210 ober ssp 2007

  • View

  • Download

Embed Size (px)

Text of 210 ober ssp 2007

  • 1. Journal Article Versions:NISO/ALPSP Work GroupSSP Annual Conference,7 June 2007John Ober, University of California (with thanks to Cliff Morgan and Peter McCracken for assistance)

2. Pandoras box (or panacea?)CUP PreprintCambridge Univ. Press article Univ. of Calif. PostprintA Columbia Professors BLOG BLOG entry about the unpublished paper Google Scholar points to 8 versions 3.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. standardsconventions.best-practicesguidelines? 4. Background: Concerns represented Publisher: how distinguish/identify theirdefinitive value-added version Library: ensure access to an appropriateversion; fill repositories with sanctioned, well-identified content (Projected) reader/author: am Igetting/providing the [real | latest | official |authors-intended] material? 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. 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. 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. 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. Focus Limited to Journal Articles Other scholarly document types: if the cap fits Level of phylum rather than species Value-added state changes fromorigination to publication and updates Concentrate on whats important from the users point of view 10. The recommended terms Authors Original Accepted Manuscript Proof Version of Record Corrected Version of Record Enhanced Version of Record 11. Version families diagram 12. Authors 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. 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. Proof Part of the publication process Copy-edited ms, galley proofs, pageproofs, revised proofs Each stage more value-add May be iterative within stages Not designed to be public, but Doesnt apply to mere format conversions of AM (image scan, PDF) 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. Version of Record cont.Includes early release articlesthat are identified as being published whether paginated or notmay exist in more thanone location (publishers website,aggregator site, one or more repositories) 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 authors or publishers May be iterative datestamped Formal CVoR published by entityresponsible for VoR Equivalent to erratum slip 18. Enhanced Version of Record (EVoR) Version of VoR that has beenupdated or supplemented VoR is correct at time of publication,but amended or added to in light ofnew information or insight If supplementary material linked toVoR, changes to this material are not an EVoR If link itself changes, this is EVoR Both CVoR and EVoR should link to VoR 19. Some comments from Review group Use completely new terminology, or a numbering system 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. Be more fine-grained? No: focus is on key stages. If theseterms are adopted, can then go downto Classes and Orders levels 21. Watch out for pseudo-synonyms Yes: we warn that other terms maynot be exact synonyms, but stilluseful to map across where possible 22. Should different formats beconsidered as different versions?No: introduces an extra level ofgranularity, and versioning offormats 23. What if someone makes otherversions outside the formal process? Our conceptual framework is basedon the formal journal article publishingprocess.We hope that: other sources (a blog entry that turnsinto an article) will move into value-adding process(and point forward) .We acknowledge that: some non-formal processes(rogue, bastardized, defective, corrupt, lossyfraudulent or spoof versions) will exist but we cantpolice/prevent that. 24. Can you have multiple copies ofVoRs? Yes: copies of VoRs will proliferateonline, just as in print. OK as long aseach copy is the VoR. 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. Pandoras box (or panacea?) CUP Preprint - AMCambridge Univ. Press VoRUniv. of Calif. Postprint - VoR A Columbia Professors BLOG - VoRBLOG entry about the unpublished paper link to VoRGoogle Scholar points to 8 instances of VoR 27. Conclusions Everybody agrees that it would be good if therewere standard terms, but how to agree on what/whose problem(s) are being addressed what terms (for humans? technical interop?) who vets & codifies how promulgatewe 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. Conclusion cont. Next step: report to Review Group; add somethoughts on metadata For more info go to NISO website:http://www.niso.org/committees/Journal_versioning/JournalVer_comm.html