OPERAS Tools Research and Development White Paper
Creators: name: Donato, Francesca Di
name: Gendre, Patrick
name: Giglia, Elena
name: Gingold, Arnaud
name: Maryl, Maciej
name: Mowlam, Tom
name: Sillaume, Ghislain
name: Staines, Heather
name: Wennström, Sofie
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2018
Subjects: Open Access
Open Science
publishing tools
sociel sciences and humanities

description: This white paper has been elaborated by the Tools (R&amp;D) Working Group, one of the 7 Working Groups<br> launched by the OPERAS research infrastructure. The Working Group goal was to set up a list of tools<br> and development which need to be done, to improve their usability for the OPERAS partners. The approach in OPERAS emphasizes the importance of building the open science scholarly<br> communication infrastructure in Social Sciences and Humanities on community driven tools. In<br> this perspective, the development of Open Source tools and the setup of a toolbox appear to be<br> appropriate answers to the existing needs and evolutions in scholarly publishing. Following a first discussion in the Working Group, participants discussed the partners’ practices and<br> needs to help focus the Working Group objectives on three functions:<br> –– Peer review: interest in emerging practices such as open peer review, peer review tracking<br> –– Authoring: interest in simple and all-in-one services, especially online and collaborative authoring<br> –– Publishing: in particular, simple tools needed by small academic journals The main results of the Working Group are:<br> –– Notes on observed trends<br> –– A common approach and criteria for choosing tools<br> –– A list of relevant tools, detailing features and functionalities<br> –– An analysis of the current needs of the partners For Peer Review, the reviewing workflow is implemented in most Open Source software like Open<br> Journal System (OJS) but developments are still needed to match the commercial software services.<br> Similarly, the review tracking data available via services such as Publons is currently not open. The<br> emerging trend for Open Peer Review represents an innovative area, both in terms of usage and tools. For Authoring, we see a bloom of new online and collaborative tools. Promising Open Source software<br> for editing structured scholarly content are being developed and are near to production, alongside<br> commercial tools such as Authorea or Overleaf. One of the main challenges, in this case, is to obtain a<br> continuous production environment through interoperability. For Publishing, several Open Source software solutions are already used in production, but, as the<br> level of service expected from a publication service is rising and includes a growing number of thirdparty<br> services, the community is considering ways of working together to combine their effort to be<br> comparable with the state of the art of the commercial solutions. The Operas partners are willing to go beyond this working group and consider engaging in follow-up<br> projects, notably to help create a resource centre dedicated to providing the community with current<br> information and support on scholarly communication software and tools, and to contribute to the<br> effort in developing Open Source tools.
description: {"references": ["Butchard, Dorothy, et al. \"Peer Review in Practice.\" UCL Press, 2017, doi:10.14324/111.978191130767 9.15.", "Eriksson, J\u00f6rgen, et al. \"Moving towards Open Science? Conference Report: The 9th Conference on Open Access Scholarly Publishing, Lisbon, September 20\u201321, 2017.\" Nordic Perspectives on Open Science, vol. 1, Jan. 2018, doi:10.7557/11.4307.", "Langlais, Pierre-Carl. Critical Study of the New Ways of \"editorialising\" Open Access Scientific Journals. Research Report, Biblioth\u00e8que Scientifique Num\u00e9rique, Nov. 2016, https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ hal-01399286.", "Neylon, Cameron. \"Principles for Open Scholarly Infrastructures.\" Science in the Open, 23 Feb. 2015, https://cameronneylon.net/blog/principles-for-open-scholarly-infrastructures/.", "Peters, Paul. \"A Radically Open Approach to Developing Infrastructure for Open Science.\" Hindawi Blog, 23 Oct. 2017, https://about.hindawi.com/opinion/a-radically-open-approach-to-developinginfrastructure- for-open-science/.", "Pooley, Jefferson. \"Scholarly Communications Shouldn't Just Be Open, but Non-Profit Too.\" LSE Impact Blog, 15 Aug. 2017, http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2017/08/15/ scholarly-communications-shouldnt-just-be-open-but-non-profit-too/.", "Ross-Hellauer, T. \"What Is Open Peer Review? A Systematic Review [Version 2; Referees: 4 Approved].\" F1000Research, vol. 6, no. 588, 2017, doi:10.12688/f1000research.11369.2.", "Ross-Hellauer, T., and Benedikt Fecher. \"Journal Flipping or a Public Open Access Infrastructure? What Kind of Open Access Future Do We Want?\" LSE Impact Blog, 26 Oct. 2017, http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/ impactofsocialsciences/2017/10/26/journal-flipping-or-a-public-open-access-infrastructure-what-kindof- open-access-future-do-we-want/.", "Scholastica, et al. \"Democratizing Academic Journals: Technology, Services, and Open Access.\" Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, Etc. ., no. 42, 2017, http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ scholcom/42.", "Schonfeld, Roger C. \"What Is Researcher Workflow?\" Ithaka SR, 13 Dec. 2017, http://www.sr.ithaka. org/blog/what-is-researcher-workflow/.", "Schonfeld, Roger C. \"Workflow Lock-in: A Taxonomy.\" Scholarly Kitchen, 1 Feb. 2018, https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet. org/2018/01/02/workflow-lock-taxonomy/.", "Tattersall, Andy. \"Comment, Discuss, Review: An Essential Guide to Post-Publication Review Sites.\" LSE Impact Blog, 11 Aug. 2014, http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/11/08/ comment-discuss-review-an-essential-guide/.", "Tennant, JP, et al. \"A Multi-Disciplinary Perspective on Emergent and Future Innovations in Peer Review [Version 3; Referees: 2 Approved].\" F1000Research, vol. 6, no. 1151, 2017, doi:10.12688/ f1000research.12037.3.", "\"What's next for Peer Review?\" Research Information, Mar. 2016, https://www.researchinformation. info/feature/whats-next-peer-review.", "\"Why Academic-Led Journal Publishing? Liberating Research Through Tools and Services.\" Scholastica Blog, 14 Mar. 2018, https://blog.scholasticahq.com/post/ academic-led-journal-publishing-liberating-research-tools-services/.", "Meadows, A. (2017, September 14). Peer Review at ORCID - An Update [Text]. Retrieved May 15, 2018, from https://orcid.org/blog/2017/09/14/peer-review-orcid-update"]}