Journal Article Versions: NISO/ALPSP Work Group

SSP Annual Conference,

7 June 2007John Ober, University of California

(with thanks to Cliff Morgan and Peter McCracken for assistance)

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BLOG entry about the “unpublished paper”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

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?

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?

Background: Concerns represented

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

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

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

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]

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

The recommended terms

“Author’s Original” “Accepted Manuscript” “Proof” “Version of Record” “Corrected Version of Record” “Enhanced Version of Record”

Version “families” diagram

“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”

“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

“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)

“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 …

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)

“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”

“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

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.

Be more fine-grained? No: focus is on key stages. If these terms are adopted, can then go down to “Classes and Orders” levels

Watch out for pseudo-synonyms Yes: we warn that other terms may not be exact synonyms, but still useful to map across where possible

Should different formats be considered as different versions? No: introduces an extra level of granularity, and versioning of formats

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.

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.

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)

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

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

NISO/ALPSP JAV WG: Reader/user problems first high-level, intuitive terms rooted in journal article lifecycle

“we have to agree on something before we can successfully disagree”

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