Versions of journal articles : recent
initiatives
Frances Shipsey, VERSIONS Project
Discovery and Access : Standards and the Information Chain
(JISC, ALPSP, Publishers Association, CrossRef) Bonhill House, London, 7 December 2006
Four recent initiatives on versioning
• NISO/ALPSP Working Group on Versions of Journal
Articles
• VERSIONS Project
• Scoping Study on Repository Version Identification
(RIVER)
• Eprints Application Profile Working Group
7 December 2006 / 2
NISO/ALPSP Working Group on Versions
of Journal Articles
•
Journal Article Versions Technical Working Group (JAVTechWG)
and Review Group (JAVReview) made up of publishers, librarians
and other stakeholders (Chair: Cliff Morgan, John Wiley & Sons)
http://www.niso.org/committees/Journal_versioning/JournalVer_comm.html
•
Draft documents issued for review in March 2006
•
•
•
•
Use Cases
Terms and Definitions
JAV Relationships Diagram
Documents currently undergoing revision in light of responses from
the JAV Review Group (as at November 2006)
7 December 2006 / 3
NISO/ALPSP Working Group Terms and
Definitions (draft) – March 2006
•
Author’s Original
•
•
Accepted Manuscript
•
•
‘A version of a journal article that is created as part of the publication process.
[…]’
Version of Record
•
•
‘The version of a journal article that has been accepted for publication in a
journal. […]’
Proof
•
•
‘A version of a journal article that is considered by the author to be of
sufficient quality to be submitted for review by a second party. […]’
‘A version of a journal article that has been made available by any
organization that acts as a publisher by declaring the article “fit for publication”
(ie the publisher). […]’
Updated Version of Record
•
‘A version of the Version of Record of a journal article that has been amended
in some way. […]’
http://www.niso.org/committees/Journal_versioning/TermsandDefinitionsdraft2006.pdf
7 December 2006 / 4
NISO/ALPSP Working Group - Relationships
http://www.niso.org/committees/Journal_versioning/JAVrelationshipsdiagram.
pdf
7 December 2006 / 5
The VERSIONS Project
• VERSIONS : Versions of Eprints – user Requirements
Study and Investigation of the Need for Standards
• Funded by the Joint Information Systems Committee
(JISC) under the Digital Repositories Programme
• London School of Economics and Political Science
(LSE) - lead partner
• Nereus – consortium of European research libraries
specialising in economics – associate partner
• Runs from July 2005 to February 2007
• www.lse.ac.uk/versions
7 December 2006 / 6
Multiple versions – experience of readers
Q22. When searching, how frequently do you find more
than one full text version / copy available online?
5%
2%
17%
Very frequently
Frequently
Sometimes
Never
Don't know
39%
37%
7 December 2006 / 7
Differentiating between multiple versions
Q23. If you find multiple versions and / or copies of the
same work, is it generally quick and easy to establish
which one(s) you wish to read?
5%
Yes
No
41%
54%
Do not find multiple
versions / copies
7 December 2006 / 8
How are versions handled in open
access repositories?
Stakeholder Questions 4-6: How well do you feel that
versions of academic papers are currently identified ...
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Don't know
Very badly
Quite badly
Quite well
Very well
Within single
repositories
Across multiple
Through
open access internet search
repositories
engines
7 December 2006 / 9
Identifying versions – researchers’ priorities
Q no
Question
Essential or very
important
Essential, very
important, or
interesting
Essential
Q34
A method of indicating which is the published version
88.13%
98.23%
43.69%
Q35
A method of indicating which is the author's latest version of a paper
80.41%
95.62%
30.41%
Q28
A standardised way of recording and displaying the date of
manuscript completion
67.59%
92.71%
22.36%
Q30
A standardised note in the description of the paper stating that it is
the latest revision available
57.00%
82.19%
16.28%
Q26
A standardised terminology to describe each stage in the process of
developing a research output
50.60%
91.33%
9.16%
Q29
A standardised way of referring to different revisions by version
number
45.90%
85.13%
11.54%
Q32
A method of linking records together so all versions of a given paper
are retrieved by searches and presented as a group (collocation):
41.69%
81.84%
6.91%
Q27
A standardised terminology to describe how one version relates to
another (for example B is a digital copy of A, C is a digital revision of
A):
41.69%
88.83%
6.70%
Q33
A method of comparing the text of different versions and displaying
the differences between them
38.50%
79.07%
5.68%
Q31
Notes provided by the author, describing how one version relates to
another
37.72%
84.81%
4.56%
7 December 2006 / 10
ArXiv – versions linked through
metadata
7 December 2006 / 11
Scoping Study on Repository Version
Identification (RIVER)
• Led by Rightscom Ltd with partners London School of
Economics and Political Science Library, University of
Oxford Computing Services
• Final report to JISC Scholarly Communications Group,
March 2006
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/RIVER%20Final%20Report.pdf
7 December 2006 / 12
RIVER
• Defined two broad classes of requirement for version
identification:
•
•
Collocation
Disambiguation
– ‘Identifying that two digital objects which happen to share
certain attributes […] have no contextually meaningful
relationship’
– ‘Understanding the meaning of the relationship between two
digital objects where one exists [without inspecting and
comparing the objects themselves]’
• Defined a tentative typology of ‘versions’ covering both
time-based version relationships and others
7 December 2006 / 13
RIVER - recommendations
• Recommendations to JISC for further work:
•
•
•
•
More detailed survey into development plans for repositories and
awareness of versioning
Research definitive sets of version identification requirements
Produce a more robust set of taxonomies from tentative and draft
versions
Develop framework policies for use by institutions and for
interoperability
• Recommendations to universities (institutional
repository managers)
•
•
•
•
Develop IR policy on version identification
Develop guidance for users (both depositing authors and searchers)
Consider instituting workflow-based version management in IR
Consider needs for access to repository content through search
engines – eg, ‘staging page’ carrying unambiguous version metadata
7 December 2006 / 14
Eprints Application Profile Working
Group
•
•
•
•
•
Carried out within JISC Digital Repositories Programme, led by
Julie Allinson (UKOLN) and Andy Powell (Eduserv Foundation)
Approach based on FRBR and the DCMI Abstract Model
Provides more detail and structure than simple Dublin Core
FRBR approach allows for representation of relationships between
versions
Work carried out June-August 2006 with follow up to take place
through a DC Task Group
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/repositories/digirep/index/Eprints_Application_Profile
7 December 2006 / 15
FRBR – a hierarchical model
• Work – expression – manifestation - item
• ‘On a practical level, the degree to which bibliographic
distinctions are made between variant expressions of a
work will depend to some extent on the nature of the
work itself, and on the anticipated needs of users.’
Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records: Final Report.
IFLA Study Group on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic
Records. Approved by the Standing Committee of the IFLA Section
on Cataloguing. K.G.Saur, München 1998
UBCIM Publications – New Series Vol 19.
http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.pdf
7 December 2006 / 16
Eprint model – Eprints Application
Profile Working Group
Eprint Model
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/repositories/digirep/index/Model
7 December 2006 / 17
CCLRC - ePubs repository – collocation
and disambiguation
7 December 2006 / 18
Thank you!
f.m.shipsey@lse.ac.uk