• If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • Work with all your cloud files (Drive, Dropbox, and Slack and Gmail attachments) and documents (Google Docs, Sheets, and Notion) in one place. Try Dokkio (from the makers of PBworks) for free. Now available on the web, Mac, Windows, and as a Chrome extension!



Page history last edited by PBworks 13 years, 6 months ago

Larissa: April 8, 2008


I found a link to a good discipline-specific article from Peter Suber on Promoting Open Access in the Humanities.  I found this a while back but could have sworn that I saw that Heather had posted it on the class blog - however, I can't find it now so I'm posting it here, just in case.



Christina: March 22, 2008


The OJS banner looks great!


I prefer the HTML format of the 3 possible types, then PDF. I had to go in and change my HTML galley proof, as Heather suggested we might. If anyone else needs a converter to do that, to make apostrophes and symbols show up as typed, I used Media Convert fo easy file conversion: http://media-convert.com/



Emma: March 20, 2008 

RE: Presentation follow up "Electronic Theses and Dissertations (ETDs)"


Performing Law:

“Julie Lassonde, UVic student practices both law and performance art, and her thesis bridges these two realms. Her thesis takes the form of a website, using text, video and live performance to explore how law is “performed” in daily life through physical acts.”  Available from UVicDspace: http://hdl.handle.net/1828/117




Some examples of humorous theses titles found in ProQuest: (I'm sure there are many more...)

You and me make we (AAT 3258125)


Stop Me If You Think You've Heard This One Before (AAT 1437763)



Elvis Presley: All Shook Up (AAT 9009636)




Emma: March 5, 2008


Follow up on our discussion today re locating your theses... 


Matthew is in luck:  Warwick University, U.K. has a project in the works called 'Warwick Research Archive Project' (WRAP) which, over the next year, aims to:


"establish, populate and promote an Institutional Repository service which will house and provide access to journal article versions as well as e-theses. The target is to make available between 1,500-3,000 e-prints over the course of the eighteen-month project. The project will also enable development of the local infrastructure required to handle approximately 350 theses per annum in addition to any retrospectively digitised under the proposed EthOSnet service."


The IR content will be searchable via Google or Google Scholar (metadata harvested by OIAster)

For more info see: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/library/main/research/instrep/erepositories/



Natalie - Concordia University (Montreal, Quebec) - still seems to be in the restricted access stage.  Your M.A. in Media Studies fall 2003 is available electronically via the Concordia library database but only to Faculty/students with login.  Others can only read the abstract : (

see: http://mercury.concordia.ca/record=b2135941 


I can't find any other info on a first quick look through their website wrt to developments of a University IR.  Let us know what you find out when/if you contact them....






~Emma: Feb 28 11:50am

I've added our introduction to OJS.  Please review and let me know if you'd like me to make any changes.  Thanks!



OJS Topics In Scholarly Publishing - Front Page Draft



Katherine: Feb 29, 2008


I heard on CBC radio news this morning about a big breakthrough in AIDS research at the U of Alberta, published in PLoS Pathogens.  I think it's exciting that they've published such a big news study in an open access journal.  Unfortunately, they then interviewed some well known aids researcher (didn't catch the name) who said she was looking forward to it being published in a "peer reviewed journal" !!  I couldn't get in to the journal this morning, too busy, I will try again later to confirm whether or not this journal is indeed peer reviewed.  I think it's interesting that she has obviously bought into the spin of the big publishers and (seemingly) continues to regard non-open access more highly. 

[LATER] I was able to access the journal and it is indeed peer -reviewed, interesting that the researcher just assumed it wasn't peer reviewed, shows the disinformation that exists out there


Feb 16, 2008




Here are two links along the institutional repository line and one for an Open Science initiative: 


Institutional Repositories, Tout de Suite 2008


Intro to institutional repositories with many links and references


Carrots and Sticks

Some Ideas on How to Create a Successful Institutional Repository D-LIB magazine Jan/Feb 2008






“The EQUATOR Network is a new initiative that seeks to improve the quality of scientific publications by promoting transparent and accurate reporting of health research.”

-This looks like it is pushing for Open Science: getting the research and methods known. It seems to be along the lines of what Rosie Redfield, our guest speaker Feb 13, is doing with her RRResearch blog. It is neat to see the OA movement go beyond the core of peer-reviewed articles to extend into other areas of research and information dissemination.


Class notes from Jan. 30, 2008

Sorry they're going up so late, everyone.  I've tried to edit them down as much as possible while still keeping all the relevant and/or interesting bits. - Larissa


Class Notes: General

Things to think about when submitting for publishing:

  • What will get published quickly (don’t want to get scooped)
  • What will sail through the peer-review process without delay
  • Some journals have high rejection rates
  • You can always ask colleagues to peer-review informally prior to official submission for peer-review

Dspace – unlike OJS, you get your own URL

OJS – goes through peer-review process

  • In the real world, advertising (call for papers) would go out
  • Would recruit for submissions ie. at conferences etc.
  • Not all libraries are tenure based (ie. SFU), so here no pressure to publish
  • Good to look at specializations and areas of expertise of the reviewers prior to assigning papers to review
  • A group of all peer-reviewers is not always practical when article is highly specialized (may need to recruit a particular individual to review)


Open Access

Directory of Open Access Journals

  • Comprehensive, but not all journals will be listed for every language
  • Growth rate high; lately 2 titles per calendar day and increasing

Examples of some business models with no processing fees:

  • Subsidy model ie. SHRC - has been subsidizing subscription journals prior to OA initiatives
  • Institutional subsidy funding ie. Athabasca U. - has fully OA press, has committed 1% of overall university budget to OA 
  • CERN initiative - takes field of high-energy physics, pools resources to flip into into OA (covering cost fully)


OA Self-Archiving (Green Approach)

  • “open door” directory of 1,000 OA repositories
  • Vets the information to ensure that it is scholarly
  • Canadian Association of Research Libraries also has repository
  • In UK, repositories have developed outside libraries
  • SFU – e-Thesis (University is the publisher)
  • UBC – cIRcle still in pilot phase
  • UVic and Royal Roads both developing theirs

Separate (global) disciplinary repositories also exist

  • Self-archiving varies widely between fields
  • physics has history of sharing preprints so has been using IR for decades while chemistry does not, so nothing currently exists here
  • PubMed is world’s largest depository (+1,000,000 items); designed to preserve as well as make accessible
  • E-LIS is the largest in the library field, and supports 22 languages
  • D-List second largest, but in English language on


Guest speaker: Gwen Bird, Assoc. University Librarian, Collections (SFU)

2007-2010 plan for scholarly communications (located on their library website)

  • Addresses the high cost of published scholarly journals, the desire to support alternative publishing models, the need to minimize limitations and provide alternatives to restrictive copyright agreements, and provide infrastructure to authors (IR) among other things.
  • There is a need to reconcile these with author’s rights; asking someone to forego publication that will affect their tenure isn’t always practical or comfortable

Some concerns from journal editor’s form last spring that SFU hosted

  • with journal subscriptions a primary benefit of membership, what do they have to offer in its place
  • some using print revenue to subsidize other society activities
  • there is still a desire for print version, even though journal is also OA
  • impact factors and alternatives: most felt OA equals not peer-reviewed, lowered IF (misrepresentation)

Not articulated as part of SFU’s plan, but also important for the library to support:

  • Partners in Public Knowledge Project (OJS, OCS etc.)
  • Offers real tools to scholars looking to move to OA publishing
  • Raises awareness about problems with present system using free tool that SFU is currently using
  • They can run it themselves, or can be hosted through the library
  • Synergies project: a SHRC funded project to assist journals to go online, preserve digital content
  • SFU provides support for OA tools (through library finding tools in database)
  • E-thesis in IR – a project to retrospectively digitize all theses in-house (not all represented due to copyright at the time)

Principle of investing in OA publishing from library collections budget has questions with real-life dilemmas

  • print journals show “value” to auditors – important
  • with electronic journals, still paying in advance with only a license to show, no physical representation
  • auditors are not happy particularly since the information is freely available on the internet
  • libraries have a responsibility to use their  buying power to help transition to OA, but auditors don’t see it that way


Guest Speaker: Joy Kirschner, Project Manager for Scholarly Communications (UBC)

ARL Institute: joint project with ARL, ACRL

  • Works on the principle that as a community, would decide how to engage in scholarly communication issues on own campus
  • Some institutions state that anyone who publishes through them needs to also deposit in IR

Created the Scholarly Communications Steering Committee; faculty will be the activists for change

  • Newly formed, they are currently constructing a widely-formalized outreach program
  • First task is to create a tool to engage faculty in the discussion
  • Other institutions also starting outreach programs, launching IRs, and need a way to get faculty on board
  • There is some concern with author rights, negotiating copyright transfer agreements

A seminal report from Laura Brown (Ithaca) on the future of University presses recommendation that university presses work with libraries to create new models of scholarly communication

  • libraries are practiced in dissemination models already, but have no experience in publishing … how does the collaboration intersect? 
  • UBC/SFU/UVic are already finding ways to collaborate
  • Speaker series – bringing SC into programming (ie. Willinsky, Francis Willett (sp?), New Value Metrics)
  • Library moving into publishing support role --> our own roles are changing

Eigenfactor: Carl Bergstrom and the economics of journal pricing

  • new method of evaluating impact factor, with ranking influenced by the journal itself


Journal hosting at UBC

February 6, 2008:  Speaker, Bronwen Sprout


Currently hosting 5 journals

•    Provide access to server space and software – journals provide content, set policies (Library is not acting as a publisher)

•    Have been in pilot mode for 2+ years

•    Original recommendation came from eLibrary committee based on request from faculty members

•    Currently developing recommendation to move out of pilot phase

•    Service has spread by word-of-mouth, through liaison librarians

*Look at Memorandum of Understanding


Process of setting up new journal

•    Meeting with journal team to explain service and go over OJS

•    Follow up by email

•    Respond to software questions as needed (PKP – OJS forum http://pkp.sfu.ca/support/forum/ )

•    Level of comfort with technology varies, but most journals are very self-sufficient


Five journals, various stages of development, different peer review policies at: http://ojs.library.ubc.ca/ and http://cjelp.ca


Currently researching journal hosting at other libraries, for example:

•    University of Alberta Library http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/

•    York University Library https://www.library.yorku.ca/ojs/index.php/ydj


Plans for future of program:

•    Scholarly Communications Steering Committee will be making recommendation to library administration to continue hosting service as a program

•    Would like to provide more services, more thorough training, better software support, perhaps conversion and uploading backfiles

•    Part of broader digital library initiative to allow UBC faculty to make their research openly available, providing software to do that - fits with other services we are offering




1. Dr. Boethius, by Joe and Kelsey

    Doctor Boethius is a professor of medieval history and has recenlty accepted a new position at University X. He is under pressure to publish frequently because he does not have tenure. The only literature that he has published is his Ph.D thesis, as a book. He finds himself with a lack of venues for publishing shorter pieces of research. He is concerned because he feels the demand to publish but he cannot undertake a large enough research topic to produce a book due to teaching and administrative duties. He needs to publish article-length items in venues that will allow his work to be recognized by fellow scholars and his employers.


2. Dr. Bob Young, by Emma, Matthew and Katherine

Doctor Young is a newly graduated neuorphysician just beginning his career at UBC hospital.  He practices evidence-based medicine and though he is familiar with the techniques and tools required to efficiently access the relevant literature, he requires help to critically evaluate its validity and importance, and to apply it judiciously in order to make sound clinical decisions.  With the ever-expanding information in his field the evidence-based medicine approach can impose an unmanageable burden.  Bob is dependent on the librarians at UBC Woodward for their assistance in conducting a comprehensive search of all the material available and in separating the insignificant and unsound information from the salient and crucial.


3. Dr. Sharon Ryder

     has just completed her doctorate in Equine Health and will teach a course by the same title to undergraduate UBC students at the downtown Robson Square campus. Because the downtown campus is generally attended by business students and is supplied with materials for them, she does not have ready access to the medical/biological materials (in print) available to professors and students on campus. Dr Ryder aditionally commutes from Maple Ridge so does not want to be on campus every day of the week; remote access to materials is most important. She needs to create a curriculum for her classes as this will be the first time she teaches her course. She will need to order appropriate-level texts as well as be able to continue to research and publish herself, to prove herself for tenure at UBC.


OJS Policies


Peer Review Guidelines - the following guidelines are from PLoS One (Public Library of Science One), to be modified for Topics in Scholarly Communications.  PLoS has given permission for others to copy and modify their peer review guidelines in this fashion.


3. Overview of the Editorial Process

PLoS ONE will provide all authors with an efficient and "hassle-free" editorial process. Our aim is to identify those submissions that warrant inclusion in the scientific record and present them to the scientific community with as few hurdles as possible.

The editorial process is run by its extensive board of academic editors (AEs). AEs are invited to handle submitted manuscripts based upon the content of the manuscript. The AE evaluates the paper and decides whether it describes a body of work that meets the editorial criteria of PLoS ONE. AEs can employ a variety of methods to reach a decision in which they are confident:

  • Based on their own knowledge and experience
  • Through discussion with other members of the editorial board
  • Through the solicitation of formal reports from independent external referees

After appropriate consideration by the AE, a decision letter to the author is drafted. This letter may also be circulated to other members of the editorial board, who are given a short time to comment on the editorial decision.

There are several types of decisions possible:

  • Accept in principle
  • Minor revision
  • Major revision
  • Reject

Upon acceptance, the manuscript is checked by PLoS ONE staff to ensure that it is in a form that will allow it to be efficiently handled by our production system. The authors will be queried and allowed to make any final minor revisions that are needed.

This is the final stage at which authors will see their manuscript before publication. The authors' files will be carefully tagged to generate XML and PDF files, but will not be subject to detailed copyediting (see Overview of the Production Process). It is therefore essential that authors provide a thoroughly proofread and checked manuscript, following the author checklist and any comments from PLoS staff.

4. Reviewer Selection

Selection of reviewers for a particular manuscript is the responsibility of the AE and is based on many factors, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations of authors and academic editors, and the AE's own knowledge of a reviewer's past performance.

As part of our editorial procedure, we confer with potential reviewers before sending them manuscripts to review. Reviewers should bear in mind that even these initial messages or conversations contain confidential information, which should be regarded as such.

5. Writing the Review

The purpose of the review is to provide the editors with an expert opinion regarding the quality of the manuscript under consideration. The review should also supply authors with explicit feedback on how to improve their papers so that they are acceptable for publication in PLoS ONE. Although confidential comments to the editors are respected, any remarks that might help to strengthen the paper should be directed to the authors themselves. A good review would answer the following questions:

  • What are the main claims of the paper?
  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?
  • Do the experimental data support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?
  • Who would find this paper of interest? And why?
  • In what further directions would it be useful to take the current research?

6. Other Questions for Consideration

In the case of manuscripts deemed worthy of publication, we would appreciate additional advice from the reviewer on the following:

  • Is the manuscript written clearly enough that it is understandable to non-specialists? If not, how could it be improved?
  • Have the authors provided adequate proof for their claims without overselling them?
  • Have the authors treated the previous literature fairly?
  • Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments could be reproduced?
  • PLoS ONE encourages authors to publish detailed protocols as supporting information online. Do any particular methods used in the manuscript warrant such a protocol?

7. Confidentiality

The review process is strictly confidential and should be treated as such by reviewers. Because the author may have chosen to exclude some people from this process, no one not directly involved with the manuscript, including colleagues or other experts in the field, should be consulted by the reviewer unless such consultations have first been discussed with the AE.

8. Timely Review

PLoS ONE believes that an efficient editorial process that results in timely publication provides a valuable service both to authors and to the scientific community at large. We therefore request that reviewers respond promptly, usually within ten days of receipt of a manuscript. If reviewers need more time, we request that they contact us promptly so that we can keep the authors informed and, if necessary, assign alternative reviewers.

9. Anonymity

Although reviewers may remain anonymous during the review process, we strongly urge them to relinquish this anonymity to promote open and transparent decision-making.

10. Editing Reviewers' Reports

The editors and PLoS staff do not edit any comments made by reviewers that have been intended to be read by the authors unless the language is deemed inappropriate for professional communication or the comments contain information considered confidential. Such remarks should be reserved for the confidential section of the review form, which is intended to be read by the editors only. In their comments to authors, reviewers are encouraged to be honest but not offensive in their language. On the other hand, authors should not confuse frank and perhaps even robust language with unfair criticism.

11. Competing Interests

As far as possible, we respect requests by authors to exclude reviewers whom they consider to be unsuitable. We also, as much as possible, try to rule out those reviewers who may have an obvious competing interest, such as those who may have been collaborators on other projects with the authors of this manuscript, those who may be direct competitors, those who may have a known history of antipathy with the author(s), or those who might profit financially from this work. Because it is not possible for all such competing interests to be known by a particular editor, we request that reviewers who recognize a potential competing interest inform the editors or journal staff and recuse themselves if they feel that are unable to offer an impartial review.

Read more about the policy of the Public Library of Science regarding competing interests. When submitting your review, you must indicate in the box provided whether or not you have any competing interests. On occasion, reviewers may be asked to offer their opinion on a manuscript that they may have reviewed for some other journal. This is not in itself a competing interest. That two journals have identified the same person as especially well qualified to judge the manuscript under consideration does not in any way decrease the validity of that opinion and may perhaps even enhance it.

12. Feedback to Reviewers

We send reviewers' comments along with the decision letter to reviewers of that manuscript. If reviewers have identified themselves, this information will be passed on to other reviewers. Reviewers who may have offered an opinion not in accordance with the final decision should not feel that their recommendation was not duly considered and their service not properly appreciated. Experts often disagree, and it is the job of the editorial team to make a decision.

13. Sharing Reviews with Other PLoS Journals

PLoS publishes several journals. Occasionally, editors recommend after peer review that a particular article is more suitable for another PLoS journal. If the authors choose to pursue that option, we transfer the manuscript and the reviews to the other journal. We expect that reviewers for any PLoS journal are willing to have their reviews considered by the editors of another PLoS journal.






Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.