Midwinter 2014 Meeting Notes
Beatrice L. Caraway
Absent (due to technical issues with virtual attendance):
Nancy J. Hunter
The committee reviewed Amy and Sean’s Transforming Technical Services guide proposal. The proposal was well received. The committee suggested a few edits. Suggested edits were as follows.
Highlight advocacy opportunities
Add content on licensing
Add content addressing the shift to digital resources/content.
Move scholarly communication chapter.
Amy will work with Sean to make the revisions and resubmit to the committee. Note: Amy delivered the revised proposal on 1/30/14. Please be sure to comment by 2/10/14.
Once the proposal is approved, the editors will put out a general call for authors in addition to reaching out to individuals. Chapter authors will have approximately one year to submit their completed work.
The committee reviewed the status of proposals and publications that have passed through the committee in the last 5 years. Robin will follow-up on finding additional information on "lost" publications and proposals. We will develop a tracking system for publications and proposals moving forward. Dracine collected questions to address with the division level publishing committee. Note: Dracine updated us with answers to those questions on 2/2. That communication is included in full below.
The Guide to Budgeting proposal is still outstanding. Robin was tasked with following up with the authors to move things forward and establish a timeline.
The committee will meet virtually before Annual 2015 and at Annual.
Dracine’s follow-up email from 2/2/14:
I wanted to give a quick update on some of the questions that came up during our AS-Pub meeting that I tried to get answered when I attended the ALCTS Pub meeting.
1. How long does it take to get a decision back on a proposal? There is no official timeframe that I have found. Since I’ve been liaison to ALCTS Pub, I have observed a fairly quick turnaround time for proposals. Between two weeks and a month. Dina Giambi, the current chair, is very conscientious about getting input from the committee, but also keeping the submitter apprised of status. I think the time it takes to make a decision is dependent upon the quality of the proposal, how detailed it is, and its length.
2. Timeframe once completed manuscript has been submitted? I spoke with Christine McConnell about this and she noted that it is very much dependent upon, you guessed it, the length of the manuscript. When everything is running smoothly it can be turned around between six weeks to three months. This includes both their internal review process, typeset/layout, and follow-up with the authors. However, she observed that lengthier manuscripts, especially if the author(s) resist changes, can take much longer. She didn’t specify which title, but mentioned one fairly recent manuscript took a year.
3. Is there a list of all submitted proposals? The list we discussed at the meeting was actually a list of publication topics for which ALCTS was actively seeking authors for any of its publishing outlets (e.g. assessment, data curation, discovery layer). I do not believe there is an archive of all submitted proposals. I had to leave the meeting because it ran over to get to my next meeting. I will try to follow-up on this with Dina.
The ALCTS Pub Committee did discuss removing some of its oversight from publishing outlets. This was brought up by the editor of the ALCTS Monographs. She thought it was unnecessary to have the ALCTS Pub group “approve” proposals, etc that have been vetted by the editors, much like what happens with LRTS. The committee agreed. I am not sure what kind of impact this will have for proposals coming from AS-Pub and other Pub groups that fall outside of the regularly scheduled publication outlets. Robin, I suspect you will hear more about this later.
That’s all I have for now.