1. International Dimensions of Digital Science and Scholarship Address to the American Association of Research Libraries and the Canadian Association of Research Libraries 18 May 2006, Ottawa, Canada Deanna B. Marcum Associate Librarian for Library Services Library of Congress, Washington, DC

2. July 2005 Meeting

3. Bibliometric Analysis  Identified papers authored jointly by researchers in the U.S. & other countries  Collaborations of U.S. & U.K. researchers had grown faster than those of the U.S. with any other G8 country  U.S./U.K. joint research papers had “a significantly greater impact factor”

4. To Be Expected?  Researchers with the most resources and motivation will overcome difficulties in collaboration over a distance  International research projects are likely to be larger than others, and therefore, most often cited

5. British Group Refined Study Prominent Scientific Journals

6. "... U.K.–U.S.A. collaboration does appear to add value, with collaborators combining their talents to achieve benefits they could not have done alone."

7. "... the U.S.A., as the world's largest research economy, is the preferred partner for international research partnerships and makes a significant contribution to the leading-edge performance of collaborating nations."

8. Report Findings  Promoting transatlantic research does not require “expensive artificial incentives to collaborate”  Significant cooperation between scientists in the U.K. and the U.S. already exists

9. Recommendations  Establish protocols between U.K. research councils and U.S. funding agencies to aid with collaboration “in areas of shared priority.”  “Partnerships for International Research and Education”

10. Additional Collaborations

11. Digital Technology

12. Digital Library Projects

13. More Recommendations  More digitization of both primary and secondary sources to “underpin collaborative research”  “Build effective and sustainable virtual research communities”

14. Mass Digitization Projects

15. National Library Collaborations

16. More Collaboration Needed  Develop scholarly exchange programs  Develop a critical mass of resident fellows  Enhance creative interaction between visiting scholars and research-active curatorial staff

17. New Collaborations are Starting  Up to 20 British scholars will be funded to spend up to 9 months doing research in the Library of Congress

18. New Collaborations are Starting  Up to 20 British scholars will be funded to spend up to 9 months doing research in the Library of Congress  Interaction with LC Kluge scholars

19. New Collaborations are Starting  Up to 20 British scholars will be funded to spend up to 9 months doing research in the Library of Congress  Interaction with LC Kluge scholars  BL to develop a visiting scholar program

20. New Collaborations are Starting  Up to 20 British scholars will be funded to spend up to 9 months doing research in the Library of Congress  Interaction with LC Kluge scholars  BL to develop a visiting scholar program  U.K.’s Joint Information Systems Committee to fund effort to digitize materials for scholars

21. New Academic Program  To inform and encourage digitization work  Bruce Cole (NEH) leads the U.S. side of transatlantic steering group  Clive Field (BL) chairs joint digitization activity

22. Collection Development  Libraries currently investing in digitization and licensing of databases/e-resources  Developing digital repositories for preserving and providing access to scholarly products created by faculty

23. May 2, 2006 - Senate Bill 2695  Fed. Research Public Access Act of 2006  Agencies providing grants for non-classified research, performed within universities, healthcare services, and other groups  11 agencies likely: Depts. of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Transportation, Homeland Security, HHS, NSF, EPA and NASA

24. Senate Bill 2695, cont.  Researcher who receives federal assistance, resulting in a published paper in a peer-reviewed journal, must provide an electronic copy to the funding agency  Agency would be required to preserve the work in a repository and provide free public access to the content within six months of publication

25. NIH Policy

26. Senate Bill Endorsed By...  Association of Research Libraries (ARL)  Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL)  Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries (AAHSL)  Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC)

27. Senate Bill Opposed By...  Association of American Publishers (AAP) fearing loss of sales  If the bill does become law, NLM and NAL, among others, may become more deeply involved in developing scientific research repositories—libraries, using digital technology to expand access

28. Access to Products of Research

29. Bibliographic Control  New approaches are needed for providing and guiding access to digital content  New access structure, focused on delivery, not of bibliographic information information, but of content, itself

30. Bibliographic Control, cont.  Libraries developed cataloging initially as a means of fostering access; initially, they were a great innovation!

31. 21 st Century Developments  Creation of digital resources has accelerated, as has development of search services

32. Library of Congress' Role  Instrumental in fostering current set of bibliographic controls  Plays active role in development and maintenance of cataloging policies  Provides bibliographic information to libraries around the world

33. New Directions  Rethink our bibliographic infrastructure  Redesign our services and products focusing on needs of our users  Streamline our processes to make the library’s resources more quickly and conveniently accessible

34. Bicentennial Conference

35. Challenges  Small changes in bibliographic system at LC could produce tremors nationally and internationally  We all need to collaborate on developing a workable new system based on …access to content rather than …access to description

36. More Challenges...  Internet model allows anyone to be a publisher and increases content mass

37. More Challenges...  Internet model allows anyone to be a publisher and increases content mass  Priority of preserving of oral histories

38. More Challenges...  Internet model allows anyone to be a publisher and increases content mass  Priority of preserving of oral histories  Digital & traditional preservation balance

39. More Challenges...  Internet model allows anyone to be a publisher and increases content mass  Priority of preserving of oral histories  Digital & traditional preservation balance  Humanities/Social Science vs. Sciences

40. More Challenges...  Internet model allows anyone to be a publisher and increases content mass  Priority of preserving of oral histories  Digital & traditional preservation balance  Humanities/Social Science vs. Sciences  Management of collaborative efforts

41. More Challenges...  Internet model allows anyone to be a publisher and increases content mass  Priority of preserving of oral histories  Digital & traditional preservation balance  Humanities/Social Science vs. Sciences  Management of collaborative efforts  Retraining and repositioning work force

42. Next Steps Work collaboratively Serve Scholarship Adapt and Change