Streamlining deposit an ojs to repository plugin

Streamlining
Deposit:
An
OJS
to
Repository
Plugin

From
"Counting
the
Costs
of
Open
Access"
(Research
Consulting,
November

2014),
we
learn
that

"the
costs
of
depositing
an
article
in
an
institutional
repository
are
calculated
at

£33
per
article
when
weighted
by
article
numbers,
while
the
unweighted
figure

is
£36.
Across
the
responding
institutions,
it
takes
48
minutes
(weighted

average)
or
52
minutes
(unweighted)
to
deposit
an
article"
(page
13).

If
the
HEFCE
mandate
for
immediate
deposit
upon
acceptance
is
to
be
followed,

these
costs
and
time
scale
will
be
untennable.

At
The
Comics
Grid:
Journal
of
Comics
Scholarship,
we
appreciate
the
urgency
of

an
open,
easy-‐to-‐use
mechanism
to
send
submissions
data
to
Institutional

Repositories
automatically.

The
Comics
Grid
is
a
pioneering
open
access
journal
published
by
Ubiquity
Press.

The
journal
is
built
on
the
OJS
open
journal
and
publishing
management
system

developed
by
the
Public
Knowledge
Project.

Our
idea
is
to
write
a
plugin
that
sends
data
automatically
to
Institutional

Repositories
using
the
Edina
Broker
(previously
directly
to
the
institutional

repository
via
SWORD),
adding
support
for
linking
data
from
Dryad
(an

international
repository
of
data
underlying
peer-‐reviewed
scientific
and
medical

literature)
and
figshare
(an
open
access
repository
developed
by
Digital
Science)

and
other
existing
services.

Writing
the
plugin
for
and
within
the
journal
would
allow
us
to
use
an
existing

open
access
journal
as
a
piloting
platform
and
to
test
the
beta
version
with
our

community
of
editors
and
authors.
Being
a
plugin
for
OJS
means
other
journals

would
potentially
benefit;
the
latest
figures
from
the
Public
Knowledge
Project

cite
24,000
installations
of
OJS.

Our
idea
fits
within
the
Research
data
deposit
and
sharing
protocols
&
tools

priority
area.
Because
The
Comics
Grid
is
a
multidisciplinary
journal,
we're

aiming
at
a
holistic
understanding
of
data
transfer
and
understand
the
urgency

of
interoperability
for
humanities
journals.

The
idea
has
two
main
components,
one
that
we
could
call
“technical”
(in
the

sense
it
implies
the
development
of
a
tool)
and
one
that
we
could
call
“research”

(in
the
sense
that
it
implies
researching
what
has
already
been
done,

learning

from
the
process
of
developing
the
tool
and
from
its
implementation).

Our
idea
is
to
write
a
plugin
for
Open
Journal
Systems
that
sends
data

automatically
or
semi-‐automatically
to
Institutional
Repositories.

1.
To
make
data
submission
easier
in
terms
of
data
by
allowing
people
to
upload

directly
to
Dryad
(an
international
repository
of
data
underlying
peer-‐reviewed

scientific
and
medical
literature)
and
Figshare
(an
open
access
repository

developed
by
Digital
Science)
via
API.

2.
To
make
depositing
easier
by
connecting
OJS
to
other
services
via
the
JISC

publications
router
which
can
be
subscribed
to
by
institutions
to
receive

submissions.

We
are
aware
there’s
important
work
that
has
been
done
already
in
this
area,

with
tools
that
are
already
in
use.
We
don’t
want
to
reinvent
the
wheel.
We
want

to
build
on
what
has
been
done,
as
there
seems
to
be
consensus
that
none
of
the

existing
solutions
are
completely
satisfying.
We
are
not
saying
we
can
come
up

with
THE
tool;
we
would
use
this
opportunity
to

• discover
what
has
already
been
done,

• work
with
what
already
exists,

• use
the
development
phase
itself
as
research
data,

• implement
and
test
the
tool
and
obtain
research
data,

• produce
a
research
output
and
an
open
source
tool
that
can
be
used
by

the
community.

For
example,
Stuart
Lewis
alerted
us
that
the
University
of
Edinburgh
uses
both

SWORD
and
OJS
(http://journals.ed.ac.uk/).
We
also
know
Rory
McNicholl
made

a
plugin
based
on
the
OJS
SWORD
plugin
that
gives
editors
the
option
to
deposit

to
repositories
as
part
of
the
OJS
workflow.
This
was
developed
for
and
is
in
use

by
UCL
at
http://ojs.lib.ucl.ac.uk/.
Rory
was
interested
in
collaborating
with
us

and
we
believe
the
knowledge
and
expertise
exchange
would
be
vital.

The
points
made
by
Martin
Eve
in
his
comment
to
our
idea
on
the
Ideascale

platform
are
vital.
We
believe
it
is
authors
(not
publishers)
who
must
be

responsible
for
depositing
their
work
in
repositories.
This
is
also
why
this
is
a

researcher-‐led
idea,
one
that
seeks
knowledge
exchange
between
researchers

(who
are
also
journal
editors),
publishers,
developers,
librarians
(including

repository
managers)
and
university
administrators.

Developing
this
idea
would
be
an
opportunity
to
continue
learning
about
the

technical
component,
which
can
only
give
a
more
thorough
understanding
of
the

pragmatic
challenges
and
opportunities,
from
an
implementation
point
of
view,

of
open
access
and
data
and
manuscript
deposit.
We
believe
it
is
essential
that

authors
gradually
become
more
involved
in
the
publishing
and
depositing

process,
and
this
collaborative
idea
is
one
step
in
this
direction.

References

Research
Consulting
(2014)
Counting
the
Cost
of
Open
Access.
The
Estimated
Cost

to
UK
Research
Organisations
of
Achieving
Compliance
with
Open
Access
Mandates

in
2013/14.
November
2014.
http://www.researchconsulting.co.uk/wp-‐

content/uploads/2014/11/Research-‐Consulting-‐Counting-‐the-‐Costs-‐of-‐OA-‐
Final.pdf
[Accessed
26
February
2015]

Priego,
Ernesto
(2015)
“#Dataspring:
An
Idea
to
Make
Depositing
Data
and

Accepted
Manuscripts
Easier
(today
at
#IDCC15)”,
12
February
2015,

https://epriego.wordpress.com/2015/02/12/dataspring/
[Accessed
26

February
2015].

CC-‐BY

Ernesto
Priego
(Centre
for
Information
Science,
City
University

London)
and
Andy
Byers,
(Ubiquity
Press)

Streamlining deposit an ojs to repository plugin

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Streamlining deposit an ojs to repository plugin

More from Jisc

Recently uploaded

Streamlining deposit an ojs to repository plugin