'problem' paper is submitted, accepted, and then deemed unacceptable, it is administratively withdrawn from arXiv. An author withdrawal can be done in such a way that historical versions (which are retained) do not show in the default user view, and a comment about the withdrawal shown instead.

IT:  Link to presentation

• Can arXiv consider off-the-shelf products or open source for moderation, submission and plagiarism checks? arXiv's IT infrastructure is heavily driven around the use of TeX. TeX is the dominant way to typeset math formulas and it is the way that researchers still work. Any tools would have to be able to process TeX effectively.

SAB

• Two MAB reps sit on the SAB, and vice-versa. Group agrees it is very helpful to have both perspectives represented.
• Scientific Director position was approved by SAB on 9/16. Position description link.
  • SAB adopted its bylaws on 9/16 and elected a chair.

...

• For institutions that have not pledged but are part of top 200, consider getting scientists involved to talk to their libraries. Work with SAB on this initiative.
• Discussion re: very, very heavy users (link to chart) to provide contributions above $3K: 

• • If we implement we will need to provide options of what they "get" for additional funding
  • This strategy may be perceived as bad planning/price gouging (since this is the first year of sustainability and we are already asking for more money).
  • Need to explain why we need more money than projected in our 5-year plan
• Recommendation: provide usage chart to demonstrate usage trends, without solicitation, to top 25 users

• Idea of adding new membership tiers - including scientific societies as contributors (and the idea of publishers/societies):
  • We already started adding scientific organizations as members
  • It is likely that a tier reset will happen after five years. Planning will need to begin 2015.

• • What are we agreeing to when we bring funding agencies, publishers, etc. What would that 'class' look like? What recognition do they receive?
    • Re: the 'double-dipping' question, agencies support arXiv submitters (scientists), whereas libraries support = users.
  • Would a contribution to arXiv be prohibitive for some US agencies?
  • Consider an endowment model from publishers et al. for arXiv to support the formation of a Scientific Director.
  • We can accomplish the additional revenue goal without a new category role for the time being so as long we just list them as 'additional support' on the pledge page.  

• Give button
  • Give buttons have not been successful as a way of generating revenue. (Open Courseware is an example.) If a give button is tied to need (i.e. endowment) and is done at an interval model it might be more successful.  We should also consider a give button with matching funds from Cornell or another organization as an incentive. How do we list our donors? Do we put down the amount paid?
    

...

• Recommendation: Keep the existing tier model through the next few years and not create a new group of users

...

• ;* MAB supports a give-button if it is done thoughtfully. We need a way to recognize contributors that is not tied to usage. Also, are contributions from societies and agencies are driven by a political or mission statement?*

Reserve Fund Policy

• Link to reserve policy proposal
• Scientific Director was not budgeted and we are hoping to fund it using reserve funds for 2013. Ideally we will get to a reserve of $300,000 by CY17.
• Two policies using the reserve fund: operating funds for emergencies; and, development funds to support special projects, like scientific directors. 

...

• SD position is budgeted for *.*4 FTE to help with benefits scenario. Ginsburg wants to transfer away from day-to-day, but will still be engaged in SAB (and other moderation tasks).
• This is an interim of 1-2 years.

•  Hiring Hiring process will follow Cornell HR policies. Input from MAB and SAB will be sought
• The scientific director position may allow Cornell to rethink the amount of time that other roles' (user support, etc.) contribute to support arXiv. Unsure at this point if this person become the 'face' of arXiv.
• Recommendation: SC position approved

...

• The idea of sending out a survey – surveys are overused
• Generally speaking, most scientists seem to be very happy with arXiv – no need for bells and whistles) Keep arXiv simple – this is what librarians are hearing from their scientists
• Can you create a discussion forum for scientists and libraries interested in arXiv and use this as a feedback channel 
• Recommendation: Post a simplified version of your roadmap online and use an app to engage users ranking it – good to get feedback but don't set expectations high as arXiv is not in a position to assess and implement ideas expressedCan you create a discussion forum for scientists and libraries interested in

arXiv

...

as a

...

arXiv as a Node in Scholarly Communication

...

• Will arXiv satisfy compliance issues with new mandates like OSTP?
• Some libraries are being approached by publishers to supply (faculty research) metadata + article links, presumably as part of the CHORUS proposal.
• If publishers want to fund arXiv, how do we ensure contributions do not violate arXiv principles such as a condition that they cannot restrict anyone from depositing material into arXiv. Is this a formal or informal agreement?
• Feedback from users (scientists and students) is that arXiv is "their" project. Would publishers appear to have influence?
• If publishers contribute we need to develop a policy on about how arXiv uses these funds
• In some fields this would not be an issue; for instance, CS they are used to having commercial finance
• Some libraries may want to pull out from funding if publishers are also funding arXiv
• Publishers should be paying for 'something' instead of just giving to arXiv.

...

• Recommendation:

...

• Form a subgroup to be formed to discuss membership tiers and fund-raising (policy and communication and consistency)

•  
  • Heavy users
  • Scientific societies
  • Give button
  • Next five-years – tiers, etc.
  • Publishers/societies

R&D Agenda

• SHARE proposal will require separate funding. If arXiv is potential partner/contributor to SHARE , the program will need to add metadata like unique ID, funder code, etc. How will this impact the overall IT framework?  
• CHORUS and SHARE are proposals but agencies are not entertaining proposals. Not like an RFP. Both will proceed. SHARE will move forward and is looking for funding. Time frame: refining whitepaper to think about prototype within the next year. What would it take to search across all of these repositories?
  • A consistent use of metadata that will hopefully 'touch' the repositories
  • Data management is still a key question
• The quality of the arXiv download statistics are good and are trusted. What are some additional statistics that we can provide?
  • Downloads for articles that receive a lot of 'attention' (is this number of hits? Link outs? Popular press?)
  • Submission uploads based on IP
  • Total # of downloads/institution highlighted in the banner
• Initiatives such as OpenAIRE are developing subject classification and categorization systems for their open access repositories; can arXiv contribute to these open source initiatives? 

...

•  Recommendation: explore usage statistics in greater detail with our members

Communication Strategy (2014)

...

• Face to face meeting will help us work in our subgroups. Group composition is good particularly the international perspectives, as is helpful as it gives us a holistic view
• May be difficult to keep this group focused because of the diversity of our issues and portfolio. How can we work together to set priorities and maintain focus?
• Shall we consider developing special interest groups that involve non-MAB? May help us reach out to the institutional base.
• There is a need to increase the number of early-career scientists on SAB, and also among moderators_._
• There is an expectation that the MAB can help drive discussions about the future, about how we're going to be different in five years (arXiv.org). SAB is more interested in sustainability rather than innovation right now (due to pressing functional requirements in support of important processes such as moderation). Perhaps the MAB is a place of innovation, and the Scientific Director may be the person to help lead this innovation.
• What is the role of a MAB chair? Facilitator, organizer, conduit, help in the communication between SAB and MAB, particularly in transition year. 
• Recommendation: We will revisit the idea of appointing a chair in our next meeting.
  
  

Meeting Agenda

SAB/MAB DINNER: September 16, Monday, at 7pm 

...