Journal article version nomenclature: the NISO/ALPSP recommendations Journal article version nomenclature: the NISO/ALPSP recommendations 273 Learned Publishing, 21, 273 277 doi:10.1087/095315108x356699 Background In February 2005, Sally Morris (then Chief Executive of ALPSP) wrote a paper called Version Control of Journal Articles. 1 In this paper, she suggested that work be done to agree nomenclature for the different pre- and post-publication versions of an article. A number of organizations expressed interest in following up on her suggestion, with the result that later that year (in September), two Working Groups (WGs) were launched by the US National Information Standards Organization (NISO): a Technical WG that was charged with recommending a standard nomenclature for article versions, and a Review WG that was charged with commenting on these recommendations before their publication as a Recommended Practice. The list of members of the Technical WG and of the Review WG is given in the Appendix. These Working Groups are larger than most NISO WGs, but they reflect the wide range of stakeholder interest in this subject. Workplan and scope The Technical WG decided that the best methodology was to draw up a series of use cases, determine the most common lifecycle stages, and recommend terms and definitions. We ended up with 26 use cases (a base case, which we regarded as the current most common process from an author s original draft through to publication, plus 25 variants). The use cases can all be found in the final Recommended Practice document, to which I shall return later in this article. There were some key decisions to be made in the early stages of our work: Journal article version nomenclature: the NISO/ALPSP recommendations Cliff MORGAN Wiley-Blackwell, John Wiley & Sons, 2008 ABSTRACT. The National Information Standards Organization (NISO), in partnership with the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP), released a Recommended Practice entitled Journal Article Versions (JAV): Recommendations of the NISO/ALPSP JAV Technical Working Group on 23 June 2008. The article describes the background to this work, some of the key decisions made regarding scope, and the recommended nomenclature and definitions. It also refers to other work in this area.
274 we tried to identify which version distinctions really mattered to the reader Level of granularity In Morris s original paper, she suggested that there could be at least 13 different versions of an article, varying from a privately circulated early draft to a post-publication version, possibly with errata or addenda. However, we decided that we would focus on the most significant versions of an article. (We say in our report that we focused on the phylum rather than the species level maybeamorepreciseanalogywouldbeat the level of the order or family, but these two terms do not have the same taxonomic resonance.) We tried to identify which version distinctions really mattered to the reader. Words or numbers? We had to decide whether we were going to recommend the use of numbers (as for software) or words for the different versions. Numbers have the advantage of not coming with any semantic baggage and not being tied to a specific language; in addition, the numbering can be used to identify quite subtle weightings of variation, as in version 1, version 1.1, version 1.1.1, etc. However, we wanted our proposed terms to be reasonably intuitive so that, even without access to our definitions, a reader would have a pretty good idea of what the terms meant. Scope drift We wanted to avoid the project becoming too wide. There are many document types other than journal articles, some of which (such as conference papers or contributed book chapters) have much in common with articles. We took an if the cap fits policy if another document type is sufficiently like a journal article that the terms could just as easily apply to that document type, then the same terms can be used; if it s different, they can t. Future-proofing We focused on what happens today, not on alternative future scenarios. We are not implying that publishing journal articles is the only way for researchers to communicate, but it is the way that our group focused on. The terms work for the vast majority of the one and half million or so journal articles published every year. (Ware 2 estimates that 1.4 million journal articles are published annually. RIN 3 estimates a rather precise 1.59 million.) The recommended terms and definitions For the full report, see Journal Article Versions (JAV): Recommendations of the NISO/ALPSP JAV Technical Working Group, 4 which goes into more detail about the rationale behind the terms themselves. The definitions quoted below are taken from this report, with kind permission from NISO. In summary, we recommended the following terms. (These recommendations followed months of discussion and feedback from the Review group, but the responsibility for their final recommendation lies with the Technical WG, as formally approved by the NISO Content and Collection Management Topic Committee. It should not be inferred that all members of the Review group agree with all of the recommendations.) Author s Original 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... Content and layout as set out by the author. Submitted Manuscript under Review Any version of a journal article that is under formal review managed by a socially recognized publishing entity. [This entity ultimately passes] judgment on the fitness of the article for publication with an accept or reject decision...contentandlayoutfollow publisher s submission requirements. Accepted Manuscript The version of a journal article that has been accepted for publication in a journal. A second party (the publisher ) takes permanent responsibility for the article. Content and layout follow publisher s submission requirements.
Journal article version nomenclature: the NISO/ALPSP recommendations 275 Proof A version of a journal article that is created as part of the publication process. This includes the copy-edited manuscript, galley proofs, page proofs, and revised proofs... essentially internal process versions [although they may] become public, even though they are not authorized to be so. Content has been changed from Accepted Manuscript; layout is the publisher s. Corrected Version of Record A version of the Version of Record (VoR) of a journal article in which errors in the VoR have been corrected. Version of Record A fixed version of a journal article that has been made available by any organization that acts as a publisher by formally and exclusively declaring the article published. This includes any early release article that is formally identified as being published even before the compilation of a volume issue and assignment of associated metadata, as long as it is citable via some permanent identifier(s). Enhanced Version of Record AversionoftheVersionofRecordofajournal article that has been updated or enhanced by the provision of supplementary material. In an earlier set of draft recommendations, we proposed Updated Version of Record, with no distinction between updates that were due to errata (i.e. the VoR was incorrect in some way at the time of publication) and those that were enhancements(i.e.thevorwascorrectbutnew information or material has been added since its publication). It was felt, though, that these were crucial distinctions that needed to be reflected in the nomenclature. Concept of state-change From the report: Each term identifies a significant valueadded state-change in the process of a journal article from origination to publication. Five of the versions (Author s Original; Submitted Article Under Review; Proof; Corrected Version of Record; Enhanced Version of Record) may have a number of iterative stages. We have not attempted to identify 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. I have quoted this verbatim because it is so fundamental to our scheme, which is not based on the content of an article changing from one stage to the next but on its status changing. For example, the content of a Submitted Article Under Review may not change when it becomes an Accepted Manuscript, but its status has because it has now been reviewed and accepted for publication. Other work in this area Before our work started, the JISC-funded RoMEO project 5 used just two terms to identify journal articles that may be archived in institutional or subject repositories: preprints and post-prints. The work of RoMEO was followed up by the SHERPA project, which was itself followed by the SHERPA Plus project. These two terms are defined as follows: 6...thislistingcharacterisespre-printsas being the version of the paper before peer review and post-prints as being the version of the paper after peer review, with revisions having been made. In this sense, preprints are the equivalent of our Author s Originals, and post-prints of our Accepted Manuscripts, although the SHERPA/RoMEO terminology does not explicitly state that the post-print has been accepted for publication, only that the revisions requested by the peer review process have been made. However, I believe that the term postprint is counterintuitive the clear implication is that something called a post-print exists after it has been printed, and without the definition to hand, many people have interpreted the post-print to be the pub- our scheme is not based on the content of an article changing from one stage to the next but on its status changing
276 the term post-print is counterintuitive lished version. SHERPA/RoMEO add to this misinterpretation by saying that in terms of content, post-prints are the article as published. This is an extraordinary statement it may be the case that the content is the same, but it may not be: the reader has no idea if changes have been introduced between acceptance and publication. Other work was being done in this area at thesametimeasourgroupwasworkingon it, often with a specific focus such as a subject area or with reference to DOI linking. The RIVER project 7 was a scoping study that helped to define the issues for repository managers. The VERSIONS project 8 was led by the London School of Economics and Political Science. It focused on the field of economics, and recommends the following terminology: Draft, Submitted Version, Accepted Version, Published Version, and Updated Version. These terms map well on to ours, although they do not have a version name that equates to our Proof, nor do they make a distinction between corrected and enhanced updated versions of the published version. The VIF 9 makes recommendations to repository managers, building on the VERSIONS project but also referencing our work (although an earlier set of draft recommendations) and the RIVER project. The International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers (STM) sometimes uses the following terminology: stage-one, the author s draft manuscript, often called a preprint, submitted for publication; stage-two, the author s final manuscript that has been accepted for publication by a journal and incorporates all the changes required by the peer review process; stage-three, the final published article, a complete, definitive peer reviewed version with full editing, typesetting, and electronic indexing and linking to other articles. (Sometimes numbers are used (i.e. Stage 1, 2, 3).) These terms equate to our Author s Original, Accepted Manuscript and Version of Record but they emphasise the point that the phrase research output (often used in funder and other mandates) requires qualification to distinguish between the researcher s original article and the subsequent versions that benefit from publishers investment. CrossRef s Institutional Repository Committee produced a very useful Glossary of terms. 10 Conclusion There have been a number of attempts to standardisenomenclatureforthevarious versions of journal articles. The NISO/ ALPSP Recommendations are, I believe, the most useful, with self-explanatory terminology, clear definitions, and a data model that reflects the value-added process that takes one from an author s original through not only to formal publication but also to post-publication corrections and enhancements. It now remains to be seen whether this nomenclature will be implemented by all who need to identify their article versions clearly and unambiguously. Acknowledgements I would like to formally acknowledge the work of the Technical Working Group and the Review Working Group. The discussions were unfailingly collegial and inspiring. Special thanks go to Bernie Rous, who took over the chairmanship and ensured that the work was completed. Appendix Members of the JAV Technical Working Group Beverley Acreman, Taylor & Francis Claire Bird, Oxford University Press Catherine Jones, Science and Technology Facilities Council (formerly Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils) Peter McCracken, Serials Solutions, John Wiley & Sons (Chair) John Ober, California Digital Library Evan Owens, Portico T. Scott Plutchak, University of Alabama at Birmingham Bernie Rous, Association for Computing Machinery and CrossRef (Interim Chair) Andrew Wray, Institute of Physics Publishing Members of the JAV Review Working Group Helen Atkins, HighWire Press Lindi Belfield, Science Direct (Elsevier) Rachel Bruce, JISC (alternate for Fred Friend) Emily Dill, Indiana University Richard Fidczuk, SAGE Fred Friend, University College London and JISC David Goodman, Long Island University
Journal article version nomenclature: the NISO/ALPSP recommendations 277 Toby Green, OECD Publishing Janet Halsall, CABI Publishing Chuck Koscher, CrossRef Ted Koppel, Auto-Graphics (formerly Ex Libris USA) Barbara Meredith, Association of American Publishers, John Wiley & Sons (Chair) Norman Paskin, Tertius Ltd (representing the International DOI Foundation) Erik Oltmans, Koninklijke Bibliotheek Jan Peterson, Infotrieve Heather Reid, Copyright Clearance Center Nathan Robertson, University of Maryland, Thurgood Marshall Law Library Bruce Rosenblum, Inera Sarah Rosenblum, Library of the London School of Economics and Political Science (replacing Kate Sloss) Ian Russell, ALPSP (replacing Sally Morris) Rebecca Simon, University of California Press Gavin Swanson, Cambridge University Press Peter Suber, Earlham College Anthony Watkinson, consultant Candy Zemon, Polaris Library Systems References 1. Morris, S. Version control of journal articles. 2005. http://www.niso.org/workrooms/jav/morris.pdf 2. Ware, M. Scientific Publishing in Transition: An Overview of Current Developments. ALPSP and STM, 2006, p. 7. http:// www.zen34802.zen.co.uk/scientific_journal_publishing_-_stm_alpsp_white_paper_ 140906.pdf 3. Activities, Costs and Funding Flows in the Scholarly Communications System in the UK. London, RIN, 2008, p. 14 (in section on secondary publishing). http:// www.rin.ac.uk/costs-funding-flows 4. http://www.niso.org/publications/rp/rp-8-2008.pdf 5. Rights MEtadata for Open archiving, http://www. lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/disresearch/romeo/ 6. Securing a Hybrid Environment for Research Preservation and Access, http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo info.html#colours 7. Repositories Identification of VERsions, http://www. jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/river%20final% 20Report.pdf 8. Versions of Eprints a User Requirements Study and Investigation of the Need for Standards, http://www. lse.ac.uk/library/versions/ 9. Version Identification Framework, http://www.lse.ac. uk/library/vif/ 10. http://www.crossref.org/08downloads/cr_glossary_1.pdf Vice President, Planning & Development Director Wiley-Blackwell John Wiley & Sons The Atrium, Southern Gate Chichester, West Sussex PO19 8SQ, UK Email: cmorgan@wiley.com