The Public Knowledge Project’s Open Monograph Press

While much progress has been made by academic libraries, societies, and groups of scholars in supporting the publication of independent journals, giving rise to the Open Access Diamond Journal phenomenon (no charge for authors or readers), the same is not true of books.1  Scholarly books would appear to require a publishing house to produce such works.  Well, in that regard, Open Monograph Press (OMP) offers a publishing house in a box.  Only there is no box.  And the house is virtual, but within it one can see the scholarly book through to publication.

It’s Time to Upgrade OJS | Public Knowledge Project

“We encourage users to upgrade to the current release series OJS 3.3.x!

More than 25,000 active journals around the world use Open Journal Systems (OJS). However, the PKP Technical Committee recently learned that many of those journals are relying on considerably older  versions of OJS. As we are regularly releasing upgrades of the software, given changes to the web, staying with older versions may pose problems for a journal’s stability and security . For example, more than 8,000 journals are using OJS 2.4 – a version that PKP has now retired. …”

 

EIFL checklist for using OJS in journal publishing | EIFL

We have updated and revised the EIFL checklist of good practices in using the free and open software Open Journal System (OJS) for journal editing and publishing. OJS is the most widely used publishing software in EIFL partner countries.

The checklist, by Iryna Kuchma, Manager of the EIFL Open Access Programme, takes forward a key goal of EIFL – to ensure the growth and sustainability of digital repositories and journal publishing platforms. 

OJS is created by the Public Knowledge Project (PKP), which is a multi-university initiative developing free and open source software to improve the quality and reach of scholarly publishing.

This is the second version of the checklist. It includes more details about the current production release of software – OJS 3, and tips on organizational identifiers plugin, DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals) registration, copyright and licensing, the PKP Project Preservation Network and journal content accessibility. And we’ve updated the ‘further reading’ list.

PKP Enables Diamond Open Access: The OA Diamond Journals Study | Public Knowledge Project

by John Willinsky & Juan Pablo Alperin, May 2021

The Public Knowledge Project (PKP), has been, by design and since its inception
over two decades ago, developing software that enables scholars from around
the world to professionally peer-review and publish their colleagues’ work without
charging them or the public to read this work. By creating open source (free)
software that distributes the power to participate in scholarly publishing by
organizing and supporting academic journal editing – including the management
of peer review and and production processes – thousands of scholars, many
operating in low-resource environments, have been able to produce professional-
quality academic journals that are free to both authors and readers. As such, PKP
has long been aware of its essential role in supporting OA diamond journals (Open
Access journals without an Article Processing Charges), but The OA Diamond
Journals Study1 published on March 9, 2021, with 971 OJS users among those
surveyed, offers us a rare level of insight into our community, and a clearer sense
of the extent to which PKP has made OA diamond possible for thousands of
journals around the world.

The OA Diamond Journal Study, sponsored by Science Europe and cOAlition S, was
able to survey 1,619 journals in 2020, finding that 60% (971) of these journals use
OJS. OA diamond journals are said to represent “a wide archipelago of relatively
small journals serving diverse communities” (p. 7) that are collectively estimated
to make up “at least 17,000, but likely up to 29,000, OA diamond journals” (p. 47)
from four regions of world (45% in Europe, 25% in Latin America, 16% in Asia, 5%
in the US/Canada) and from across the disciplines (60% HSS, 22% science, 17%
medicine). If the respondents of the survey are seen to be representative of the
estimated minimum 17,000 diamond journals, then the 60 percent use level for OJS
roughly corresponds to PKP’s own count of more than 10,000 active OJS journals.
The study points, as well, to the type and location of the publishers: “Most OA
diamond journals are the sole journal of their publisher or are with a publisher
having just a few journals. Most of these publishers are university-based” (p. 48).
These are the characteristics of PKP’s principal community of users and further
highlight the close relationship between OA diamond journals and journals using
OJS.

While those who know PKP and the OJS community may have been aware of this
connection, the close to one thousand survey responses from OJS users along
with the report’s unbiased analysis of the context in which they operate has made
three things abundantly clear:

 

With 60% of the journals using OJS, PKP has been instrumental in making OA
diamond journals a reality.
No other platform or tool, with the exception of email in some contexts, is as widely used as OJS by OA diamond journals for their operations, especially as they grow in size.
No other system has contributed as much to supporting the linguistic or geographic diversity of scholarly publishing as OJS.
As OA diamond journals are APC-free, they can be trusted not to include the so-called predatory journals.

That is, given this role as a key enabler of OA diamond journals, and given other
study findings about the characteristics of this group of journals, the report makes
it clear, in our reading, how PKP, with its multilingual OJS, is contributing to the
healthy intellectual enterprise of OA diamond journals and, as direct consequence,
to greater global participation in research.

In analyzing some of the characteristics of OA diamond journals, the report
indirectly highlights some of the strengths of PKP and OJS that have led to its
popularity among this community, as well as some of the areas where there are
opportunities for PKP to improve its offerings, or to otherwise better communicate
their value to the community. The remainder of this response will therefore focus
on summarizing and responding to various indicators of PKP’s success found in
the study, and subsequently to engaging with the misconceptions and missed
opportunities that we will seek t

What Those Responsible for Open Infrastructure in Scholarly Communication Can Do about Possibly Predatory Practices | SciELO Preprints

Abstract:  This chapter presents a three-phase analysis of 521 journals that use the open source publishing platform Open Journal Systems (OJS) while appearing on Beall’s list of predatory publishers and journals and/or in Cabells Predatory Reports, both which purport to identify journals that charge authors article processing fees (APC) to publish in the pretense of a peer-reviewed journal. In 2020, 25,671 journals were actively using OJS, with 81.3 percent in the Global South, representing a great growth in global research activities. As members of the Public Knowledge Project, which develops this freely available publishing platform, the authors feel a responsibility to explore what platform developers can do to address both the real problem of duplicitous journals and the over-ascription of the “predatory” label to publishers and journals. represented by the authors of this chapter, Drawing on data from the beacon is a part of OJS, the chapter represents an assessment and intervention In the first phase, the researchers reached out to 50 publishers and 51 journals that use OJS and appear on Beall’s list offering to assist in improving their journal quality. The response from 14 publishers (28.0 percent) among publishers and two journals (3.9 percent) among standalone journals demonstrated a likely misanalysis as “predatory” along multiple dimensions from financial model to peer-review evidence. The second phase, devoted to assessing the degree to which journals using OJS are implicated in this issue, revealed that 2.0 percent of the journals using OJS are on one or both lists. The two phases point to how the identification issue is not that of Beall or Cabells International, but results from a journal tradition of asking readers to take on trust the adherence to scholarly standards. Amid the increase in research and open access to it, the third phase of this study introduces PKP’s new technical strategy for verifying and communicating standards adherence to the public. Work has begun on systems involving trade organizations, such ORCiD and Crossref, for authenticating journal practices (including editorial oversight, peer review, research funding, and data management), while communication strategies include adapting and testing with students and professionals the familiar Nutrition Facts label used with packaged foods. The goal is to provide a publicly accessible industry standard for more reliably assessing journal quality.

What Those Responsible for Open Infrastructure in Scholarly Communication Can Do About Possibly Predatory Practices

This chapter presents a three-phase analysis of 521 journals that use the open source publishing platform Open Journal Systems (OJS) while appearing on Beall’s list of predatory publishers and journals and/or inCabells Predatory Reports, both which purport to identify journals that charge authors article processing fees (APC) to publish in the pretense of a peer-reviewed journal. In 2020, 25,671 journals were actively using OJS, with 81.3 percent in the Global South, representing a great growth in global research activities. As members of the Public Knowledge Project, which develops this freely available publishing platform, the authors feel a responsibility to explore what platform developers can do to address both the real problem of duplicitous journals and the over-ascription of the “predatory” label to publishers and journals. represented by the authors of this chapter, Drawing on data from the beacon is a part of OJS, the chapter represents an assessment and intervention In the first phase, the researchers reached out to 50 publishers and 51 journals that use OJS and appear on Beall’s list offering to assist in improving their journal quality. The response from 14 publishers (28.0 percent) among publishers and two journals (3.9 percent) among standalone journals demonstrated a likely misanalysis as “predatory” along multiple dimensions from financial model to peer-review evidence. The second phase, devoted to assessing the degree to which journals using OJS are implicated in this issue, revealed that 2.0 percent of the journals using OJS are on one or both lists. The two phases point to how the identification issue is not that of Beall or Cabells International, but results from a journal tradition of asking readers to take on trust the adherence to scholarly standards. Amid the increase in research and open access to it, the third phase of this study introduces PKP’s new technical strategy for verifying and communicating standards adherence to the public. Work has begun on systems involving trade organizations, such ORCiD and Crossref, for authenticating journal practices (including editorial oversight, peer review, research funding, and data management), while communication strategies include adapting and testing with students and professionals the familiar Nutrition Facts label used with packaged foods. The goal is to provide a publicly accessible industry standard for more reliably assessing journal quality.

What Those Responsible for Open Infrastructure in Scholarly Communication Can Do about Possibly Predatory Practices | SciELO Preprints

Abstract:  This chapter presents a three-phase analysis of 521 journals that use the open source publishing platform Open Journal Systems (OJS) while appearing on Beall’s list of predatory publishers and journals and/or inCabells Predatory Reports, both which purport to identify journals that charge authors article processing fees (APC) to publish in the pretense of a peer-reviewed journal. In 2020, 25,671 journals were actively using OJS, with 81.3 percent in the Global South, representing a great growth in global research activities. As members of the Public Knowledge Project, which develops this freely available publishing platform, the authors feel a responsibility to explore what platform developers can do to address both the real problem of duplicitous journals and the over-ascription of the “predatory” label to publishers and journals. represented by the authors of this chapter, Drawing on data from the beacon is a part of OJS, the chapter represents an assessment and intervention In the first phase, the researchers reached out to 50 publishers and 51 journals that use OJS and appear on Beall’s list offering to assist in improving their journal quality. The response from 14 publishers (28.0 percent) among publishers and two journals (3.9 percent) among standalone journals demonstrated a likely misanalysis as “predatory” along multiple dimensions from financial model to peer-review evidence. The second phase, devoted to assessing the degree to which journals using OJS are implicated in this issue, revealed that 2.0 percent of the journals using OJS are on one or both lists. The two phases point to how the identification issue is not that of Beall or Cabells International, but results from a journal tradition of asking readers to take on trust the adherence to scholarly standards. Amid the increase in research and open access to it, the third phase of this study introduces PKP’s new technical strategy for verifying and communicating standards adherence to the public. Work has begun on systems involving trade organizations, such ORCiD and Crossref, for authenticating journal practices (including editorial oversight, peer review, research funding, and data management), while communication strategies include adapting and testing with students and professionals the familiar Nutrition Facts label used with packaged foods. The goal is to provide a publicly accessible industry standard for more reliably assessing journal quality.

 

Developing an updated plugin for Dataverse integration with OPS/OJS on Vimeo

“In this activity we present the current status of development of a plugin to integrate Dataverse with Open Preprint Servers (OPS) and Open Journal Systems (OJS) in their most recent versions (3.3.x series).

Presentation held on 11/19/21 at Open Publishing Fest 2021:
openpublishingfest.org/calendar.html#event-90/ …”

Open access journals must be preserved forever | Public Knowledge Project

“PKP is delighted, on this World Preservation Day, to share an important update on Project JASPER, our partnership with DOAJ, Internet Archive, CLOCKSS and Keepers Registry. We initiated Project JASPER a year ago with an express goal to preserve no-fee journal content all over the world – much of which is published on Open Journal Systems. We have made great strides in a year, which you can read all about below or on the JASPER website, and are looking forward to what the coming year brings as well.

Project JASPER (JournAlS are Preserved forevER) is an initiative to preserve open access journals. It was launched on World Preservation Day 2020 and is in response to research* that shows that online journals—both open and closed access journals—can just disappear from the internet. This happens because of a lack of awareness amongst smaller publishers around the need for long-term digital preservation and/or the resources to enroll a journal in a long-term digital preservation scheme….”

If It’s Open, Is It Accessible? – Association of Research Libraries

“The library and open access (OA) publishing communities have made great strides in making more new scholarship openly available. But have we included readers with vision challenges in our OA plans? Only an estimated 7% of all printed works are available in accessible format, and that statistic might not significantly differ for digital scholarship worldwide….

Libraries need to consider accessibility of the document format, as well as accessibility of the tools and platforms they typically use for OA journal and monograph publishing, storage, and access. According to a blog post by the UX designer for the Directory of Open Access Journals last year, testing of a platform’s web interface can be done easily through free tools such as Lighthouse and Accessibility Insights for Web, both available as web browser extensions, which test accessibility against the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 AA.

Earlier this year, the Open Journal Systems (OJS) team at the Public Knowledge Project noted the strides that their Accessibility Interest Group team has made to improve the accessibility of OJS 3.3. Next up, they will be working on a guide to help journal editors create more accessible content within OJS.

 

This leads to the question of the format of open content. Adobe’s Portable Document Format (PDF), ubiquitous and a de facto standard for digital publishing, is typically not the best format for accessibility. Certainly, PDFs can be made WCAG-compliant, but one must make careful efforts to do so….”

Workshop “Universell utforming i OJS-tidsskrift” | 22–23 November 2021 | Munin Conference on Scholarly Publishing

Google translate: “Workshop “Universal design in OJS magazine” This workshop is offered as an in-person event in Tromsø and the language of the event is Norwegian Date: 22. – 23. November Venue: UiT Norwegian Arctic University, campus Tromsø Open journals should be available to as many people as possible also when it comes to universal design, and should not exclude users based on functional ability. In addition, the Norwegian publishing services must comply with the requirements of the Regulations on universal design of ICT solutions, which apply from 1 January 2021. The University Library in Tromsø is organizing a workshop on universal design in journals using the Open Journal Systems (OJS) software. The workshop is aimed at support staff for OJS-based publishing services / publishers who publish open journals. The workshop is mainly intended for national participants, for the sake of ev. coronary restrictions – the language of the event thus becomes Norwegian. The number of participants is limited to 25 people. The event is free, but participants will have to buy lunch themselves….”

An XML-Based Migration from Digital Commons to Open Journal Systems

Abstract:  The Oregon Library Association has produced its peer-reviewed journal, the OLA Quarterly (OLAQ), since 1995, and OLAQ was published in Digital Commons beginning in 2014. When the host institution undertook to move away from Bepress, their new repository solution was no longer a good match for OLAQ. Oregon State University and University of Oregon agreed to move the journal into their joint instance of Open Journal Systems (OJS), and a small team from OSU Libraries carried out the migration project. The OSU project team declined to use PKP’s existing migration plugin for a number of reasons, instead pursuing a metadata-centered migration pipeline from Digital Commons to OJS. We used custom XSLT to convert tabular data exported from Bepress into PKP’s Native XML schema, which we imported using the OJS Native XML Plugin. This approach provided a high degree of control over the journal’s metadata and a robust ability to test and make adjustments along the way. The article discusses the development of the transformation stylesheet, the metadata mapping and cleanup work involved, as well as advantages and limitations of using this migration strategy.

 

Why Use OJS for Journal Publishing & Management |

“OJS, short for Open Journal Systems, is an open-source (free to use) software that enables authors and publishers to submit, edit, publish, archive, and manage peer-reviewed scholarly journals online. It is an end-to-end journal publishing and management system that can be easily operated by authors, reviewers, editors, or publishers.

Moreover, OJS’s latest upgrade enables you with more flexible roles and task management features. You can create new roles and modify, rename, or even rearrange the existing roles.

The PHP application developed originally by Public Knowledge Project (PKP) has been on a growth trajectory since its release in 2001. Used by 10,000+ journals worldwide, OJS provides a solid foundation to all journal publishers aiming to improve the quality of their scholarly publishing and expand the reach of research work….”

PKP: Annual Report 2019

“Today, OJS is the world’s most widely used open source publishing software, available in more than 25 languages. We owe this success to our contributors – past, present, and future – whether they be librarians, software developers, translators, editors, scholars, and many more from around the world who share our passion and dedication to making knowledge public.

Our staff, services, and software have all changed over the years, but one thing remains the same: we are, and will always be, a research and development project that creates and supports open infrastructure to improve the quality and reach of scholarly publishing. Join us as we look back at our top stories from 2019-2020. Discover what it means to us to be truly open….”

View of Revised Publication Policies by Higher Education Commission for Health Science Journals

“While the objective of achieving some standardization and quality of health science journals is laudable but it is also important that regulatory bodies should act as facilitators and extend valuable help and assistance to the national journals to get indexed in important international databases, earn Impact Factor, increase their visibility by making their presence on the PubMed and PubMed  Central. Instead of providing any financial grants, the HEC can organize hands on training workshops for Editors in scientific publishing, use of Open Journal System; provide software to prepare XML files for submission to PubMed Central which will increase the visibility of Pakistani journals and thus increasing our citation in world medical literature.”