Make your own free website on

DASER: Digital Archives for Science
& Engineering Resources

Program Schedule

Unlike other conferences, the DASER 2 Summit has some unique features.

First, the number of speakers has been intentionally kept smaller. The typical 20 minutes per speaker you find in other conferences will not occur here. As such, each speaker has more time to address their topic--to delve into the issues in more depth.

Secondly, there will be break-out sessions after each panel. Participants will have the choice of visiting one or another speaker in a more informal atmosphere--to ask further questions, discuss collaborations, share anecdotes, and to develop strategies with their fellow participants. There are opportunities here for you to take back to your institution more than just knowledge--you can create an action plan, develop collaborations, secure consultants, etc.

Third, in addition to the networking opportunities afforded by the breakout sessions, the conference has been structured to increase your chance to network with your colleagues, whether in the library or publishing sector. Since there are no parallel sessions, you will be able to see and experience each speaker. The Friday evening dinner and the Saturday luncheon are just two more chances for you to network as well.

Furthermore, we will have a number of participants who will be blogging during the conference. This information should supplement your own notes and provide further perspectives on the conference.

Please note that the schedule below will be updated regularly. Please subscribe to the RSS feed of the Blog if you wish to be informed of updates and changes. Titles and abstracts will appear shortly.

Friday, 2 December 2005

6:30 - 7:00 pm Social
7:00 - 8:30 pm Dinner with Key-Note Speaker: Jan Velterop (Springer)
   "Academic Pressure on the Egosystem"

Saturday, 3 December 2005

8:45-10:30 am - Panel 1

Steve Moss (Institute of Physics)
    "Open Access...Impact on Society Publishers: A Perspective from the Institute of Physics Publishing"
    [PowerPoint Presentation]
    Open access initiatives, both independent of established society publishers, and those enacted by these publishers, have the potential to substantially change the way the publishers fulfill a primary role....the widespread dissemination of quality research to their constituencies. This presentation will examine one society publisher's own open access initiatives, perceived impact of external initiatives, and the publisher's expectations about how this will affect it's future business model.

Robert Kelly (American Physical Society)
    "Expanding Readership in Theoretical and Experimental Physics: A view from within the American Physical Society"
    [PowerPoint Presentation]
    The objective of the American Physical Society is to "Advance and Diffuse the Knowledge of Physics." Bob's talk will share a viewpoint, from within APS, of the steps and strategies, followed to accomplish this objective, diversifying by widening the audience beyond the traditional readership and developing new and additional, revenue streams. There will be a discussion on the relationship between these steps and strategies and the current interpretations of Open Access as applied to the disciplines of theoretical and experimental physics.

Vivian Siegel (Independent Scholar)
    "Building an Open Access World"
    [PowerPoint Presentation]
    It is hard to argue with the benefits open access publishing brings to academic research. The challenge is how to build open access models that are economic ally robust and attractive to authors and readers. This talk will focus on the particular challenges one faces in launching an open access publishing venture, coupled with the next "critical steps" in taking open access publishing fully global.

10:30-10:50 am Breakout Session

10:50 am - 12:30 pm - Panel 2

Marie Martens (Open Repository & BioMed Central)
    "Open Repository, Another Way to Open Access"
    [PowerPoint Presentation]
    Around the world there are increasing moves towards Open Access by government and funding bodies, meaning that institutional repositories are fast becoming a necessity. In direct response to demand in the market, BioMed Central has launched a repository service for universities and research institutions. The Open Repository service makes it possible for institutions that could not otherwise afford to, or lack the infrastructure or technical capacity in-house, to set up repositories.

Jeff Riedel (ProQuest Company)
    "Alternative Models of Scholarly Communication: The 'Toddler Years' for Open Access Journals and Institutional Repositories"
    [PowerPoint Presentation]
      Two prominent - and promising - alternatives emerging in the scholarly communication realm are open access journals and institutional repositories. This session focuses on (1) why the academy is increasingly moving into the aggregation and dissemination of scholarship generally, and toward open access journals and institutional repositories specifically; (2) what decisions, challenges, and opportunities the academy faces in seeking to create change within scholarly communication; (3) how various projects have confronted these issues; and (4) the early results of these efforts. Among the underlying themes that will also be addressed are the serials budget crisis, the benefits and drawbacks of electronic publishing, whether open access truly equals free, and the extent to which the university library should step into a publishing role. Both a broad topography and a specific case study will be presented.

Mary Steiner (University of Pennsylvania)
    "The Toddler Years for ScholarlyCommons@Penn"
    [PowerPoint Presentation]
    The University of Pennsylvania Library collaborated with the School of Engineering and Applied Science in a pilot project to establish ScholarlyCommons@Penn, Penn's institutional repository. Public launch was in February 2005, and the service is currently expanding to include content from other schools and units across campus. This presentation will highlight Penn's experience in introducing an institutional repository service.

12:30 - 12:50 pm - Breakout Session

12:50 - 2:15 pm - Lunch

2:15-3:45 pm - Panel 3

Leslie Johnston (University of Virginia)
    "Repository Development at the University of Virginia Library: Resource Issues in Implementation and Support"
   In mid-2003, the University of Virginia Library began its process to develop a Digital Library Repository on top of the Fedora infrastructure. In fall 2004 the Repository was launched as an alpha release for review by Library staff and a small group of faculty. After testing and revision, the beta version of the Repository was launched in fall 2005, aiming toward a full release by fall 2006. This presentation will cover some topics related to the development process -- definition of scope and functional requirements, technology decisions, and development steps -- but will primarily cover lessons learned about resource needs in the implementation and support of a new Repository service.

Karla Hahn (Association of Research Libraries)
    "Institutional Repositories, Emerging Frontiers in Policy Making"
    [PowerPoint Presentation]
    Institutional repositories seem to be in an early adoption phase. When we consider what the pioneers have learned a number of policy issues are emerging. Copyright policies, funding body policies, and institutional policies are just a few examples of policy arenas that play a significant role in the culture and practices of researchers and ultimately the success of institutional repository services.
3:45-4:05 pm - Breakout Session

4:05-5:10 pm - Panel 4

Marie Martens (Open Repository & BioMed Central)
    "Open Access Moving into the Mainstream"
    [PowerPoint Presentation]
    This talk will focus on the growth of open access?in terms of supporters, journals and authors. I will use BioMed Central as an example of this growth.

Peiling Wang (U TN)
    "Information-Seeking Behaviors of Researchers in the Internet Age: Interdisciplinary Differences"
    [PowerPoint Presentation]
    This presentation reports the preliminary results of an empirical study that investigates the use of Internet-enabled information resources by researchers in various disciplines: Computer Science, Engineering, and Information Sciences. The purpose of the study is to identify factors underlying interdisciplinary differences in using the Internet for research. The ultimate goal is to understand the factors affecting use and non-use of Internet-enabled information resources and to guide future design and development of information resources using the Internet technology.

5:10-5:30 pm - Breakout Session

Sunday, 4 December 2005

9:00-10:30 am Panel 5

Stevan Harnad (Canada Research Chair, Universite of Quebec/Montreal)
    "Institutional repository models: what works and what doesn't."
    Born under the influence of the Open Access (OA) movement, Institutional Repositories (IRs) for digital content are now all the rage; but whether or not they work depends on their raison d'etre. There are many things one can do with an IR. One can use it for content management, preservation, internal data-sharing, record-keeping; the content itself can be anything digital, whether courseware, "gray literature," multimedia, in-house publishing, or even bought-in 3rd-party content. None of this has anything whatsoever to do with OA, however. OA is about maximizing accessibility to institutional peer-reviewed research output in order to maximize its research impact (25%-250% of it lost if non-OA), thereby maximizing institutional research productivity and progress (and prestige and research revenue). OA content in IRs is so far very low (averaging less than 15% of annual research output) partly because OA has been eclipsed by the many other items on the IR wish-list, partly because even where it is the only item, wishing is not enough: not if librarians wish it, not even if researchers wish it. The two international UK JISC surveys have shown clearly exactly what is needed to fill IRs with their annual OA content: An extension of institutions' and research funders' "publish or perish" mandate to: "publish but also self-archive in your IR". The 5 institutions that so far have such a mandate (CERN, U. Southampton ECS, U. Minho, Queensland U. Tech, and U. Zurich) are well on their way to 100% OA. After a crashing failure by NIH to mandate immediate OA self-archiving, and a halting half-step by the Wellcome Trust (6-month embargo), Research Councils UK (RCUK) looks poised to do the right thing at last, and once it does, the rest of the world's research funders and institutions will follow suit. The race is now to the swift, the battle to the strong, for the 25%-250% OA impact advantage is partly a competitive advantage.

Timothy C. Hays (National Institutes of Health)
    "The NIH Public Access Policy: 6 months after implementation"
    Dr. Timothy Hays will review the National Institutes of Health Policy on Enhancing Public Access to Archived Publications Resulting from NIH-Funded Research. The “Public Access Policy,” as it is often called, strongly encourages but does not require NIH-funded researchers to submit a copy of their final manuscripts upon acceptance for journal publication to the National Library of Medicine’s PubMed Central (PMC) at The authors specify when the articles should be made available publicly on PMC. After receiving thousands of public comments, the NIH set a policy for the timing of public accessibility ranging from immediately upon journal publication to 12 months afterwards to provide greater flexibility to accommodate the range of business models represented by large commercial publishing houses through the smaller specialized journals of learned societies.
    The Public Access Policy applies to peer-reviewed, original research publications that have been supported in whole or in part with direct costs from NIH (research grants, cooperative agreements, intramural research studies, contracts, and other mechanisms) and are from currently funded projects or from previously funded research if the paper is accepted after May 2, 2005. The policy does not apply to book chapters, editorials, reviews, or conference proceedings. Publications resulting from non-NIH-supported research projects should not be submitted. NIH will also accommodate corrections from authors that occur during copyediting or post publication.
    For more information about the policy please visit
10:30-10:50 am - Breakout Session

10:50am - 12:30 pm - Panel 6

This, our final panel session, will be a debate and discussion amongst the speakers on the future of STM libraries. The first question will be, Is there a future? From there, the speakers will discuss how new technologies are transforming our libraries; how user expectations are changing, and the services we will need to provide to keep up with this change; and how the skills we learned in library school are not the skills we need to remain employed in the future. You can expect this session to push your concept of what it means to be an STM librarian.

Michael Leach (Harvard University)
   "Whither the collections? Whither the librarian?"
   Since their inception, STM libraries have been fundamentally connected to print collections, primarily in the form of serials and monographs. However, in the past couple of decades, with the continued serials crisis, shrinking budgets, fewer monograph purchases, and the advent of electronic content, this connection of STM libraries and their collections has begun to break, and, in some instances, appears to be nearly severed. Many have viewed this disconnect as detrimental to STM libraries. In fact, faculty, provosts and presidents now proclaim the death of the STM library, since collections are “available on the Internet.” M. Leach’s talk will focus on this specific aspect of science librarianship—where we have come from, what the current state of collections are, and where we may end up, highlighting perceptions and reality when it comes to STM libraries and their changing collections.

David Osterbur (Harvard University)
    "Drop Your Tools and Run Faster"
    [PowerPoint Presentation]
    Traditionally librarians have been slow to adapt to changes in both technology and their environment. If this atitude of reluctance does not change libraries are on the verge of losing more ground in the battle to make the library the center for information that users think of first. Technologies that are no longer new but that are still not adequately supported in many institutions are waiting to be claimed by those willing to expend the time to claim them. These technologies will be discussed.

David Stern (Yale University)
   "STM libraries in the Future"
    [PowerPoint Presentation]
   How will libraries respond to mutually exclusive expectations? Users themselves are split between convenience and/or enhanced research options. Administrators are balancing efficiencies vs?effectiveness. Industry players cover the continuum from user oriented perspectives to special interest branding (which requires steep learning curves).? Librarians attempt to find a happy medium among these desires, all the while maintaining traditional services, adopting new technologies, and adapting to new user behaviors.
   In terms of infrastructure, these new requirements include group study space; individual space with new domain requirements; technology-driven layouts; off-site shelving; long-term preservation and archiving. These new conditions also require redesigned staff responsibilities such as new online selection practices; redesigned instruction, in-depth research assistance, virtual service, and distance education support; expanded metadata/cataloging coordination; distributing and federating local data from within institutional repositories; electronic preservation and archiving; WWW coverage; and R&D collaborations.


12:30 - 12:50 pm - Breakout Session

12:50 - 1:30 pm - Wrap-Up
      The speakers/presentors will be available for final comments and questions. In addition, we will ask the question, "What are the next steps?" for STM libraries and the publishing industry. Further cooperation? The demise of one or the other (or both)? Futher opportunities for dialogue, cooperation, and collaboration? We'll see.

© 2005 American Society for Information Science & Technology