210 ober ssp 2007

279 views
168 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
279
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
12
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Thanks for the invite. I hope I can represent correctly what’s been done here; I hope that I can accurately describe the work that has gone in to this project. There may be other members of either the technical working group or the review committee in the audience, but since I’ve met almost none of these people in real-life, I won’t know you’re on the committee unless you identify yourself. I hope that if I misspeak, or you feel I’ve misrepresented some aspect of the committee’s work, you will set me and our colleagues here straight.
  • What situation are we trying to address? Well, it will be familiar to all of you, and while the next few moments will seem like a horror show to many of you, if you squint hard you MIGHT be able to think, as all good pundits would have it, of “opportunity.” [This paper among top ten among most popular in eScholarship’s 17,000 papers & 5.3 million downloads.]
  • By early 2005 there was broad implicit agreement with and concern connected to the two statements above, drawn from the NISO-ALPSP working group charge among publishers, librarians, repository managers, and others. The challenge was especially well-articulated by Sally Morris in February 2005 in which she named 13 different “versions” of an article that might reasonably be found to exist in the current environment. I understand that at one point the term “pre-peer-reviewed preprint” was bandied about! I should explain the caveat that the blue terms at the bottom represent. To my knowledge the NISO/ALPSP groups (you’ll see why I say plural, groups in a minute) has not settled on how formal the route which might be taken.
  • All stakeholders represented (authors & readers by proxy). At all times, and especially when there was tension, we tried to bias our consideration toward the user (reader/author) perspective. What would they need/want? Publisher concern: “a 'good enough' free substitute may gradually erode paid subscriptions and licences, potentially to the point where the parasite kills the host”(Morris, 2005)
  • RIVER – some potential semantics and recommendations for a rigorous requirements exercise for version identification that bridges the human/policy side as well as repository interoperation. The window to effect change (and avoid a huge retrospective task) is small. Final report is very thorough and interesting (http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/RIVER%20Final%20Report.pdf) VERSIONS – documentation of author and reader habits and needs. Verifies the problem. (See esp. the Poster for an overview (http://www.lse.ac.uk/library/versions/VERSIONS_A1_poster_final_(2).pdf) CROSSREF glossary http://www.crossref.org/02publishers/glossary.html
  • The “panacea” here is extensive access to peer-reviewed scholarship (with an interesting sidenote, in this example, that the VoR clearly dominates the versions avvailable) Google Scholar’s 8 Links to Robert’s paper (accesses on May 30 & 31 2007) 1. Cambridge Univ Press VoR (closed access) 2. Eprints site in Italy – [server error] 3. PubMed Central – AbstractPlus (citation to VoR) 4. Openknowledge.org – 404 error 5. GA Tech Syllabus – VoR (from eScholarship) 6. Columbia Univ. BLOG – VoR 7. eScholarship – VoR (with “postprint” wrapper & citation to VoR) 8. eScholarship – abstract (link to postprint) Vanilla Google 208 hits, incl. DocDeli from INIST (France 10-50 euros) Postprint uploaded by 3rd party to Scribd Many BLOG entries link to postprint Several links to the preprint (AM)
  • Another way to put this, as Peter McCracken did when he presented our work late last year…we have to agree on something before we can successfully disagree.
  • 210 ober ssp 2007

    1. 1. Journal Article Versions:NISO/ALPSP Work Group SSP Annual Conference, 7 June 2007 John Ober, University of California (with thanks to Cliff Morgan and Peter McCracken for assistance)
    2. 2. Pandora’s box (or panacea?) CUP Preprint Cambridge Univ. Press article Univ. of Calif. Postprint A Columbia Professor’s BLOG BLOG entry about the “unpublished paper” Google Scholar points to 8 versions
    3. 3. Background: NISO-ALPSP Partnership(late 2005)  “Multiple versions of journal articles are often available online”  “Currently there are no standards in markings, nomenclature, or metadata that could be used by authors, publishers, search systems, or end users to identify the different versions of the same journal article.” standards…conventions….best-practices…guidelines?
    4. 4. Background: Concerns represented Publisher: how distinguish/identify their definitive value-added version Library: ensure access to an appropriate version; fill repositories with sanctioned, well- identified content (Projected) reader/author: am I getting/providing the [“real” | latest | “official” | author’s-intended] material?
    5. 5. Technical WG  Beverley Acreman, Taylor and Francis  Claire Bird, Oxford University Press Journals  Catherine Jones, CCLRC  Peter McCracken, Serials Solutions  Cliff Morgan (Chair), John Wiley & Sons  John Ober, California Digital Library (CDL)  Evan Owens, Portico  T. Scott Plutchak, University of Alabama at Birmingham  Bernie Rous, ACM (and CrossRef)  Andrew Wray, The Institute of Physics
    6. 6. Review Group  Helen Atkins, HighWire  Lindi Belfield, Elsevier (ScienceDirect)  Emily Dill, Indiana University  Richard Fidczuk, Sage  Fred Friend, University College London  David Goodman, Long Island University (now Princeton)  Toby Green, OECD Publishing  Janet Halsall, CABI Publishing  Ted Koppel, Ex Libris, USA  Barbara Meredith, Association of American Publishers  Cliff Morgan (Chair), John Wiley & Sons  Sally Morris, ALPSP  Erik Oltmans, Koninklijke Bibliotheek
    7. 7. and  Norman Paskin, International DOI Foundation  Jan Peterson, Infotrieve  Heather Reid, Copyright Clearance Center  Nathan Robertson, U. of Maryland, Thurgood Marshall Law Library  Bruce Rosenblum, Inera  Rebecca Simon, University of California Press  Kate Sloss (replaced by Sarah Rosenblum), London School of Economics Library  Gavin Swanson, Cambridge University Press  Peter Suber, Earlham College  Anthony Watkinson, Consultant  Candy Zemon, Polaris Library Systems  Rachel Bruce (Alternate), Joint Information Systems Committee
    8. 8. Work group tasks  Create & analyze use cases  Suggest nomenclature for lifecycle stages  Identify metadata needed to disambiguate/relate versions  Consider “practical systems” for “ensuring that metadata is applied”  [Investigate, leverage similar work in other quarters]  [iterative consultation/review by Review Group]
    9. 9. Focus  Limited to Journal Articles  Other scholarly document types: if the cap fits …  Level of phylum rather than species  Value-added “state changes” from origination to publication and updates  Concentrate on what’s important from the user’s point of view
    10. 10. The recommended terms  “Author’s Original”  “Accepted Manuscript”  “Proof”  “Version of Record”  “Corrected Version of Record”  “Enhanced Version of Record”
    11. 11. Version “families” diagram
    12. 12. “Author’s Original” (AO)  May have iterative versions  Possibly disseminated by 2nd party  But only author takes responsibility  Everything before acceptance  Synonymous (maybe) with: “Personal version”, “Draft”, “Preprint”
    13. 13. “Accepted Manuscript” (AM)  Accepted for publication in a journal  Explain review process by link?  Fixed stage - not iterative  AO becomes AM upon acceptance  Acceptance confers value  Non-author takes responsibility  Same as “postprint” …  But “postprint” is counterintuitive
    14. 14. “Proof”  Part of the publication process  Copy-edited ms, galley proofs, page proofs, revised proofs  Each stage more value-add  May be iterative within stages  Not designed to be public, but …  Doesn’t apply to mere format conversions of AM (image scan, PDF)
    15. 15. “Version of Record” (VoR)  Fixed stage – not iterative  Published version: formally and exclusively declared “fit for publication”  Also known as definitive, authorised, formal, official, authentic, archival, reference copy …
    16. 16. Version of Record cont. Includes “early release” articles that are identified as being published … whether paginated or not may exist in more than one location (publisher’s website, aggregator site, one or more repositories)
    17. 17. “Corrected Version of Record” (CVoR)  Previous recommendation was “Updated VoR”, but criticised  Version of VoR in which errors in VoR have been corrected  Errors may be author’s or publisher’s  May be iterative – datestamped  Formal CVoR published by entity responsible for VoR  Equivalent to “erratum slip”
    18. 18. “Enhanced Version of Record” (EVoR) Version of VoR that has been updated or supplemented VoR is correct at time of publication, but amended or added to in light of new information or insight If supplementary material linked to VoR, changes to this material are not an EVoR If link itself changes, this is EVoR Both CVoR and EVoR should link to VoR
    19. 19. Some comments from Review group  Use completely new terminology, or a numbering system à la software?  No – accept that terms are loaded but better than a) current usage; b) inventing new ones; or c) using numbers that need explaining for context.
    20. 20.  Be more fine-grained? No: focus is on key stages. If these terms are adopted, can then go down to “Classes and Orders” levels
    21. 21.  Watch out for pseudo-synonyms Yes: we warn that other terms may not be exact synonyms, but still useful to map across where possible
    22. 22.  Should different formats be considered as different versions? No: introduces an extra level of granularity, and versioning of formats
    23. 23.  What if someone makes other versions outside the formal process? Our conceptual framework is based on the formal journal article publishing process.We hope that: other sources (a blog entry that turns into an article) will move into value-adding process (and point forward) .We acknowledge that: some non-formal processes (rogue, bastardized, defective, corrupt, lossy fraudulent or spoof versions) will exist but we can’t police/prevent that.
    24. 24.  Can you have multiple copies of VoRs? Yes: copies of VoRs will proliferate online, just as in print. OK as long as each copy is the VoR.
    25. 25. Other work in this area  RIVER (Repositories – Identification of VERsions) - Scoping study for JISC; RightsCom, LSE, Oxford  VERSIONS (Versions of Eprints – a user Requirements Study and Investigation Of the Need for Standards) - User requirement study also for JISC also with LSE  CrossRef IR Committee (also see very useful glossary - semantic analysis)
    26. 26. Pandora’s box (or panacea?) CUP Preprint - AM Cambridge Univ. Press VoR Univ. of Calif. Postprint - VoR A Columbia Professor’s BLOG - VoR BLOG entry about the “unpublished paper” – link to VoR Google Scholar points to 8 instances of VoR
    27. 27. Conclusions Everybody agrees that it would be good if there were standard terms, but how to agree on…  what/whose problem(s) are being addressed  what terms (for humans? technical interop?)  who vets & codifies  how promulgate“we have to agree on something before we can successfullydisagree” NISO/ALPSP JAV WG:  Reader/user problems first  high-level, intuitive terms rooted in journal article lifecycle
    28. 28. Conclusion cont. Next step: report to Review Group; add some thoughts on metadata For more info go to NISO website:http://www.niso.org/committees/Journal_versioning/JournalVer_comm.html

    ×