1 / 32

Outline

Versions of academic papers and open access : attitudes and current practice among economics researchers Frances Shipsey, VERSIONS Project, Library, London School of Economics and Political Science Open Scholarship Conference, University of Glasgow, 20 October 2006. Outline.

vladimir-dejesus
Download Presentation

Outline

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Versions of academic papers and open access : attitudes and current practice among economics researchers Frances Shipsey, VERSIONS Project, Library, London School of Economics and Political Science Open Scholarship Conference, University of Glasgow, 20 October 2006

  2. Outline • The versions problem and an illustration • Recent projects and initiatives addressing versions • Some results from the VERSIONS Project user requirements study • Examples of good practice

  3. What questions are there relating to versions? • Identity • Provenance • Trust • Discovery • User needs – best version(s) • IPR • and more …

  4. ‘The processes of authorship, which often involve a series of drafts that are circulated to various people, produce different versions which in an electronic environment can easily go into broad circulation; if each draft is not carefully labeled and dated it is difficult to tell which draft one is looking at or whether one has the “final” version of a work.’ Clifford Lynch, “Accessibility and Integrity of Networked Information Collections”, Office of Technology Assessment, Congress of the United States, August 1993, p68. http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS30119

  5. Reproduced by permission of the National Library of Ireland and X Communications

  6. FRBR – a hierarchical model • Work – expression – manifestation - item • ‘On a practical level, the degree to which bibliographic distinctions are made between variant expressions of a work will depend to some extent on the nature of the work itself, and on the anticipated needs of users.’ Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records: Final Report. IFLA Study Group on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records. Approved by the Standing Committee of the IFLA Section on Cataloguing. K.G.Saur, München 1998 UBCIM Publications – New Series Vol 19. http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.pdf

  7. RIVER – Scoping Study on Repository Version Identification (RIVER) • Rightscom Ltd and partners London School of Economics and Political Science Library, University of Oxford Computing Services, March 2006. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/RIVER%20Final%20Report.pdf • Defined two broad classes of requirement for version identification: • Collocation • Disambiguation • ‘Identifying that two digital objects which happen to share certain attributes […] have no contextually meaningful relationship’ • ‘Understanding the meaning of the relationship between two digital objects where one exists [without inspecting and comparing the objects themselves]’

  8. JISC Eprints Application Profile Working Group • Carried out within JISC Digital Repositories Programme • Approach based on FRBR and the DCMI Abstract Model • Provides more detail and structure than simple Dublin Core • Deals with versions very well • Work carried out June-August 2006 http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/repositories/digirep/index/Eprints_Application_Profile

  9. NISO/ALPSP Working Group on Versions of Journal Articles • Publisher-led group, with larger review group made up of publishers, librarians and other stakeholders • Draft documents including Terms and Definitions for versions (March 2006) • Author’s Original • Accepted Manuscript • Proof • Version of Record • Updated Version of Record http://www.niso.org/committees/Journal_versioning/JournalVer_comm.html

  10. The VERSIONS Project • VERSIONS : Versions of Eprints – user Requirements Study and Investigation of the Need for Standards • Funded by the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) under the Digital Repositories Programme • London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) - lead partner • Nereus – consortium of European research libraries specialising in economics – associate partner • Runs from July 2005 to February 2007 • www.lse.ac.uk/versions

  11. The Library of the London School of Economics - www.lse.ac.uk/library

  12. Nereus – a network of European economics research libraries www.nereus4economics.info

  13. Economists Online – a pilot search service - http://nereus.uvt.nl/eo

  14. Focus on economics • Known preprint culture – working papers and use of RePEc archive • Sue Sparks report on disciplinary differences: • ‘What is the single most essential resource you use, the one that you would be lost without?’ Economists responded: • 18.2% preprints • 9.1% postprints • 54.5% journal articles • 18.2% datasets Sue Sparks. JISC Disciplinary Differences Report. Rightscom Ltd, August 2005. Appendix C, Table 43. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/Disciplinary%20Differences%20and%20Needs.doc

  15. Versions Project – user requirements study 2006 • Online survey ‘Versions of academic papers online - the experience of authors and readers’, conducted May-July 2006 • 464 responses from academic researchers • 76% of researcher respondents from economics and econometrics • 24% professors, 33% lecturer/associate professors, 15% post-doc researchers, 23% research students • Good geographic spread of responses • 133 responses from stakeholders – separate survey

  16. Respondents by subject discipline

  17. VERSIONS Survey researcher respondents • Research active – 50% wrote 4 or more papers in past 2 years • Very active in disseminating through different research outputs, eg working papers, conference papers/presentations, book chapters, journal articles) – 59% typically produce 4 or more different types of research output from a research project, 33% produce 5 or more types of output • Wide range of dissemination channels used – personal or institutional website, RePEc, SSRN, etc • Create and keep many personal copies of revisions

  18. Do authors have the ‘final author version’?

  19. Depositing final author version if invited Key Perspectives survey of researchers in 2005 asked about author intentions regarding mandatory deposit: 81% said they would comply willingly. Alma Swan and Sheridan Brown. Open Access Self-Archiving: An Author Study (Sponsored by JISC). Key Perspectives, 2005.

  20. Attitudes towards providing final author versions

  21. Multiple versions – experience of readers

  22. Citing versions

  23. Identifying versions – researchers’ priorities

  24. How are versions handled in OA repositories?

  25. ArXiv – collocation and disambiguation

  26. CCLRC - ePubs repository – collocation and disambiguation

  27. EPrints repositories – latest version http://cogprints.org/615/

  28. Google Scholar - collocation

  29. What is needed? • Improved metadata allowing for relationships and links to be established – Eprints Application Profile, FRBR • Comparing content of versions – open formats, eg XML • Clear identification of publisher version and differentiation between other versions • Repository software should implement version control mechanisms (Fedora already includes this) • Author awareness about version management – institutional support for management of authoring process, through version control systems, eg Subversion, CVS • More versioning information in the digital object itself

  30. www.lse.ac.uk/versions Frances Shipsey: f.m.shipsey@lse.ac.uk

More Related