Repository Interface for Overlaid Journal Archives RIOJA

1
Repository Interface for Overlaid Journal
Archives (RIOJA)

• Panayiota Polydoratou
• e-mail lib-rioja_at_ucl.ac.uk

2
Outline of the presentation

• RIOJA background information
• Overlay journal model
• RIOJA aims and methods
• Some outcomes (community surveys)
• Observations and further work

3
RIOJA projects information

• RIOJA - Repository Interface for Overlaid Journal
  Archives (http//www.ucl.ac.uk/ls/rioja)
• Funded by the JISC - Joint Information Systems
  Committee (http//www.jisc.ac.uk) under the
  Repositories and Preservation Programme
• A 16 months partnership July 2008
• Researchers from UCL, Cambridge, Glasgow and
  Imperial
• UCL Library Services
• Technical staff from Cornell University
• Astrophysics and Cosmology our subject domain

4
RIOJA the context

• Impetus came from academic staff and researchers
  in Astrophysics and Cosmology
• Perceptions
• arXiv subject repository is highly important
• journals are little-used
• and why do subscriptions cost so much?
• adding a quality stamp to arXiv deposits would
  cut out the need for formal publication in
  journals

5
Overlay journal model a definition

• Term overlay journal attributed to Ginsparg
  (1996), contribution and discussion by Smith
  (1999)
• For RIOJA, an overlay journal model refers to
• journals built on content deposited to and stored
  in one or more repositories
• Quality-assured
• Open access
• Sustainable

6
RIOJA - aims...

• Build the RIOJA toolkit
• A set of APIs
• some for implementation by a repository, some by
  a journal
• some required (e.g. author validation, metadata
  extraction) others optional (e.g. trackback
  support)
• Construct a demonstrator overlay journal
• an implementation of the RIOJA toolkit
• arXiv repository
• OJS journal software

7
RIOJA aims

• Sustainability
• Estimate the running costs for an arXiv-overlay
  journal
• Identify and appraise cost-recovery options for
  an arXiv-overlay journal
• Recommend a Digital Preservation strategy for
  content accepted by an arXiv-overlay journal

8
RIOJA - methods

• Questionnaire survey to 4,000 researchers
• Selected from top 100 universities and other
  institutions (THES World Rankings 2006), and a
  domain specific discussion list
• Interviews with members of editorial boards and
  publishers
• PhysMathCentral,
• Public Library of Science (PLoS),
• Oxford University Press (OUP), and
• members of the editorial boards of the journals
  Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
  (MNRAS) and Journal of Cosmology and
  Astroparticle Physics (JCAP)

9
Community surveys Some administrative/demographi
cs info (1)

• Questionnaire survey run between June 8th - July
  15th, 2007
• Contacted 4012 scientists in astrophysics and
  cosmology - response from 683 (17 response rate)
  
• Scientists in fields astrophysics and cosmology
  hazy boundaries (need for subject specific
  journals or broad subject coverage?)

10
Questionnaire survey Some administrative/demogra
phics info (2)

• A spread of roles, 24 by professors, 20 by
  research fellows, lecturers, readers, research
  assistants/associates
• Experienced researchers (46 more than 10 years)
• 90 denoted research as their primary
  responsibility
• Publishers/members of editorial boards, in
  general positive towards a new model

11
Questionnaire survey Publishing research

• An average of 13 papers over 2-year period
• 97 write their research in the form of papers
  for peer reviewed journals
• Funding processes and RAE influence publication
• 3 most preferred journals for publication in top
  -10 ISI impact factor

12
(No Transcript)
13
(No Transcript)
14
(No Transcript)
15
Questionnaire survey arXiv use and expectations
of overlay journal model

• 80 use the arXiv as first point when looking for
  new research papers 53 visit the arXiv on a
  daily basis
• 53 said yes to a new publishing journal model
• However quality, peer review, long term
  archiving
• Money matters
• YES Journal website archive of back issues,
  paying scientific editors
• NO print version of journal, paying referees,
  publisher profits

16
(No Transcript)
17
(No Transcript)
18
(No Transcript)
19
Some observations

• In general both scientists and publishers
  contacted were disposed favourably towards the
  overlay journal model.
• Scientific community acceptance
• Quality assurance
• Peer review process
• Sustainability and long term archiving
• Traditional copy-editing function remains
  important to researchers
• Visibility of research in indexing services
• Not so important factors
• Print version of journal
• Journals with high rejection rate
• Journal endorsed by the professional society

20
Further work

• Exploring sustainability issues, business model
  and potential implementations
• Analysing the results from interviews with
  members of editorial boards/publishers
• Costs associated with publishing processes - is
  there a business model?
• RIOJA meeting 7 July 2008 (http//www.ucl.ac.uk/
  ls/rioja/meeting)

21
Further information

• Project team lib-rioja_at_ucl.ac.uk
• Web site http//www.ucl.ac.uk/ls/rioja

22

• Thank you!

23
References

• Ginsparg, P. (1996). Winners and Losers in the
  Global Research Village. Invited contribution,
  UNESCO Conference HQ, Paris, 19-23 Feb 1996.
  Available at http//xxx.lanl.gov/blurb/pg96unesc
  o.html
• Smith, J W T. (1999). The deconstructed journal
  a new model for academic publishing. Learned
  Publishing, Vol. 12 (2), pp. 79-91