1. 2009 The American Physiological Society Quality Control in DL Content: What are the Issues? Marsha Lakes Matyas, Ph.D. Director of Education Programs The American Physiological Society 9650 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20814-3991

2. Quality Control: Content vs. Metadata  Quality control in metadata  Allows users to find resources in the DL more easily  Quality control in content  Gives users informed expectations about the materials they will find in the DL

3.  BEN Survey results:  79% of higher education faculty want resources to enhance their lectures  43% want resources for student projects or assignments  57% used the resources they accessed through BEN  50% incorporated new ideas, methods, or resources they found in BEN  85% felt it was important that resources were peer- reviewed and backed by professional societies.  81% said resources that are original and authoritative are important. What do users want? A. Chang, M. Matyas, N. Gough, & Y. George. (2004). http://www.apsarchive.org/resource.cfm?submissionID=3764.http://www.apsarchive.org/resource.cfm?submissionID=3764

4.  Whether “Best of the Best” or wide acceptance, assuring “quality” is important  Requires establishing standards and review processes for digital resources  Easier for materials developed de novo for the DL  Complicated for  individual submissions  Websites, programs, simulations, etc.  Today’s session: Probably more questions than answers! Submission and Review Standards

5. Scientific accuracy  Definition  Reviewers and “editors” must have a common definition  Definition should be transparent to users  Time sensitive  WHEN was it scientifically accurate?  When developed? Reviewed? Released?  Re-review periodically? Update materials?  Web site review issues – in addition to accuracy…  Who wrote the site? – Credibility of authors  Why did they write it?  Course  Advertisement  How often is it updated?  Advertisement-driven/Advertisement-impede  HOW MUCH DO YOU REVIEW? Some common issues…

6. Safety  Grade level dependent  Appropriate for graduate/medical? Undergraduate? K-12?  Extra review criteria for K-12 materials Student learning  Not all resources are pedagogy-specific but should have accurate descriptions and documentation  Graphics  Tables  Charts  Photos  PowerPoints Some common issues…

7. Use of animals/humans/microbes in teaching  What is your policy?  APS Position Statement on Animals in Teaching ( www.apsarchive.org/resource.cfm?submissionID=26720)  Institute for Laboratory Animal Use in Research/NAS (http://dels.nas.edu/ilar_n/ilarhome/Principles_and_Guidelines.pdf)  NSTA Position Statement (http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/animals.aspx)  NABT Position Statement (http://www.nabt.org/websites/institution/index.php?p=97)  State regulations on use of animals in K-12 (see State Education websites)  Grade level matters in specifics but NOT in principle  “ABC – Appropriate, Beneficial, Caring”  International differences  Reviewers  Submitters Some common issues…

8.  Original work/plagiarism  Text  Reuse of materials (e.g., graphics, figures, and tables)  Replace with description and reference or link  Outdated texts are problematic…include description  Cartoons!  Author reuse policies  Copyright Clearinghouse Center (www.copyright.com)  Affirmation by author that they hold copyright  Institutional claims on faculty work  Language  Review translations? Some common issues…

9.  Age appropriateness  K-12 review  Multimedia  Animal use  Human anatomy physiology  My Archive  Digital Formats  Programs and simulations  May not be able to change in response to reviewers’ comments  Editor’s call: Minor errors versus major issues  Mac vs. PC issues  Older versions of software Some common issues…

10.  Semper vigilans (Always vigilant)  Have content quality policies and use them  Educate reviewers  Caveat emptor (Let the buyer beware)  “Let the purchaser beware, for he ought not to be ignorant of the nature of the property which he is buying from another party”  Make your content quality policies transparent to the user  What quality controls are in place  How items are reviewed  When items were reviewed/released Balancing Act

11. NSDL Collection Task Force Charge: Provide input and recommendations on matters related to collection development and management and policy matters: – Recommend revisions to NSDL Collection Policy – Provide input to NSDL collection evaluation activities, such as recommending collection metrics and assessment for determining collection scope and balance, identifying gaps in content coverage, and recommending priority areas for collection development Representation from NSDL Pathways, Resource Center, Technical Network Services

12. Contact info Marsha Lakes Matyas Email: mmatyas@the-aps.org Digital Library: www.apsarchive.org Portal: www.biosciednet.org Phone: 301-634-7957