Technical
Complete development issues from 2012-09-21 Scientific Advisory Board meeting - The SAB agreed to a number of changes in the way arXiv should send emails to moderators and control user selection of categories. Changes also add the ability for moderators to comment on and put submissions on "hold" without the need for arXiv admin interaction, a first step toward empowering moderators though more direct facilities. Work was started in 2012 and will be completed in early 2013.
Complete move of servers to virtual machine (VM) infrastructure - In 2012 we migrated two out of three of arXiv's server machines to new VMs. We will complete the move by migration our main web server to pair of load-balanced VMs managed by IT@Cornell. This arrangement will support scaling to additional web front-ends as necessary. As part of this transition we will formalize the update and maintenance process for these machines, and remove access by non-CUL or IT@Cornell staff.
Change email handling to support arXiv admin and moderation ticketing system - The "Request Tracker" software has been selected and we will rework email filtering software to use this instead of the current email-based arXiv admin workflows.
Add automatic classification checks to submission system - We will use classifier software developed by Paul Ginsparg to classify incoming submissions according to our category scheme. Where these automatic classifications differ significantly from the user-selected classifications we will add a warning to the moderator alerts.
Improve tools and interfaces to support moderators - We will work with the SAB and moderators to define and develop better tools that allow moderators to interact more directly and efficiently with the arXiv system and administrators. The overarching aim is to make best use of available moderator effort by making the work of moderators as quick and convenient as possible, consistent with achieving the quality goals and following policies set out by the SAB.
Implement new category aliases for cs/math/stat and add a new category for q-fin - In the past the creation of category aliases (e.g. math.IT/cs.IT) and associated recategorization of articles has required a mix of manual DB edits and one-off scripting. We will develop tools to safely do bulk edits of this sort. Testing is also required to ensure that having articles where the primary classification does not match the old-style id as a result of these new aliases is handled correctly everywhere.
Improve author identifier support and data export - Add basic support for ORCID and other author identifiers associated with arXiv accounts. Add periodic data dumps for all public authorship data.
Improve dataset support - Review use of and experience with the Data Conservancy pilot and then either discontinue or improve interaction. Decide on a medium-term strategy for data and consider assigning DataCite DOIs for ancillary files.
Security and login, email privacy - There are significant flaws in arXiv's security and we are lucky that we have not been targeted. Issues include: all password entry and authenticated interactions should occur via https; domain based cookies should not be sent to mirror sites; and user email addresses should be more carefully protected.
Alerting system - The email alerting system remains popular but the mechanisms for subscription management are outdated. Users should be able to see and control their subscriptions from their user account page. New software will be developed to replace the extremely old and hard to maintain software implementing the current email subscription system.
User Support and Moderation
Establish a new Physics Subject Advisory Committee - Physics moderation has become overly dependent on a few active physics moderators, especially Paul Ginsparg. The current Subject Advisory Committee in physics is dormant. The arXiv Scientific Advisory Board is engaged in an effort to identify additional moderators and seek new leadership within the arXiv physics community.
Explore the advantages and practicability of having an arXiv Scientific Director - Work with arXiv Scientific Advisory Board to define the role of a Scientific Director, and explore with stakeholders the desirability and feasibility of such a position.
Define new tools and interfaces for moderators - Work with existing moderators to gather and refine requirements for new tools and interfaces to support their work. Existing processes are in need of enhancement or replacement as we upgrade moderation processes and work to improve moderator efficiency and convenience.
Governance
Form the first MAB - Make MAB appointments in January'13
Finalize SAB bylaws - The SAB is reviewing a revised draft of its bylaws. A final version of these will be adopted in early 2013, along with the appointment of a Board Chair. Also under consideration is the question of appointing a scientific director — a part-time position to provide intellectual leadership from the perspective of the scientific community.
Test and refine the operation of the new governance model -The arXiv principles aims to clarify the authority, responsibilities, and constraints of CUL, MAB, and SAB. Ironing out problems and developing a working system may require some time to test and observe the inner operation of the governance model. For instance, there may be overlaps and tension, due to role ambiguity or personality conflicts. Currently there is not a clear mechanism to settle potential conflicts among the three chambers - CUL, MAB, SAB. CUL will engage SAB and MAB in proactively identifying and addressing problems. The first strategy to reduce/avoid tension is having in place a roadmap for arXiv so that everyone knows the CUL team's priorities and goals. Both boards need to understand the vision, priorities, and challenges to be able to contribute to the arXiv's governance.
Create a working relationship between SAB and MAB - The advisory groups need to regularly exchange information in order to contribute to each other's agendas in a meaningful and useful manner. For instance, CUL will provide joint briefings(reports) to SAB and MAB to highlight common interest areas and complementary perspectives. Having ex officio member representation in each group will also faciliate information sharing and developing a common understanding of the respective goals.
Further refine the benefits of being a member for participating institutions - During the governance planning meetings, several ideas emerged as potential free services for members; however, implementing these features may require significant staff time. Therefore these services need to be considered in the context of arXiv's current maintenance and development priorities. After the MAB is formed, in order to better understand demand for services, CUL will invite ideas/proposals and review them with MAB and SAB. Some of the ideas to be considered include: submission-based data when arXiv's metadata structure is ready; institutional repository bulk download. Member institutions are also very keen on informing their scientists and researchers about arXiv's business model (e.g.,arXiv LibGuide to share with their faculty and students in related disciplines). Often, we are advised to make it easier to find business info on the arXiv webpage (one idea proposed is to put links from abstracts or submission forms to 'sustainability' page).
Continue with the membership drive - We are very encouraged with the five-year pledges received so far. We want to increase the number of arXiv member institutions to create a large and international network of supporters. Another goal is to be able to reduce the institutional membership fees in the future (current annual institutional fees are in the $1,500-$3,000 range).
Develop reserve fund policies - The purpose of the arXiv reserve fund is to support unexpected expenses to ensure a sound business model. Currently, arXiv has a reserve fund of approximately $125,000 accumulated during the last two years due to unexpected staff vacancies and other savings, such as transition to virtual servers. The includes a contingency line ($50,000-$100,000 per year); however, the Cumulative Operating Contingency balance does not factor in the potential expenditures that will be charged against this account in support of unforeseen expenses. We will discuss the desirability of establishing a minimum and maximum contingency fund levels. The financial projections assume that the membership fees will increase at an average rate of 2 % per year. Ideally, membership fees should decrease as the number of participating institutions increases. This is one of the reasons we would like to identify an ideal contingency amount so that we will know when to stop accumulating and start reducing membership fees. We need to develop policies about how contingency funds will be used and how the account will be structured (e.g., funds needed for closing the business versus development funds - also a part of the reserve funds to create an endowment & the interest can be use the interest for reducing membership fees).
Sustainability Planning & Partnerships
Define a R&D agenda and seek external funds to advance arXiv - So far, CUL's sustainability planning efforts focused on arXiv's operational budget to support the core services and arXiv's strengths in order to stay mission-centric. One of the key goals ahead of us is to define a research agenda for arXiv. We'll seek input from the advisory boards, users/scientists at large, and information scientists. We will develop a methodology for making decisions about arXiv's R&D projects and partners. One of the challenges will be maintaining/developing arXiv as a distinct system vs. envisioning it as a part of a joint scholarly communication infrastructure (interoperability, research data, tracking funding sources, etc.). This is likely to be a potential tension area between the library community and scientists.
Continue the dialogue with publishers/societies - In celebration of the arXiv's 20th anniversary, on September 23, 2011 Cornell University Library (CUL) hosted a meeting at Cornell with the representatives from several publishers and societies that are interested in Cornell's sustainability planning efforts. The meeting report provides a synopsis of the discussion and recommends next steps for continuing this dialogue. We will resume this investigation and discuss the feasibility and desirability of establishing a research and innovation collaboration in support of arXiv. This effort is envisioned to entail a separate funding stream (created by participating publishers and societies) from the operational budget, which includes resources for the routine and core services currently provided by the arXiv team (including essential updates).
Define and communicate measures of success for arXiv- Scientific repositories' ecology continues to evolve in response to the changes in scholarly communication patterns, information policies, repository technologies, and global financial trends. During the last three years, arXiv has been going through a streamlining process and some goals continue to be works in progress (for instance, developing of an Invenio-based discovery and access interface, streamlining the moderation process, strengthening staffing through back-up arrangements, etc.). To address this dynamic process, one goal over the next several months is to create an assessment model to help CUL continue to fine-tune the sustainability model. An assessment plan will also help identify unforeseen developments and making course adjustments to the service and collaboration model. Working with the SAB, one of the goals of the transitional MAB will be to develop an assessment framework with three key components:
- Desired outcomes and success measures to measure progress (for instance, dynamics of the governance model, level of financial support, enhancements to arXiv, improvements to moderation system, etc.).
- Assessment model to gauge and report success based on the identified outcome measures.
- Plan a five-year review process to enable CUL to conduct a comprehensive self-evaluation with input from the Simons Foundation, MAB, SAB, and other key partners
CollaborationWorking with the arXiv Boards, develop policies that guide consideration of potential working collaborations with outside groups. arXiv is approached on a regular basis by outside groups asking for advice or special services. Sometimes the assistance requested is minor, but often it would require devoting some amount of staff effort. We need guidelines for determining under what circumstances we will allocate resources in order to collaborate with an outside organization.
Put in place a systematic and regular communication strategy for MAB and SAB - Communication and follow-through are essential - don't promise anything to SAB or MAB members if you'll not be able to fulfill. Make sure to follow up - whether it is relaying progress or delays (or rejecting a recommendation). When you hear ideas and get suggestions from SAB and MAB and don't follow their advice, you need to at least explain why. List priorities and communicate them prior to meetings. Implicitly seek help in setting priorities. Be clear with your expectations (seeking input vs. help CUL make a decision by selecting one of the alternative strategies). Explain that CUL has limited resources and set expectations accordingly. If there are requests that Cornell cannot meet, someone (member) may be able of pay. Seek partnerships and other revenue streams.
Communication with users (scientists) - Share opinions received from scientists and users with SAB and MAB.How about seeking input from other scientists, arXiv users? What is working well for them that needs to be maintained? What are their unmet needs? What kinds of changes they want to see implemented? CUL needs to have a systematic way of gathering user feedback and this info ought to be shared with MAB and SAB (both groups are also important channels of input as they represent other groups). Will it be useful to encourage users to send feedback directly to SAB and MAB and make them aware of these advisory groups (through a mailing list)?
Economics of open access awareness building - Scientists know very little about how arXiv is run and how much it costs. Improve communication, it is important for scientists to know that open access is not free and even open access systems need to be carefully managed. Some scientists may think that they don't need libraries any longer. Be vocal about libraries' new roles. Use members to spread info to their scientists - there needs to be outreach to scientific community. Also make it known that arXiv has a QC strategy - many librarians don't know about it.