Output – OJIMS – Overlay Journal – The Journal of Meteorological Data

Output Name: Output – OJIMS – Overlay Journal – The Journal of Meteorological Data

Title: Overlay Journal – The Journal of Meteorological Data

Date Released:

URI for Output:http://zonda3.badc.rl.ac.uk/index.php/MetData

Summary of contents: Overlay journal proof of concept demonstration for data journal.

Additional information:


Project – OARS

Project Name:Open Access Repository System for Forced Migration Online (OARS)

Short Project Name: (OARS)

Programme Name: Repositories and Preservation

Strand: SUE

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

Project URI: http://oars.forcedmigration.org/

Start Date: 1 September 2007

End Date: February 2009

Governance: JISC IEE

Contact Name and Role: Mike Cave (Project Manager) Refugee Studies Centre

Brief project description:

‘This project will migrate a fragmented digital repository of scholarly resources, currently managed by two proprietary software systems, to a single open source platform. This repository, based at the Refugee Studies Centre, University of Oxford, is the largest in the world on its subject area of forced migration. It is a unique, widely used and constantly expanding collection of resources. The enhancement of this repository will make it more manageable for those maintaining it, and also make it globally interoperable with other open systems, as well as with the University of Oxford’s institutional repository.’

Name of Trawler: Mahendra Mahey

Outputs: (just link to individual output postings) as a bulleted list:

  • Single management/search interface across Forced Migration Online (FMO)
  • Interoperability between the FMO repository and other institutional repositories and search services
  • Potential to make FMO’s grey literature collection available via the University’s online Library Catalogue
  • Open source management/search software built on Fedora

Output – ART – An ontology methodology and CISP the proposed Core Information about Scientific Papers

Output Name: Output – ART – An ontology methodology and CISP (Core Information about Scientific Papers)

Title: An ontology methodology and CISP the proposed Core Information about Scientific Papers
Number of pages or page numbers: 26 pages

Date Released: December 2007

URI for Output:  http://www.aber.ac.uk/compsci/Research/bio/art/publications/ReportCISPshort.pdf

Summary of contents:

This report contains details about CISP, the results from the online survey as well as the benefits of assuming an ontology methodology when producing meta-data.

This report has two main goals:

  • To introduce a new formalism for the description of scientific papers CISP (the Core Information about Scientific Papers);
  • Attract more attention to ontologies as a valuable methodology for developing metadata.

The report demonstrates the  advantages of an ontology methodology for developing metadata by applying it to the analysis of the Dublin Core metadata (DC). An ontology approach allows detecting potential weaknesses in the representation of the DC terms. Such weaknesses include overlap in the semantic meaning between the terms, logically incoherent representation of temporal and spatial relations as well as incoherence in the representation of content. An ontology can also suggest improvements to the DC.
The report describes an ontology methodology to construct CISP metadata about the content of papers. It makes use of an ontology of experiments EXPO proposed at the University of Wales, Aberystwyth as a core ontology, and DOLCE (a Descriptive Ontology for Linguistic and Cognitive Engineering) developed at the Laboratory for Applied Ontology, the Institute of Cognitive Science and Technology, Italy as an upper level ontology.
CISP is a defined set of leaf classes from these ontologies. It includes such key classes as <Goal of investigation>, <Object of investigation>, <Research method>, <Result>, <Conclusion>.

CISP can be used to generate abstracts and summaries of papers and also to facilitate storage and retrieval of information. CISP will constitute the basis for the ART tool. The latter is an authoring tool for the semantic annotation of papers stored in digital repositories. ART is intended for the semi-automatic annotation of data and metadata describing the scientific investigation represented in a research paper. ART will also be able to aid in the expression of research results directly in both a human and machine readable format, through the composition of text using ontology-based templates and stored typical key phrases. .
To find out more about ontology methodology refer to chapters 2 and 3 .
To learn about the proposed CISP metadata you can start reading from chapter 4 onwards.

Output – ART – Semantic Annotation of Papers: Interface & ENrichment Tool (SAPIENT)

Output Name:  Output – ART – Semantic Annotation of Papers: Interface & ENrichment Tool (SAPIENT)

Title: Semantic Annotation of Papers: Interface & ENrichment Tool (SAPIENT)
Date Released: 13 October 2008

URI for Output:  http://www.aber.ac.uk/compsci/Research/bio/art/sapient/

Summary of contents:

The first release of SAPIENT, the ART Tool for the annotation of general scientific papers has been circulated to annotators.

Output – LIFE2 – Economic evaluation of LIFE methodology

Output Name: Output – LIFE2 – Economic evaluation of LIFE methodology

Title: Economic evaluation of LIFE methodology
Number of pages or page numbers: 26 pages

Date Released:

URI for Output: http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/7684

Summary of contents: Validation of the economic modelling and methodology for the Lifecycle and Generic Preservation formulae developed in Phase 1 of the LIFE project, with technical and presentational development of the models. Cloudlake Consulting Oy carried out this evaluation.  The major conclusions are on page 16:

All in all there seem to be two major application areas for the LIFE models:

  • Institutional repositories, which span a range of object types that are likely to populate the IR of a particular university.
  • Specialised collections of national libraries and similar organisations, which have a national and sometimes legal obligation to long-term archiving.
In the latter case it seems more sensible to apply the model to individual collections than to
the totality of objects stored in say a national library.
In such a case it is important for a national library, which works within budget restrictions, to be able to compare the long term preservation costs of different collections, in order to make informed priority decisions. This is in contrast with the Institutional Repository Case.
An important point which could have far-reaching consequences for the parameters of the
model is how institutional repositories (which are numerous) are going to solve the
preservation management issue. In contrast to national institutions such as the British Library,
universities would gain very obvious benefits from sharing resources for preservation, for
instance via consortia, outsourcing, using external service providers etc. A good case is for instance the technology watch function included in the model. One can argue if there is a need for every university to
duplicate this effort. A more sensible approach would be for certain service providers to
assume the responsibility for issuing guidelines.

Additional information:


Output – Life2 – Spreadsheet for SHERPA DP Case Study

Output Name: Output – Life2 – Spreadsheet for SHERPA DP Case Study

Title: Spreadsheet for SHERPA DP Case Study
Number of pages or page numbers: 4 tabs

Date Released:27 November 2008

URI for Output: http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/9062/3/9062.xls

Summary of contents:This spreadsheet contains the exact costings for the SHERPA DP Case Study.  The  Spreadsheet has 4 tabs

Tab1 – Introduction

Tab2 – Life Cycle Processes and Costs

Tab3 – Acoronyms and staff costs

Tab4  – Summary

Additional information:    Useful spreadsheet containing costings.

Output – RIOJA – Survey: publish where?

Title: RIOJA (Repository Interface to Journal Archives): results from an online questionnaire survey

Page: 33

Summary of contents:

The 683 astrophysics researchers responding to the survey were asked about factors that would encourage them to publish in an overlay journal. “In line with responses discussed in previous sections (e.g.,Table 2), the scientists emphasised once again that the most important factor that would encourage them to publish in any journal is the quality of the other submitted papers (526 people, 77% of base=683). This result could be interpreted as directly associated with the following two factors: the transparency of the peer review process (410 people, 60% of base=683) and next the reputation of the editor/editorial board (386 people, 57%, Figure 19). Response by subject area and role of the respondents, though, clearly puts the emphasis on the role, integrity and experience of the editorial board (Table 11, Table 12). In comments, the respondents noted several other factors that would encourage them to publish in an overlay journal. Those listed included references to the impact factor of the journal, the acceptance of the journal by the community, and acquiring a reputation as a quality, scientific publication with increased readership and breadth of coverage. The quality of the refereeing and some guarantee of open access and low charges were also mentioned (comments in full are listed in Appendix B, on page 81).”


This survey provides an indication of what factors would encourage the surveyed of researchers to publish in overlay journals. The finding provides evidence that any new form of scholarly communation still has to fulfill the functions that existing channels provide.

Date Released: February 2008

URI for Output: http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/5102/1/RIOJA_questionnaire_survey_report_final.pdf

Output – RIOJA – Survey: who pays?

Title: RIOJA (Repository Interface to Journal Archives): results from an online questionnaire survey

Page: 33
Summary of contents:
The 683 astrophysics researchers responding to the survey were asked about paying for the costs associated with running an overlay journal.

“When asked where the funding to meet those costs should come from, the respondents preferred to select research funders (485 people, 71% of base=683), library subscriptions (432 people, 63%) and sponsorship, for example by a Learned Society (350 people, 51%). A model requiring an author to pay from research funds either on acceptance (218 people) or on submission (47 people) of a paper was endorsed. Other sources mentioned in comments included: personal donations, professional association contributions, commercial and/or not-for-profit organisations, advertisements, subscriptions and even models of having authors pay partially on submission and partially acceptance. Although the general trend picked out research funders, responses from different subject groups tended to pick out library subscriptions (Table 9).”

This survey provides an indication of how a number of researchers feel journals/ innovations in scholarly communication should be funded (corresponding infrastructure costs are presumably part of this general cost).

Date Released: February 2008

URI for Output: http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/5102/1/RIOJA_questionnaire_survey_report_final.pdf

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 -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