Output -RIOJA -Costs and sustainability: overlay journal costs

Title: Repository Interface for Overlaid Journal Archives:costs estimates and sustainability issues

Pages: 12-16
Summary of contents:

The report sets out the costs for each of the four identified core functions of a journal:


first copy costs – editorial board, assigning reviewers etc., support and admin –
“Consultants in SQW Limited (2004) reported that first copy costs for a good to high quality journal are
estimated around – average price – $1500 ($1650 including first copy and fixed costs).”
however, “Harnad (2000) …indicates that conducting the peer review electronically and for papers residing in an open access archive could cost about 1/3 less of the actual page cost.”
ArXiv uses a low cost system of endorsement ($1-5 per item) in which previous submitters vouch for the relevancy of new work.

p13-p14 Note survey finding that there is no consensus on the issue of open or closed peer review.
p14 “King & Tenopir (2000) list the following activities in article processing: manuscript receipt processing, initial disposition decision making, identifying reviewers or referees, review processing, subject editing, special graphic and other preparation, formatting, copy editing, processing author approval, indexing, coding. There are also significant indirect costs – costs not directly associated with a particular process, such as administrative and managerial costs. Rowland reports costs for peer review in the range of $200-$400 per paper, including administrative support, for a journal with rejection rate of 50%.”

p14-15 This covers current awareness and related dissemination tools and activities. The survey has noted the importance of such functions to the community using arXiv. RIOJA comments p15 “The awareness functions provided by arXiv and other repositories could clearly reduce central overheads for a repository-overlaid journal.” (see comment)

This section briefly discusses how an overlay journal would need to ensure the preservation of accepted content. The section has little specific discussion of the practicalities and problems of preservation outside of the context of arXiv but does make a very useful suggestion in that on demand printing services are available ‘for printing paper versions of the journal’s issues at a cost of less than $250, including shipping and handling.’ (p16)

Awareness – while it’s true that a repositories alerting services could reduce the need for an overlay journal to have such services, there is a tnesion here that the project doesn’t note (afaik) – not offering these services would significantly reduce the overlay journal’s visibility/ identity. not offering these services could have a direct impact on the visibiilty and ‘impact’ of the the journal. However, in the context of a journal based on items from a single repository (such as arxiv) the point is well made that this service is carried out anyway. [not clear if project thinks this though]

Archiving – though this costing largely sidesteps the issue of digital preservation the suggestion that (at least in the short term) copies of record could be printed on demand appears a significantly less expensive option than the current printing process.

Throughout the costing there is a heavy reliance on the ‘unique’ / ‘mature’ context of arXiv. It is not yet clear which of these characteristics of arXiv has had the stronger effect.

This examination of costing contributes to identifying relevant shared infrastructure services and assessing their feasibility.

Date Released: July 2008

URI for Output: http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/12562/1/12562.pdf


Output – LIFE2 – Final Report – Executive Summary page 1

Output Name: Output – Life2 – Final Report

Title: The LIFE2 Final Project Report
Number of pages or page numbers: 129 pages

Date Released:22/08/08

URI for Output: http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/11758/1/11758.pdf

Summary of contents:

The second phase of the LIFE Project, LIFE2, has refined the LIFE Model adding three new
exemplar Case Studies to further build upon LIFE1. LIFE2 is project between UCL (University College London) and The British Library (BL), supported by the LIBER Access and Preservation Divisions.
The LIFE approach has been validated by a full independent economic review and has
successfully produced an updated lifecycle costing model (LIFE Model v2) and digital
preservation costing model (GPM v1.1). The LIFE Model has been tested with three further
Case Studies including institutional repositories (SHERPA-LEAP), digital preservation
services (SHERPA DP) and a comparison of analogue and digital collections (British Library
Newspapers). These Case Studies were useful for scenario building and have fed back into
both the LIFE Model and the LIFE Methodology.
The experiences of implementing the Case Studies indicated that enhancements made to the
LIFE Methodology, Model and associated tools have simplified the costing process. Mapping
a specific lifecycle to the LIFE Model isn’t always a straightforward process. The revised and
more detailed Model has reduced ambiguity. The costing templates, which were refined
throughout the process of developing the Case Studies, ensure clear articulation of both
working and cost figures, and facilitate comparative analysis between different lifecycles.
The LIFE work has been successfully disseminated throughout the digital preservation and
HE communities. Early adopters of the work include the Royal Danish Library, State
Archives and the State and University Library, Denmark as well as the LIFE2 Project partners.
Furthermore, interest in the LIFE work has not been limited to these sectors, with interest in
LIFE expressed by local government, records offices, and private industry. LIFE has also
provided input into the LC-JISC Blue Ribbon Task Force on the Economic Sustainability of
Digital Preservation.
Moving forward our ability to cost the digital preservation lifecycle will require further
investment in costing tools and models. Developments in estimative models will be needed to
support planning activities, both at a collection management level and at a later preservation
planning level once a collection has been acquired. In order to support these developments a
greater volume of raw cost data will be required to inform and test new cost models. This
volume of data cannot be supported via the Case Study approach, and the LIFE team would
suggest that a software tool would provide the volume of costing data necessary to provide a
truly accurate predictive model.

Comments: This is a very detailed report and have included a brief summary for those who need to know the essence of the report.

Output -RIOJA -Costs and sustainability: overlay journal model

Title: Repository Interface for Overlaid Journal Archives:costs estimates and sustainability issues

Pages: 4-6
Summary of contents:

dftn: “Overlay journal – For the purposes of this report an overlay journal is defined as a quality-assured journal whose content is deposited to and resides in one or more open access repositories.”

p5-6 review the literature on the idea of an open access overlay or deconstructed journal.

Functions of journal publishing are delineated – any emerging model needs to address these:
“Journals are traditionally held to perform four “first order” functions (Meadows, 1974;
Rowland [2002], Roosendaal and Geurts (1997) as cited by Prosser (2005)):

  • Registration: an author wishes to be acknowledged as the person who carried out a specific piece of research and made a specific discovery
  • Certification: the author’s claims are tested through independent peer review, and it is determined that they are reasonable
  • Awareness: the research is communicated to the author’s peer group
  • Archiving: the research is retained for posterity

To those mentioned above Prosser adds the function of ‘Reward’ to the author.”
“Prosser, David C. (2005) Fulfilling the promise of scholarly communication – a
comparison between old and new access models, in Nielsen, Erland Kolding and Saur,
Klaus G. and Ceynowa, Klaus, Eds. Die innovative Bibliothek : Elmar Mittler zum
65.Geburtstag, pp. 95-106. K G Saur. (Also available at
http://eprints.rclis.org/archive/00003918) (Last accessed 31/07/2008)”

note: The type of overlay journal proposed is one involving original submission to the overlay journal (simultaneous to or concurrent with submission to repository). The issue of overlay journals drawing on work submitted to other journals is not addressed/ in scope.

relevancy to categories
Any component of an emergent infrastructure wanting to be journal-like needs to consider these issues – as such they provide a baseline that RIOJA (and others) are going to address. As the survey results (noted elsewhere) indicate motivating academic researchers to use other forms of publication needs to interact with these issues.

Date Released: July 2008

URI for Output: http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/12562/1/12562.pdf

Output – RIOJA – Final Report: researchers’ views

Title: RIOJA (Repository Interface to Journal Archives) Final Report

Page: 5 (summary), p11 (outputs and results1: overview)
Summary of contents:

p5 “The survey confirmed the everyday importance of the arXiv repository in the working lives of astrophysics researchers. Moreover, the project found that researchers are, in general (and with very little variation between those with different first languages, career lengths and other demographics), sympathetic to the overlay model. Their main concerns about the model were that the long-term accessibility of the research material should be guaranteed – surprising, perhaps, in such a fast-moving, repository-dependent discipline – and that the process of quality certification should be robust. Researchers’ career concerns also
informed their reaction to the overlay model, and it was clear that to attract submissions, an arXiv-overlay journal would need to be able to demonstrate academic acceptability and a substantial readership. All of these concerns are generic issues, which would be faced by any new journal whether or not overlaid on repository-housed content.”

p11 “The supporting survey gave a snapshot of the working practices and attitudes of one, very repository-orientated, research community, based on 683 responses from Astrophysicists. The results confirmed the importance of arXiv to Astrophysics researchers. 93% deposit papers into arXiv; 53% access arXiv daily, and another 24% do so weekly; and after arXiv discovery, only 7% always prefer to seek the final published version of a paper. arXiv use is not to the exclusion of other resources: 65% may use journal Web sites to follow up interesting titles/abstracts, alongside arXiv which is used by 610 (89%) for this purpose. 97% of the respondents publish in refereed journals, at an average of 6.5 papers per researcher per year, in titles whose high impact factor, perceived quality, and updates throughout the refereeing process they consider to be important. They were comfortable with the overlay model: 53% were very supportive, and 35% interested; 80% would referee for an overlay journal; 26% were willing to serve in Editorial capacity; 33% would submit papers without hesitation. Their concerns about a hypothetical arXiv-overlay journal were the quality of the accepted papers, the community standing for the title, the robustness of long-term archiving arrangements, and the quality and speed of of the peer review process: these are concerns which one might imagine could easily apply to any academic journal, regardless of publishing model.”


reflection: it is unclear how many papers go into arxiv without an intended journal? it seems that part of the premise of the way this is pitched is that submission to arXiv in itself makes something worth reading… but the feedback strongly suggests that peer review/ journal quality is key. This may indicate there’s a very strong self – moderation going on – researchers can rely on arXiv copies because ‘no-one’ puts anything in that can’t make the grade… comments elsewhere indicate that papers being put into arXiv are ‘endorsed’ by exisiting ‘senior’ contributors, but judging by these results this ‘endorsement’ is only serving as a stop gap prior to formal peer review.

This survey data directly informs our understanding of one community of researchers around one repository. The repository, arXiv, and community, astrophysics, have been at the forefront of the use of repositories to support scholarly communications. The project’s findings indicate that any new form (or brand) of publication still needs to demonstrate some form of impact factor and stringent quality control process if it is to sucessfully engage researchers.

Date Released: September 2008

URI for Output: http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/12562/1/12562.pdf

Project – SPECTRa-T

Submission, preservation & exposure of Chemistry teaching & research data from theses

Short Project Name: SPECTRa-T

Programme Name: Repositories and Preservation Programme

Strand: Tools and Innovation

JISC Project URI:http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/reppres/tools/spectra.aspx

Project URI: http://www.lib.cam.ac.uk/spectra-t/

Start Date: 2007-04-01

End Date: 2008-03-31

Governance: Repositories and preservation
advisory group

Contact Name and Role: Alan Tonge, Project Manager

Brief project description:

The aims of SPECTRa-T are to investigate the needs of the academic chemistry research community with respect to how data associated with theses may best be managed and to facilitate routine and automatic extraction of domain-specific data, its transformation into metadata and ingest into institutional repositories. SPECTRa-T will realise these aims through the development of automated validation and indexing tools specific to crystallography, computational chemistry and synthetic chemistry, and providing interfaces with Open Standards-compliant repository platforms.

Name of Trawler: Mahendra Mahey

Project – ART

Short Project Name: ART: An ontology-based article preparation tool

Programme Name: Repositories and Preservation Programme

Strand: Tools and Innovation

JISC Project URI: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/programme_rep_pres/tools/art.aspx

Project URI: http://www.aber.ac.uk/compsci/Research/bio/art/

Start Date: 2007-06-01

End Date: 2009-03-31

Governance: Integrated Information Environment Committee (JIIE), Repositories and preservation advisory group

Contact Name and Role: Larisa Soldatova (Project Manager)

Brief project description:

The project’s aim is to develop a tool, ART, based on a generic ontology of experiments in EXPO to assist in:

  • Translating scientific papers into format with an explicit semantics
  • Explicit linking of repository papers to data and metadata
  • Creation of an example intelligent digital repository.

The proposal is to use the semantically rich and the theoretically sound generic EXPO representation of scientific experiments to provide metadata and to annotate papers stored in digital repositories. An ontology-based tool, ART, will be developed to automate the process of translating the papers into the proposed semantic format.

It is anticipated that the project will contribute to the programme by providing an enriched domain independent ontology, and through this ontology, metadata for scientific digital repositories. A practical tool will be developed for paper annotation. Further, an investigation will be undertaken, and a report written of the next logical step for the programme: the addition of innate intelligence to digital repositories. This will enable advanced searching over repositories, text mining, and knowledge discovery.

Name of Trawler: Mahendra Mahey

Project – PRIMO

Practice-as-Research in Music Online

Short Project Name: PRIMO

Programme Name: Repositories and Preservation Programme

Strand: Matching funding for digital repository development

JISC Project URI:http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/reppres/sue/primo.aspx

Project URI: http://music.sas.ac.uk/research-projects/practice-as-research-online.html

Start Date: 2007-03-01

End Date: 2009-02-28

Governance: Repositories and preservation advisory group

Contact Name and Role: Prof Katharine Ellis, Project Manager

Brief project description:

Practice-based research in Music lacks an adequate infrastructure. Where traditional modes of dissemination, for musical scores and for text-based research, are well developed, there is no infrastructure suitable for research involving musical practice. Unless it is commercially viable enough to be marketed on disc or DVD, it remains ephemeral, and the research processes involved in production are not always apparent from the end result. PRIMO’s aim is to help redress that situation by providing researchers with a new kind of platform for sonic-based research which allows an insight into process, contextualises the end result, and opens up a new kind of dialogue among researchers.

Name of Trawler: Mahendra Mahey


  1. A working repository suitable for a medium-sized multimedia collection

Available at: http://primo.sas.ac.uk/eprints/

  1. A MCPS-PRS licence to cover all in-copyright music deposited in the repository
  2. Guidance on IPR issues and technical issues for depositors


  1. A new means of capturing and disseminating what was once an ephemeral event
  2. A new means for students to gain insights into a developing area of research that intersects with their daily creative practice
  3. New solutions to complex problems of intellectual property rights and management