DiPP and eLanguage: Two cooperative models for open access
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article describes the development, deployment and ongoing use of two collaborative platforms for the publication of peer–reviewed, open access, academic e–journals and the different organizational environments towards which each system is tailored. The two projects presented here, DiPP [1] and eLanguage [2], are examples of different approaches to electronic publishing: the first being a regional publishing cooperative, the second a disciplinary one [3]. Our description includes the technical specifications of the DiPP platform, which is an extension of the Plone [4] content management system and Fedora [5], and eLanguage, which is based on the Public Knowledge Project's Open Journal Systems (OJS) [6] and the blogging platform Wordpress [7]. The authors hope to convincingly illustrate how very specific factors — both technical and cultural — shape the requirements of those who work with different publishing products and that these factors must be carefully reviewed when building a publishing cooperative. We also wish to emphasize the importance of bringing together researchers, scholarly societies and libraries in a joint effort to create the ideal environment for open access. Scholarly societies in particular can act as influential stewards for the proliferation of open access due to their reach and the trust they enjoy, and therefor bringing them aboard is of critical importance [8]. Notes 1. See http://www.dipp.nrw.de/. 2. See http://elanguage.net/. 3. We owe the term publishing cooperative to Raym Crow of SPARC, who held a presentation outlining the concept at the First PKP Scholarly Publishing Conference in Vancouver on 12 July 2007. The presentation slides are available at http://pkp.sfu.ca/ocs/pkp2007/index.php/pkp/1/paper/view/79/33. See also Raym Crow, 2006. “Publishing cooperatives: An alternative for non–profit publishers,” Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resource Coalition (SPARC) Discussion Paper, at http://www.arl.org/sparc/publications/papers.html; see also version in First Monday, volume 11, number 9 (September), at http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_9/crow/. 4. See http://plone.org/. 5. See http://www.fedora–commons.org/. Note that this repository system is not to be confused with the Linux distribution of the same name. 6. See http://pkp.sfu.ca/?q=ojs. 7. See http://wordpress.org/. 8. See Veltrop (2003) and Waltham (2006) for a discussion of open access in relation to scholarly societies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.025 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.046 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.039 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".