A Case Study of Online Publishing at CJC-Online: Experiences, Insights, and Considerations for Adoption
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1994 the Canadian Journal of Communication (CJC) initiated an online publishing program. Initially it took the form of a self-developed system for the online display of journal articles. Based on this foundation improvements were made each year as new functionality was added based on input from the journals editorial and publishing team. In 2004 the CJC took a major step forward by adopting Open Journal Systems (OJS). Utilizing the manuscript handling capacity of OJS and combining it with already developed functionality enabled the CJC to not only draw on and contribute to existing OJS efforts, but also to locate itself in an advantageous position vis-a-vis online and print publishing.In contrast to the CJC, and to that of many Quebec-based journals, the vast majority of single journal publishers with limited circulations have not developed their online journal publishing capability. Typically, if approached, they have allowed commercial publishers or aggregators to publish their contents online on a non-exclusive basis. This paper will analyse the dynamics of technological development and innovation at the CJC with a focus on issues of ownership and control, financial stability, publishing and technological expertise, editorial outlook, and readership demand. Based on over ten years of experience with online publishing, we will conclude with suggestions on how more widespread adoption of online publishing might be achieved in Canadian social science and humanities journals given the current and quickly evolving publishing environment.
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 | 0.014 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".