1、 NISO-RP-8-2008 Journal Article Versions (JAV): Recommendations of the NISO/ALPSP JAV Technical Working Group April 2008 A Recommended Practice of the National Information Standards Organization in partnership with the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers Prepared by the NISO/A
2、LPSP Journal Article Versions (JAV) Technical Working Group 2008 NISO About NISO Recommended Practices A NISO Recommended Practice is a recommended “best practice” or “guideline” for methods, materials, or practices in order to give guidance to the user. Such documents usually represent a leading ed
3、ge, exceptional model, or proven industry practice. All elements of Recommended Practices are discretionary and may be used as stated or modified by the user to meet specific needs. This recommended practice may be revised or withdrawn at any time. For current information on the status of this publi
4、cation contact the NISO office or visit the NISO website (www.niso.org). Published by National Information Standards Organization (NISO) One North Charles Street, Suite 1905 Baltimore, MD 21201 www.niso.org Copyright 2008 by the National Information Standards Organization All rights reserved under I
5、nternational and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. For noncommercial purposes only, this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior permission in writing from the publisher, provided it is reproduced accurately, the source of the material is identified,
6、and the NISO copyright status is acknowledged. All inquires regarding translations into other languages or commercial reproduction or distribution should be addressed to: NISO, One North Charles Street, Suite 1905, Baltimore, MD 21201. Printed in the United States of America ISBN (10): 1-880124-79-3
7、 ISBN (13): 978-1-880124-79-6 Journal Article Versions (JAV): Recommendations of the NISO/ALPSP JAV Technical Working Group 2008 NISO i Table of Contents Participants . ii Introduction iv Background and Rationale vii Recommended Terms and Definitions for Journal Article Versions1 Authors Original1 S
8、ubmitted Manuscript Under Review 1 Accepted Manuscript.2 Proof3 Version of Record3 Corrected Version of Record.4 Enhanced Version of Record 4 Appendix 1: Graphical Representation of Journal Article Versions and Relationships with Formal and Gray Literature; Assumptions, Primary Challenges, and Best
9、Practices5 Appendix 2: Use Cases 7 Appendix 3: Comments from JAV Review Group on Recommendations .15 Journal Article Versions (JAV): Recommendations of the NISO/ALPSP JAV Technical Working Group 2008 NISO ii Participants NISO/ALPSP JAV Technical Working Group Members The following individuals served
10、 on the NISO/ALPSP Journal Article Versions (JAV) Technical Working Group, which developed and approved this Recommended Practice. No endorsement by organizational affiliations is implied. Beverley Acreman Taylor and Francis John Ober California Digital Library (CDL) Claire Bird Oxford University Pr
11、ess Evan Owens Portico Catherine Jones STFC (formerly CCLRC) T. Scott Plutchak University of Alabama at Birmingham Peter McCracken Serials Solutions Bernie Rous (Interim Chair) ACM Cliff Morgan (Chair) John Wiley libraries want to offer “appropriate copies” to different users; readers need to know w
12、hat has been peer reviewed; and authors may wish to update their work and ensure that the latest version is used. In September 2005, NISO (the National Information Standards Organization) launched a partnership with ALPSP (the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers) to bring toge
13、ther experts from the publishing, library, library systems, and user communities to examine the problems associated with the proliferation of different article versions. A Technical Working Group produced the recommendations in this report, with feedback and advice provided by a wider Review Group (
14、members are listed above). The recommendations have been agreed by all members of the Technical Working Group. The Review Group provided many points of feedback, advice, and criticism. This process was very valuable and led to improvements throughout the document. It was not possible to obtain a con
15、sensus from all members on all issues. However, all the proposals, comments, and responses are available to read on the NISO website and the comments received during the formal review period are incorporated here in Appendix 3 together with the responses to them. The Technical Working Group created
16、use cases to explore the lifecycle of journal articles, starting from a base case that describes a typical interaction between author, institutional repository, and publisher. Analyzing these led us to identify common lifecycle stages, the dimensions that describe the evolution of articles, and poss
17、ible attributes of each instance of an article version. Considering attributes helped us to agree upon the most important variables for describing versions. Ownership, bibliographic context, identifiers (e.g., DOI), relationships, fixity, and peer review are explicitly stated in the terms and defini
18、tions that we recommend. They can be described by the article version names and some are already covered by standard metadata elements (e.g., bibliographic reference, date, DOI). Other variables describe digital copies or variants, but are less closely related to the academic content of the article:
19、 visibility (limited, general), version status (known/unknown), source (different websites), scope (text, fully-featured, resolution of images, etc.), delivery context, and format (PDF, HTML, etc.). These are important factors and could be described in article metadata; however, in most cases it is
20、Journal Article Versions (JAV): Recommendations of the NISO/ALPSP JAV Technical Working Group 2008 NISO v possible to distinguish properties inherent to the article version and properties derived from the delivery system. Our focus has been to describe which version of the intellectual content of th
21、e article a reader has encountered. These variables led us to identify important dimensions for an article version: Time: from first draft to latest version Added value: from rough draft to polished publication Manifestation/Rendition: different document formats and layouts Siblings: multiple mappin
22、gs between technical reports, conference papers, lectures, journal articles, review articles, etc. Stakeholders: author, editor, referee, publisher, librarian, reader, funder Manifestation was largely excluded from the nomenclature as being too dependent upon technology changes and the creator or us
23、ers computer systems (though it is relevant for describing our Enhanced Version of Record). Siblings were discussed at length and eventually excluded, as the relationships are complex and conventions vary considerably between disciplines. Our recommendations could be used to describe, for example, a
24、 technical report validated by a funding agency and published in an institutional repository, but we stuck strictly to our brief of considering only journal articles as a first goal. The variables, dimensions, and use cases reveal the difficulty of describing all possible lifecycle stages in clear t
25、erminology. However, the vast majority of journal articles do pass through the same milestones and lie within a limited range of use cases. This remains true even though different users will value different versions for different purposes. From these common milestones we have produced six terms to d
26、escribe journal article versions. The variety of activity illustrated in the 26 use cases (Appendix 2) shows just how much can be described by these high-level semantic terms. We have focused on changes to content, the formal social process of validation, and the ways in which journal articles are u
27、sed. We have also noted the tradition that journal articles record the “minutes of science” and are intended as a fixed record of a body of work at a moment in time chosen by the scholar. This leads us to the Version of Record as a useful definition for formalizing academic achievement, distributing
28、 authoritative information, and building upon the established knowledge in a field. In line with the JAV Technical Working Groups charge, the group submits the following: Background and Rationale: a narrative that explains the background to our project and the rationale for our recommended terms and
29、 definitions Recommended Terms and Definitions for Journal Article Versions Appendix 1 Graphical Representation of Journal Article Versions and Relationships with Formal and Gray Literature; Assumptions, Primary Challenges, and Best Practices Appendix 2 Use Cases: a set of use cases showing the appl
30、ication of these recommended terms Journal Article Versions (JAV): Recommendations of the NISO/ALPSP JAV Technical Working Group 2008 NISO vi Appendix 3 JAV Review Group Comments: comments received from the JAV Review Group to an earlier Technical Working Group document submission, and the Technical
31、 Working Groups responses We propose that the terms as defined be promulgated by NISO/ALPSP to the full journal article stakeholder community (authors, readers, libraries, publishers, aggregators, archives, repositories, research institutions, funding agencies, and service providers such as search e
32、ngines and link resolvers). The JAVTWG recognizes that adopting a standard terminology will not be enough; to avoid version confusion, terminology needs to be implemented in such a way that readers (whether human or machine) encountering any version can immediately ascertain which it is and know whe
33、ther it is trustworthy. Journal Article Versions (JAV): Recommendations of the NISO/ALPSP JAV Technical Working Group 2008 NISO vii Background and Rationale The NISO/ALPSP Journal Article Versions (JAV) Technical Working Group work plan was as follows: Creation of use cases to identify the most comm
34、on journal article lifecycles. Analysis of use cases to determine common lifecycle stages. Selection of preferred vocabulary for the most common lifecycle stages. Development of appropriate metadata to identify each variant version and its relationship to other versions, in particular the definitive
35、, fully functional published version. Establishment of practical systems for ensuring that the metadata is applied by authors or repository managers and publishers. In addition to the above, the Technical Working Group spent some time considering abstract data models and the attributes that could ap
36、ply to various versions of a journal article. The working group website (http:/www.niso.org/workrooms/jav) contains a full set of minutes and documents. As a result of our analysis, the JAV Technical Working Group decided to focus on the following key points: 1. Our brief was limited in scope to jou
37、rnal articleseven so, we have recognized the possible and important, if not frequent, relationships between journal articles and other scholarly document types (such as working papers, conference papers, book chapters, wikis, blogs, etc.). Rather than creating a full set of semantics and proposed me
38、tadata disambiguating these document types, we focused on the minimum necessary to show the relationship between an instance of these document types and one or more journal articles. Of course, some of these other document types will be similar enough to journal articles to be able to use the same (
39、or similar) semantics; others will not. 2. In most cases we believe the relationship needs to be codified through the retrospective act of including an unambiguous reference or link within the metadata of a “previous” version to the version of record. Although this act creates a high and potentially
40、 onerous standard of performance for some, enabling it through standard metadata and semantics and its promulgation as a best practice is crucial for establishing the relationships that the use cases suggest are necessary. 3. We decided to concentrate on a reasonably high-level set of semanticslets
41、say the “phylum” rather than the “species”. We believe that these high-level terms give sufficient distinction for 80% of article versionsand distinction where it most matters to the reader and secondarily to the author or the publisher. 4. Each term identifies a significant value-added “state chang
42、e” in the progress of a journal article from origination to publication. Five of the versions (Authors Original; Submitted Manuscript Under Review; Proof; Corrected Version of Record; Enhanced Version of Record) may have a number of iterative stages. We have not attempted to identify Journal Article
43、 Versions (JAV): Recommendations of the NISO/ALPSP JAV Technical Working Group 2008 NISO viii these stages, although date stamps, version numbers, and metadata records may be used to differentiate them. Two of the versions (Accepted Manuscript; Version of Record) represent fixed stages. A Submitted
44、Manuscript Under Review that is accepted for publication becomes an Accepted Manuscript at the point of acceptance. A Proof that is corrected and published becomes a Version of Record. 5. In our first set of recommendations, which were reviewed by the JAV Review Group, we had proposed only one stage
45、 after the Version of Recordthe “Updated Version of Record”. However, we received strong representation that this was an over-simplification, and that it was important for users of versions to know whether an update was a correction or an enhancement. See Appendix 1: Graphical Representation of Jour
46、nal Article Versions and Relationships with Formal and Gray Literature; Assumptions, Primary Challenges, and Best Practices for a graphical representation of formal and gray literature and the related assumptions, primary challenges, and conventions and best practices that were associated with this
47、figure by the JAV Technical Working Group. Journal Article Versions (JAV): Recommendations of the NISO/ALPSP JAV Technical Working Group 2008 NISO 1 Recommended Terms and Definitions for Journal Article Versions We propose that metadata be associated with each document object designating its status
48、as one of the following: AO = Authors Original SMUR = Submitted Manuscript Under Review AM = Accepted Manuscript P = Proof VoR = Version of Record CVoR = Corrected Version of Record EVoR = Enhanced Version of Record Full descriptions, including definitions and notes, follow. Authors Original Definit
49、ion: Any version of a journal article that is considered by the author to be of sufficient quality to be submitted for formal peer review by a second party. The author accepts full responsibility for the article. May have a version number or date stamp. Content and layout as set out by the author. Notes: 1. In all definitions, the singular “Author” includes the plural “Authors”. For multi-authored works, one author (the “corresponding author”) takes responsibility for submitting the article for review and dealing with later sta
