Research Services and Reputation Management at Dartmouth: Libraries in the

MixDavid Seaman

OCLC Research

San Francisco, 3 June 2015

Dartmouth College

• Founded 1769. Ivy League institution.

• 6,300 students (4,200 undergraduates)

• 1,045 faculty.

• $210 million sponsored research (FY14).

• Carnegie "very high research activity” classification.

• $4.5 billion endowment.

• Top 5 undergraduate teaching (US News & World Report ranking).

Background: Library

• Robust Digital Library Program, including digital publishing of journals and ebooks.

• Active role in open access on campus, leading to May 2015 Dartmouth Faculty Open Access Policy (sponsored by the Council on the Libraries).

• Good relationships with faculty and Information Technology Services (ITS).

• Strong curatorial interests regarding Dartmouth scholarship.

Background: Institution

• Institutional goal to increase awareness of Dartmouth research globally.

• No institutional repository -- some department repositories (computing).

• No faculty profile system -- uneven updating of faculty web pages.

• No central database of faculty scholarly output.

The Service Opportunity

• Two years ago we prioritized the opportunity to build coordinated campus infrastructure to manage research and drive new services.

• Strong relationship with ITS – library not going it alone – presented as a joint initiative from the beginning.

• Builds on recent ITS investments in robust identity management (Oracle).

• No legacy systems to work round, replace, or ignore. Yeehah!

New Campus Infrastructure

• Fedora/Hydra for Dartmouth Academic Commons.

• Fedora/Hydra for Dartmouth Digital Library.

• Symplectic Elements for citation management services.

Library/ITS Co-investment

• Two full time staff positions from ITS: project director and programmer.

• Digital Scholarship Librarian being hired now.

• Existing Director of Digital Resources and Scholarly Communications in lead role.

• Significant commitment from library technologists, metadata specialists, preservation librarian, and subject specialists.

• Joint budget for licensed software, etc.

Service Focus

• Market the service, not the infrastructure: Faculty members quick to see advantages of research management services for annual reports, grants submissions, etc.

• Something for everyone: OA skeptics can still benefit from citation management or data management plans for grants.

• High touch – much done for you, and no mandatory requirements with which to comply.

Faculty Assessment

• Library and ITS can demonstrate possibilities and opportunities.

• We don’t own the issue.

• Faculty unease about some types of productivity measure.

• Needs deep faculty conversations about individual assessment, and policy decisions by campus administration.

Time line: 2015

• Build out Fedora/Hydra and install Symplectic Elements.

• Pass Open Access Policy.

• Focus on OA journal articles and selected library collections in new repository architecture.

• Focus on selected departments for citation harvesting and management.

• Formulate IR policies with faculty committee.

• Design assessment and marketing plans.

Future Years

• Fully functional repository for Dartmouth scholarship in all media.

• Shared architecture between IR and digital library.

• Citation management services for all Dartmouth faculty.

Conclusion

• Service-based: minimal work for faculty.

• Output-based: adding value for individuals and institutions.

• Aggregates and brands Dartmouth scholarly output, making it easily available for reporting, PR, etc.

• Broad service portfolio supporting research through the full lifecycle.

Thank You, OCLC Research!

David Seaman

Associate Librarian for Information Management

Dartmouth College Library

Hanover, NH

david.seaman@dartmouth.edu