1. Scholarly Communications in an Electronic Age Radiology Research Review 2004 Bradley Hemminger, PhD Assistant Professor School of Information and Library Science University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill bmh@ils.unc.edu

2. Public Storehouse of Knowledge Multiple open digital archives, holding all the world’s knowledge. A single logical universal archive, created by dynamic federation of all public archives. Contains everything: archive holds grey literature (publicly deposited) and gold literature (refereed articles). No barriers to access. Knowledge is freely available to anyone, any time, anywhere. Access to information and knowledge correlates to society’s quality of life.

3. Virginia Tech ETD arXix University of California Electronic Repository psycprints UNC Chapel Hill Harvester (NeoRef)NeoRef

4. NeoRef Model All content and metadata are author contributed to a public OAI archive (author retains ownership). OAI archives have automated or manual moderator to filter out “junk”. Everything--articles, reviews, comments, indexings, images, genetic sequences, etc., are stored as digital content items on archive using the same mechanism. All materials universally available via search engines that harvest metadata from OAI archives. Retrieval is through Google like one stop shopping search interface, with dynamic filtering based on metadata and reviews to limit hits to manageable number to review.

5. Scholarly Communications Process Today’s Example Idea V1 Present to colleagues V2 Present at conference V3 Submit to journal V4 Referees Revision for journal V5 Journal Final Revision V6 Revision to update analysis V7 Revision to include additional new results V8

6. Scholarly Communications Process: What’s Captured Today Journal Final Revision V6 Only one version is captured, and the same community then pays to buy back access to article

7. Change the Process! Think of scholarly communication as continuous process instead of single product (journal publication). Capture significant changes/versions of a work. Include all criticisms and comments about work (all stages). Support normal scholarly discourse, including authors responses as well as others comments. Add reviewer’s quantitative rating of material to allow better filtering based on absolute quality metric during retrieval. Add machine (automated) reviews.

8. Can we save the Gold and Grey? Idea V1 Present to colleagues V2 Present at conference V3 Submit to journal V4 Referees Revision for journal V5 Journal Final Revision V6 Revision to correct analysis V7 Revision to include additional new results V8 formulatediscussiondiscussion, revision Two peer reviews Author revision Criticisms, new thoughts, revision new results, revision comments Copyproofing

9. Selected Technical Challenges Self Contribution (SILS ETDs)SILS ETDs –Author indexed –Author supplied metadata (Dublin Core) as part of authoring process (i.e. not separate after the fact). –Automatic extraction of metadata from document. –Archive file(s) must be in standard open format NeoRef: PDF/A with DC elements in tags for automatic extraction of metadata. Expect migration to XML as we continue to divorce content from presentation.

10. Challenges Searching –DC metadata to allow coarse discovery. –Specialized searching within domain after locating material (based on metadata field indicating appropriate search interface). –Interactive searching to allow refinement to most desirable set within a few seconds. Use rankings and reviews (Facultyof1000), citations (CiteSeer), usage (web page hits) to help filter searchFacultyof1000CiteSeer –Google searching on full text (covers all materials, but generates large number of hits, lower specificity). –Automated agents to bring material of interest to your attention Example: article scores > 7.0, refereed, citation count above 10, type=research article, search terms = schizophrenia, geneX)

11. Challenges Knowledge Representation –Extend DC to include “concepts” and “claims” (ScholOnto), with ontology to define framework of relationships between concepts; this allows a higher level of searching compared to simple indexing.ScholOnto –Make OAI and DC representation more robust by always supporting DOI to uniquely identify materials. –Support unique identification of authors as well. –Making all content items submitted permanent –Use DC fields to link related items, new version of paper to old version.

12. Challenges Rights Administration –Support mechanisms to allow authors to set permissions as they desire, and enforce this. –NeoRef supports Creative Commons through DC rights element. –OAI recent supported rights administration using Creative Commons (and looking at how to handle collections etc where DC rights element may be insufficient).

13. Related work at UNC Center for Research and Development of Digital Libraries CRADLECRADLE Electronic Theses and Dissertations (UNC ETDs, SILS Master Papers)UNC ETDsSILS Master Papers NeoRef

14. The End

15. What about Peer Review? The ALPSP survey was intended to discover the views of academics, both as authors and as readers. Some 14,000 scholars were contacted across all disciplines and all parts of the world, and with almost 9% responding. Alma Swan and Sheridan Brown. Authors and Electronic Publishing: The ALPSP Research Study on Authors' and Readers’ Views of Electronic Research Communication. (West Sussex, UK: The Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers, 2002 ). http://www.alpsp.org/pub5.htm

16. Importance of journal features

17. Importance of the peer review process

18. Peer Review Options Review based –Expert peer review (status quo) –Certified expert peer review –Open peer review BMJ, BioMedBMJ –Open public comment review psycprintspsycprints –Computer peer reviewComputer peer review Community –Respected or similar people rankings –Community rankings (Amazon for books) Coarse Categorization –Multi-tier (grey/gold, or UCB’s 4 level journal offering) –Moderator (current arXiv)arXiv –No review (old arXiv, problematic) Usage based –Citation-based (CiteSeer)CiteSeer –Usage counts (CiteSeer) ExampleCiteSeerExample –Quantity of discussion threads (email/newsgroups/weblogs)

19. Big Picture Changes What is worth paying for? –Quality review (Faculty of 1000)Faculty of 1000 –Proofing, citation linking, professional presentation (CiteSeer, Cite-base)CiteSeerCite-base –Marketing –Archival (JStor)JStor Who hosts material? –Society (arXiv)arXiv –Commerical Publishers (Elesiever,BioMedCentral)BioMedCentral –University Library (MIT DSpace)DSpace

20. How Peer Review might work… Author submits article to her institution’s open archive (DOI uncch:sils/0007548.pdf). Author “submits” to journal EMEDICINE by providing DOI of article. Journal Editor schedules two reviewers. Reviewers review article, and submit their reviews (cornell:0191.pdf, ucb:0084.pdf). Author revises, and places revised article (DOI uncch:sils/0007957.pdf) on archive, and submits this final version to EMEDICINE. Journal submits review (EMED:0023424.pdf) which is final statement from journal (editor), and indicates acceptance of uncch:sils/0007957.pdf as EMED article).

21. Importance of publishers’ roles FactorResponses as authorsResponses as readers Peer review8180 Gathering articles together to enable browsing of content 6449 Selection of relevant and quality-controlled content 7154 Content editing and improvement of articles 6039 Language or copy editing5034 Checking of citations/adding links 4628 Marketing (maximising visibility of journal) 4420

22. Survey (Project Romeo)Project Romeo Authors want quick and convenient dissemination of their work –Free access to others papers –Not overly concerned (or aware) of copyright issues unless it stops them from freely distributing their work or accessing others.

23. Survey (Zhang 1999) Important to authors are –Permanence and Quality of electronically survey archived resources –Better (faster, more accurate) searching capabilities, i.e. using metadata instead of just search engines.

24. Survey (Rowland) 16% said that the referees would no longer be anonymous 27% said that traditional peer review would be supplemented by post- publication commentary 45% expected to see some changes in the peer-review system within the next five years Fytton Rowland, “The Peer-Review Process,” Learned Publishing 15 no. 4 (October 2002): 247-258. Report version: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/rowland.pdfhttp://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/rowland.pdf

25. Extra Material….

26. Additional Challenges Archive Hosting –Off the shelf computer system with lots of disk space and public domain archiving application (DSpace, Eprints). –Who maintains the material? {Library (MIT DSpace), Grad School, University (California), Publisher (PLoS, BioMedCentral), Society (arXiv)} DSpaceCaliforniaPLoSBioMedCentralarXiv –Where are comments and reviews held (after the fact content items that reference original)?

27. Challenges Make content universally available –Export OAI items so they can be harvested –Have public domain quality harvesters that support quick and simple searching (i.e. Google for metadata).

28. Challenges Peer Review –Make more public. Make available comments on articles. –Add quantitative scoring as well as qualitative.

29. Overview of Peer Review Review Peer, Open, Machine Accept, reject, revise with respect to XYZ standards Comments to Author Published Article Article submitted Send elsewhere Filter Reject Quantitative Grade Score (1-10) Qualitative Quantitative

30. General Review Model Parallels In general, you have sample (material) which is judged/scored quantitatively and qualitatively by an identified observer with respect to some standard.

31. NeoRef for Movies, Products,… The same process used by NeoRef to support Scholarly Communication could be used for most any communication of informaiton purpose. All that is required is storage of Digital Content Items, and linking of reviews, comments, etc to them. DocSouth: self cataloged and indexed items are Grey; librarian/archivist cataloged and indexed items are Gold. Movies: Grey is everyone’s reviews; Gold is Siskel and Ebert reviews. Consumer Products: product reviews by Consumer Reports (gold), user reviews (grey).

32. Importance of future dissemination channels Dissemination methodVery important plus important categories Ranking Traditional print + electronic journal911 Discipline-based electronic reprint archive782 Traditional print journal773 Traditional electronic-only journal664 Institution-based electronic reprint archive605 New forms of electronic-only journal496 Discipline-based electronic preprint archive 447 Institution-based electronic preprint archive 338