Revamping Endnotes
The peer-reviewed journal of the ALA New Members Round Table
EMERGING LEADERS 2015
Group H
Nik Dragovic, Pease Ossom Williamson,
Sarah LeMire, Beau Bradley,
and Stacey Nordlund
1
Executive Summary
Although Endnotes, as a publication specifically aimed at early-career library professionals, occupies a
distinct niche within the library literature, it suffers from low submission numbers and low readership.
Indeed, many librarians are unaware that Endnotes exists. Emerging Leaders Group H was tasked with
developing a comprehensive set of recommendations to improve Endnotes, including recommendations to
improve the appearance and usability of the journal itself and recommendations to market the journal to
its target audience. These recommendations are summarized below.
Marketing Strategy
Group H recommends that Endnotes implement a multi-pronged marketing strategy to increase the
visibility of Endnotes issues and articles. Endnotes can also increase readership and authorship by
developing marketing efforts tailored to its target audience. Although its target audience is currently
defined as “new librarians,” Endnotes can broaden this demographic by using more inclusive language
that explicitly invites library school students to consider themselves as readers and as authors Endnotes
also can market the journal as the venue of choice for early-career librarians by reaching out directly to
library school students and to NMRT members and inviting them to convert their classwork, conference
posters, and presentations into articles that can be published in Endnotes. Finally, Endnotes should
consider whether a journal aimed at early-career librarians who are likely publishing their first scholarly
article should provide additional support or services for these first-time authors. By developing an
accessible, easy-to-comprehend publication process and by providing additional support, such as mentors
for first-time authors, Endnotes can set itself apart as a journal that will not only publish work by earlycareer librarians, but will also help them through the publication process.
Article Redesign
The current design of Endnotes does not reflect the level of professionalism and prestige that authors
anticipate based upon the layout of competing journals. Group H recommends that Endnotes redesign its
article template to incorporate the elements authors anticipate in a publisher PDF of their article and to
include prominent NMRT branding.
Journal Redesign
The current Endnotes website presents some navigational and layout challenges as well. Endnotes pages
are uploaded in a separated structure, which can make navigating the journal a challenge and inhibits
transitions from one article to the next within a single issue. Group H recommends that Endnotes reformat
its journal to present readers with a full journal experience, including commonly expected features such as
links and transitions between articles and issues.
Platform Recommendations
Group H recommends that Endnotes consider shifting from its current hosted PDF platform format to an
updated digital journal platform in order to meet authors’ and readers’ expectations for the appearance
and features of a professional journal. After conducting an assessment of proprietary and open-source
journal platforms, Group H makes the recommendation that Endnotes consider moving to Open Journal
Systems (OJS), an open-source journal platform widely used in nonprofit publishing, including a number
of other American Library Association (ALA) journals.
2
About
The ALA Emerging Leaders 2015 Group H was tasked by the New Members Round Table (NMRT) with
recommending a new format for their peer-reviewed journal Endnotes and a marketing strategy for
encouraging submissions and readership for the journal. This report details the methods and final
recommendations of Group H.
Contents
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................. 2
Marketing Strategy ............................................................................................................................... 2
Article Redesign ................................................................................................................................... 2
Journal Redesign ................................................................................................................................... 2
Platform Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 2
About ........................................................................................................................................................ 3
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 4
Charge ................................................................................................................................................... 4
Group Members .................................................................................................................................... 4
Member Guides..................................................................................................................................... 4
Plan and Timeline ..................................................................................................................................... 5
Plan ....................................................................................................................................................... 5
Timeline ................................................................................................................................................ 5
Review and Research ................................................................................................................................ 5
Literature Review ................................................................................................................................. 5
NMRT Survey....................................................................................................................................... 6
SWOT Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 7
Recommendations ..................................................................................................................................... 7
Marketing Strategy ............................................................................................................................... 7
Article Redesign and Recommendations .............................................................................................. 9
Journal Redesign and Recommendations ........................................................................................... 10
Platform Evaluations and Recommendations ..................................................................................... 10
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................. 13
References ............................................................................................................................................... 14
Appendix A: NMRT Survey ................................................................................................................... 16
Appendix B: Article Mockup.................................................................................................................. 19
Appendix C: Journal Mockup ................................................................................................................. 21
Endnotes Home Page Mockup ............................................................................................................ 21
Endnotes Full-Text Article Page Mockup .......................................................................................... 22
Endnotes Article Abstract Page Mockup ............................................................................................ 23
Endnotes About Page Mockup............................................................................................................ 24
3
Introduction
Charge
Revamp NMRT’s peer-reviewed journal, Endnotes, to make it more engaging and widely read, with a
focus on design. The journal is one of two venues NMRT offers for librarians and library school students
to get their work published, even if they have never published anything before. This is a valuable service
for students and librarians on the job market, as it provides a medium through which to earn publication
credits for resumes/CVs, especially as the road to peer-reviewed publication is usually a difficult and
time-consuming one to navigate.
Additionally, NMRT has been experiencing a loss of members after about 3 years of membership. A fresh
Endnotes would be an appealing avenue for members with more than three years of experience looking to
publish. This would be both a leadership opportunity for members and a chance to share research or best
practices in another format. This medium is especially attractive for members who are uncomfortable
presenting at conferences.
The journal needs to be updated for 21st century readers, however. Submission numbers are low, and
readership should be expanded. A new version ideally would be more accessible in a variety of formats,
therefore making it appealing to a wider group than currently views the publication.
The current purpose of Endnotes is as follows: a peer-reviewed, scholarly journal that addresses issues
faced by new librarians. This journal provides immediate pen access to its content on the principle that
making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. Endnotes
accepts research and practitioner-based articles. Endnotes’ aim is to work with new authors to produce
quality scholarly articles.
Group Members





Nik Dragovic, Library Collections Assistant
New York University – New York, New York
Peace Ossom Williamson, Health Sciences Librarian
University of Texas at Arlington – Arlington, Texas
Sarah LeMire, First Year Experience & Outreach Librarian
Texas A&M University – College Station, Texas
Beau Bradley, Branch Manager
Washington County Free Library – Hagerstown, Maryland
Stacey Nordlund, Reference Librarian
Toronto Public Library – Toronto, Ontario
Member Guides
Kim Copenhaver, Behavioral Sciences Librarian/Asst. Professor of Reference, Instruction, and Access
Services, Eckerd College, St. Petersburg, FL
Endnotes Committee Chair, 2014-15
Zara Wilkinson, Reference Librarian, Paul Robeson Library, Rutgers University, Camden, NJ
Endnotes Committee Chair, 2015-16
4
Plan and Timeline
Plan
Based upon the project description, there are three deliverables identified for this project:



A completely redesigned journal
A marketing plan that can be used to solicit manuscripts
Recommendations for a different platform, incorporating the branding developed by a 2014
Emerging Leader Team
Based upon these deliverables, Emerging Leaders Group H developed a multifaceted plan to research
trends in scholarly journal design, investigate the needs and expectations of potential authors and readers,
and develop mockups to communicate recommended improvements.
The first element of the plan was to investigate the existing Endnotes platform via individual exploration
by group members and communication with Member Guides. Based upon our understanding of the
existing platform and its identifiable user experience problems, we were able to develop a plan to
simultaneously explore the literature surrounding journal interface design and the information seeking
behavior of librarians and create a survey, in tandem with the Footnotes Emerging Leaders team, that
would ask librarians and library school students about their information-seeking behavior and the features
they look for in a scholarly journal. We then planned to analyze this information in order to identify
trends which could be used to make informed recommendations for journal interface and platform
changes, as well as recommendations for effective marketing.
Timeline





February 9 – April 1, 2015 – Literature review
February 23 – March 9, 2015 – Survey active
March 10 – April 1, 2015 – Analyze survey responses
April 1 – May 6, 2015 – Investigate platforms and develop marketing plan
May 7 – June 1, 2015 – Develop mock-up
Review and Research
Literature Review
A number of journals have been revising their interfaces due to hosting costs, user experience issues, etc.
Among this number are several ALA journals, as their owner divisions have been seeking new low-cost
solutions (Schulte-Cooper, 2015). NMRT is exploring new options for its peer-reviewed journal,
Endnotes, but in order to make recommendations for a new interface, the Endnotes redesign project team
had to understand how professionals and students in the library field access scholarly literature and what
features they find desirable in a journal which they read or for which they write.
Research has indicated that librarians and library staff differ from their patrons in the way that they search
for information (Turner, 2011) but do they also differ in the way that they stay abreast of current
information in their field? While there is a wealth of literature exploring the information-seeking behavior
of different groups of people, there is very little investigating the specific information-seeking behavior of
librarians. For example, Chiu (2007) explored the information-seeking behavior of new digital librarians
5
within the context of acclimation and comprehension of roles, responsibilities, and organizational culture.
Brown and Ortega (2005) examined the information-seeking behavior of physical science librarians and
found that these librarians were most likely to seek professional information through personal
communication and online discussion groups, rather than through experiment-based research published in
the scholarly literature, as faculty in the physical sciences field prefer.
Although there is very little literature available on librarians’ information-seeking behavior, there has
been some research published regarding e-journal user experience and interface design. For example, in
2004, Luther and Ivins published an article informing journal publishers’ platform choices. Vilar and
Zumer (2005) conducted a study comparing and evaluating different e-journal user interfaces, and in a
follow-up study (2007) noted that user friendliness is connected to different features and functions of ejournal systems. Dyson and Jennings (2014) published a study examining user responses to sixteen ejournal interfaces and their expected features, and found that inconsistency among e-journal interfaces
makes it challenging for users to transfer their knowledge of one interface to use of another. Additional
research declares that the basic needs of a publishing system are an institutional domain, preservation
through CLOCKSS, DOIs, indexing, an ISSN, and maintenance and training (McMahon, 2015;
Robertson & Simser, 2013). The addition of an element of design is also important in order to produce an
official look to the journal.
NMRT Survey
In partnership with the Emerging Leaders Footnotes team, Group H developed a survey (Appendix A)
intended to answer the following questions:



What are librarians’ current perceptions of Endnotes?
Do librarians express an interest in/need for a scholarly journal aimed at early-career librarians?
What are the features that librarians look for in a journal?
The survey was distributed widely via ALA-affiliated listservs, ALA-accredited library schools, state and
local library organizations, and social media. Based upon this survey, which received an overwhelming
response, we learned a couple of crucial points providing evidence Endnotes has the potential to play a
significant role in librarian literature.


Many librarians have never heard of Endnotes.
Many librarians have not published in a scholarly journal before, but are interested in doing so.
These elements suggest that, while Endnotes currently has a low profile in the landscape of library
literature, there are a large number of librarians who are interested in publishing their first article and, if
Endnotes is able to improve its visibility through better marketing, it has the potential to make significant
gains in readership and authorship.
The survey also yielded additional findings, including information about how librarians access libraryrelated content and about what topics they are interested in reading and writing. These additional findings
have informed our recommendations in the marketing plan and journal redesign.
6
SWOT Analysis
Strengths









Peer review
Low barrier to entry
ALA link
Interdisciplinary / diverse
o Types of libraries
o Students and professionals (focus on one or
both?)
More people passing through committee contribute
to awareness
Indexed*
Experience is good for future publishing work
o Editorial committee is a good training
opportunity for more stringent committees
The committee is flexible and can easily change
practices
Prior contributors have interest in collaborating
with the journal again
o This should be managed and documented
Weaknesses






Publication requires NMRT membership
Administrative structure weakens operations
o Terms on committee are too short
o Training is insufficient
o Meetings are infrequent
o Recruitment might be improved
Internal and public documentation is lacking
Biased toward academic libraries
Obtaining content is difficult
Journal is not widely read or known
Opportunities
Threats








There is demand for a publication that supports
contributors in the development of their writing
There might also be demand for a publication that
addresses multiple library types in a cohesive
fashion
Collaboration with other journals and publishing
venues is a possibility in the evolving scholarly
environment
Differentiation from other library student and new
librarian media venues
ALA has new online infrastructure that might be
leveraged
Feedback on potential changes is easy to obtain
from the community
o The survey provides evidence of interest in the
publication
There are a number of emerging platforms for
journal publication, many of which are opensource, widely adopted, and well-supported


There is a wide proliferation of competing
library resources that are more visible and more
widely read
Evolving models of scholarship threaten
traditional journal implementations
NMRT has other publications that are not
clearly differentiated
Recommendations
Marketing Strategy
There is a strong need for a scholarly journal aimed at early-career librarians within the world of ALA
publishing, primarily as a venue for early-career librarians to produce some of their first published
7
content. Despite the strong use case for Endnotes, however, the journal suffers from low submission rates
and would benefit from improved readership numbers. In addition to an updated platform to meet the
current expectations of authors and readers, we recommend an updated marketing plan to increase
visibility of the journal in a crowded marketplace.
Increase Visibility
Endnotes suffers from low visibility, as is evidenced by its low submission numbers and need for
increased readership. Further, our survey data revealed that many respondents, including some NMRT
members, had never heard of Endnotes. Without a doubt, this is the greatest weakness currently facing the
product. Fortunately, this is also the issue best solved by way of extensive and energetic marketing.
While there are no major barriers to accessing Endnotes, since it is freely available on the web, there is
also no way to subscribe to Endnotes content. Email subscriptions and RSS feeds remain popular ways
for librarians to access library-related content, and we recommend that the Endnotes committee
implement these options when updating the journal platform. However, social media has become an
increasingly popular way for librarians to stay abreast of the literature, and NMRT should be employing
its social media outlets to actively push out its content by sharing not only issues, but individual articles.
By increasing the profile of individual articles, Endnotes can increase its readership, but it can also make
authoring an Endnotes article more impactful and therefore more attractive.
Networking
The NMRT maintains a well-established presence within ALA, and its well-connected members branch
across the entire organization. These NMRT members should be a primary focus of Endnotes’ marketing
efforts in order to transform NMRT members into Endnotes advertisers and advocates. One strategy for
increasing NMRT membership engagement with Endnotes is to identify NMRT members presenting at
conferences and inviting those presenters to develop their presentations into an article in Endnotes.
NMRT could also incentivize publication in Endnotes by providing its authors with a year’s free NMRT
membership upon acceptance of a manuscript.
Conferences
Marketing efforts should also coincide with major conferences and should underscore the simplicity of
submission and benefits of authorship. Endnotes currently publishes ALA conference recaps, but can
expand their conference involvement by expanding into direct marketing. This could include marketing
materials passed out on the show floor, as well as ads within conference guides. By raising awareness of
Endnotes within the wider organization, the efforts of early career librarians across ALA can be funneled
back to publication with Endnotes.
Library School Students
Library school students make up a significant population of potential Endnotes authors and readers, but
the language Endnotes currently employs may be unintentionally excluding this important population. By
branding itself as a journal for “new librarians,” Endnotes may be inadvertently giving the impression that
it is only available to librarians in the first year or two of their first professional position. Since NMRT is
intended for librarians in the first ten years of their careers as well as aspiring librarians currently in
school, a more inclusive description may be helpful in expanding readership. Group H recommends that
Endnotes consider terminology such as “early-career and aspiring librarians” in place of “new librarians.”
8
In addition to broadening terminology, Group H recommends that NMRT and Endnotes reach out directly
to library school students by building partnering relationships with ALA student chapters and with ALAaffiliated library school programs. These partner organizations can help expand Endnotes’ influence by
disseminating Endnotes issues and articles and also by extending Endnotes calls for submission to
potential library school student authors.
De-mystify the Publishing Process
Endnotes should position itself as a platform especially conducive to first time authors. Just as NMRT
seeks to provide a supportive launching point into the ALA, Endnotes should present itself as an attractive
choice for those seeking to begin publishing. In order to highlight Endnotes as a unique platform aimed at
early-career librarians, NMRT should develop marketing materials that focus on making the process of
submitting to Endnotes both transparent and unintimidating, in order to demonstrate the ease of becoming
a published author via Endnotes. Many of Endnotes’ potential authors and readers are graduate students
without any professional librarian experience, so they may be totally unfamiliar with the publishing
process, thus by presenting the process of publishing in Endnotes as straightforward and simple. Endnotes
can make the prospect of submitting an article for publication all the more enticing. Endnotes may want to
consider providing extra levels of support to its authors, perhaps in the form of a mentor who can usher
first-time authors through the publication process and provide feedback in advance of peer review.
Issues of Interest
Endnotes’ focus on early-career librarians provides it with a solid niche in the library literature, but earlycareer authors may need additional guidance to choose a topic, since Endnotes’ current call for articles
that “address issues faced by new librarians” may not provide enough information about acceptable
topics. One strategy to address this issue is to develop occasional theme issues that ask for articles
representing different perspectives or issues on a particular topic. For example, an issue on challenges
related to cataloging might be of interest to some librarians. Alternatively, Endnotes could target different
types of libraries with different issues, perhaps doing a theme issue about public libraries, community
college libraries, or school libraries.
While Endnotes will certainly benefit from an upgraded design and other small tweaks, it will not make a
significant impact unless the Endnotes committee is able to implement a robust marketing plan that will
help the journal overcome its low profile. By pairing an improved product with consistent and targeted
marketing efforts, Endnotes can reach its true potential to help early-career librarians publish scholarly
articles.
Article Redesign and Recommendations
The current layout of Endnotes articles is absent the professional look and branding that many competing
journals offer. Although the minimalist appearance of the current PDF articles may require less editorial
intervention, Group H recommends that Endnotes develop a more robust article template that incorporates
NMRT branding and reflects the type of formatting authors may be expecting based upon their
experiences with other journals. See the proposed design by viewing the mockup created by Group H in
Appendix B.
9
Journal Redesign and Recommendations
Group H recommends a substantial redesign of Endnotes. The sparse design and straightforward layout of
the current product does not sufficiently reflect the valuable efforts of the writers and editors of the
journal, culminating in a publication that appears less prestigious than its alternatives, a result which is in
direct contrast to the expectations of prospective contributors. The upgrade should include features like
navigation, use of formatting and logos enticing to potential authors and readers. For example, users tend
to follow a set navigation structure; therefore, providing a full journal experience with links and
transitions between articles and issues may increase readership in comparison with the current separated
structure (Taraghi, Grossegger, Ebner, & Holzinger, 2013). See the proposed design by viewing the
mockup created by Group H in Appendix C.
Platform Evaluations and Recommendations
In the opinion of Group H, the current platform for the publication of Endnotes needs to be replaced.
According to the survey, common draws to publishing are purpose and prestige of an academic journal.
The current Endnotes platform is outdated and cumbersome. While a hosted PDF file is certainly a simple
solution, it does not lend itself to an overall impressive presentation. An updated digital journal platform
will both improve the overall image of the final product and demonstrate that Endnotes is a worthwhile
and cutting edge publication. Furthermore, extensive readership and prestige of publication both serve as
strong criteria for authors in deciding where to send their submission. Incorporation of the marketing
strategy as well as a platform with greater reach is a priority for increasing the number and quality of
submissions. A robust platform will provide permalinks and sharing functionality through social media.
In addition to the ideological standpoint of libraries as open institutions being a reason toward using an
open-source software, there are cost and control benefits: The software is free, starting costs are much
lower for open-source software systems, and institutions have a large degree of autonomy over the
software due to its copyright, thus allowing control to be in the hands of the library (Samuels & Griffy,
2012). The following allowances under the copyright licenses are the details which make a software opensource:
●
●
●
Software is available without cost, royalties, or fees;
Source code and compiled code are distributed to programmers and end-users; and
Programmers and end-users can alter the program’s code (Corbly, 2014).
For these reasons and their overwhelming adoption by library journals, open-source software systems
were the main consideration for evaluation. Costs come later when managing these systems, since much
of the control is on the institution, so it is crucial to determine the system that comes with the most
benefits and will provide the fewest issues in the future. It is important to note costs that come with the
various systems may vary as they relate to NMRT and the personnel and resources already existing within
the group, including an existing server and staff to manage it, user interface design expertise, etc. In
addition, the following are important details to consider in the selection of an e-publishing system:
●
●
●
●
●
Simplicity and ease of use
Content authoring and editing
Metadata creation and management
Linking
Security
10
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Archiving and removal of content
Content mark-up, migration, and uploading
Templates
Support for various formats
Usage statistics
Personalization
Navigation aids
Accessibility
Training and documentation
Digital Publishing System (DPubS) is an open-source software designed for digital publication of serials
and monographs. Originally created for mathematical and statistical literature, it has been a cost-efficient
platform for publishing for many years (Samuels & Griffy, 2012). It combines Perl scripts and XSLT
templates for content management and combines command-line and GUI interfaces for control (Samuels
& Griffy, 2012). It has been utilized successfully at various libraries, including Penn State University and
Ohio State University, but is no longer being actively developed as an open-source platform; furthermore,
in each of the aforementioned libraries, the use of DPubS was restricting, and the institutions switched to
Open Journal Systems (OJS) (Mattson & Friend, 2014; Samuels & Griffy, 2012).
The vast majority of evidence pointed to OJS, which is federally funded and is developed from the Public
Knowledge Project (PKP). It uses PHP scripts for management of content in a MySQL database and is
controlled through GUI interfaces (Samuels & Griffy, 2012). All research of e-publishing systems,
including contacting libraries, was centered on OJS, even with efforts to find research about other epublishing systems. OJS is popular for a number of reasons, including its simple five-step publishing
process through web-based forms with thorough documentation and tutorials provided by PKP: details,
policies, submissions, management, and the look (Somaly, 2013). In addition to the basic features of an epublishing system, OJS also provides tools like multilingual support, persistent URLs, RSS feeds,
bookmarking and sharing articles through social networks, full-text searching, compliance with the Open
Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH), and usage statistics (McMahon, 2015).
Since survey data indicated that both email subscriptions and RSS remain popular strategies for keeping
abreast of library literature, the journal’s reach can be greatly expanded by this increased functionality.
Permanent links also provide users the ability to use the other features they reported making use of,
including saving articles as bookmarks and sharing through email distribution lists. The usage statistics
can be used to inform authors and improve methods of increasing journal reach.
Through the use of OJS, editors can manage the workflow: they can solicit submissions, conduct peerreviews, copyedit, edit the layout, schedule publications, and correspond with readers, authors, reviewers,
and others (McMahon, 2015). With OJS, this process is transparent for potential authors. In our individual
interviews, the front end and UI developer at the University of Michigan described one downside of OJS:
its multitude of options leads to opportunity-overload. Institutions with fewer customizing needs may find
OJS too involved and confusing in use (J. McGlone, personal communication, May 12, 2015). It is worth
noting, however, that OJS differs from other platforms because it has a large and active online forum of
users (Somaly, 2013).
The need of NMRT, although not identical, align closely with one of the possible clients used by Ohio
State University in the evaluation of e-publishing systems,
11
Model A represents the needs of an active, born-digital publication whose editors would want to
use the system to facilitate the submission, approval, preparation, and limited distribution of
multimedia content. They will want to use the system as much as possible to guide and regulate
the preparation and processing of content. They will also want maximum control of the process,
along with a high degree of flexibility in the format and presentation of content. Finally, they will
want robust and flexible access controls, as they intend to run the journal as a revenue-generating
endeavor (Samuels & Griffy, 2012, p. 47).
In cases where OJS was considered, it was the chosen platform, with many libraries making the switch to
it from other platforms. It has been described as “highly efficient, and has allowed staff to attend to the
task of building a publishing program as opposed to focusing on technical matters…[and] using
significantly less staff time” (Samuels & Griffy, 2012, p. 48). The main low point for OJS is its
accessibility issues; librarians at Oviatt Library of California State University found 202 accessibility
errors in their evaluation of the system (Borchard, Biondo, Kutay, Morck, & Weiss, 2015). After
evaluating these systems, OJS was the clear choice for recommendation to NMRT.
Although the primary recommendation is for OJS, Group H would like to present an alternative in the
Berkeley Electronic Press or Bepress’s Digital Commons. Digital Commons differs from other
institutional repository software in that it is also an e-publishing platform. It is cloud-based and
implemented in over 300 institutions, including Purdue University Libraries (Poynder, 2014). However, it
is not open-source; therefore, an annual license—the price of which varies according to institution—is
part of the subscription (Castagné, 2013). This subscription is $20,000 for the average academic
institution (Poynder, 2014). Included in this purchase is the complete setup, upgrades, and ongoing
Bepress expertise (Castagné, 2013; Poynder, 2014). While the premium costs make Digital Commons a
software fully supported by its developing company, it is less customizable, especially with the HTML
article templates, but it does allow institutional branding and general stylization that would make it
similar to a website’s “look and feel” (Castagné, 2013). While a competitive product, it is potentially
more than what is needed by NMRT. According to the Bepress CEO, “Imagine ContentDM, DSpace,
Dryad, Figshare, ePrints, Open Journal Systems, Open Monograph Press, and Open Conference Systems
all rolled into one solution, and you have the Digital Commons platform” (Poynder, 2014).
Group H strongly recommends NMRT to compare the costs and benefits of both platforms. According to
a recent email from the Digital Scholarship Librarian at the University of Florida,
OJS is an internationally recognized leader for supporting journal publishing (and other needs
also superbly supported with OJS affiliated software from PKP). In addition to robust end user
features, OJS was designed by and for editors, and so has incredible features for editing, tracking,
and communicating on journal articles and issues. OJS is the leader in so many ways, which is
how the state of Florida elected to support it for all state universities and colleges, which is the
hosting we utilize at UF. At UF, we had also done a comparison of features in 2009/2010 looking
at OJS versus Bepress, and OJS had vastly more features and supports, and OJS has grown only
stronger in the past 5/6 years (L. Taylor, personal communication, April 27, 2015).
The costs of OJS are as follows:
● One of the following OJS packages:
o Basic - $850 annually
12
●
●
●
●
●
o Professional - $1,500 annually
o Enterprise - $2,700 annually
Commercial web hosting – continuing NMRT’s current cost
Purchase of domain – continuing NMRT’s current cost
Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) from CrossRef - $300 annually
Controlled Lots of Copies Keeps Stuff Safe (CLOCKSS) – percentage of publishing revenue,
which is $0 for NMRT
Operating costs – approximately 0.1 FTE
Acknowledgements
We’d like to thank the Emerging Leaders Footnotes group, who partnered with us on the user survey, and
our Member Guides, Kim Copenhaver and Zara Wilkinson, for their support and responsiveness through
the process. We’d also like to thank Megan Hodge for her guidance and support.
Finally, we’d like to thank those who provided information and feedback throughout the process,
including Courtney Greene McDonald, Robert McDonald, and Christine McConnell.
13
References
Borchard, L., Biondo, M., Kutay, S., Morck, D., & Weiss, A. P. (2015). Making journals accessible front
& back: Examining open journal systems at CSU Northridge. OCLC Systems & Services, 31(1),
35-50. doi:10.1108/OCLC-02-2014-0013
Brown, C. M., & Ortega, L. (2005). Information-seeking behavior of physical science librarians: Does
research inform practice? College & Research Libraries, 66(3), 231-247.
Castagné, M. (2013). Institutional repository software comparison: DSpace, EPrints, Digital Commons,
Islandora and Hydra. Retrieved from
https://circle.ubc.ca/bitstream/handle/2429/44812/Castagne_Michel_LIBR596_IR_comparison_2
013.pdf?sequence=1
Chiu, M. H. (2007). What does a newcomer digital librarian need to know? Exploring information
seeking behavior of newcomer digital librarians in academic libraries during organizational
entry. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 44(1), 1-6.
doi: 10.1002/meet.1450440340
Corbly, J. E. (2014). The free software alternative: Freeware, open-source software, and libraries.
Information Technology & Libraries, 33(3), 65-75. doi:10.6017/ital.v33i3.5105
Dyson, M. C., & Jennings, E. M. (2014). Examining the interfaces to e-journal articles: What do users
expect? In A. Marcus (Ed.), Design, User Experience, and Usability: User Experience Design for
Everyday Life Applications and Services (Vol. 8519, pp. 164-172). Cham: Springer.
Finlay, S. C., Ni, C., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2012). New methods for an old debate: Utilizing reader response
to investigate the relationship between collaboration and quality in academic journal articles.
Library & Information Science Research, 34(2), 131-137. doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2011.11.003
Luther, J., & Ivins, O. (2004). Ejournal hosts: The next generation. EContent, 27(1-2), 34-39.
Mattson, M., & Friend, L. (2014). A planning perspective for library journal publishing services. OCLC
Systems & Services: International digital library perspectives, 30(3), 178-191.
doi:10.1108/OCLC-01-2014-0005
McMahon, M. L. (2015). The library as publisher? Is it possible for a small library? Theological
Librarianship, 8(1), 4-6. Retrieved from
https://journal.atla.com/ojs/index.php/theolib/article/view/365/1132
Poynder, R. (2014, April 5). Interview with Jean-Gabriel Bankier, President & CEO of Bepress. Open
and Shut? Retrieved from http://poynder.blogspot.com/2014/04/interview-with-jean-gabrielbankier.html
Robertson, W. C., & Simser, C. N. (2013). Managing E-publishing: Perfect harmony for serialists. Serials
Librarian, 64(1-4), 118-128. doi:10.1080/0361526X.2013.760399
14
Samuels, R. G., & Griffy, H. (2012). Evaluating open source software for use in library initiatives: A case
study involving electronic publishing. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 12(1), 41–62.
Retrieved from
https://www.press.jhu.edu/journals/portal_libraries_and_the_academy/portal_pre_print/current/ar
ticles/12.1samuels.pdf
Schulte-Cooper, L. (2015, January 15). ALSC Board of Directors publication report. Retrieved from
http://connect.ala.org/files/DOC%2016%20Publications%20Report.pdf
Somaly, K. W. (2013). Open journal system. Charleston Advisor, 15(1), 32-34. doi:10.5260/chara.15.1.32
Taraghi, B., Grossegger, M., Ebner, M., & Holzinger, A. (2013). Web analytics of user path tracing and a
novel algorithm for generating recommendations in open journal systems. Online Information
Review, 37(5), 672-691. doi:10.1108/OIR-09-2012-0152
Turner, N. B. (2011). Librarians do it differently: Comparative usability testing with students and library
staff. Journal of Web Librarianship, 5(4), 286-298. doi: 10.1080/19322909.2011.624428
Vilar, P., & Zumer, M. (2005). Comparison and evaluation of the user interfaces of e- journals. Journal of
Documentation, 61(2), 203-227.
Vilar, P., & Žumer, M. (2008). Comparison and evaluation of the user interfaces of e-journals II:
perceptions of the users. Journal of Documentation, 64(6), 816-841.
15
Appendix A: NMRT Survey
Q1. [Choose One] How often do you read ALA New Member Round Table (NMRT)'s Newsletter,
Footnotes?
Quarterly (every publication)
I’ve heard of the newsletter, but never read it
I’ve never heard of the newsletter
Once or twice a year
Once or twice every few years
Q1a. [Choose One] How did you find out about Footnotes?
Professional listserv
Library school listserv
Social media
At a conference or professional event
Suggestion by a friend or colleague
Other [Input Text Response]
Q1b. [Choose All That Apply] Which part(s) of Footnotes do you find most interesting?
NMRT President’s Column
Feature Articles
Book Reviews
Conference Recaps
Other [Input Text Response]
Q1c. [Choose One] Have you ever published in Footnotes?
Yes
No
Q1c.1. [Choose One] Have you published more than once in Footnotes?
Yes
No
Q1c.2. [Input Text Response] Would you publish in Footnotes again?
Q2. [Choose One] How often do you read ALA New Member Round Table (NMRT)'s peer-reviewed
journal Endnotes?
I’ve never heard of the journal
I’ve heard of the journal but never read it
I have read the journal once or twice
I read the journal when looking for information on a particular topic
I read/browse the journal regularly
Q2a. [Choose One] How did you find out about Endnotes?
Professional listserv
Library school listserv
Social media
At a conference or professional event
Suggestion by a friend or colleague
Other [Input Text Response]
Q3. [Choose All That Apply] I am a member of
American Library Association (ALA)
16
ALA’s New Member Round Table (NMRT)
Q4. [Choose One] In which type of library do you currently work? (If you are a student, what type of
library do you hope to work in?)
Academic or research library
Archives or special collections
Public library
School library
Special library
Library school faculty or staff
Other [Input Text Response]
Q5. [Choose All That Apply] What methods do you use to access journals, blogs, and other libraryrelated content?
Email subscription
RSS Feed
Social Media
Other [Input Text Response]
Q6. [Choose One] Have you ever published an article in a scholarly journal?
Yes, 1 to 3 articles
Yes, 4 or more articles
No, but I am interested in publishing a scholarly article
No, and I am NOT interested in publishing a scholarly article
Q6a. [Input Text Response] What did you find valuable about your publication experience? Are
there any aspects of the publication process that you wish had been different?
Q7. [Choose One] Have you ever published non-scholarly work, such as a guest post on a library blog, or
a practice or opinion piece in a library publication?
Yes, 1 to 3 pieces
Yes, 4 or more pieces
No, but I am interested in publishing non-scholarly pieces
No, and I am NOT interested in publishing non-scholarly pieces
Q7a. [Input Text Response] What did you find valuable about your publication experience? Are
there any aspects of the publication process that you wish had been different?
Q8. [Select a maximum of 4] What topics are most important to you as a reader?
Getting a library degree
Getting a library job
Succeeding as a new professional
Getting involved with professional organizations
Connecting with new professionals
Finding research opportunities
Developing leadership skills
Specific topics (teaching, reference, cataloging, archives, public librarianship, etc.)
Q9. [Choose All That Apply] What types of library-related information do you read regularly?
Career information (I Need a Library Job, Ask a Manager, Hiring Librarians, etc.)
Blogs (In the Library with the Lead Pipe, etc.)
Social media (Librarian Wardrobe, etc.)
17
Library school blogs (Hack Library School, etc.)
National association newsletters (C&RL News, American Libraries, Public Libraries Newsletter,
Computers & Libraries, etc.)
Regional or local association newsletters
Professional listservs
Other professional publications (Chronicle of Higher Education, Harvard Business Review, etc.)
Peer reviewed journals
Non-peer reviewed journals
Q10. [Choose One] When did you graduate with your MLS/MSIS?
I have not yet graduated
Less than 1 year
1 to 2 years
2 to 5 years
More than 5 years
I do not have an MLS/MSIS
Q11. [Input Text Response] What would make you want to publish in an NMRT publication?
Q12. [Input Text Response] Is there any other information you would like to share, either about
NMRT Footnotes / NMRT Endnotes, library publications, or the types of content that you would like to
see published?
Q13. [Input Text Response] If you are willing to be contacted with further questions, please provide your
email address below.
18
Appendix B: Article Mockup
19
20
Appendix C: Journal Mockup
Endnotes Home Page Mockup
Group H recommends that the landing page for Endnotes shift from the Endnotes Committee page to the
most recent issue of the journal.
21
Endnotes Full-Text Article Page Mockup
Group H recommends that Endnotes implement a landing page for each scholarly article. This landing
page would include a link to download the article PDF, a link to view the article without downloading,
and also the article’s DOI.
22
Endnotes Article Abstract Page Mockup
Group H recommends that Endnotes implement an abstract page for each scholarly article, where readers
can view the article’s abstract before downloading the article. This page would also feature the article’s
DOI.
23
Endnotes About Page Mockup
Group H recommends that
Endnotes create an About
Endnotes page to replace
the Endnotes Committee
page. The About Endnotes
page would be linked from
each Endnotes page, and
would be the place authors
and readers can learn more
about the Endnotes
journal, how to submit an
article, and the Endnotes
committee.
24