Slide 1

UCL LIBRARY SERVICES Repository Interface for Overlaid Journal Archives (RIOJA) Panayiota Polydoratou e-mail: lib-rioja@ucl.ac.uk Slide 2 UCL LIBRARY SERVICES Outline of the presentation RIOJA background information Overlay journal model RIOJA aims and methods Some outcomes (community surveys) Observations and further work Slide 3 UCL LIBRARY SERVICES 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 RIOJA projects information Slide 4 UCL LIBRARY SERVICES 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 Slide 5 UCL LIBRARY SERVICES 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 Slide 6 UCL LIBRARY SERVICES 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 Slide 7 UCL LIBRARY SERVICES 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 Slide 8 UCL LIBRARY SERVICES 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) Slide 9 UCL LIBRARY SERVICES Community surveys Some administrative/demographics info (1) Questionnaire survey run between June 8 th - July 15 th, 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?) Slide 10 UCL LIBRARY SERVICES Questionnaire survey Some administrative/demographics 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 Slide 11 UCL LIBRARY SERVICES 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 Slide 12 UCL LIBRARY SERVICES Slide 13 Slide 14 Slide 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 Slide 16 UCL LIBRARY SERVICES Slide 17 Slide 18 Slide 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 Slide 20 UCL LIBRARY SERVICES 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)http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ls/rioja/meeting Slide 21 UCL LIBRARY SERVICES Further information Project team: lib-rioja@ucl.ac.uk Web site: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ls/riojahttp://www.ucl.ac.uk/ls/rioja Slide 22 UCL LIBRARY SERVICES Thank you! Slide 23 UCL LIBRARY SERVICES 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/pg96unesco.htmlhttp://xxx.lanl.gov/blurb/pg96unesco.html Smith, J W T. (1999). The deconstructed journal: a new model for academic publishing. Learned Publishing, Vol. 12 (2), pp. 79-91