Selecting North Carolina Materials to Celebrate the Public Domain Expansion

Note: Lauren Geiger, a 2019 graduate of UNC’s School of Information and Library Science, was a field experience student in the Scholarly Communications Office during the 2018/19 school year. In this blog post, she describes her work with selecting materials from the North Carolina Collection that were published in 1923 and were suitable for digitization. The full list of materials that we digitized is available here.  For her master’s paper, To Bot or Not to Bot, Lauren went on to analyze the use of those materials in the first few months they were online.  

This wasn’t my first digitization project, but it certainly has become one my most important. Selecting and preparing materials to be digitized for the 1923 Public Domain expansion was an amazing experience, because my previous digitization efforts started after these initial steps. I was in unknown territory and loving every minute of it.

Thankfully, I was not alone in this effort. My supervisor, Anne Gilliland, and the special collections librarian, Sarah Carrier, guided me by setting the scope of the project. I was to select materials from the North Carolina Collection that were published in 1923 and fell within 8 categories:

• Education
• African Americans
• The University of North Carolina
• Public Health
• World War I
• Women
• Agriculture
• Chapel Hill

With my goal set, I started to go through the library catalog and selecting materials that fell into one of the categories. Now, this was not a simple, one-time process, because not all of the material I selected on my first pass could be scanned. If a book was taller than 16 inches or wider than 10 inches, it wouldn’t fit into the scanner. The materials also had be in good condition (not falling apart or having a torn spine), be able to open beyond 90 degrees, and they had to be four pages or longer. My initial collection of 130 odd materials was whittled down to about 20 after 45 minutes of review. With a newfound understanding of the specifications for digitization, I began to go through each of the 625 from the North Carolina Collection that were from 1923.

Each batch of materials brought new excitement as I envisioned what research could be done with them. However, over half of the time, disappointment replaced the excitement as I realized a certain piece was not fit to be scanned. I knew that researchers could still come and look at the material, but being able to put it online would have given the item a larger audience. This is one of the main purposes of digitization, to allow  people to see unusual or unique items and do with them what they will. (Since these materials went into the public domain as of January 1, 2019, people can do whatever they like with them! There is no copyright to restrict their creativity and thoughts.)

Out of the 625 items I identified initially, I was only able to prep 96 for digitization. These 96 items covered all but one of the categories (World War I), and then some. This sample is a good snapshot of the North Carolina Collection’s wealth of information because they cover everything from summer camps for children to parole in North Carolina to soil surveys.

My time in the North Carolina Collection was short, but I thoroughly enjoyed working the materials and everyone in the reading room.

Research Dissemination and the Need for Grants: A Basic Overview of the Funding Process, Part 4

Part 4 of 4: Read Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 now!

What happens after I’ve submitted my grant proposal and before I hear back?

Though I’ll be using the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), which is a federal grant agency, as an example for outlining this process, other federal grant agencies should reflect a similar form of rigor.

Note: Prior to submission, you may be able to get a program officer at the agency to look at a draft of your application. This opportunity is welcome with the NEH and will not affect any evaluation decisions after submission.

  1. Application submitted by Office of Sponsored Research: All applications come to the funder through a portal via grants.gov.
  2. Panel sort: Representative reviewers are selected, comprised of scholars and previous grantees, to provide a first evaluation level of grant applications. Reviewers are given applications to independently assess quality of content. Reviewers are chosen from various different types of fields so that the applications can be assessed in consideration of different perspectives. Each reviewer will make comments and assign a quality score to their assigned applications.
  3. Review panels: A small group of reviewers, plus an NEH program officer, will come together to discuss their collectively assigned applications. They will have the opportunity to declare their reasoning behind the scores they gave, and in consideration of the other reviewers’ comments, may or may not choose to change their score. The scores are given to the NEH staff and will be used in conjunction with the overall comments to help the next levels of evaluations. In some cases, this step is virtual instead of in a physical space, in which it would not be possible for reviewers to change their scores.
    1. Note: the peer reviewers are evaluating solely on the quality of the content, based on the agency’s review criteria, which will have been listed in the grant posting.
  4. Staff recommendations based on merit peer review evaluations.
  5. National Council review: Each council member is selected by the President every six years and have to go through Senate confirmation. They meet three times per year and evaluate the applications that are still being considered. A listing of the agency’s council members can be viewed online.
  6. Chairman’s decision: The Chairman of the agency makes the final evaluation. Information about the Chairman can be viewed online.
  7. Funding decision is finalized.
  8. Award notification.

The NEH provides details about this process on the NEH website here. As a comparison, a breakdown of the National Science Foundation’s process is described on the NSF website.

More Resources

  • Proposal guides collection hosted by the UNC-Chapel Hill Funding Portal
    Portal includes tips from NIH and NSF, as well as a collection of historic successful grant proposals from UNC-Chapel Hill.
  • Award Lifecycle overview by the Office for Sponsored Research at UNC-Chapel Hill
    Suggests various internal, external, and state resources; defines various components related to Concept and Funding, Proposal Creation, Proposal Submission, Award Negotiation, Award Setup, Award Management, and Project Closeout.
  • Funding and Doing Sponsored Research in the Humanities by Beyond the Book, a funded speaker series for graduate students at UNC-Chapel Hill
    Provides slides from 2019 presentations and basic explanations of funding, grants, research development planning, funding tools, and institutional memberships that UNC subscribes to to help faculty, staff, and students plan research.

Thanks for following along! If you have any further questions, you’re always welcome to contact us in the Scholarly Communications office in the University Libraries at UNC-CH.

Research Dissemination and the Need for Grants: A Basic Overview of the Funding Process, Part 3

Part 3 of 4: Missed Part 1 or Part 2? Catch up now!

Funding and Open Access

It is common for Open Access publishers to charge authors APCs (Article Processing Charges) in order to make your work freely and openly accessible for others. APCs can be surprisingly expensive–they can get up to $5,000. Despite research showing increased engagement and citation potential for articles that are open access, APCs can be a big disincentive for a researcher to consider publishing Open Access.

As of a 2013 federal government decision, grants from federal agencies now almost entirely require public access to the completed work, including the data acquired to create the work. Each federal agency has an individual policy relating to this federal requirement. Though private foundations are not required to stipulate public access, some, such as the Gates Foundation, have chosen to enforce such a policy.

So, how to pay for the inevitably likely APC associated with making published work publicly available?

First, funders likely aren’t going to want to provide you a grant just for your APC. They want to be associated with sponsoring the work that is involved with research, so requesting a grant for research that is already completed and ready to be published is less enticing to them. If this is the type of grant need you have, however, there may be smaller pots of funds at the university level available to you to specifically pay for publication charges–for example, UNC’s Office of Research Development’s Publication Grants.

If you are preparing a grant proposal for your research to be supported financially, add publication fees in as a “Direct Cost.” This does require you to be already planning at the stage of your grant proposal to publish the conclusion of your research as Open Access, but it’s a good start to be thinking about, especially if you know the funding organizations expect this conclusion anyway.

There are free options for Open Access publication, though, if you want to avoid paying APCs. Publishing in institutional repositories, such as the Carolina Digital Repository (CDR) is a collection of scholarly content–publications, datasets, etc.–correlated with researchers at UNC and its contents can be findable even from a Google search. The UNC Dataverse can also be a free place to house your data (specifically) openly. If you want your work in a repository devoted to your discipline, you could deposit in an open access subject repository, such as these.

Just be sure before submission to any repository that your publisher will allow you to place your content in these free repositories. More information about how to check that is in the Author Rights library guide.

Open Access can be challenging for humanities researchers, whose primary dissemination type is in books. However, open access books can increase engagement, citations, and viewability–an incentive that non-profit scholarly publishers may support, even if they don’t currently know about the “TOME” initiative.

What grant writing support is available for me?

The listed offices below are some of the many available support options available for researchers at Carolina.

Departments generally have a small number of grant support staff housed within their department building. They may be known as “Contracts and Grants Officers” (mentioned earlier in the Cast of Characters in Part 1). They can help you with any aspect of the grant process you might need, and are a great resource for faculty since they are devoted to that department and not part of a centralized grants department. Pre- and post-grant award, they can help you in the following ways:

  • Answer grant proposal questions.
  • Review grant proposal.
  • Approve and submit grant proposal to the centralized grants office OSR at UNC. They are an authorized signatory for your department.
  • Keep track of financial reports.
  • Monitor whether you are on time with tasks and expenditures according to your grant schedule (in project management, this is known as monitoring the “burn rate”).
  • Add and pay personnel.
  • Reimburse for travel and pay bills.
  • Pay for computer equipment.

UNC’s centralized grants office, the Office for Sponsored Research, is responsible for checking compliance issues and for officially submitting the grant proposal to the grant funder. Everything in the grant proposal must be legal (aka “compliant”), for human or animal studies have regulated protections, which your proposal must show you have considered. Because you are affiliated with a university, you cannot individually submit your grant application directly to a funder–grants are awarded to UNC on behalf of its requesting faculty member. Only a few exceptions exist: for example, you as an individual can apply for the National Endowment for the Humanities’s Summer Stipend or Fellowship Program because these are funds specifically allocated for individual scholars. Any grant application submitted goes through a grants.gov portal to the funder. The funder will then submit any money awarded back to the institution via the Office for Sponsored Research, who will disburse the grant funds.

Other centralized research support offices, such as the Office for Research Development. This office focuses primarily on the pre-award stage for faculty seeking to go after larger, federal grants. They encourage dissemination collaboration and co-authorship with others around the world, for this variety of expertise makes a larger project–and thus a larger grant needed–possible to advance the field. As the hit rate for large grants can be very competitive, the ORD strives to help make researchers’ grants more competitive and targeted to the funder’s expectations.

Other centralized research support offices, such as Corporate and Foundation Relations office. This office manages relations with the Gates Foundations and any smaller private foundations.

The Graduate Funding Information Center is an office supporting graduate students in their pursuits for grant funding. Besides providing scheduled workshops about how to use their online graduate student grant databases, they also offer individual consultations to help craft strong applications. The Office of Graduate Education offers grant writing support for School of Medicine graduate students.

Office of Postdoctoral Affairs has a consultant for funding and research development. They offer support for postdoctoral researchers by offering classes on finding funding and funding resources and consultations on research project development. They are keen to help develop researcher skills and translate research interests into appropriate funding opportunities.

NC TraCS (North Carolina Translational and Clinical Sciences) institute at UNC-CH School of Medicine offers help reviewing the grant proposal, identifying funding sources, and offering training on grant applications.

Other locations on campus at UNC-Chapel Hill are listed on the Funding Information Portal, in addition to various external training guides and successful UNC-CH proposal examples.

Data Management Team at the University Libraries offers consultation and plan review support on building and revising the data management plan which is required in grants.

The funder organization itself. In many cases, the funding organization has program officer staff whose job it is to help answer researchers’ questions, and even review grant applications, to make your interaction with grant services more accessible. If your application has been denied, they can provide comments that had been considered for determining what was lacking.


Stay tuned for Part 4: What happens after I’ve submitted my grant proposal – and resources!