Bridging the Past and Future: Scholarly Communication in the 21st Century
Carl Lagoze
Cornell Information Sciencelagoze@cs.cornell.edu
Abstract
The fabric of scholarly communication isundergoing radical change. Economic, legal, andtechnical tensions are straining traditional publisher
and journal models. New technologies provide
unexplored opportunities for new scholarly
communication models. At Cornell Information
Science we are exploring this problem from theperspective of social and technical interaction. Our
work therefore involves investigation of new
infrastructure for scholarly communication, inparticular the extension of OAI-PMH to a p2p
framework, and research into hybrid social/technicalnetworks that arise in the context of new technicalinfrastructure.

1

Introduction

The traditional model of scholarly publishing –publication through peer-reviewed journals – isunder enormous pressure. Publishers and libraries
are entwined in what is referred to as the “serials
crisis” [23], where rising subscription rates, flat
library budgets, and resulting subscription
cancellations threaten the very existence of journals
and research library collections. In addition, agrowing number of scholars, especially those in
rapidly changing scientific fields, have become
increasing accustomed to rapid dissemination via the
web and are frustrated with the delays of journal
publication [41]. Finally, scholars have growing
resistance to copyright transfer policies that they
perceive as vehicles for giving away theirintellectual capital [11].
The ubiquity of the web and internet has givenrise to a number of developments – collectively
known as scholarly electronic publishing [9] – thatare effecting radical change to the scholarly
publishing milieu.
These include electronic
publishing by existing commercial and learned
society publishers [13], growing popularity of ePrint archives that provide discipline-centeredrepositories for rapid exchange of scholarly results[38], rapid growth of so-called institutional
repositories [26] whereby institutions and theirlibraries provide the infrastructure for selfpublishing, and simple self-publishing whereby
scholars maintain active web sites for research
projects.
These developments have already had atransformative effect on the way scholars
disseminate information and the manner in whichlibraries manage that information. Nevertheless,they can be characterized as incremental
developments, borrowing the terminology of Klingand McKim [30].
These developments are incremental in that they
maintain the tradition of document as text, albeit indigital form. While the importance of text should
certainly not be minimized, there is substantial
demand from both the scientific [53] and humanities[48] communities for scholarly artifacts thatinterweave text, static data, simulations, video, andother genre of materials. The opportunities in thedigital domain for extending documents beyond text
have been explored by Buckland [12] and our own
work with Fedora [3] provides the infrastructure forsuch new documents.
These developments are incremental because
they focus on artifacts, rather than the process that
produces those artifacts and the combination of thatprocess with the artifacts in a coherent network. As
Kling, McKim, and King note [31], intellectual
activity arises from what they call “scholarly
communication forums” that intermix people,
organizations, data, messages, programs, anddocuments in rich “socio-technical interaction
networks”. In the same sense that amazon.com haselevated numerous entities such as reviews, lists, andcross-references to a first-class status (alongside theproducts they sell), we maintain that next-generation
scholarly communication systems should reify as“documents” not only results, but the signal-richcommunication that up-to-now has been lost inemail archives or discussion lists and therelationships of those interactions with related
scholarly documents.
Finally, these developments are incremental
because they largely maintain organizational
structures inherited from print publishing. For
example, arXiv, arguably the most influential of the
new publishing vehicles, essentially maps a predigital tradition of sharing preprints among physics
colleagues onto web space [30]. The interaction ofcommunication technology and organizational
structure has been relevant since the invention of thebook [25, 40]. There can be little doubt that theorganizations that support scholarly communication
will radically change in the years to come in tandemwith radical changes in publishing technology.
In a variety of projects at Cornell Information
Science, we are investigating infrastructure andtheory underlying present and promising changes inscholarly communication. This work effectively“bridges the past and the future”, in that it attempts

to resurrect the interpersonal/interactive foundationsof scholarly communication, which have been lost
due to the physical constraints of paper-basedjournal publishing, while accommodating the“beyond text” needs of modern scholars. This paper
will briefly outline two aspects of this work that areplanned or are in process and hopefully stimulate
discussion in this rapidly changing area.

2

P2P and the Open Archives Initiative

p2p systems are the subject of considerable
interest in the research community [17] because they
can be highly adaptive, self-organizing, and fault
tolerant. We are interesting in providing technicalinfrastructure that will enable the deployment of p2p
in the context of scholarly communication. Our
primary interest is to understand how p2p
architecture facilitates the scholarly value chain
whereby ideas flow from proposals to initial results
to preprints to peer-reviewed publications. Can p2p
enable a richer, more democratic, and ultimately
more productive scholarly value chain?
There has been limited work on p2p systems
within the digital library domain or related toscholarly publishing.
LOCKSS implements p2p
replication for the preservation of documents [37,46]. Its main contribution is the use of novel
techniques to ensure the survivability of document
copies even in the face of hostile attacks. The
results of the Edutella project [39] are more closely
related to scholarly publishing concerns. Edutella
exposes RDF metadata [6] via OAI-PMH [7] in a
P2P framework and provides a query capability overthat metadata. Query routing is done via hub peersthat rely on the semantic structure of the RDF
metadata. Finally, the W3C sponsored Annotea
project [27] and in particular its extensions in mies
[8] addresses issues related to p2p sharing ofannotations and comments about digital documents.
Our investigations of P2P within the context ofscholarly communication build on the notion of a

metadata refinement network that enables thecreation of documen value chains. Such a value
chain exists when distributed nodes in the network
iterate an original resource r1 by creating other typesof manifestations r2, r3, …, rn of it, by, for example,
expressing a quality statement about it, annotating it,
digitally preserving it, etc. Presuming that metadatam1, m2, m3, …, mn is associated with each suchiteration, we are interested in investigating how that
distributed metadata can indicate its relationship to
the original resource r1 and/or to other iterated
versions r2, r3, …, rn of that resource.
To create the infrastructure for the evolution anddissemination of metadata to support such value
chains, we are extending OAI-PMH to a p2p
context. The Open Archives Initiative Protocol for
Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH) [33] is widely
recognized as the predominant architecture forinteroperability among distributed information
sources. The protocol is used internationally for theexchange of structured (meta)data in a variety ofcontexts including digital libraries, museums, ePrint
repositories, research projects and corporate
intranets. OAI-PMH is quite simple, with six verbs
that allow known item retrieval, range retrieval
based on simple criteria (for example, date ofmodification), and retrieval of basic repository
information. The simplicity of the protocol is key to
its widespread use and utility and Clifford Lynch, a
recognized leader in the information community has
described the OAI-PMH as “a vital component of
the digital information infrastructure” [36].
When the protocol was originally created, theprimary usage context was a simple bipartite model,
illustrated in Figure 1. In this model, users of the
protocol are divided into two classes: data providers
make structured (meta)data available via theprotocol, and service providers use protocol requests
to harvest the data, post-process it, and refine it withthe goal of developing services that add value to themetadata.

SearchService

BrowseService

LinkingService

OAI-PMH
HarvesterOAI-PMH
HarvesterOAI-PMH
HarvesterOAI-PMH
ServerOAI-PMH
ServerOAI-PMH
ServerOAI-PMH
ServerRepository

Repository

Repository

Repository

Figure 1 - Simple Data Provider, Service Provider Topology

OAI-PMH
HarvesterOAI-PMH
ServerMetadata
Repository

SearchService

BrowseService

OAI-PMH
HarvesterOAI-PMH
HarvesterOAI-PMH
ServerOAI-PMH
ServerOAI-PMH
ServerOAI-PMH
ServerCollection

Collection

Collection

Collection

Figure 2 - NSDL Metadata Repository as OAI-PMH aggregator

OAI-PMH
HarvesterFigure 3 - OAI-PMH p2p network

OAI-PMH
ServerOAI-PMH
ServerOAI-PMH
ServerOAI-PMH
HarvesterOAI-PMH
ServerOAI-PMH
ServerOAI-PMH
Harvester

analysis of a large cross-section of aggregatedmetadata records and cross-walking between
different formats, for example, MARC to Dublin
Core [2]. The aggregator then exposes this metadata
via OAI-PMH, effectively changing roles to a data
provider.
The NSDL (National Science Digital Library)[54] metadata repository and its relationship with
NSDL collections and services, illustrated in Figure
2, is an example of this aggregator model. This
forms the basis of the NSDL architecture [32] in its
current form at the time of writing this paper

This simple model on which the OAI-PMH wasbased provided a good basis for initial understandingof the utility of the protocol, leading to its rapid
dissemination. However, use of the protocol quickly
revealed another class of deployment. This is thenotion of an aggregator, which in essence straddles
the line between data provider and service provider.
An aggregator consumes metadata via OAI-PMH
from several sources (data providers) in the samemanner as a standard service provider. In addition tostoring that metadata, an aggregator may process it
in several ways including normalizing it based on(January 2004).
Wesuggestthat
thisdataprovider/aggregator/service-provider
model
isevolving towards a more intriguing topology ofnodes participating in the exchange of structured
data via OAI-PMH. For example, in our own workwithin NSDL we have found that harvesting among
aggregators occurs; such as OAIster [5] harvestingfrom the NSDL metadata repository. We foresee
further blurring of the lines between data providers,aggregators, and service providers and the evolutionof a directed graph topology that corresponds to thatof peer-to-peer (p2p) networks [42]. An example ofthis graph is shown in Figure 3, with nodes playing
four roles based on their graph relationships: 1)
traditional data providers with only outgoing arcs,2) traditional service providesr with only ingoingarcs, 3) pass-through aggregators that consume andprovide metadata but perform no transformations or
enhancements, and 4) value-added aggregators that
normalize and add value to consumed metadata
before exposing it (shaded in grey in the figure).
The flow of data and metadata through such a
network has a number of interesting characteristics
that we are investigating and modeling.
2.1 Metadata document location
Similar to p2p document systems such as freeNet[14] and Gnutella [4], metadata (documents) in an
OAI-PMH p2p network are distributed across the
network and clients must be able to locate copies of
specific metadata records. We can exploit the factthat metadata records in OAI-PMH are uniquely
named and use efficient key-based location
mechanisms such as distributed hash tables (DTHs)[45, 47] or other established distributed lookup
protocols [49] to locate specific metadata records in
p2p metadata network.
2.2 Provenance queries
Metadata records may propagate through thesystem and go through a number of refinement
and/or translation phases as they move throughvalue-added aggregators. This type of processing istypical of a number of aggregators run by existing
libraries. At any given time t in a OAI-PMH p2p
network, a set of metadata records {m1, m2, m3, …}
may exist that have a related metadata provenancechain. This provenance chain may be a simple andlinear or may have multiple branches. In a related,and possible concurrent, scenario, an original
resource r1 evolves through a value chain in which
iterated versions {r2, r3, … } of r1 are being
created. In this case, at any given time t in a OAIPMH p2p network, a set of metadata records {m1,m2, m3, …} may exist that have a related resource(not metadata) provenance chain. Clients in thisOAI-PMH p2p scenario should be able to query thesystem for other metadata records of related
provenance.
The OAI-PMH already has an implementation
guideline [34] for expressing provenanceinformation in a harvested metadata record and weare investigating whether this specification is
sufficiently expressive and how it can be
automatically generated. We are also investigating
the techniques for joining records by provenancechain in order to efficiently query the system in thismanner.
2.3 Network harvesting
Finally, and most interesting, it would be usefulto address OAI-PMH harvesting requests(ListRecords) to an OAI-PMH p2p network as awhole. For example, a client might specify a request
to harvest all records in the network that have been
made available or modified between dates d1 andd2. The implementation of this would involve
submitting a query to a single node on the OAIPMH p2p network that then efficiently propagatedthe query across the network. Broadcast queries,
such as that which take place in Gnutella [4] have
proven to be inefficient for this task.
Morepromising is to address this as a selectively
propagated range query, which is a problem that has
been studied by our colleagues in the database groupat Cornell. They have developed an efficient andelegant data structure called P-Trees [15], whichnotionally distribute b-tree functionality acrossdistributed peers and can be used to efficiently routequeries among peers. We are investigating this data
structure as an approach to implementing efficient
network harvesting.

3

Document networks, social networks,
and hybrid networks

The development of printed journals transformed
scholarship from a closed group activity relying on
verbalface-to-facecommunication
amongcolleagues to a more democratic and accessible
system, albeit one where the hierarchy of excellence
prevailed. Print publications provided the basis forwhat Anselm Strauss [50] described as “socialworlds” where scholars worldwide developed asense of community through texts rather thanpersonal interaction. We are investigating how thestructure of these “social worlds” mutates as the
publication technology that underlies them istransformed.

Cited ByTime

non-conclusive artifacts such as email discussions andinformal meetings.
In order to facilitate the discussion, three classes of
document can be identified: formal documents, in theform of officially published journal papers andconference proceedings; semi-formal documents,
such as the ePrints in arXiv; and informal documents,
such as email discussions, blogs, etc.

Figure 5. Researcher Social Network

Figure 4. Scholarly Publishing
Network
Our work integrates social science researchmethods to explore the interplay between
information
technologies
andscholarly
communication, and aims to design new tools tofacilitate more dynamic and richer scholarly
communication. Analysis of the use of these newtools will reveal the effects of these technologies andshed new light on our understanding of how scholars
communicate with each other and how different
communication
modelsleadtodifferent
manifestations of scholar community.
3.1 A Conceptual Framework for Scholarly
Communication
To clarify the interplay between information
artifacts, the forming of a scholarly community, andits institutionalization, we propose a conceptual
framework based on information flows. We argue thatscholarly publishing and communication are all
information exchange through information artifacts:
either formal and materialized artifacts such as journal
articles and conference proceedings, or informal and

The official and semi-formal publication systems
form document networks (Figure 4). They are
directed acyclic graphs with citation edges fromnewer papers to those already published. The
development of electronic publishing exemplified byarXiv has collapsed the time dimension of thiscitation graph: one hundred years ago you might only
be able to cite papers published in the past year; now
you can cite contemporaneous papers. Evaluation ofthis citation graph reveals popularity of documents
and suggests quality [20-22]. Substantial research has
been done regarding why people cite each other,including quality, same field, availability, selfcitation, and social citation, indicating that the systemis far from perfect [10]. Furthermore, as previously
discussed, a large amount of informal communicationand the related scholarly artifacts were neither“materialized” nor captured nor analyzed, and wereconsequently excluded from quality and popularity
measurements.
Coexisting with the document networks, there aresocial networks composed of authors and researchers.
Leydesdorff [35] discussed a dual layered network,
including the social network of authors and networkof their reflexive communications. Cronin [16] also
discussed citation as one dimension of scientificcommunication among texts. Social networks amongscholars are more dynamic and active than the
document networks. Scholars communicate not only
through formal publications and conference
proceedings, but also through email discussions,informal meetings, and chatting over lunch and coffee
breaks. These channels of informal communication
compose a rich array of information flows, whichfoster the creation of original ideas and help maturescientific theories. The intrinsic limitations on formal
and semi-formal document networks call for moreadvanced technology to materialize some of this lessformal communication and exploit its richness, andmore advanced social theory to understand its
structure. - Figure 5 shows a social network formed
by including informal communication channels. The
connections are bi-directional, the in- and out- degrees
follow a power-law distribution, and the network has
a high cluster and low diameter, possessing the“small-world” attributes [29, 52].
We are beginning technical work that will permit
the materialization and use of a hybrid network
composed of both various formats of documents andsocial actors (authors and researchers). Different fromthe dual-layer network model advanced by
Leydesdorff [35], this hybrid network links
documents and social actors together. The hybrid
network conceptualization facilitates the interaction
between documents, social actors, and the
combination of the two through various network
tools. It takes advantage of both the social networkand document network, thus providing the

Figure 6. Hybrid Network
opportunities to design better tools to facilitate searchand selection of both information artifacts andauthors/researchers [24] (Figure 6). Our research will
reveal the detailed structure of this hybrid network,
methods for analyzing it, and mechanisms for using it
to assist users of information systems.
Building on the materialization of this hybrid
network, we plan a number of corollary
investigations. We will capture the evolution ofcitation and hyperlink patterns among those formal,
semi-formal, and informal communications. We willthen explore the correlation between the citedness of adocument and its quality and impact, and the different
network measurements (centrality and prestige) of a

researcher and his/her reputation and popularity.
Furthermore, we will explore the differences between
formal citation in official scholarly publication venues
and hyperlinks in informal documents by extending
evaluative bibliometics to semi-formal and informal
scholarly communication. Usage analysis among
these different types of documents will provide us
with more insights into the emergence of authority
and quality [10]. Kim [28] shows the motivation forlinking is also multi-dimensional. We hope tounderstand under which conditions citations andhyperlinks can be used as a measure of impact,
quality, relevance, reputation, and possibly generate
other types of hyperlink and citation measurements ofthese scholarly achievements.
3.2 Building the technical foundation for hybrid
network research
As described in the previous section we areinvestigating the structure and utility of hybrid
networks to improve our understanding of scholarly
activity, and as a tool that scholars can use toenhance their intellectual activity. In this context,
we are investigating and implementing a number oftechnical extensions to scholarly communication
systems. These efforts will require innovations in
reputation management, recommendation systems,
hybrid network visualization, and distributed
document management. This technical work falls
into two broad classes:•
Expanding the breadth of documents - Ourgoal is to enrich the structure of the hybrid
document/social network with more types of
documents. In addition to traditional formal
publications, we intend to include
annotations, reviews, recommendations,similarity-maps, data visualizations, and
other
forms
of
more
personal
communication that are often at the heart ofscholarly activity. Our work builds on thefoundation provided by arXiv and OAIPMH.
•
Expanding the depth of documents - Ourgoal is to enrich the structure of the hybrid
document/social network by incorporating
more complex and active virtual documents.
These virtual documents exploit a number ofkey features including 1) aggregation - they
are composed from several sources of dataof mixed genre; text, images, video, audio,
database access, and other types; 2)
distribution – the data in a virtual document
may be locally “contained” in the document
or contained by reference to external data
sources; and 3) execution – the presentationof a virtual document occurs on the fly via
the integration and execution of local or
distributed
parameterized
services(programs) that process the local or
distributed data that is “contained” in thevirtual document, producing on-demand
disseminations. Our own work with Fedora(Flexible
Extensible
DigitalObjectRepository Architecture) [43, 44] in thecontext of digital library research provides
the strong basis for our proposed
investigations in this area. We are planning
to integrate this digital library-based work
into the context of the scientific researchcommunity, where Grid middleware [18, 19,51] provides the basis for coordinating
distributed computational resources and
data.

4

Conclusion

This paper has described work on future scholarly
publishing technology and models that we haveinitiated and are planning at Cornell Information
Science. In the spirit of the broader information
science program at Cornell that “studies informationin its human and social context” [1], our work
integrates both technology that underlies scholarly
communication and the social organizations that thistechnology enables and encourages.

[8]
[9]
[10]

[11]
[12]
[13]

[14]

Acknowledgments
Although this paper has a single listed author, theideas originate from a team of collaborators
including Shay David, John Erickson, Geri Gay,
Johannes Gehrke, Bing Pan, Sandy Payette, Jayavel
Shanmugasundaram, Herbert Van de Sompel, andSimeon Warner. Support for the work describedhere comes from a variety of sources including
National Science Foundation Grant No. IIS9817416, National Science Foundation under grant
number 0127308, and the Andrew W. Mellon
Foundation.

[15]

[16]

[17]

References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]

Cornell University: Informatioin Science
Program, 2004
http://www.cis.cornell.edu/infoscience/.
Dublin Core/MARC/GILS Crosswalk, 1997
http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/dccross.html.
The Fedora™ Project: An Open-Source
Digital Repository Management System,
2003 http://www.fedora.info.
Gnutelliums, 2002
http://gnutella.wego.com/.
OAIster...find the pearls, 2002
http://oaister.umdl.umich.edu/.
Semantic Web Activity: Resourse
Description Framework (RDF), 2001
http://www.w3.org/RDF.
B. Ahlborn, W. Nejdl, and W. Siberski,“OAI-P2P: A Peer-to-Peer Network forOpen Archives,” presented at Workshop on
Distributed Computing Architectures for

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

Digital Libraries ICPP, Vancouver, B.C.,
2002.
R. Bachmann-Gmuer and P. Mueller, mies Meta Information Exchange System, 2003
http://wymiwyg.org/mies/index.html.
C. W. Bailey, Jr., Scholarly Electronic
Publishing Bibliography, 2003
http://info.lib.uh.edu/sepb/sepb.html.
C. L. Borgman and J. Furner, “Scholarly
communication and bibliometrics,” Annual
Review of Information Science andTechnology, 36, pp. 3-72, 2002.
A. Buckholtz, “Returning Scientific
Publishing to Scientists,” Journal of
Electronic Publishing, 7 (1), 2001.
M. K. Buckland, “What is a "digital
document"?,” Document Numerique, 2 (2),pp. 221-230, 1998.
C. Buckley, M. Burright, R. S.-W.
Prendergast, and A. Taylor, “Electronic
Publishing of Scholarly Journals: A
Bibliographic Essay of Current Issues,”
Issues in Science and Technology
Librarianship, Spring, 1999.
I. Clarke, T. Hong, W., S. G. Miller, O.
Sandberg, and B. Wiley, “Protecting Free
Expression Online with Freenet,” IEEE
Internet Computing, 6 (1), 2002.
A. Crainiceanu, P. Linga, J. Gehrke, and J.
Shanmugasundaram, “Querying Peer-toPeer Networks Using P-trees,” presented at
VLDB, Berlin, 2003.
B. Cronin, The citation process: The roleand significance of citations in scientificcommunication. London: Taylor Graham,
1984.
N. Daswani, H. Garcia-Molina, and B.
Yang, “Open Problems in Data-Sharing
Peer-to-Peer Systems,” presented at
International Conference on Data
Engineering, San Jose, 2002.
I. Foster, C. Kesselman, J. Nick, and S.
Tuecke, “The Physiology of the Grid: An
Open Grid Services Architecture forDistributed Systems Integration,” Global
Grid Forum June 22 2002.
I. Foster, C. Kesselman, and S. Tuecke,“The Anatomy of the Grid: Enabling
Scalable Virtual Organizations,”
International Journal of Supercomputer
Applications, 15 (3), 2001.
E. Garfield, Citation indexing: Its theory
and application in science, technology, andhumanities. New York, NY: John Wiley,
1979.
E. Garfield and A. Welljams-Dorof,“Citation data: Their use as quantitative
indicators for science and technology
evaluation and policy-making,” Science

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]
[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]
[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

and Public Policy, 19 (5), pp. 321-327,
1992.
E. Garfield and A. Welljams-Dorof, “OfNobel class: A citation perspective on highimpact research authors,” Theoretical
Medicine, 13 (2), pp. 117-135, 1992.
J. W. Houghton, “Crisis and Transition:
The Economics of Scholarly
Communication,” Learned Publishing, 14(July), pp. 167-176, 2001.
A. Hyatt, N. Contractor, and P. M. Jones,“Computational organizational networkmodeling: Strategies and an example,”
Computational and Mathematical
Organizational Theory, 4, pp. 285-300,
1997.
A. Johns, The nature of the book : print andknowledge in the making. Chicago, Ill.:
University of Chicago Press, 1998.
R. K. Johnson, “Institutional Repositories:
Partnering with Faculty to Enhance
Scholarly Communication,” D-Lib
Magazine, 8 (11), 2002.
J. Kahan, M.-R. Koivunen, E.
Prud'Hommeaux, and R. R. Swick,“Annotea: An Open RDF Infrastructure for
Shared Web Annotations,” presented at
WWW10, Hong Kon, 2001.
H. J. Kim, “Motivations for hyperlinking inscholarly electronic articles: A qualitative
study,” Journal of the American Society for
Information Science, 51 (10), pp. 887-899,
2000.
J. Kleinberg, “Navigation in a small
world,” Nature, 406, pp. 845, 2000.
R. Kling and G. McKim, “Scholarly
communication and the continuum ofelectronic publishing,” Journal of theAmerican Society for Information Science,
50 (10), pp. 890-906, 1999.
R. Kling, G. McKim, and A. King, “A Bit
More of It: Scholarly Communication
Forums as Socio-Technical Interaction
Networks,” Journal of the American
Society of Information Science andTechnology, 54 (1), pp. 47-67, 2003.
C. Lagoze, W. Arms, S. Gan, D. Hillmann,
C. Ingram, D. Krafft, R. Marisa, J. Phipps,
J. Saylor, C. Terrizzi, W. Hoehn, D.
Millman, J. Allan, S. Guzman-Lara, and T.
Kalt, “Core Services in the Architecture of
the National Digital Library for Science
Education (NSDL),” presented at Joint
Conference on Digital Libraries, Portland,
Oregon, 2002.
C. Lagoze and H. Van de Sompel, The
Open Archives Initiative Protocol for
Metadata Harvesting - Version 2.0, 2002
http://www.openarchives.org/OAI_protocol/openarchivesprotocol.html.

[34]

[35]
[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]
[47]

C. Lagoze, H. Van de Sompel, M. Nelson,
and S. Warner, Implementation Guildelines
for the Open Archvies Initiative for
Metadata Harvesting, 2002
http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/guid
elines.htm.
L. Leydesdorff, “Theories of citation,”
Scientometrics, 43 (1), pp. 5-25, 1998.
C. Lynch, “Authenticity and Integrity in the
Digital Environment: An Exploratory
Analysis on the Central Role of Trust,”
presented at Authenticity in a Digital
Environment, Washington, D.C., 2000.
P. Maniatis, M. Roussopoulos, T. J. Giulli,
D. S. H. Rosenthal, M. Baker, and Y.
Muliadi, “Preserving Peer Replicas byRate-Limited Sampled Voting,” presented
at Proceedings of the Nineteenth ACM
Symposium on Operating Systems
Principles, Bolton Landing, NY, 2003.
N. Medeiros, “E-Prints, Institutional
Archives, and Metadata: Disseminating
Scholarly Literature to the Masses,” OCLC
Systems & Services, 19 (2), pp. 51-53,
2003.
W. Nejdl, B. Wolf, and C. Qu,“EDUTELLA: A P2P Networking
Infrastructure Based on RDF,” presented at
WWW2002, Honolulu, 2002.
J. J. O'Donnell, Avatars of the word : frompapyrus to cyberspace. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1998.
C. Oppenheim, “The Future of Scholarly
Journal Publishing,” Journal ofDocumentation, 56 (4), pp. 361-398, 2000.
A. Oram, Peer-to-peer : harnessing thebenefits of a disruptive technology, 1st ed.
Beijing ; Cambridge Mass.: O'Reilly, 2001.
S. Payette and C. Lagoze, “Flexible andExtensible Digital Object and Repository
Architecture,” presented at In Research andAdvanced Technology for Digital Libraries,
Second European Conference, ECDL '98,
Berlin, Heidelberg, 1998.
S. Payette and T. Staples, “The Mellon
Fedora Project: Digital Library Architecture
Meets XML and Web Services,” presented
at European Conference on Research andAdvanced Technology for Digital Libraries,
Rome, 2002.
S. Ratnasamy, S. Shenker, and I. Stoica,“Routing Algorithms for DHTs: Some
Open Questions,” presented at IPTPS,
2002.
V. Reich and D. S. H. Rosenthal,“LOCKSS: A Permanent Web Publishingand Access System,” DLib, 7, 2001.
A. Rowstron and P. Druschel, “Pastry:
Scalable, distributed object location androuting for large-scale peer-to-peer

[48]
[49]

[50]
[51]

[52]
[53]

[54]

systems,” presented at 18th IFIP/ACM
International Conference on Distributed
Systems Platforms, 2001.
T. Staples and R. Wayland, “Virginia Dons
FEDORA: A Prototype for a Digital Object
Repository,” D-Lib Magazine, July, 2000.
I. Stoica, R. Morris, D. Karger, M. F.
Kaashoek, and H. Balakrishnan, “Chord: A
scalable peer-to-peer lookup service forinternet applications,” presented at ACM
SIGCOMM, 2001.
A. Strauss, “A Social World Perspective,”
Studies in Symbolic Interaction, I (1), pp.
119-128, 1978.
S. Tuecke, K. Czajkowski, I. Foster, J.
Frey, S. Graham, C. Kesselman, T.
Maquire, T. Sandholm, D. Snelling, andVanderbilt, “Open Grid Services
Infrastructure (OGSI): Version 1.0,” Global
Grid Forum draft-ggf-ogsi-gridservice-33,
January 27 2003. http://www.ggf.org/ogsiwg.
D. J. Watts, Six Degrees: The science of aconnected age. New York: W.W. Norton &Company, 2003.
R. Williams, R. Moore, and R. Hanisch, “A
Virtual Observatory Vision based on
Publishing and Virtual Data,” US National
Virtual Observatory 2003.
http://bill.cacr.caltech.edu/usvopubs/files/VO-vision.pdf.
L. L. Zia, “The NSF National Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
Education Digital Library (NSDL)
Program,” D-Lib Magazine, 8 (11), 2002.