Panayiota Polydoratou Martin Moyle e-mail: [email protected]

UCL LIBRARY SERVICES

Repository Interface for Overlaid Journal Archives (RIOJA): a feasibility study reporting the views of scientists in astrophysics and cosmology

Panayiota Polydoratou

Martin Moyle

e-mail: [email protected]


Outline of the presentation

RIOJA – some project infoOverlay journal model – context & definition

attemptRIOJA aims and methodsQuestionnaire survey - some preliminary resultsObservations and future work


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 1-year partnership Researchers from UCL, Cambridge, Glasgow and Imperial UCL Library Services Technical staff from Cornell University

Astrophysics and Cosmology our subject domain

RIOJA – project info


RIOJA – the context

Impetus came from academic researchers in Astrophysics and Cosmology

Perceptions:arXiv subject repository is highly important journals are little-usedand why do subscriptions cost so much?adding a quality stamp to arXiv deposits would cut out the

need for formal publication in journals


"Journals are already redundant as a way of distributing research results [in this discipline]"

"How can it cost this much to publish papers in journals?" "Ultimately a 'journal' should just be a quality mark that

appears with a particular online version of an article in an online repository"

Although... need for Editors (paid?)

career concerns (funders, RAE, promotion boards)

there must be some costs we haven't thought of...?

"the hard part will be getting people involved – as authors, referees and editors – not the technical issues"

(All quotations taken from the CosmoCoffee bulletin board, 2005)


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-assuredOpen accessSustainable


RIOJA - aims...

Build the RIOJA toolkit A set of APIs

some for implementation by a repository, some by a journal

some required (eg author validation, metadata extraction); others optional (eg trackback support)

Construct a demonstrator overlay journalan implementation of the RIOJA toolkit

arXiv repository PKP journal software


RIOJA – aims…

Recommend a Digital Preservation strategy for content accepted by an arXiv-overlay journal

Supported by life-cycle costing techniques developed by the BL/UCL LIFE Project (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ls/life)

SustainabilityEstimate the running costs for an arXiv-overlay journalIdentify and appraise cost-recovery options for an

arXiv-overlay journal


RIOJA - methods

Questionnaire survey to 4,000+ researchers Selected from top 100 universities and other institutions (THES

World Rankings 2006), arXiv and other domain specific discussion lists

Interviews with editorial boards and publishers What does this community really want from a journal?

– Which "value-added" publisher services are really valued? – Which desirable functions are missing?

What factors are critical to the successful academic take-up of an arXiv-overlay journal?


Questionnaire survey – Some administrative info

Survey run between June 8th - July 15th, 2007 Scientists in fields astrophysics and cosmology –

hazy boundariesTop - 100 academic institutions in scienceTop - 15 non academic institutions in scienceCosmocoffee subscribers


Questionnaire survey – Some demographic characteristics

Contacted 4012 scientists in astrophysics and cosmology Response from 683 (17% response rate) A spread of response by role, 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


Response by role of the respondents

2%

7%

12%

20%

12%

12%

9%

4%

24%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

N/R

Other

Research Associate/Research Assistant

Research Fellow

Senior Research Fellow

Lecturer/Assistant Professor

Senior Lecturer/Associate Professor

Reader

Professor/Full Professor


Responsibilities of the respondents

1%

4%

38%

90%

0%

1%

0%

21%

4%

6%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

N/R

Other (please specify)

Teaching

Research

Publisher - University press

Publisher - not for profit

Publisher - commercial

Head of research unit/group

Head of department

Editor/member of editorial board


Questionnaire survey – Research and publication

97% write their research in the form of papers for peer reviewed journals

However, funding processes and RAE influence publication

3 most preferred journals for publication in top -10 – ISI impact factor


Forms of resarch outputs

1% 3%

97%

29%

9%1% 1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Book(s) Chapter(s) inbook(s)

Papers forsubmission topeer reviewed

journals

Papersincluded inconference

proceedings

Workshoppapers

Other (pleasespecify)

N/R


Q8 In which of the following peer reviewed journals have you published your papers?

Base: 683 %

Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics

34 5

Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences

0 0

Astronomical Journal 171 25 Astronomy and Astrophysics 331 48.5 Astronomy and Astrophysics Review 4 0.6 Astrophysical Journal 476 69.7 Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 108 15.8 Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics

66 9.7

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 382 55.9 Nature 137 20.1 New Journal of Physics 7 1 Physical Review D 195 28.6 Physical Review Letters 128 18.7 Science 48 7 Other (please specify) 126 18.4 N/R 15 2.2


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


Keeping up to date

15%

80%

17%24%

58%

22%13%

28%

7% 6% 1%0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Perceived quality of the journal by the scientific community

97.3

± 1.2

High journal impact factor

88.9 ±

2.4

Being kept up-to-date during the refereeing process

81.6

± 3

Other factors (please specify)

75.3 ±

9.4 Inclusion in indexing/abstracting services (e.g. ISI Science Citation Index)

67.9

±

3.6

Reputation of the editor/editorial board

66.2

± 3.6

Journals that do not charge authors for publication

64.5

± 3.6

Open Access Journals (journals whose content is openly and freely available)

52.8

± 3.8

Low or no subscription costs

33.9 ±

3.6

Journals which publish a print version

29.8

± 3.5

Journals published by my professional society

26.9

± 3.4

Journals which have a high rate of rejection of papers

21.1

± 3.1

Key: Very

unimportant Fairly

unimportant Neither

Fairly important

Very important

Statement Rating % agree


Table 1. Distribution of money over several journal functions

None 1 2 3 4 5 Not sure

Paying scientific editors 23 23 60 240 141 15 21 Paying copy editors 8 28 73 256 134 6 15 Maintenance of journal software

4 20 73 238 147 9 30

Journal website 5 28 79 225 149 20 15 Online archive of journal's own back issues

9 27 52 202 189 18 19

Production of paper version

138 101 125 107 29 4 14

Extra features such as storage of associated data

30 63 105 182 100 6 26

Publisher profits 142 122 138 91 9 0 19 Paying referees 249 70 70 85 22 8 18 Other 3 1 1 1 3 2 3


Funding sources for journals' functions

Research funders

(Councils, government, etc.)

, 388 Sponsorship (e.g. Learned Society),

282

Other , 11

N/R, 15

Library subscriptions,

337

Author pays on submission (e.g. using research

funds), 34

Author pays on acceptance (e.g. using research

funds), 172


Some observations

Important factors Scientific community acceptance

Quality assurancePeer review process

Sustainability and long term archiving

Not so important factors Print version of journal Subscription cost Journal endorsed by the professional society


Future work

Entering the second phase of community surveys

Interviews with members of editorial boards/publishers Costs associated with publishing processes Is there a business model? More work and testing on the technical side as APIs are now

implemented on the arXiv Start planning the RIOJA conference


Further information

Project team: [email protected] Web site: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ls/rioja


Thank you!


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.html

Smith, J W T. (1999). The deconstructed journal: a new model for academic publishing. Learned Publishing, Vol. 12 (2), pp. 79-91

Panayiota Polydoratou Martin Moyle e-mail: [email protected]

Documents

Transcript of Panayiota Polydoratou Martin Moyle e-mail: [email protected]