1. Versions of journal articles : recent initiatives Frances Shipsey, VERSIONS Project Discovery and Access : Standards and the Information Chain (JISC, ALPSP, Publishers Association, CrossRef) Bonhill House, London, 7 December 2006

2. 7 December 2006 / 2 Four recent initiatives on versioning NISO/ALPSP Working Group on Versions of Journal Articles VERSIONS Project Scoping Study on Repository Version Identification (RIVER) Eprints Application Profile Working Group

3. 7 December 2006 / 3 NISO/ALPSP Working Group on Versions of Journal Articles Journal Article Versions Technical Working Group (JAVTechWG) and Review Group (JAVReview) made up of publishers, librarians and other stakeholders (Chair: Cliff Morgan, John Wiley & Sons) http://www.niso.org/committees/Journal_versioning/JournalVer_comm.html Draft documents issued for review in March 2006 Use Cases Terms and Definitions JAV Relationships Diagram Documents currently undergoing revision in light of responses from the JAV Review Group (as at November 2006)

4. 7 December 2006 / 4 NISO/ALPSP Working Group Terms and Definitions (draft) – March 2006 Authors Original A version of a journal article that is considered by the author to be of sufficient quality to be submitted for review by a second party. […] Accepted Manuscript The version of a journal article that has been accepted for publication in a journal. […] Proof A version of a journal article that is created as part of the publication process. […] Version of Record A version of a journal article that has been made available by any organization that acts as a publisher by declaring the article fit for publication (ie the publisher). […] Updated Version of Record A version of the Version of Record of a journal article that has been amended in some way. […] http://www.niso.org/committees/Journal_versioning/TermsandDefinitionsdraft2006.pdf

5. 7 December 2006 / 5 NISO/ALPSP Working Group - Relationships http://www.niso.org/committees/Journal_versioning/JAVrelationshipsdiagram. pdf

6. 7 December 2006 / 6 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

7. 7 December 2006 / 7 Multiple versions – experience of readers

8. 7 December 2006 / 8 Differentiating between multiple versions

9. 7 December 2006 / 9 How are versions handled in open access repositories?

10. 7 December 2006 / 10 Identifying versions – researchers priorities Q noQuestionEssential or very important Essential, very important, or interesting Essential Q34A method of indicating which is the published version88.13%98.23% 43.69% Q35A method of indicating which is the author's latest version of a paper80.41%95.62% 30.41% Q28A standardised way of recording and displaying the date of manuscript completion 67.59%92.71% 22.36% Q30A standardised note in the description of the paper stating that it is the latest revision available 57.00%82.19% 16.28% Q26A standardised terminology to describe each stage in the process of developing a research output 50.60%91.33% 9.16% Q29A standardised way of referring to different revisions by version number 45.90%85.13% 11.54% Q32A method of linking records together so all versions of a given paper are retrieved by searches and presented as a group (collocation): 41.69%81.84% 6.91% Q27A standardised terminology to describe how one version relates to another (for example B is a digital copy of A, C is a digital revision of A): 41.69%88.83% 6.70% Q33A method of comparing the text of different versions and displaying the differences between them 38.50%79.07% 5.68% Q31Notes provided by the author, describing how one version relates to another 37.72%84.81% 4.56%

11. 7 December 2006 / 11 ArXiv – versions linked through metadata

12. 7 December 2006 / 12 Scoping Study on Repository Version Identification (RIVER) Led by Rightscom Ltd with partners London School of Economics and Political Science Library, University of Oxford Computing Services Final report to JISC Scholarly Communications Group, March 2006 http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/RIVER%20Final%20Report.pdf http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/RIVER%20Final%20Report.pdf

13. 7 December 2006 / 13 RIVER 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] Defined a tentative typology of versions covering both time-based version relationships and others

14. 7 December 2006 / 14 RIVER - recommendations Recommendations to JISC for further work: More detailed survey into development plans for repositories and awareness of versioning Research definitive sets of version identification requirements Produce a more robust set of taxonomies from tentative and draft versions Develop framework policies for use by institutions and for interoperability Recommendations to universities (institutional repository managers) Develop IR policy on version identification Develop guidance for users (both depositing authors and searchers) Consider instituting workflow-based version management in IR Consider needs for access to repository content through search engines – eg, staging page carrying unambiguous version metadata

15. 7 December 2006 / 15 Eprints Application Profile Working Group Carried out within JISC Digital Repositories Programme, led by Julie Allinson (UKOLN) and Andy Powell (Eduserv Foundation) Approach based on FRBR and the DCMI Abstract Model Provides more detail and structure than simple Dublin Core FRBR approach allows for representation of relationships between versions Work carried out June-August 2006 with follow up to take place through a DC Task Group http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/repositories/digirep/index/Eprints_Application_Profile

16. 7 December 2006 / 16 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 http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.pdf

17. 7 December 2006 / 17 Eprint model – Eprints Application Profile Working Group Eprint Model http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/repositories/digirep/index/Model

18. 7 December 2006 / 18 CCLRC - ePubs repository – collocation and disambiguation

19. Thank you! f.m.shipsey@lse.ac.uk