Moving from Paper Production to Online Open Access with Open Journal Systems: The Session Blog
Presenter: Laura C. Botsford, Assistant to the Editor, Canadian Journal of Sociology, University of Alberta
Time: 4-5 pm, July 9th, 2009
Place: SFU Harbour Centre, Sauder Industries Room 2270
———————————————————————————————
Session Overview
Background
In the early days of the Canadian Journal of Sociology, a great deal of manual work was required to print the journal, from getting galleys to making notes in the margins, to cutting to appropriate size and pasting onto paper sheets, etc. The editors of the journal soon realized that they were susceptible to too many external factors and decided to move to typesetting and a mainframe computer. While this newer technology had its advantages, there were many codes to learn and all that could be seen was the markup language; not the end result. The lack of a preview often created surprises for the editors when the pages were printed. Eventually technology progressed and the journal got some computers with What You See Is What You Get (WYSIWYG) capabilities– but they still had to go through the whole printing process. Dr. Kevin D. Haggerty took over as editor in 2007 and within a few months, decided to go electronic and open access with the journal. While everyone involved had many questions and qualms, they ultimately ‘took the plunge.’
Related Information Re: Printing Processes
Click here for a printing press demonstration on Youtube
A more recent version of the printing press:
(source)
Using the Open Journal System (OJS)
Moving to electronic publishing has reduced many of the traditional problems involved with the printing process and OJS has features that are very helpful, such as its functionality for the second review– the system automatically generates a list of reviewers and filters out those who have already declined in the first review.
However, OJS still poses many problems for users, so patience and technical support is absolutely critical.
Session Questions
Comment: There are currently seventeen journals running on the University of Alberta website, but the Canadian Journal of Sociology has been the most conversive, and questions have really pushed the development of OJS forward.
Question: What was the driving force to move to online and open access? We were becoming aware of the new generation of scholars coming up, and they are expecting to see their info on the internet. Also, printing and mailing is becoming increasingly expensive.
Question: How many copies were being printed prior to moving to electronic form? Answer: 1000
Question: How has converting from print to open access impacted the finances of the journal? Answer: It was a subscription journal, but the journal has been anomalous. We had some money in the bank, and received money from aggregators who have continued to contribute. One of the reasons for moving to open access was that subscriptions were dwindling– libraries were declining because they were lacking space and funding.
Question: Any plans to digitize back files? Answer: Yes. We haven’t tried it yet, but are definitely planning to.
Question: What is your business model? How much does it really cost to run the journal? Revenue stream? etc. Answer: Revenue stream usually from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) and aggregators, but we also had money in bank that was invested. We also benefit from non-monetary things that the university provides, such as office space, release time from teaching for Dr. Haggerty, etc.
References
Taking the plunge Haggerty, K.D. (2008). “Taking the plunge: open access at the Canadian Journal of Sociology” Information Research, 13(1) paper 338. [Available at http://InformationR.net/ir/13-1/paper338.html]
Related Links
July 13, 2009 Comments Off on Moving from Paper Production to Online Open Access with Open Journal Systems: The Session Blog
Providing an Incentive: Developing Publishing Services for Researchers: The Session Blog
Presenter: Sara Fuchs, Digital Initiatives Library, Department of Scholarly Communication & Digital Services, Georgia Institute of Technology
Sara Fuchs
Time: 4-5pm, July 9th, 2009
Place: SFU Harbour Centre, Sauder Industries Room 2270
———————————————————————————————
Session Overview
Background
The Georgia Tech Library Department of Scholarly Communication & Digital Services set up an institutional repository in 2004 in hopes that faculty members could self-submit. Although they had always had a repository, it was usually set up after conferences had occurred. The department later decided to provide more support and began to help faculty create, store and view their papers, especially since nobody else on campus was offering similar services. The service provides both conference and journal support, as well as the uploading of any video recordings (of lectures as well), and digital archiving on the centralized repository for Georgia Tech authored materials, known as SMARTech. Submission onto SMARTech requires that the authors grant a non-exclusive license to Georgia Tech for non-commercial uses– mainly to raise awareness about open access to graduate students and supporting scholarly collaboration. SMARTech is now one of the largest institutional repositories in the United States and 35th in the world according to the Ranking Web of World Repositories, a project by the Spanish public research body Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC).
Lessons Learned with Open Conference Systems (OCS)
OCS works well for what it is supposed to do. It was a low pressure situation for the department because there was no need to maintain the OCS software, as everything was eventually going to end up in the repository. They found that clients enjoyed using OCS much more than the normal email workflow.
However, there were still challenges. With OCS, the process of accepting and rejecting proposals was more difficult– conference calls seemed to be much easier, and there is always a time lag in uploading presentations. Another challenge surfaced while setting up the Open Repositories 2009 Conference, mainly because they were working with two different websites. It made it very difficult to collect and retrieve conference papers. The Access Services Conference was the first time the payment function of OCS was used. Again, it was difficult to synchronize across two websites and this required going through multiple steps.
Customization
Clients wanted something more slick and streamlined, and wanted to use the more interactive parts of OCS, such as giving comments directly to authors, etc. In order to do this, all .css and template files had to be modified. New headers needed to be created, as well as modification of some menus, journal layout, and downloading of specific plug-ins. This proved to be very time-consuming, and this took design changes out of the hands of journal managers/editors. That being said, clients were highly satisfied and this became a showpiece of the department’s collaboration with faculty.
Questions
(Ran out of time)
Comment: Some of the difficulty in syncing between two websites might be easier if you upload/download directly from OCS instead of another location.
Related Links
July 13, 2009 Comments Off on Providing an Incentive: Developing Publishing Services for Researchers: The Session Blog
XML and Structured Data in the PKP Framework: The Session Blog
Presenter: MJ Suhonos, Session Abstract
July 10, 2009 at 11:00 a.m.
Background
MJ Suhonos is a system developer and librarian with the Public Knowledge Project at Simon Fraser University. He has served as technical editor for a number of Open Access journals, helping them to improve their efficiency and sustainability. More recently, he leads development of PKP’s Lemon8-XML software, as part of their efforts to decrease the cost and effort of electronic publishing, while improving the quality and reach of scholarly communication.
Session Overview
“Lemon8-XML is a web-based application designed to make it easier for non-technical editors and authors to convert scholarly papers from typical word-processor editing formats such as MS-Word .DOC and OpenOffice .ODT, into XML-based publishing layout formats.” (Lemon8-XML).
This was a packed session, 50+ attendees. This technical session attempted to give a fairly non technical overview of the L8X software and its relationship to the PKP software suite and equally importantly to highlight the rich benefits that are provided by using XML workflow and the foundation it provides for the future.
The big question is why use XML workflow. Using XML workflow allows numerous things to be possible. These include interaction with other web services (direct interaction with indexes and better interaction with online reading tools); automatic layout (generate html and/or PDF on the fly); complex citation interaction (forward and reverse linking which allows the discovery of everyone who cited you anywhere on the web; advanced bibliometrics, not just impact measures; resource discovery (universal metadata can find related works; and rich document data allows search engine to be much more effective; the document becomes the metadata (remove separation between article and document so all information is in one place. This is the goal of L8X, to convert articles into structured xml and thus enable these benefits. This is also future proofing as XML makes documents fundamentally open, convertible and preservable. Archiving XML (which is text) is much more flexible than archiving PDF files.
Using XML allows connection and communication to all these systems and means of display. We are also future proofing, as XML will be able to be modified into future formats, as its just text.
Where does this fit within PKP framework? Already being used in OJS (import and export and exposing metadata to OAI harvesters). But the next goal is to apply these benefits to all kinds of scholarly work e.g. journal articles, proceedings, theses, books / monographs. So moving L8X into the PKP web application library will allow all these features to be made available to the whole PKP framework. So that’s the near term future plans for L8X. In the long term, beyond the next few years, the goal is to work on this concept of the doc is the metadata by building support for multiple XML formats in the web application library (WAL) and the merging of annotation, reading tools and comments directly into the article.
The distributed resource-linking diagram at the end of the presentation, some find complex. Essentially, structured metadata is needed to make this a reality, which is to let applications in the publication sphere all talk to each other.
Session Questions
Question: How automatic is automatic into XML for non-technical people? When can I just upload my doc and have it magically turn into XML?
Answer: Probably not ever, but it is semi automatic already. Some tools, like L8X, automate part of this process. Some things can be automated, but some will always require human effort.
Question: Will I be able to use L8X in my applications after this is integrated into the PKP framework?
Answer: We would like to be make L8X available for use after it becomes part of the framework and without requiring the framework. We are considering this for the future.
References and Related Links
Lemon8-XML demo server (login: lemon8 password: xmldoc)
July 10, 2009 2 Comments
New Ground for Research Libraries: Conference Management Systems: The Session Blog
Presenters:
- Heidi Drasbek Martinussen, System Librarian, Technical University of Denmark
- Helle Damgaard Andersen, Webmaster, IT Department for Library and Web, Copenhagen Business School
- Kirsten Suhr Jacobsen, Conference Consultant, Copenhagen Business School Library
(From left to right: Helle Damgaard Andersen, Heidi Drasbek Martinussen, Kirsten Suhr Jacobsen)
Time: 2:30-3:30 pm, July 9th, 2009
Place: SFU Harbour Centre, Earl & Jennie Lohn Room 7000
———————————————————————————————
Session Overview
Beginnings
Denmark’s Electronic Research Library (DEFF) began a project in 2008 to review twenty open source and proprietary conference management systems and to test out the three that were best suited for research libraries (i.e. includes functionalities such as registration/payment, review process, etc.) This project was carried out collaboratively by the Technical University of Denmark (DTU), Aalborg University, and Copenhagen Business School (CBS); each institution was to test out seven systems, respectively.
The following diagram represents the various characteristics of the systems, such as those that only support review or registration/payment functionalities, as well as pricing – red denotes that the system was VERY EXPENSIVE.
(source)
Following the preliminary testing stages, the three institutions each chose one of their seven conference management systems, and carried out pilot projects on the selected system:
1) Proceedings Central tested by Aalborg University
Proceedings Central (now ScholarOne Proceedings) was a proprietary system developed by Thomson Reuters. While it had many benefits, its major downfall was that it was expensive and only supported review functionalities, much more like the Open Journal Systems (OJS) publication system. In addition, it was frustrating to use outside of North America because the system was configured to follow US time only.
2) Indico tested by the Technical University of Denmark
The Technical University of Denmark (DTU) has been using the Indico system for several years now. It is an open source system that was originally developed by the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) and supported by the European Union. Its greatest advantage is that it makes registration very easy– setting up registration forms can take as little as half an hour. The major challenge with Indico is that the system is not aesthetically pleasing, but they are currently working on developing a better looking version that is expected to be available in the fall. The presenters likened Indico to the ‘little brother’ of Open Conference Systems (OCS) as its functions are very comparable to the latter.
3) Open Conference System (OCS) tested by the Copenhagen Business School
The Open Conference System (OCS) was developed from OJS system and thus has inherited characteristics that are not always best suited for the needs of a conference management system. An example of this is that it is difficult to set up individual conferences– they must be set up as annual conferences.
Conclusions
While there are still many items on the presenters’ wish-list for OCS, the system seems to be the best so far in terms of designs, the building of the conference site, and multilingual support. It also has a large community of users behind it, and includes a wiki, as well as a support and user discussion forum.
Future Directions – a further look into the systems
The goal for the current project is to have DTU run fourteen conferences with Indico in 2009, and CBS run seven conferences with OCS to further develop and examine the respective systems. DTU and CBS also hope to collaboratively develop a ‘light’ version of OCS, that has fewer functions to better:
- provide for a quick set up for registration,
- support a conference that already has its own webpage, but requires payment and review functions,
The Role of the Library
The presenters also highlighted the role of the library in relation to the use of conference management systems. The library can serve as technical/user support, act as a central solution and housing for conferences, as well as provide payment system integration so that users are not limited to using PayPal.
Questions
Comment: Fantastic work. It is exciting to see someone to push forward OCS. Major problem with both OJS is that everyone is going in different directions. The more institutions pick up OCS, the more polish and fine-tuning it is going to get. Good to get feedback. This is the advantage to open source– this is how the software improves! And an obvious sign that the community works effectively.
Question: What is the volume for abstracts, attendees, etc. (that is provided by OCS)? Answer: Very wide range.
Question: How did you come down to deciding on Indico and OCS? Did you use a checklist for all the technical requirements for the 20 systems? Answer: Yes.
Question: Is there any proprietary system that has similar functional abilities of OCS and at reasonable price range? Answer: It is very difficult to get prices out of proprietary systems and functionality is usually very unclear-“this system does it all” seems to be the standard response.
References
Martinussen, H., Damgaard, H., Jacobsen, K., & Pedersen, J. (2008). Nye veje for forskningsbibliotekerne? conference management systems. DF Revy, 31(8), 21-23.
Related Links
July 10, 2009 Comments Off on New Ground for Research Libraries: Conference Management Systems: The Session Blog
Free? What’s So Special About Learning? The Intellectual Property Argument: The Session Blog
Taken at the Open Medicine benefit fund-raiser; November 21, 2007 (Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c4/John_Willinsky.jpg)
Presenter: Dr. John Willinsky – Director, Public Knowledge Project. Professor, Stanford University and the University of British Columbia. Bio
July 8, 2009, 7:30-pm. Morris J Wosk Centre for Dialogue
Session Overview
Dr. Willinsky set the context for his address by using adoption of Open Journal System to illustrate the expansion of open access. He noted that at the 2007 PKP conference, 1000 journals used OJS. Now, at the 2009 conference, there are approximately 3000 OJS journals. Of these, he noted that 29% spend $0 on expenses and 24% reported no revenue at all. Dr. Willinsky noted that these figures indicate the emergence of a new, third kind of independent journal that can run on a zero budget economic model.
However, Dr. Willinsky asks us not to focus on this knowledge being free (as in beer). After all, scholarly work is not free: it is very labour intensive. Through the entire domain of research, curriculum development, writing, editing, reviewing, and publishing in journals, scholarly work is expensive. Consequently, he argues for expanding the conversation about open access to scholarly publishing beyond the question of it being free. Instead, he asks us to reach back in time and recall how learning has long been treated as a type of (intellectual) property that is distinct from other (economic) properties. “There is a distinction between the type of intellectual property we produce in education and that produced by Michael Jackson or Justin Timberlake, so why should it be treated the same?”
Using a number of examples to illustrate the point, Dr. Willinsky recounted the historical consistency of the university being recognized as something outside of the regular economy. He pointed out that by the 12th century there was already such recognition in that university members had many special rights including some rights of the clergy, the right of safe conduct, and the right to bring manuscripts across borders without paying tax. He also spoke about how scholarly contributions were recognized through acts of patronism from royalty and how rent controls were used in Oxford to protect students from being exploited by greedy landlords.
In particular, Dr. Willinsky notes that this different view of the property of education is rooted in John Locke’s work on property. Locke spoke about property in two different ways: that we are given the work in common, and that every man has property in his own body. To Locke, because we labour (work), we have some claim to property based on the notion of the right to exclude (enclosure). The intellectual property of learning is founded in these basic Lockean principles (e.g. labour invested and held in common), but it is somewhat different because it’s value is not realized in the principle of exclusion. Instead, if we enclose intellectual property, we reduce it’s value. So the value of intellectual property is realized when it is shared and that value increases the less restrictive it is. Dr. Willinsky summarized this Lockean argument about the intellectual property of learning as follows: we hold all this knowledge in common and we realize it’s value in the unrestricted circulation of this intellectual property.
Turning to some of the relevant legal aspects of the argument, Dr. Willinsky began by recounting the fight over the licensing of books. In the 17th century, there was such excessive piracy that it removed the financial incentives for produce and publish books. Consequently, in 1710 the first copyright act (Statute of Anne) was passed to specifically recognize the rights of authors. Significantly, this statue was noted as an “act for the encouragement of learning”. Additionally, the act also recognized the right of universities to publish what ever they wanted and required publishers to provide to university libraries with 9 copies, on the best paper, of each book they published.
Moving to modern times, Dr. Willinsky illustrated this special place that intellectual properties of learning have been given with a number of examples:
- Fair dealing (fair use in US) exceptions to copyright law. These include the right to quote for non-commercial, critical and parody use and provides protection under the law for students and scholars.
- The academic exception to intellectual property rights. Scholars have the natural ownership rights to all the works they produce, unlike other non-educational industries where workers don’t have those rights.
- Patent law allows us to use patented material for learning without paying a fee.
- Tax exemptions for university endowments in the US.
In closing, Dr. Willinsky asked the audience to take up the challenge as follows:
- In our work he asks us to focus not on making things free, but to promote the notion that the value of the work we do in education is realized in it’s sharing.
- He asks us to look for opportunities to defend and experiment, to take advantages of opportunities to share our work, to expand our own policies moving toward open access, and to demonstrate the ways that intellectual properties of learning are different.
Related Links
July 10, 2009 1 Comment
