Member Relations 

During the 2010-2012 governance planning meetings, several ideas emerged as potential free services for members, for instance, submission-based data when arXiv's metadata structure is ready; institutional repository bulk download. Member institutions are also very keen on informing their scientists and researchers about arXiv's business model (e.g.,arXiv LibGuide to share with their faculty and students in related disciplines). Implementing these features may require significant staff time. Therefore these services need to be considered in the context of arXiv's current maintenance and development priorities. For 2013, within the context of Member Relations, we'd like to focus on the following issues:

• Often, we are advised to make it easier to find business info on the arXiv webpage (one idea proposed is to put links from abstracts or submission forms to 'sustainability' page).  What are your thoughts and suggestions?
• How can we involve the members in documenting and sharing with us information about how arXiv is being used? What is working well for scientists that needs to be maintained? What are their unmet needs? What kinds of changes they want to see implemented? 
• How can we promote the libraries' and research laboratories' role in arXiv's sustainability to scientists? Scientists know very little about how arXiv is run and how much the operation costs. How can we improve communication so that scientists will understand the role of libraries in maintaining and supporting arXiv?  What is the role of the arXiv member institutions in this communication process?
• We are very encouraged with the five-year pledges received so far. We want to increase the number of arXiv member institutions to create a large and international network of supporters. What are your suggestions?

Members: Jim, Eva, Molly, Zhixiong

Conference Call: April 15, 8pm EDT (Zhixiong) & April 25, 9:30am EDT

Financial Planning

• We would like to diversity of revenue sources in order to raise additional funds to allow us to expand arXiv's staffing (especially the current minimal IT staffing configuration), lowering the current tier structure to encourage more organizations to become members, and support R&D projects. What are your suggestions?  One of the ideas we would like to discuss is adding a Give button on arXiv home page to invite donations from users (examples). What are the pros and cons of this idea? 
• The purpose of the arXiv reserve fund is to support unexpected expenses to ensure a sound business model. Currently, arXiv has a reserve fund of approximately $100,000 that accumulated during 2010-2011 due to unexpected staff vacancies and other savings (2012 expenses have not been factored in yet). The 2013-2017 budget projections assume that we will be able to add $50,000-$100,000 per year to the reserve funds. We need to develop policies about how contingency funds will be used and how the account will be structured (for instance, funds needed for closing the business versus development funds - also a part of the reserve funds to create an endowment & the interest can be used for reducing membership fees).  Also, we need to determine at what point of reserve fund accumulation (total reserve balance) we will consider to lower the annual membership fees.
• The current annual institutional fees are in the $1,500-$3,000 range, which may be high for some developing countries or institutions that are lower in the use ranking (below 200).  Shall we add a lower fee to encourage these institutions to support arXiv?
• Some of our members feel that it makes sense to increase the annual fee for the top users as the current model does not appear fair (see the usage chart).  What do you think? Should we add a higher top tier pricing for the organizations that are listed high in the use list?

arXiv Pledge Summary (May'13): arXiv snapshot_May2013.pdf

Members: Uwe (Esther), Yuri, Philip

Conference Call: May 10, 9am EDT (Uwe) - another one with Yuri & Philip TBD

Collaboration with Publishers and Societies

• In celebration of the arXiv's 20^th anniversary, on September 23, 2011 Cornell University Library (CUL) hosted a meeting at Cornell with the representatives from several publishers and societies that are interested in Cornell's sustainability planning efforts. We will resume this investigation and discuss the feasibility and desirability of establishing a research and innovation collaboration in support of arXiv.  This effort is envisioned to entail a separate funding stream (created by participating publishers and societies) from the operational budget, which includes resources for the routine and core services currently provided by the arXiv team (including essential updates). Please see the September 2011 planning meeting summary about the outcomes of a collaboration discussion with a group of publisher and society representatives.  We would like to review, prioritize, and move our initial meeting recommendations into action.  What are your recommendations?
• With regard to recent U.S. legislation that mandates scientists and researchers make their federally-funded data and publication available via open access, what are the possible (and desired) role that arXiv can play? 

Members: Catriona, Carol, Tim, Diane, Tommy

Conference Call: May 21, 10:30am EDT

Research and Development Agenda

• So far, CUL's sustainability planning efforts focused on arXiv's operational budget to support the core services and arXiv's strengths in order to stay mission-centric. How can we move beyond the current sustainability model that focuses on operations to a strategic plan for arXiv's further development and innovation?  Beyond the 2013 Roadmap, we would like to set a 3-5 year strategic plan for arXiv (encompassing all aspects of arXiv including user support, IT, moderation, etc.). Do you recommend any strategies or tools in setting priorities and assessing collaboration models?  Do you know of any successful models we can learn from? We also need to find additional funds but we want this goal to be driven by an agenda.
• Based on your knowledge of arXiv, its principles, and the repository ecology, do you have any recommended R&D areas that we should be focusing on?
• arXiv is approached on a regular basis by outside groups asking for advice or special services. Sometimes the assistance requested is minor, but often it would require devoting some amount of staff effort. We need guidelines for determining under what circumstances we will allocate resources in order to collaborate with an outside organization. We would like to develop a methodology to guide us make decisions about potential working collaborations with outside groups.  Do you have any recommendations?

Members: Tommy, Mackenzie (Oya & Simeon from arXiv)

Conference Call: April 22, 11:30am EDT

Meeting Notes:

• Tommy presented six questions to consider: Ideas for improving the arXiv interface; adding new functions; who can submit to arXiv; considering a peer review function; information exchange between arXiv and local IRs; ORCID implementation. 
• To identify an R&D agenda, Mackenzie suggests that we should think of a set of categories and then see what can be rolled into the operation and addressed in the  short term and requires real R&D. Possible categories: Interface, author identity, infrastructure scalability, mining arXiv.
• Discussion of the OSTP OA mandate and questions about whether arXiv could be a fee-based submission venue to meet the mandate - what added value might make this worthwhile. Mackenzie stresses that what is needed is a system for getting credit when one deposits to an open access system. For instance, can a scientist only post on arXiv with a DOI and use this as an academic achievement in support of his/her tenure process (not requiring a peer-reviewed publication)?  Can we build some article level metrics into arXiv?  This is an R&D area for consideration.
• One idea to consider is positioning arXiv as a preservation system and the possibility of developing for-fee-services for journals wanting to archive on arXiv, or even whether we might charge depositors.
• Tommy wonders if arXiv should promote itself as a way to meet green OA mandates and if and how it will meet the requirements emerging in different countries (compliance issues). 
• Mackenzie recommends that when we enter a new collaboration, we need to assess the costs and do not enter in a partnership without a clear benefit for arXiv - whether it is visibility or additional revenues.  She wonders if we should work out ways to charge for our services.
• Mackenzie questions whether we can develop a set of mining tools and monetize by providing cost-recovery services (similar to the data mining tools HathiTrust Research Center is providing)  We can avoid conflict with free open-access to corpus by still providing that free. Mackenzie suggests Sloan Foundation as a potential funding sources. Many research groups and publishers are interested in data mining tools.
• Mackenzie says that supporting research data is a big issue and that we must be careful not to get distracted from our open access article mission. Possible collaboration with Dryad would be interesting.