Librarians in Transition: Scholarly Communication as a Core Competency Eastern Illinois University From the SelectedWorks of Steve Brantley Fall September 13, 2017 Librarians in Transition: Scholarly Communication as a Core Competency Steve Brantley Todd Bruns, Eastern Illinois University Kirstin Duffin, Eastern Illinois University Available at: https://works.bepress.com/steve_brantley/ 38/ http://www.eiu.edu https://works.bepress.com/steve_brantley/ https://works.bepress.com/steve_brantley/38/ https://works.bepress.com/steve_brantley/38/ Running  head:  LIBRARIANS  IN  TRANSITION   1   Librarians in Transition: Scholarly Communication Support as a Developing Core Competency Abstract: Modern digital scholarship requires faculty to navigate an increasingly complex research and publication world. Liaison librarians are uniquely suited to assist faculty with scholarly communication needs, yet faculty do not identify the library as a provider of these services. Proactive promotion of scholarly communication services by librarians is needed. In this article, scholarly communication training developed for librarians at a mid-sized public university is described. Two surveys – describing faculty digital scholarship needs and librarian attitudes toward scholarly communication services – are presented. Articulating scholarly communication support as a core competency affirms the importance of this developing role for librarians. Keywords: Core competencies, liaison librarians, libraries & scholars, library services, scholarly communication Author information: Steve Brantley (corresponding author) Head of Reference Services, Associate Professor and Liaison to Communication Studies, Booth Library, Eastern Illinois University jsbrantley@eiu.edu Todd A. Bruns, Institutional Repository Librarian, Associate Professor and Liaison to the School of Technology, Booth Library, Eastern Illinois University tabruns@eiu.edu Kirstin I. Duffin, Reference Librarian, Assistant Professor and Liaison to Biological Sciences, Chemistry, and Geology/Geography, Booth Library, Eastern Illinois University kduffin@eiu.edu Received: August 12, 2016 Accepted: October 20, 2016 LIBRARIANS  IN  TRANSITION     2   Librarians in Transition: Scholarly Communication Support as a Developing Core Competency The activities of scholarly communication-support librarians have grown and changed in recent years due to the increasingly complex nature of modern digital scholarship. Today’s scholars must wrestle with a dizzying array of options, from selecting search portals to ensure a thorough review of the literature, to making decisions about modes of publication and data curation, as well as considering their rights to self-archiving and self-determined dissemination of their work. The variety of needs across disciplines necessitates an “engagement-centric” librarianship that is embedded in and responsive to the scholarly life of our faculty (Kenney, 2014). For several years academic libraries have developed services to support scholarly communication (SC) on their campuses, and many Association of Research Libraries (ARL) member libraries have established librarians dedicated to the issues of SC and publishing (Newman, Blecic, & Armstrong, 2007; Radom, Feltner-Reichert, & Stringer-Stanback, 2012). Scholars have begun to study the trajectory of these positions since librarian job responsibilities have adapted to scholarship developments in the digital world (Bonn, 2014; Xia & Li, 2015). In many cases, even when a dedicated SC support position exists, the demand goes beyond the abilities of a single librarian, and traditional roles are taking up the banner of SC support. Many studies have described initiatives where libraries implement SC training (Bresnahan & Johnson, 2013; Bruns, Brantley, & Duffin, 2015; Kirchner, 2009; Malenfant, 2010; Rodriguez, 2015; Wirth & Chadwell, 2010), and subject liaisons are increasingly being called upon to add SC support to their repertoire of duties. LIBRARIANS  IN  TRANSITION     3   Another argument for expanding the responsibilities of liaison librarians is the impact of the longstanding serials crisis, coupled with devastating losses in library collection budgets following the Great Recession (Prottsman, 2011). Reduced budgets not only decrease the amount of collections work, but compel librarians to seek out materials available as open access and redouble outreach efforts to their faculty in order to better serve and collaborate with them. Plutchak (2012) argues that, because of the availability of online resources, scholars now tend to view their research processes as largely outside the library, although the proliferation of online SC and changes in scholarly publishing ironically increase scholars’ need for librarians’ skills. In this article, the authors argue for a change in the way SC knowledge and skills are perceived. While SC expertise is currently often the domain of a single position in the library, the authors believe researchers will be better served if SC is considered a core competency of subject librarians, similar to reference, instruction, and collection development. Here, we describe a SC education program implemented for librarians at Eastern Illinois University (EIU), a Carnegie classification Master’s L University (awarding at least 200 master’s degrees annually). We review a survey of EIU librarians’ behaviors and attitudes surrounding SC. We then consider the results of a survey of the digital scholarship needs of EIU faculty, which further emphasize the growing need for librarians to integrate SC skills into their competencies. Finally, we affirm the need for SC to be a core competency of liaison librarianship and suggest that becoming proficient in SC support services is achievable for all librarians, irrespective of their maturity in the field. Literature Review The library and information science (LIS) literature relevant to SC in the digital age has matured over the last several years and encompasses many facets of the concept. A sample of LIBRARIANS  IN  TRANSITION     4   these issues include managing institutional repositories (Armstrong, 2014; Bruns, Knight-Davis, Corrigan, & Brantley, 2014; Bull & Eden, 2014; Burns, Lana, & Budd, 2013; Royster, 2014; Schlangen, 2015; Sterman, 2014), authors’ rights (Wirth & Chadwell, 2010), open access (Clobridge, 2014; Harnad, 2010; Pinfield, 2015; Quinn, 2015; Suber, 2012; Zhao, 2014), bibliometrics and altmetrics (Bladek, 2014; Brown, 2014; Bruns & Inefuku, 2015; Carpenter, Lagace, & Bahnmaier, 2016; Gargouri et al., 2010; Gordon, 2012; Konkiel & Scherer, 2013), data management (Krier & Strasser, 2014; Patel, 2016; Pinfield, Cox, & Smith, 2014), library publishing (Allen, 2008; Busher & Kamotsky, 2015; Gilman, 2014; McIntyre, Chan, & Gross, 2013; Park & Shim, 2011; Steele, 2014), research support services (Kennan, Corrall, & Afzal, 2014; Mitchell, 2013; Vinopal & McCormick, 2013), and faculty engagement (Reinsfelder & Anderson, 2013; Wiegand, 2013). Rather than provide an exhaustive review, the authors focus on aspects of the literature relevant to the transformation of liaison librarians into service providers of SC support, trends toward faculty engagement in library services, including assessment of faculty needs, and literature promoting SC support as a core competency. Transforming the Liaison Role There is no single way to introduce a SC-support training program. At Oakland University, a medium-sized public university, several SC-related training events for librarians were implemented in anticipation of Open Access Week, allowing the liaisons to increase their comfort and understanding with these issues (Rodriguez, 2015). At the University of British Columbia, liaison librarians surveyed the SC environment of their subject areas (Kirchner, 2009). By doing so, liaisons refocused their services from “library-centric” (the collection) to “scholar-centric” (engagement and outreach) (Kenney, 2014). Oregon State University organized an authors’ rights workshop for their librarians (Wirth & Chadwell, 2010). At the University of LIBRARIANS  IN  TRANSITION     5   Colorado at Boulder, librarians were polled to determine where their SC knowledge was strong and where additional preparation was needed (Bresnahan & Johnson, 2013). The assessment revealed that most discomfort was related to data management. Practical, hands-on training was identified as a solution to address this issue. Liaison assignment of duties were redefined at the University of Minnesota (Malenfant, 2010). Reference desk hours and collection development responsibilities were replaced with SC and institutional repository outreach initiatives. Such a restructuring emphasized the move to offering new services, brought to light areas where liaisons felt less prepared to provide services, and resulted in a Scholarly Communications Collaborative for sharing resources and support (Malenfant, 2010). At a small liberal arts college in New York, the conversation began with liaison interviews of faculty to understand how to address campus SC needs (Swoger, Brainard, & Hoffman, 2015). While there has been discussion about integrating SC into the responsibilities of liaison librarians (e.g., Beaubien, Masselink, & Tyron, 2009; Bresnahan & Johnson, 2013; Cox, Verbaan, & Sen, 2012; Finlay, Tsou, & Sugimoto, 2015; Kirchner, 2009; Malenfant, 2010; Rodriguez, 2015), not much has been written about this transition from the perspective of the liaison (but see, for example, Taylor, 2009; Turtle & Courtois, 2007; Zhang, Liu, & Mathews, 2015). This may be because SC still feels beyond the expertise of liaison librarians who fill multiple roles in an environment of constricting staff and budgets. Without a formal transition that requires active participation with SC services, added responsibilities may end up somewhere near the bottom of a liaison’s long to-do list. Faculty may not be engaging librarians with questions about copyright, open access, and institutional repositories, so librarians may have a sense that there is no pressing need to educate themselves on these issues. On the contrary, to remain relevant to the campus community, such a proactive service is necessary. LIBRARIANS  IN  TRANSITION     6   Acquiring an expertise of SC issues will allow librarians to create a faculty-centric model of service as advocated by Hahn (2008) and Royster (2014). Reviewing Malenfant’s 2010 study of liaison work at the University of Minnesota and incorporating liaison efforts across many research libraries that have developed following the University of Minnesota initiative, Kenney (2015) identifies six issues that will affect the liaison model into the future. One of these issues, assessment, emphasizes that liaison activities should be evaluated in terms of the effect they have on scholars, rather than simply by quantifying accomplishments. Another issue has to do with redefining the liaison role to better suit the changing research landscape (Kenney, 2015). A 2013 ARL special report reviews major changes in liaison librarianship over the last several years and identifies emergent trends and recommendations (Jaguszewski & Williams, 2013). The authors conclude that “[n]ew roles in research services, digital humanities, teaching and learning, digital scholarship, user experience, and copyright and scholarly communication [emphasis added] are being developed at research libraries across the country, requiring professional development and re-skilling of current staff, [and] creative approaches to increase staff capacity” (Jaguszewski & Williams, 2013, p. 16). At academic institutions, librarians are recognizing the essentiality of SC support services. Are faculty beginning to turn to librarians for assistance with these services? Faculty Engagement and Needs Surveys Subject librarians, with their close ties to academic departments, are well-positioned to support the research needs of faculty by offering SC services (Kenney, 2014; Malenfant, 2010; Neugebauer & Murray, 2013; Plutchak, 2012; Thomas, 2013). Following an engagement-centric service model, liaison librarians support the research needs most valued by their departments and institution rather than those deemed most relevant by the library, although these indicators need not be divergent. In this way, liaisons are providing SC support in ways that are more meaningful LIBRARIANS  IN  TRANSITION     7   for their faculty. SC support may be administered in many ways, including this three-tiered approach advocated by Thomas (2013): supporting faculty in navigating publishing models and making their work open access, consulting with faculty about copyright transfer agreements and the fair use of copyrighted work, and enabling faculty to evaluate open-access publications and meet funder mandates. With the growth of institutional repositories and the steady migration of scholarship from print only to include a hybrid space of print and digital media, opportunities for a wide range of services and support have been created. Academic librarians can assume these duties. Given that this set of tasks and services is still emergent, there are few published studies that survey faculty about the kinds of digital content they create, and fewer still that ask faculty to identify their own and their students’ needs in the realm of digital scholarship. Instead, some current literature focuses on the practices and preferences of faculty regarding their use of existing library resources and services. Profera, Jefferson, and Hosburgh (2015) assess the use of physical and virtual library spaces to gauge the effect on faculty use of library resources and services. Zhang (2015) examines the use of library services by engineering faculty at a large research university. Other studies have surveyed faculty about specific digital practices such as scientific data collection and preservation. With their 2015 US Faculty Survey, Ithaka S+R began querying faculty about the types of research data they collect (Wolff, Rod, & Schonfeld, 2016). This survey revealed that faculty want to manage their own data; however, a majority of faculty indicated that the provision of research support services by the library is highly important. Toups and Hughes (2013) probed faculty attitudes on and needs for data management to inform the development of data curation services at a small liberal arts university and found greater needs LIBRARIANS  IN  TRANSITION     8   existed than were anticipated. Data-support services have been developed in light of the findings from focus groups and interviews. Scaramozzino, Ramírez, and McGaughey (2012) surveyed STEM faculty at California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo (Cal Poly) about their data collection behaviors and attitudes in three areas: data preservation, data sharing, and educational needs. The survey evidenced that these scholars have data management and educational needs with which the library can assist, although faculty did not currently view librarians as a source of expertise for this information. Cal Poly, like EIU, is primarily a teaching university, and faculty at these types of institutions have unique data curation needs. The EIU faculty survey, presented later in this article, will add further insight into this nascent body of literature about scholars’ digital scholarship service needs. Scholarly Communication Support as a Core Competency The new Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education, adopted by the ACRL board in 2016, incorporates SC in the Scholarship as Conversation frame, an update from the old Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education, which had no such mention of SC (Mullen, 2011). Librarian engagement with promoting SC services is gradually expanding. However, familiarity with traditional library resources makes incorporating open-access resources, including the institutional repository, challenging for many reference and liaison librarians (Mullen, 2011). The evolution in methods of SC prompts scholar interest in support services and suggests the need for SC skills to become a core librarian competency (Bailey, 2005; Bonn, 2014; Bresnahan & Johnson, 2013; Kenney, 2014; Kirchner, 2009; Neugebauer & Murray, 2013; Thomas, 2013; Wirth, 2011). Commenting on the role of librarians in the SC environment, Wolf LIBRARIANS  IN  TRANSITION     9   (2015) argues that librarians are often at the center of this relationship between researcher, funding agencies, and publishers. In June 2016, the Task Force on Librarians’ Competencies in Support of E-Research and Scholarly Communication (a joint effort between the ARL, Canadian Association of Research Libraries - CARL, Association of European Research Libraries - LIBER, and Coalition of Open Access Repositories - COAR) published its “Librarians’ Competencies Profile for Scholarly Communication and Open Access” (Calarco, Shearer, Schmidt, & Tate, 2016). The authors of this profile argue that the traditional role librarians have played in relation to open access and SC has expanded such that specific skills and competencies must be outlined to assist administrators seeking to employ highly qualified professionals (Calarco et al., 2016). In the broader context of research support services, which include SC knowledge as well as data management and bibliometrics, research has shown “a near-universal support” to develop targeted LIS education to better serve library professionals in this emerging service role (Kennan et al., 2014, p. 666). Steele (2014) notes the essential work of librarians with researchers and repositories and calls for librarian-led SC literacy programs for researchers. SC is increasingly being viewed as a central service that libraries can provide and in which librarians should be skilled. The Program: Training the “Scholarly Communication Coach” Background and Context Institutional repositories (IRs) continue to develop in academia, along with the expansion of discipline repositories such as arXiv, E-LIS, Social Sciences Research Network (SSRN), English and American Literature Research Network (from SSRN), and scholars’ commons like the Digital Commons Network, Research Gate, Mendeley and Academia.edu. Additional LIBRARIANS  IN  TRANSITION     10   repositories are listed at the Simmons College-sponsored Open Access Directory, http://oad.simmons.edu. Despite this growth, and perhaps because of the simultaneous development of discipline and scholar commons, IRs are not seen as central to the research enterprise of the institution, remain unknown to many faculty, and are viewed by scholars as limited to the domain of the library, rather than being a component of their research life (Creaser, 2010; Cullen & Chawner, 2010; Dutta & Paul, 2014; Hahn & Wyatt, 2014). EIU’s IR, The Keep, was launched in 2011. As more faculty began contributing their works to the IR, the IR librarian was fielding a growing number of faculty questions surrounding SC issues, such as authors’ rights, copyright, choosing a reputable publisher, journal embargoes, and participating in the IR. The Head of Reference saw this as an opportunity to expand reference services to meet faculty need. The Dean of the Library recognized the value of providing such services, so the IR librarian and Head of Reference developed a program to expand awareness among liaison librarians of the complex SC landscape. The faculty demand for assistance with SC-related questions exceeds the support that one knowledgeable IR librarian is able to provide. Librarianship at EIU is collaborative, communication among librarians is often informal, and librarian skill sets are diverse to meet campus need. The 14 liaison librarians represent all areas of operation in the library. They share collection-development responsibilities and single or multiple department liaison duties. Continuing to expand one’s skill set is an acknowledged part of the variety of liaison responsibilities. Learning more about SC resources is not regarded by liaisons to be a burden, yet feeling comfortable with the range of SC issues in one or more disciplines could be perceived as a challenge. Program Planning LIBRARIANS  IN  TRANSITION     11   To begin organizing a SC training program at EIU, the IR librarian and Head of Reference searched the literature for any similar programs implemented at institutions analogous to EIU. They reviewed potential SC services and selected those most appropriate for the EIU faculty population to include in librarian training. For example, consultations with the campus Research Services Office indicated that research data management (RDM) services were not in high demand, leading to the decision to limit training in RDM to basic services surrounding data management plans. Where more extensive data services are required, the IR librarian will handle data management. The training program had as its ultimate goal the integration of library services into the SC and digital scholarship environment of each liaison’s department(s). The training program was to help the liaisons become “scholarly communication coaches” (Brantley & Bruns, 2014). We have defined scholarly communication coach as a subject liaison who has a working understanding of SC issues such that they can field most common concerns and provide basic consultative SC services (Bruns et al., 2015). Course Components The SC Coach program drew upon the structure of SC trainings developed at the universities of Minnesota and British Columbia, utilizing, respectively, the systems and environmental scan methods (Kirchner, 2009; Malenfant, 2010). With the environmental scan, the liaison analyzes the assigned department’s programs, such as student journals or undergraduate research fairs. The liaison investigates the discipline’s stand on open access via scholarly societies and professional associations. The liaison also discovers the discipline’s preeminent sources of publication, such as the major journals and discipline repositories. Additionally, the liaison collects information on faculty participation in the IR (thekeep.eiu.edu) LIBRARIANS  IN  TRANSITION     12   and online scholars’ networks including Academia.edu, Research Gate, and others previously mentioned. For the second component of training, the IR librarian and Head of Reference developed a SC Coach toolkit, which includes select SC resources to assist liaisons in their communication with faculty. The toolkit points to such sources as the DMPTool and Sherpa/RoMEO (for publisher copyright policies). It also includes resources to assess publisher quality, such as Jeffrey Beall’s list of Potential, Possible, or Probable Predatory Scholarly Open-Access Publishers (https://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/) and the Directory of Open Access Journals (https://doaj.org/) promoted by Berger and Cirasella (2015). These core tools help answer most questions posed by our faculty, including questions about data management and how to navigate publisher copyright agreements. As a third component to SC Coach training, liaisons attended a workshop on authors’ rights, intellectual property, Creative Commons licensing, and digital publishing. This session was designed to help librarians field questions about where to publish and which open-access journals or open repositories would most increase scholarly visibility and research impact. The session also aimed to enhance the liaison’s understanding of non-traditional ways of documenting research impact, such as with altmetrics. Desired Outcomes and Future Directions By designing and hosting a SC training program at EIU, the IR librarian and Head of Reference intended to enable liaison librarians to be well-informed of SC support services they may offer faculty in their subject domains. The SC Coach role helps to personify this mission. Learning about and applying these new skills will take an intentional investment of time. It will require active engagement by librarians with their subject faculty. Librarian education on SC LIBRARIANS  IN  TRANSITION     13   issues will involve periodic refresher sessions and assessment activities, such as the internal survey described below. Assessment exercises will help determine the level of contact the librarian has had with faculty researchers over the course of a year. Environmental scans of the state of SC within a discipline performed every 1 to 2 years will refresh librarians’ understanding of the ongoing needs of scholars. The SC Coach training was an introduction to the establishment of SC and digital scholarship support services at EIU. With the help of this instruction, the ongoing work of building SC services and engaging faculty in collaboration can grow. At a teaching institution like EIU, where research is important but not primary, demonstrating to faculty the benefits of seeking out liaisons for SC support is a central focus for the continued vitality of the library. When librarians focus on services relevant to scholars’ needs, not only are they able to position the IR as a valued university resource, they again find themselves a critical partner in the research heart of the university. Liaison Feedback on Scholarly Communication Support: Enthusiasm, Indifference or Reluctance? To better understand the current practices among EIU liaison librarians in providing SC services, the authors conducted an internal survey. At EIU’s Booth Library, 14 librarians serve 35 academic departments. The IR librarian, with expertise in SC, is also a subject liaison. The remaining liaisons also have responsibilities in reference, instruction, collection development, acquisitions, cataloging, circulation, technology support, and/or management and administration. SC is not a role formally acknowledged in these liaisons' assignment of duties. Six months after presenting the SC Coach workshop, the authors surveyed the liaisons seeking to understand their involvement with SC in their relationships with their department LIBRARIANS  IN  TRANSITION     14   faculty (survey questions may be found in Appendix A). The IR librarian was excepted from the survey. Twelve of 13 responded to the survey. Half of the liaisons attended the SC workshop (6 of 12 survey respondents). Since the workshop, those librarians who participated in the training were more likely to report that their faculty had asked them about SC topics (3 of 6, versus 0 of 6 of the liaisons who did not attend the workshop). Workshop participants were more likely to have read about SC services or actively identified open-access resources to add to the library collection since the workshop (5 of 6, versus 3 of 6 of the liaisons who did not attend the workshop). Drawing broadly generalizable conclusions from this survey is impossible due to the low sample size, but a few notable points emerge from our liaison feedback. Librarians working with departments where there is more interest in SC topics (e.g., open-access publishing, copyright concerns, self-archiving in the IR) are more likely to participate in professional development related to SC, and they are more likely to seek out opportunities for self-directed learning on SC topics. The results also suggest that librarians who elect to attend in-house workshops are interested in broadening their awareness of SC issues and services. There was no difference between librarians who attended the SC workshop and those who did not with regard to proactively engaging department faculty in conversations about SC topics (3 of 6, and 2 of 6, respectively). There was also no difference in how librarians viewed SC support being integrated into their assigned duties. For those who attended the workshop and for those who did not, 5 of 6 cited SC knowledge as being a part of their subject-specialist responsibilities. Only two librarians believed SC services were beyond the scope of a liaison’s assigned duties. Most liaisons recognize SC support as part of their job without having it formally acknowledged in their assignment of duties, but some liaisons may be more willing to LIBRARIANS  IN  TRANSITION     15   engage with SC issues when it is a formally acknowledged responsibility. Despite the benefits for liaisons to discuss SC services with faculty, such as helping authors better understand their rights and striving to make research more openly available to the global community (Kenney, 2014; Mullen, 2011), if a department faculty member does not request the services, liaisons may not recognize the value. Beginning in the 2009 and 2012 Ithaka S+R US Faculty Surveys, respondents were asked to rate the importance of the statement, “the library provides active support that helps to increase the productivity of my research and scholarship” (Housewright, Schonfeld, & Wulfson, 2013, p. 68). In 2009, 60% of respondents rated this statement as important. In 2012, that number declined to approximately 50%. It should be noted that, compared to every other survey question, the fewest respondents considered this statement to be important (Housewright et al., 2013). In the 2015 Ithaka S+R US Faculty Survey, this statement, now referred to as “research support,” made slight gains in importance. Just over 50% of faculty rated research support as highly important (Wolff et al., 2016). Given the low level of faculty awareness and perceived importance of liaison services, it seems questionable at best to consider a lack of faculty requests to indicate an absence of need. In the EIU liaison survey, 4 of 12 respondents (2 of 6 who attended the workshop and 2 of 6 who did not) indicated a desire for more guidance or familiarity with SC services. A single workshop on issues surrounding SC is not enough to increase librarian familiarity with this topic. Online resources like the SC Coach toolkit (booth.eiu.edu/sccoach), additional workshops, and self-directed instruction will provide liaisons with an increased understanding of the importance of engaging with faculty on SC issues. Additional training could include influential communication and leadership development (McNeil, 2010). Establishing a stronger sense of LIBRARIANS  IN  TRANSITION     16   community among liaison librarians helped with the development of SC services at the University of Iowa (Koffel, Magarrell, Raber, & Thormodson, 2013). Barton and Waters (2004) note that faculty must hear about these library services at least seven times and through multiple contact points (e.g., print handouts, web pages, in-person engagement) before becoming open to utilizing them. Librarians, too, can be slow to adapt. The concept of shifting roles of the reference librarian to include skills in promoting and teaching about the IR was addressed in a 2005 special issue of Reference Services Review (Rockman, 2005). For libraries that are just beginning to develop an IR, this change in service emphasis may not yet be realized. At EIU, where the IR has been aggressively developed and promoted, liaison librarians are still learning how to incorporate SC as a primary skill set (Bruns et al., 2014). There remains a need for greater emphasis on the importance of SC-services, but it is unclear from whom in the library this message should be coming. Should the IR librarian, for whom these services are primary, be the champion, or should the subject liaison, who has the closest relationships with faculty in the academic departments, be the SC-services advocate? The best answer may be institutionally dependent. Regardless of the type of institution, the role must be adopted by each librarian. This will ensure that the liaison librarian’s duties will move from passive, library-centric, collection building toward an active, participatory, and collaborative role, engaged with faculty in their teaching and research activities (Buehler & Boateng, 2005; Kenney, 2014). The Need: Campus Survey of the Digital Needs of Faculty In early 2015, bepress, an open-access, scholarly-publishing services company and the producer of the Digital Commons repository software, surveyed the EIU faculty on their digital scholarship needs. The survey, for which EIU’s IR librarian was consulted in writing, asked LIBRARIANS  IN  TRANSITION     17   about the types of digital products faculty (and their students) created in the course of their teaching and research (see Appendix B). In addition, the survey asked faculty to rank the importance of each type of product to manage, organize, preserve, and share. These questions illuminated the fact that faculty are creating a wide variety of digital works, which go beyond the traditional published articles, book chapters, and monographs. Documenting these other forms of faculty research productivity, such as data from literary and historical research, open educational resources like textbooks and web scripts related to geographical research, is encouraging for any university, but it is especially so at a comprehensive university that emphasizes undergraduate and master’s level teaching above faculty research. Survey results indicate there is a potential role for librarian support to manage and promote these works. Approximately 27%, or 123 members, of the university faculty at EIU took the survey. Of the respondents, 22% were from the humanities, 41% were from the social sciences, and 30% were from the sciences. Only 7% percent of respondents did not indicate their discipline. The first part of the survey asked faculty to select, from a list of options, all the types of digital scholarship products they create. The options were: •   Working papers and reports   •   Published documents (articles, books, book chapters, conference proceedings)   •   Historical and archival documents   •   Multimedia (video, audio, image)   •   Primary research materials, such as research data   •   Creative works (art, photography, graphics, music compositions)   •   Other (please specify)     Faculty indicated that they most frequently create published documents (chosen by 71% of respondents) and working papers (selected by 48% of survey takers). While this response could have been expected of an active faculty, we did not anticipate the large number of projects being LIBRARIANS  IN  TRANSITION     18   created outside this traditional realm of scholarship: 28% of respondents create multimedia works, and more than 40% create primary research materials, such as research data. Notable among respondents who create primary research materials (data) is the relatively high number of humanities faculty (15%) and social sciences faculty (41%) who produce research data in need of management and preservation, in addition to the sciences faculty (68%). Some respondents (20%) also produce creative works in the course of their research and scholarly activity. A small portion of faculty (13%) create historical and archival documents, with humanities scholars representing over half of this population. Next, faculty were asked to select the digital products they felt were the most important to manage, organize, preserve, and share. Across the sciences, humanities, and social sciences, faculty were most likely to rank published documents as their most important digital products (61% of respondents). More than 50% of respondents selected research data as most important. The second part of the survey asked faculty to rank the importance of a range of scholarly activities. The range included the following options, which have been ordered by rank here from the survey results: 1.   Organizing my digital scholarship 2.   Managing and preserving research data 3.   Increasing the citations/visibility of my work 4.   Promoting my students' work 5.   Publishing an online journal or conference 6.   Measuring and demonstrating the impact of my work The survey then asked respondents for which of these activities they require the most help. Their answers shifted slightly, with a higher ranking going to “Increasing the citations/visibility of my work”: 1.   Organizing my digital scholarship 2.   Increasing the citations/visibility of my work 3.   Managing and preserving research data LIBRARIANS  IN  TRANSITION     19   4.   Promoting my students' work 5.   Publishing an online journal or conference 6.   Measuring and demonstrating the impact of my work These two ranking questions, in particular, elucidate faculty perceptions and preferences of the kinds of SC support librarians can provide. Although faculty may not be explicitly asking for assistance from their liaison librarians, this survey provides demonstrable evidence of faculty need for these services. It becomes our job as librarians and liaisons to provide the outreach and information alerting the faculty to our ability and readiness to provide these SC services. Developing a Core Competency The results of the EIU faculty survey add a powerful testament to the growing body of literature underscoring a continuing need in academia for the professional librarian skillset, as well as for the continued development of this skillset to support faculty research and publishing. Despite the flagging statistics of traditional library services evidenced in countless articles and surveys (e.g., Association of Research Libraries, 2013; Carlson, 2001; Foster & Gibbons, 2007; Gayton, 2008), a coming “great age of librarians” may yet be on the horizon (Plutchak, 2012, p. 10). As Plutchak asserts, library services such as reference, collection development, and programming, as well as the library as place, may have declining value to researchers in the digital age. The physical library may be viewed as less essential to conducting research and therefore less esteemed. As digital scholarly content creation continues to proliferate, however, and the electronic avenues through which scholars access information grow ever more complex, the information landscape becomes increasingly difficult to navigate. This makes the librarian skillset more relevant and necessary than ever (Plutchak, 2012). To bridge the gap in academic services for faculty SC support, the authors call for a liaison-librarian core competency to be developed around SC issues. These skills need to be LIBRARIANS  IN  TRANSITION     20   developed in LIS education (Corrall, Kennan, & Afzal, 2013; Kennan et al., 2014). Analysis of job advertisements predicts that, beyond a passing familiarity with the issues, SC is on the brink of being accepted as a core role, with reference, instruction, and collection development, of academic librarianship (Finlay et al., 2015). Key areas of focus for both professional development and LIS education are defined in the report initiated by COAR, “Librarians’ Competencies Profile for Open Access and Scholarly Communication” (Calarco et al., 2016). The development of a SC competency skillset for existing librarians has many useful examples, including the SC Coach program implemented by the authors. Additional programs and examples stemming from 2009 have matured to a point where best practices for a particular institution can be selected and customized, and assessment of their effectiveness can be measured (Bresnahan & Johnson, 2013; Kirchner, 2009; Malenfant, 2010; Wirth & Chadwell, 2010). Kenney (2015) is an example of such an assessment, which draws upon the work of Malenfant (2010). ACRL has also developed a SC Toolkit that serves as an updated and ample guide to developing individual competency or library services (http://acrl.ala.org/scholcomm/). In May 2016, the ACRL Science & Technology Section (STS) Scholarly Communications Committee began the Scholarly Communications Investigations series, an initiative whose aim is to share informational SC posts on the STS Discussion List (STS-L). With a wealth of resources available to help librarians at all stages of their career make the transition to SC coach, the moment is ripe for a transition to this new library service model. At research-intensive universities and teaching-centric institutions, librarian support is desirable and needed. LIBRARIANS  IN  TRANSITION     21   References Allen, B. M. (2008). All hype or real change: Has the digital revolution changed scholarly communication? Journal of Library Administration, 48(1), 59–68. doi:10.1080/01930820802029391 Armstrong, M. (2014). Institutional repository management models that support faculty research dissemination. OCLC Systems & Services, 30(1), 43–51. doi:10.1108/OCLC-07-2013-0028 Association of Research Libraries. (2013). Service trends in ARL libraries, 1991-2012 [Graph]. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved from http://www.arl.org/storage/documents/service- trends.pdf Bailey, C. W. (2005). The role of reference librarians in institutional repositories. Reference Services Review, 33(3), 259–267. doi:10.1108/00907320510611294 Barton, M. R., & Waters, M. M. (2004). Creating an institutional repository: LEADIRS workbook. Cambridge, MA: MIT Libraries. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/26698 Beaubien, S., Masselink, L., & Tyron, J. (2009). Recasting the role of comprehensive university libraries: Starting points for educating librarians on the issues of scholarly communication and institutional repositories. In D. M. Mueller (Ed.), Pushing the edge: Explore, engage, extend: Proceedings of the Fourteenth National Conference of the Association of College and Research Libraries, March 12-15, 2009, Seattle, Washington. Chicago, IL: Association of College and Research Libraries. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/conferences/confsandpreconfs/nationa l/seattle/papers/95.pdf Berger, M., & Cirasella, J. (2015). Beyond Beall’s list: Better understanding predatory LIBRARIANS  IN  TRANSITION     22   publishers. College & Research Libraries News, 76(3), 132–135. Retrieved from http://crln.acrl.org/content/76/3/132.full Bladek, M. (2014). Bibilometrics services and the academic library: Meeting the emerging needs of the campus community. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 21(3–4), 330–344. doi:10.1080/10691316.2014.929066 Bonn, M. (2014). Tooling up: Scholarly communication education and training. College & Research Libraries News, 75(3), 132–135. Retrieved from http://crln.acrl.org/content/75/3/132.full Brantley, S., & Bruns, T. A. (2014, March). Scholarly communication coaches. Presentation at the meeting of the Illinois Association of College and Research Libraries, Oak Brook, IL. Retrieved from http://thekeep.eiu.edu/lib_fac/90/ Bresnahan, M. M., & Johnson, A. M. (2013). Assessing scholarly communication and research data training needs. Reference Services Review, 41(3), 413–433. doi:10.1108/RSR-01-2013- 0003 Brown, M. (2014). Is almetrics an acceptable replacement for citation counts and the impact factor? The Serials Librarian, 67(1), 27–30. doi:10.1080/0361526X.2014.915609 Bruns, T. A., Knight-Davis, S., Corrigan, E. K., & Brantley, S. (2014). It takes a library: Growing a robust institutional repository in two years. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 21(3–4), 244–262. doi:10.1080/10691316.2014.904207 Bruns, T., Brantley, S., & Duffin, K. (2015). Scholarly communication coaching: Liaison librarians’ shifting roles. In B. Eden (Ed.), Partnerships and new roles in the 21st-century academic library: Collaborating, embedding, and cross-training for the future (pp. 9–29). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Retrieved from http://thekeep.eiu.edu/lib_fac/99/ LIBRARIANS  IN  TRANSITION     23   Bruns, T., & Inefuku, H. (2015). Purposeful metrics: Matching institutional repository metrics to purpose and audience. In B. B. Callicott, D. Scherer, & A. Wesolek (Eds.), Making institutional repositories work (pp. 213–234). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press. Retrieved from https://works.bepress.com/todd_bruns/63/ Buehler, M. A., & Boateng, A. (2005). The evolving impact of institutional repositories on reference librarians. Reference Services Review, 33(3), 291–300. doi:10.1108/00907320510611320 Bull, J., & Eden, B. L. (2014). Successful scholarly communication at a small university: Integration of education, services, and an institutional repository at Valparaiso University. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 21(3–4), 263–278. doi:10.1080/10691316.2014.932264 Burns, C. S., Lana, A., & Budd, J. M. (2013). Institutional repositories: Exploration of costs and value. D-Lib Magazine, 19(1–2). doi:10.1045/january2013-burns Busher, C., & Kamotsky, I. (2015). Stories and statistics from library-led publishing. Learned Publishing, 28(1), 64–68. doi:10.1087/20150110 Calarco, P., Shearer, K., Schmidt, B., & Tate, D. (2016). Librarians’ competencies profile for scholarly communication and open access. Retrieved from Confederation of Open Access Repositories website: https://www.coar-repositories.org/files/Competencies-for- ScholComm-and-OA_June-2016.pdf Carlson, S. (2001, November 16). The deserted library. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A35. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com Carpenter, T. A., Lagace, N., & Bahnmaier, S. (2016). Developing standards for emerging forms of assessment: The NISO Altmetrics Initiative. The Serials Librarian, 70(1–4), 85–88. LIBRARIANS  IN  TRANSITION     24   doi:10.1080/0361526X.2016.1157737 Clobridge, A. (2014). Open access: Progress, possibilities, and the changing scholarly communications ecosystem. Online Searcher, 38(2), 42–52. Corrall, S., Kennan, M. A., & Afzal, W. (2013). Bibliometrics and research data management services: Emerging trends in library support for research. Library Trends, 61(3), 636–674. doi:10.1353/lib.2013.0005 Cox, A., Verbaan, E., & Sen, B. (2012). Upskilling liaison librarians for research data management. Ariadne, 70. Retrieved from http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue70/cox-et-al Creaser, C. (2010). Open access to research outputs — institutional policies and researchers’ views: Results from two complementary surveys. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 16(1), 4–25. doi:10.1080/13614530903162854 Cullen, R., & Chawner, B. (2010). Institutional repositories: Assessing their value to the academic community. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 11(2), 131–147. doi:10.1108/14678041011064052 Dutta, G., & Paul, D. (2014). Awareness on institutional repositories-related issues by faculty of University of Calcutta. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology, 34(4), 293–297. doi:10.14429/djlit.34.5138 Finlay, C., Tsou, A., & Sugimoto, C. (2015). Scholarly communication as a core competency: Prevalence, activities, and concepts of scholarly communication librarianship as shown through job advertisements. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication, 3(1), eP1236. doi:10.7710/2162-3309.1236 Foster, N. F., & Gibbons, S. (Eds.). (2007). Studying students: The Undergraduate Research Project at the University of Rochester. Chicago, IL: Association of College and Research LIBRARIANS  IN  TRANSITION     25   Libraries. Gargouri, Y., Hajjem, C., Lariviére, V., Gingras, Y., Carr, L., Brody, T., & Harnad, S. (2010). Self-selected or mandated, open access increases citation impact for higher quality research. PLoS ONE, 5(10), e13636. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013636 Gayton, J. T. (2008). Academic libraries: “Social” or “communal?” The nature and future of academic libraries. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 34(1), 60–66. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2007.11.011 Gilman, I. (2014-2015). Adjunct no more: Promoting scholarly publishing as a core service of academic libraries. Against the Grain, 26(6), 30–34. Retrieved from http://commons.pacificu.edu/libfac/25/ Gordon, G. J. (2012). Strategic access. Legal Information Management, 12(3), 198–202. doi:10.1017/S1472669612000461 Hahn, K. L. (2008). Talk about talking about new models of scholarly communication. Journal of Electronic Publishing, 11(1). doi:10.3998/3336451.0011.108 Hahn, S. E., & Wyatt, A. (2014). Business faculty’s attitudes: Open access, disciplinary repositories, and institutional repositories. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 19(2), 93–113. doi:10.1080/08963568.2014.883875 Harnad, S. (2010). Gold open access publishing must not be allowed to retard the progress of green open access self-archiving. Logos, 21(3–4), 86–93. doi:10.1163/095796511X559972 Housewright, R., Schonfeld, R. C., & Wulfson, K. (2013). Ithaka S+R US faculty survey 2012. New York, NY. doi:10.18665/sr.22502 Jaguszewski, J. M., & Williams, K. (2013). New roles for new times: Transforming liaison roles in research libraries. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries. Retrieved from LIBRARIANS  IN  TRANSITION     26   http://www.arl.org/component/content/article/6/2893 Kennan, M. A., Corrall, S., & Afzal, W. (2014). “Making space” in practice and education: Research support services in academic libraries. Library Management, 35(8/9), 666–683. doi:10.1108/LM-03-2014-0037 Kenney, A. R. (2014). Leveraging the liaison model: From defining 21st century research libraries to implementing 21st century research universities. New York, NY: Ithaka S+R. Retrieved from http://www.sr.ithaka.org/wp- content/mig/files/SR_BriefingPaper_Kenney_20140322.pdf Kenney, A. R. (2015). From engaging liaison librarians to engaging communities. College & Research Libraries, 76(3), 386–391. doi:10.5860/crl.76.3.386 Kirchner, J. (2009). Scholarly communications: Planning for the integration of liaison librarian roles. Research Library Issues, 265, 22–28. Koffel, J., Magarrell, K., Raber, E., & Thormodson, K. (2013). Liaison connection: Building a better community. College & Research Libraries News, 74(10), 534–536. Retrieved from http://crln.acrl.org/content/74/10/534.full Konkiel, S., & Scherer, D. (2013). New opportunities for repositories in the age of altmetrics. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 39(4), 22–26. doi:10.1002/bult.2013.1720390408 Krier, L., & Strasser, C. A. (2014). Data management for libraries: A LITA guide. Chicago, IL: ALA TechSource. Malenfant, K. J. (2010). Leading change in the system of scholarly communication: A case study of engaging liaison librarians for outreach to faculty. College & Research Libraries, 71(1), 63–76. doi:10.5860/crl.71.1.63 LIBRARIANS  IN  TRANSITION     27   McIntyre, G., Chan, J., & Gross, J. (2013). Library as scholarly publishing partner: Keys to success. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication, 2(1), eP1091. doi:10.7710/2162-3309.1091 McNeil, B. (2010). Librarians and scholarly communication: Outreach, advocacy, and leadership within the academic community. In W. C. Welburn, J. Welburn, & B. McNeil (Eds.), Advocacy, outreach, and the nation’s academic libraries: A call for action (pp. 55–68). Chicago, IL: Association of College and Research Libraries. Mitchell, E. T. (2013). Research support: The new mission for libraries. Journal of Web Librarianship, 7(1), 109–113. doi:10.1080/19322909.2013.757930 Mullen, L. B. (2011, May-June). Open access and the practice of academic librarianship: Strategies and considerations for “front line” librarians. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Association of Scientific and Technological University Libraries, Warsaw, Poland. Retrieved from http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/iatul/2011/papers/34 Neugebauer, T., & Murray, A. (2013). The critical role of institutional services in open access advocacy. International Journal of Digital Curation, 8(1), 84–106. doi:10.2218/ijdc.v8i1.238 Newman, K. A., Blecic, D. D., & Armstrong, K. L. (2007). Scholarly communication education initiatives (SPEC Kit 299). Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries. Retrieved from http://publications.arl.org/Scholarly-Communication-SPEC-Kit-299/ Park, J.-H., & Shim, J. (2011). Exploring how library publishing services facilitate scholarly communication. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 43(1), 76–89. doi:10.3138/jsp.43.1.76 Patel, D. (2016). Research data management: A conceptual framework. Library Review, 65(4/5), 226–241. doi:10.1108/LR-01-2016-0001 LIBRARIANS  IN  TRANSITION     28   Pinfield, S. (2015). Making open access work: The “state-of-the-art” in providing open access to scholarly literature. Online Information Review, 39(5), 604–636. doi:10.1108/OIR-05-2015- 0167 Pinfield, S., Cox, A. M., & Smith, J. (2014). Research data management and libraries: Relationships, activities, drivers and influences. PLoS ONE, 9(12), e114734. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0114734 Plutchak, T. S. (2012). Breaking the barriers of time and space: The dawning of the great age of librarians. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 100(1), 10–19. doi:10.3163/1536- 5050.100.1.004 Profera, E., Jefferson, R., & Hosburgh, N. (2015). Personalizing library service to improve scholarly communication. The Serials Librarian, 68(1–4), 274–281. doi:10.1080/0361526X.2015.1017710 Prottsman, M. F. (2011). Communication and collaboration: Collection development in challenging economic times. Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries, 8(2), 107–116. doi:10.1080/15424065.2011.576585 Quinn, M. M. (2015). Open access in scholarly publishing: Embracing principles and avoiding pitfalls. The Serials Librarian, 69(1), 58–69. doi:10.1080/0361526X.2015.1036197 Radom, R., Feltner-Reichert, M., & stringer-stanback, k. (2012). Organization of scholarly communication services (SPEC Kit 332). Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries. Retrieved from http://publications.arl.org/Organization-of-Scholarly- Communication-Services-SPEC-Kit-332/ Reinsfelder, T. L., & Anderson, J. A. (2013). Observations and perceptions of academic administrator influence on open access initiatives. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, LIBRARIANS  IN  TRANSITION     29   39(6), 481–487. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2013.08.014 Rockman, I. F. (Ed.). (2005). Reference librarians and institutional repositories [Special issue]. Reference Services Review, 33(3). Rodriguez, J. E. (2015). Scholarly communications competencies: Open access training for librarians. New Library World, 116(7/8), 397–405. doi:10.1108/NLW-12-2014-0140 Royster, P. (2014, June). The advice not taken: How one repository found its own path. Presentation at Open Repositories 2014, Helsinki, Finland. Retrieved from http://www.doria.fi/handle/10024/97543 Scaramozzino, J. M., Ramírez, M. L., & McGaughey, K. J. (2012). A study of faculty data curation behaviors and attitudes at a teaching-centered university. College & Research Libraries, 73(4), 349–365. doi:10.5860/crl-255 Schlangen, M. (2015). Content, credibility, and readership: Putting your institutional repository on the map. Public Services Quarterly, 11(3), 217–224. doi:10.1080/15228959.2015.1060148 Steele, C. (2014). Scholarly communication, scholarly publishing and university libraries. Plus ça change? Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 45(4), 241–261. doi:10.1080/00048623.2014.950042 Sterman, L. (2014). Institutional repositories: An analysis of trends and a proposed collaborative future. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 21(3–4), 360–376. doi:10.1080/10691316.2014.943919 Suber, P. (2012). Open access. ELEC, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Swoger, B. J. M., Brainard, S. A., & Hoffman, K. D. (2015). Foundations for a scholarly communications program: Interviewing faculty at a small public liberal arts college. Journal LIBRARIANS  IN  TRANSITION     30   of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication, 3(1), eP1219. doi:10.7710/2162-3309.1219 Taylor, S. (2009). Coming full circle: Scholarly communication and the role of liaison librarians. In K. L. Anderson (Ed.), Sustainability in a changing climate: Proceedings of the 34th annual conference of the International Association of Aquatic and Marine Science Libraries and Information Centers (IAMSLIC) (pp. 23–27). Newport, OR: IAMSLIC. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1912/2876 Thomas, W. J. (2013). The structure of scholarly communications within academic libraries. Serials Review, 39(3), 167–171. doi:10.1080/00987913.2013.10766387 Toups, M., & Hughes, M. (2013). When data curation isn’t: A redefinition for liberal arts universities. Journal of Library Administration, 53(4), 223–233. doi:10.1080/01930826.2013.865386 Turtle, E. C., & Courtois, M. P. (2007). Scholarly communication: Science librarians as advocates for change. Issues in Science & Technology Librarianship, 51. doi:10.5062/F4319SVH Vinopal, J., & McCormick, M. (2013). Supporting digital scholarship in research libraries: Scalability and sustainability. Journal of Library Administration, 53(1), 27–42. doi:10.1080/01930826.2013.756689 Wiegand, S. (2013). Beginning the conversation: Discussing scholarly communication. The Serials Librarian, 65(3–4), 335–349. doi:10.1080/0361526X.2013.833883 Wirth, A. A. (2011). Incorporating existing library partnerships into open access week events. Collaborative Librarianship, 3(4), 197–204. Wirth, A. A., & Chadwell, F. A. (2010). Rights Well: An authors’ rights workshop for librarians. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 10(3), 337–354. doi:10.1353/pla.0.0105 LIBRARIANS  IN  TRANSITION     31   Wolf, M. (2015). Untying knots and joining dots: The role of librarians in the scholarly communication environment. Insights, 28(1), 78–82. doi:10.1629/uksg.158 Wolff, C., Rod, A. B., & Schonfeld, R. C. (2016). Ithaka S+R US faculty survey 2015. New York, NY: Ithaka S+R. doi:10.18665/sr.277685 Xia, J., & Li, Y. (2015). Changed responsibilities in scholarly communication services: An analysis of job descriptions. Serials Review, 41(1), 15–22. doi:10.1080/00987913.2014.998980 Zhang, L. (2015). Use of library services by engineering faculty at Mississippi State University, a large land grant institution. Science & Technology Libraries, 34(3), 272-286. doi:10.1080/0194262X.2015.1090941 Zhang, Y., Liu, S., & Mathews, E. (2015). Convergence of digital humanities and digital libraries. Library Management, 36(4–5), 362–377. doi:10.1108/LM-09-2014-0116 Zhao, L. (2014). Riding the wave of open access: Providing library research support for scholarly publishing literacy. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 45(1), 3–18. doi:10.1080/00048623.2014.882873 LIBRARIANS  IN  TRANSITION     32   Appendix A Liaison Librarian SC Support Services Survey 1. Did you attend the Scholarly Communication Coach training workshop? o   Yes o   No 2. Since the workshop, have you engaged faculty of your assigned departments in conversation about open access, copyright concerns, The Keep, or other scholarly-communication related topics? o   Yes o   No 3. Since the workshop, have faculty of your assigned departments asked you about open access, copyright concerns, The Keep, or other scholarly-communication related topics? o   Yes o   No 4. Since the workshop, have you read about scholarly communication services or identified open- access resources to add to our collection? Choose all that apply: o   Yes o   No o   Did not attend the workshop o   Other (please specify) 5. Where do you see scholarly communication services fitting within your assigned duties? o   Reference o   Subject specialist o   It is not part of my assigned duties. o   Other (please specify) 6. What would make you more inclined to incorporate scholarly communication services into your liaison duties? 7. Comments?   LIBRARIANS  IN  TRANSITION     33   Appendix B Faculty Digital Needs Survey 1. As part of my research, I develop the following types of digital materials: o   Working papers and reports o   Published documents (articles, books, book chapters, conference proceedings) o   Historical and archival documents o   Multimedia (video, audio, image) o   Primary research materials (such as research data) o   Creative works (art, photography, graphics, music compositions) o   Other (please specify) 2. Which of the above research materials are the most important to manage/organize/preserve/share? Why? 3. As part of my teaching, I develop the following types of digital materials o   Multimedia (video, audio, image) o   Open educational resources (textbooks, syllabi, course materials) o   Historical and archival documents o   Primary research materials (such as research data) o   Creative works (art, photography, graphics, music composition) o   Other (please specify) 4. Which of the above teaching materials are the most important to manage/organize/preserve/share? Why? 5. My students develop the following types of digital materials: o   Electronic theses and dissertations o   Capstone projects o   Multimedia (video, audio, image) o   Historical and archival documents o   Primary research materials (such as research data) o   Creative works (art, photography, graphics, music composition) o   Other (please specify) 6. Which of the above student projects are the most important for you or your students to manage/organize/preserve/share? Why? 7. What is the most important to you? (rank in order) o   Organizing my digital scholarship o   Promoting my students' work o   Increasing the citations/visibility of my work o   Managing and preserving research data o   Publishing an online journal or conference LIBRARIANS  IN  TRANSITION     34   o   Measuring and demonstrating the impact of my work o   Other (please specify) 8. Where do you need the most help? (rank in order) o   Organizing my digital scholarship o   Promoting my students' work o   Increasing the citations/visibility of my work o   Managing and preserving research data o   Publishing an online journal or conference o   Measuring and demonstrating the impact of my work o   Other (please specify) 9. Do you have any specific projects that would benefit from digital support services? Please describe. Eastern Illinois University From the SelectedWorks of Steve Brantley Fall September 13, 2017 Librarians in Transition: Scholarly Communication as a Core Competency Microsoft Word - BrantleyDuffinBruns_LibrariansInTransition-revised-manuscript.docx