Thursday, 22 October 2015

Starting an Open Access Journal: a step-by-step guide part 1 to 5 | Dr. Martin Paul Eve

 Source:

1- https://www.martineve.com/2012/07/10/starting-an-open-access-journal-a-step-by-step-guide-part-1/

2- https://www.martineve.com/2012/07/11/starting-an-open-access-journal-a-step-by-step-guide-part-2/

3- https://www.martineve.com/2012/07/12/starting-an-open-access-journal-a-step-by-step-guide-part-3/

4- https://www.martineve.com/2012/07/13/starting-an-open-access-journal-a-step-by-step-guide-part-4/

5- https://www.martineve.com/2012/07/13/starting-an-open-access-journal-a-step-by-step-guide-part-5/

Starting an Open Access Journal: a step-by-step guide part 1

Introduction

Scholarly publishing is totally broken.
Not only, at present, can most of the people (taxpayers) who fund
research not get access to it, but plans to fix this look set to screw
over Early Career Researchers and anybody else who can't persuade their
funders to give them the up-front fees required by publishers for Open
Access journals.


There are other models. I have proposed that the university library could function as a re-invented university press.
However, this guide is intended, over the course of as many parts as I
need to be able to write this in manageable chunks, to signpost a third
way. This guide is for academics who want to establish their own
journals that are:


  • Peer reviewed, in a traditional pre-review model
  • Open Access and free in monetary terms for authors and readers
  • Preserved, safe and archived in the event of catastrophe or fold
  • Reputable: run by consensus of leaders in a field
Library


Pre-requisites

My assumptions about you:


  • You are a non-commercial publisher, individual or organisation with revenues under $25,000
  • You are working in the humanities. If you are a scientist, this
    guide may still be of use, but there may be aspects of your field that I
    overlook; you'll have to fill in those gaps yourself
I'll explain each of these items as we go through, but the monetary costs, on a yearly basis are:


  • Web hosting: $60/year (approx. For example: Bluehost)
    (NB. this is an affiliate link, for which I will receive commission.
    There are many other hosts out there if you want to search on your own.)
  • DOI numbers/CrossRef membership: $275/year. Alternatively, you can join the OASPA and get CrossRef membership included in their fee of €75/year (including 50 DOI numbers)
  • CLOCKSS archival service: $200/year
As you can see, the yearly financial cost is approximately $350/year,
which is equivalent to £225/year. If there are several of you within an
umbrella organization (again, it would have to be non-profit), you
could share the DOI prefix, CLOCKSS membership and hosting, thus making
an economy of scale possible.


Social vs. Technical

With enough persistence, I'd argue, anybody with a mild technical competence and enough persistence could install Open Journal Systems, the software that I'm going to be using in this guide. What takes the time, energy and willpower is to get the social, rather than technical aspects sorted. What do I mean by this?


  • Editorial board
  • Peer reviewers
  • Copy editors
  • Proofreaders
Editorial board

The board is absolutely crucial. Academic journals work on a system of
academic capital; you need respected individuals who are willing to sit
on your board, even if they are only lending their name and you end up
doing most of the legwork. It should only be a matter of time before
academics realise that journal brand isn't (or shouldn't be) affiliated
to publishers, but rather to the academics who choose to endow a journal
with their support. Get good people who are respected within your
discipline(s) and you're on the right track. Here's an example email
that I used to ask people to sit on the board for Orbit:


Dear X,


I don't know if you remember me or not, but we were both at the
___________ conference last year and it was in relation to this that
your name came up. We were all very impressed by your paper and wondered
if the following proposal might be of interest to you.


I have been working over the past few months to put together a new
journal of _________ scholarship. I now have (finalising this week) the
requisite funding. The website is done, complete with online submission
and peer review systems. The editorial board thus far consists of
myself, _______, ________ and ________. _________ has expressed
tentative interest and we are also contacting _________, __________ and
__________.


Anyway, I was wondering whether you'd be interested in being either
on the editorial board itself or acting as a peer reviewer? If you had
any work you'd be interested in contributing, we'd also be interested.
We have five specific aims, one of which is to get all articles that are
accepted published within 5 months. In fact, I've attached a statement
of purpose to this email; it's confidential, so please don't circulate,
but it might be of interest. The mockup title page harks back to before
we had a better name...


If you wanted to take a look at the site:


http://www.myjournaladdress.com


Temporary username: a_username

Temporary password: a_password


You won't be able to see very much, as all the editorial functions
require a proper username and password (obviously!) and there aren't any
articles yet, but it will give you a feel.


The tentative name for the journal is: "_____________".


Let me know what you think and whether you're interested; I personally think this is incredibly exciting and am itching to go!


In the meantime, hope you're well and best wishes,


Martin
You may also want to incorporate some statistics on library spending
and stress the open nature of the journal, but you get the idea.


Peer reviewers

When the first articles start flooding in, you'll need all the help you
can get. These have to be people you can trust to understand the
challenges you're facing. They need to set the bar high for the first
issue while also appreciating the difficulties of attracting the big
names to start-up journals. Contact people early so that you're ready to
go.


Copy editors and proof readers

If you end up doing this job yourself, expect to spend about 16 hours
per article, including typesetting (depending on how you do this --
covered later). Therefore, get some good people to help you. They should
be sensitive to individual style (ie. light-touch editors) but who also
will bring some sort of synthesis to the style.


Other decisions

You need to make some decisions and take action on the following issues, not all of which I can describe for you:


  • Journal name(!), scope and remit
  • OA policy (I'd recommend Creative Commons Attribution) and copyright stance (let your authors keep their copyright)
  • Publishing mode (issues or rolling? Do issues always make sense in
    an online environment, or should you just publish as submissions
    arrive?)
  • Initial CFP
  • Timing (don't time it so that all your first submissions arrive in
    the Christmas break, when nobody can review them, for example)
Anyway, that's all for Part 1 (I have to do some work!), but in part 2 I'll start to cover setting up the technical side of things and the timescales for applying to various organizations.



Starting an Open Access Journal: a step-by-step guide part 2



Following on from Part 1, let's begin to talk about the technological side of starting an OA journal.


A book


There are several components to the system that all need to come
together. The timescales for ensuring this happens are different, but
here's some descriptions and estimates on the different components.


Open Journal Systems

OJS is a free, open source platform developed by the Public Knowledge
Project that is designed to get you off the ground quickly.
Pre-requistites are:


  • A web server
  • PHP support on said server
  • MySQL database support (or another supported DB)
  • Permission for web applications to write to the filesystem on the server
The document you need to read, and understand, to fully get OJS is their Userguide. For this specific part of the installation, you'll want to follow their installation instructions.
I can get an OJS box up and running in 45 minutes or so. For a first
time user with moderate technical competence, budget in a fair few
hours.


ISSN number

To get an ISSN number, which is crucial for your journal (and is also free of charge!), you need to apply to the relevant ISSN provider for your country. In the UK, this is the British Library. The turnaround time on this varies, but is often quicker than the two months they stipulate.


DOI numbers

Right, this is where it can get a bit complicated. DOI (Document Object
Identification/Identifier) numbers are part of a system that ensures
that articles are permanently active. Let's take an example. The
following is a DOI resolver URL:


http://dx.doi.org/10.7766/orbit.v1.1.38


The number is composed of a prefix (10.7766), which is my publisher
prefix, and a suffix (orbit.v1.1.38). Together these form a unique
string that identify the article Eve, Martin, Samuel Thomas, Doug
Haynes, & Simon de Bourcier. "Preface." Orbit: Writing Around Pynchon [Online], 1.1 (2012): n. pag. Web. 10 Jul. 2012.


So, when you visit the DOI resolver URL above, it points you over to https://www.pynchon.net/owap/article/view/38,
which is the journal hosted on my server. Let us assume that something
happens to me or my finances. For example, I can no longer pay for my
server, or I get run over by a bus (I'm hoping to postpone both of these
occurrences). The archival service for the journal will notice a
"trigger event" that authorises them to release, forever, the material
on the journal. The DOI number can then be updated to point to the
archives copy and, tada, the material has then been preserved even in
the case of catastrophe or fold. I hope it's clear, from this, the
important role that DOI numbers play.


As a member of CrossRef, assigning DOIs, you have legal obligations in the contract. You must:


  • Assign DOIs to all your articles
  • Ensure you never assign the same DOI more than once
  • Ensure that DOIs always resolve to the correct article
  • Ensure that, if you move hosts/addresses, you update the metadata so that the DOI resolves
  • Give the DOI link of any article that has a DOI number assigned in an article's citations
  • Deposit metadata and DOI information in a timely fashion to CrossRef
This is all easily doable via OJS built-in mechanisms, but it is a legal contract, so not to be taken lightly or ignored.


CrossRef, the registration organisation for DOIs on scholarly or research material, have various levels of fees. The reason for this is, once again, that they need ways to force
publishers to keep their links up-to-date and to deposit material.
Financial sanctions have proved the most effective way of doing this.


However, for the journal that is attempting to evade the fee-paying
structures of commercial OA enterprises, this is little consolation.
Never fear. The Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association
has a deal with CrossRef for scholar-publisher members (that's you, as
an individual) that means that the OASPA will allow you to get a DOI
prefix and assign up to 50 DOIs inclusive of their membership fee, which
is a much more reasonable 75 euros. In my case, because I hadn't
started the journal at that point, I was signed up as a non-voting
member of OASPA, but this certainly helped.


Timescale-wise, my application to OASPA took much longer than usual
(I am told) because CrossRef were in the process of updating their
member agreement. I signed up on the 16th April and was ready to go by
the 7th July. So budget in three months.


CLOCKSS


CLOCKSS is the archival service that I have chosen to use for my journal. Based upon the LOCKSS system,
CLOCKSS stands for Controlled Lots of Copies Keeps Stuff Safe. The
principle here is that your articles are stored on multiple servers,
spread across the globe. In the event of a trigger, CLOCKSS will release
the material. Again, there's a fee ($200/year). I am unable to comment
on timescales as I have yet to be fully set up here, but as I only
applied three days ago, this doesn't seem so surprising so far.


Again, I'm going to stop writing here so that I can get on with some
other work, but in the next section I'll begin to detail some of the
options available in OJS and how the process works.


Part 3 >>






Starting an Open Access Journal: a step-by-step guide part 3

Following on from part 1 and part 2, this is the third in a series of posts designed to get a new journal off the ground.
Launching the Journal
The key to launching a good journal is getting to the right people. Targeting field leaders (who may also be in your wider editorial board) and asking for specific contributions may be a way to ensure a solid start. Alternatively, draft an open CFP and post it to the places most relevant for your discipline. In my case (English Literature), this was the UPENN list and H-NET.
The problems that you'll face in an opening call are many. You will likely not receive a huge volume of submissions. They will likely not be from established names (not that this should matter as you should have a form of blind review policy). There will also probably be some articles that are weaker than you would like.
Being candid: you have to strike a balance. Do not publish material that is out-of-the-question weak. On the other hand, be charitable enough (as one should in all forms of editorial judgement) to work with authors to improve material where there is potential, or where a subset of the field may find use for it. In short: you need a good quantity of material, but this must not be at the expense of quality.
Make sure your CFP has enough time budgeted in for people to submit. Give a good five months. See also the note in part 1 where I mentioned timings: there's no point having your call close at a time when nobody is around to review them, so plan out your cycle.
Editorial Procedure
Here's a little bit of a guide on how to setup peer review in OJS. I'm not going to replicate their userguide word-for-word, but hopefully it will give a bit of an idea on how to manage submissions and delegate between editors.
Step 1: New submission
Upon receiving a new submission, an email will be sent to the designated contact in OJS. This editors should alert the appropriate member of the team so that this has happened.
One editor will take charge of a specific submission.
Once this has been decided, the submission can be accessed through the following procedure:
a.) Login to the site
b.) From your home screen, go to Editor -> Unassigned
c.) Click on the new submission
Step 2: Blinding
Once on the submission page, it is necessary to check the document before assigning a reader/peer reviewer.
Click on the “Review” tab under the bold text: “#9 Summary” (where #9 is an example representing the submission number)
Click on the link beside the text “Review version”. This will be of the form 9-18-1-RV.DOC. This indicating Submission_Number-Internal_Identifier-Revision_Number-RV(Review).DOC.
Open the file in Microsoft Word. If the file is in Open Document format (ending in .ODT), you'll need to download LibreOffice or OpenOffice for blinding if you are unable to open the file.
In Word, go to Document Properties:
Blind a document in Word
and remove the author's name and any identifying features:
Blinding a document
Also go to “Document Properties -> Advanced Properties:
Blinding a document
and ensure that there's no incriminating evidence there:
Blinding a document
Next, scan the text to make sure the author hasn't identified him- or herself. Common phrases “my recent book”, “copyright ” etc.
Save the document.
Step 3: Re-upload the blinded version
Upload the document, on the “review” pane as above, into the “Upload a revised Review Version” box.
Step 4: Assign yourself as the editor for the piece
On the summary tab, click “Add Self” under “Editors”
Step 5: Select the reviewer
Click the “Select Reviewer” option on the “Review” pane:

On the next page, select the desired reviewer (if the account doesn't exist, create an account for the reviewer) and click “Assign”:
Reviewing
Note when this is done that the “due” date is set to 10 weeks. If needs be, this can be altered by clicking on the date.
Request the review! This is important and the only part that's easy to miss:
Send the reviewer an email
Underneath the reviewer's name it says “REQUEST”. There's a small envelope beneath that. Click it!
This will take you to an email box. Click “Send” and the reviewer will be sent an email.
Sending the reviewer an email
This reviewer is good to go.
To add a second reviewer, simply repeat Step 5 and the second reviewer will be added as “Reviewer B”.
Step 6:
Wait for reviewer to complete their review! You'll get an email when it's done.
As you can see, there's quite a bit too it and OJS has a steep learning curve. That said, once you understand it, you'll feel right at home. Now you have to play the waiting game, though. In the next part, we'll begin to talk about copyediting, proofing and typesetting.
Part 4 >>

Starting an Open Access Journal: a step-by-step guide part 4

Following on from part 1, part 2 and part 3, this is the third in a series of posts designed to get a new journal off the ground.
Keyboard

Copyediting and Proofreading

When I started out work on Excursions journal almost three years ago, I didn't know the difference between copyediting and proofreading. In short: copy editing is the process of bringing a piece in line with house style. It should aim to eradicate all grammatical, spelling and stylistic anomalies. The typesetting phase then converts the piece into the version it will appear in the final issue (a galley). The proofreading phase should, technically, only look for problems in the transcription from the copyedited version to the galley. Inevitably, though, things get missed, so it becomes an iterative process between typesetting and proofreading.
There are two routes that I'm going to present to you here for typesetting an article. The one you select will depend upon your technical competence, but also the effort you're willing to invest to get things right.
The less brilliant of the two options is this: simply export, via Word, your copyedited version into a PDF. Why is this not so great?:
  • Not everybody likes PDFs. They should have a choice of a PDF or other formats, such as XHTML
  • The PDF is unlikely to contain the correct metadata
  • It becomes difficult to maintain stylistic consistency between articles
However, if you do want to go down this route, it's not the end of the world and will still allow people to read your scholarship.
Typesetting Articles
Whether you're using the Word to PDF route, or the system I'm about to describe, there is a slight "Gotcha!" that you'll have to avoid. At the time of writing, OJS is not currently entirely ready to comply with CrossRef's terms and conditions for DOI display. To fix this, you'll need to edit the file article.tpl within your OJS installation's templates/article/ to include the following line beneath the abstract:
{if $article->getDOI()}<div id="doi">doi:&nbsp;<a href="http://dx.doi.org/{$article->getDOI()|escape}">{$article->getDOI()|escape}</a></div>{/if}
This will enable you to see the DOI number on the landing page of the article (the abstract view). So, before you convert to PDF, or typeset in the more complex way that I'm about to describe, be sure to visit the preview of the article, grab the DOI number, and embed it somewhere near the top of the article. This will allow systems such as Zotero to automatically get the metadata for the article.
So, what's the more complex way of typesetting an article? The NLM provides a tagset specifically designed to enable XML typesetting of journal articles. I have spent some time, in the past few months, reworking an old, barely maintained plugin for OJS, that will enable you to typeset your articles in XML and then create PDF and HTML outputs from the same single document. The tools I have developed are open source and licensed under the GPL, so you can use and modify them (for no charge) so long as you stick to the license. They're available at: my github page. This is why I cannot agree with people such as Scholastica who do not release their entire toolchain. Without the tools, a widespread transformation is not likely to happen.
The tools run on Linux and I have no plans to rewrite them for Windows, so I'm afraid you'll need some geek knowledge to use them. As I stipulated in the pre-requisites in part 1, I've assumed a humanities readership and not all of our needs were met by the NLM stylesheet. I haven't, I'm afraid, always implemented these in the most standards-friendly or beautiful way, but I hope to keep working on it so that, eventually, the whole thing is done properly. At present, there are a few workarounds.
So, here's what an article looks like typeset in the XML format:
<?xml version="1.0" ?>
<article
dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" 
xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" 
xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" 
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
<!-- SYSTEM:  Archiving and Interchange DTD Suite    -->
<!-- Updated July 2007 An archival journal article with minimal 
Front Matter, a Table, and Citations for testing         -->
<!-- =============== Front Matter (Metadata) =========== -->
<front>
<journal-meta>
<journal-id>Orbit: Writing Around Pynchon</journal-id>
<issn>2044-4095</issn>
<publisher><publisher-name>Orbit: Writing Around Pynchon</publisher-name></publisher>
<uri>https://www.pynchon.net</uri>
</journal-meta>
<article-meta>
<article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.7766/orbit.v1.1.33</article-id>
<title-group>
<article-title>The Two <italic>V.</italic>s of Thomas Pynchon, or From Lippincott to Jonathan Cape and Beyond</article-title>

<abstract><p>Two versions of <italic>V.</italic> were issued in 1963, one in the U.S. and one in England, because errors that had crept into the first American edition were found and corrected in time for the British edition's release. Pynchon would be able to get the corrections he had made for the British edition into the American paperback the following year. The fact that the first U.S. edition needed to be corrected was forgotten, and with the exception of those printed by Bantam, the U.S. paperback publisher, all other U.S. editions are reproductions of the uncorrected first American edition. This paper traces the editorial history of <italic>V.</italic> after its publication, detailing the differences between the corrected and uncorrected editions of the novel.</p></abstract>
</title-group>

<self-uri>https://www.pynchon.net/owap/article/view/33</self-uri>

<contrib-group>

<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name><surname>Rolls</surname>
<given-names>Albert</given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff">
</xref>
</contrib>
</contrib-group>

<aff>
        Independent Scholar
</aff>


<pub-date pub-type="pub">
        <year>2012</year>
      </pub-date>
      <volume>1</volume>
      <issue>1</issue>
      <permissions>
      <copyright-statement>Copyright &#x00A9; 2012, Albert Rolls</copyright-statement>
<license license-type="open-access" xlink:href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/">
<license-p>This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.</license-p>
</license>
      </permissions>

</article-meta>
</front>
<!-- =============== Body Matter (Content) =========== -->
<body>
<p>When <italic>V.</italic> appeared in bookstores in March of 1963, Thomas Pynchon had already become displeased with the published text. It was not the first time he had found himself unhappy about the content of his novel. He had begun editing it less than two months after he had submitted the typescript to Lippincott in the summer of 1961, reworking the original ending by polishing "the dialogue which was pretty wretched and insert[ing] a new yarn whose only justification is that I like it."<fn-link id="xr1" href="fn1"><sup>1</sup></fn-link> That early rewriting was carried out before Corlies (Cork) Smith, Pynchon's editor at Lippincott, offered any suggestions for the text's improvement, suggestions that he had promised were forthcoming in an August 2 letter to Pynchon, the first piece of correspondence Smith sent the young author after the typescript of <italic>V.</italic> had been accepted. Pynchon, mostly without anyone's urging, would go on to revise the book, reorganizing and cutting the text during the spring of 1962 and then cutting more, "the equivalent of twelve pages of published text,"<fn-link id="xr2" href="fn2"><sup>2</sup></fn-link> in the fall, while the galleys were in the proofing stage. Pynchon's editorial work was still not complete. Although his review of the Advanced Reading Copy did not raise any alarms, as it is essentially "identical to the first edition,"<fn-link id="xr3" href="fn3"><sup>3</sup></fn-link> oversights during the editing and proofing processes later left him regretting his own imperfections. "About the time the first batch came off the presses,"<fn-link id="xr4" href="fn4"><sup>4</sup></fn-link> Pynchon found a number of errors — beyond the typos, the presence of which he discounted as excusable, although not without remarking that "they make gibberish out of otherwise respectable sentences" — and felt obliged to tweak the novel one last time.<fn-link id="xr5" href="fn5"><sup>5</sup></fn-link></p>
<p>Not everything with which he found fault was unequivocally wrong. An overly critical eye was in part the source, perhaps the foremost source, of his discontent, the earliest available evidence of which are comments he made in a March 9 letter to Faith Sale, a college friend who worked at Lippincott and took on some of the editorial responsibilities for <italic>V.</italic> after Smith left that publisher for a job with Viking.<fn-link id="xr6" href="fn6"><sup>6</sup></fn-link> The last mistake to which Pynchon, who was apparently responding to a remark Sale had made about errata in an earlier letter, draws Sale's attention involves his having "Esther snea[k] out with Rachel's raincoat on," because "Rachel is a size 3 at biggest (though I never do say how big E. is —  but it's still sloppy)." Pynchon then writes, "And on and on like that," suggesting that there are many similar problems that he would like to have cleared up.<fn-link id="xr7" href="fn7"><sup>7</sup></fn-link> Rachel, however, is not likely to be a size three, as she is, despite her small stature, described as "voluptuous" (22) when she is first introduced.<fn-link id="xr8" href="fn8"><sup>8</sup></fn-link> Her raincoat would seem, if anything, too short on Esther — assuming Esther is what would have been regarded as an averaged height woman in the mid-twentieth century. Rachel's high heels, after all, lift her to 5'1" (216),<fn-link id="xr9" href="fn9"><sup>9</sup></fn-link> meaning the raincoat could be for a woman taller than Rachel's 4'10" (34) and would be, at most, a few inches higher up Esther's leg than it was meant to be and not necessarily an ill fit at all.<fn-link id="xr10" href="fn10"><sup>10</sup></fn-link></p>
<p>The problem Pynchon had with putting Esther in Rachel's coat seems to be that he had never considered the possibility that Rachel's size might prevent Esther from properly fitting into it and became self-conscious about failing to make the details of the novel cohere. His fear that such was the case does go beyond his penchant for finding fault with his work.<fn-link id="xr11" href="fn11"><sup>11</sup></fn-link> The mistakes that "no writer with even half an idea of what he's doing would have made" concerned such issues as having Profane, Angel, and Geronimo at a bar until "Last Call" (149) and then proceeding, on the next page, to have them search the city until midnight; having Sidney arrive in Valletta in the winter but then writing "it's June" on the same page;<fn-link id="xr12" href="fn12"><sup>12</sup></fn-link> writing "two pages on . . . it's been 7 months since armistice," that is, in June, though it soon becomes winter again; and using Arabic <italic>gebel</italic> to mean <italic>desert</italic> when "it means mountain."</p>
<p>Pynchon, of course, wanted to correct the text, but because he had not seen the errors until after the first printing and Lippincott wasn't going to pulp a print run for editorial reasons, putting back the publication date yet again,<fn-link id="xr13" href="fn13"><sup>13</sup></fn-link> the best he could hope for was that future printings and editions, that is, the British edition, the Bantam paperback, and, if he knew about it as early as March 1963, the Modern Library edition, the rights for which had been secured by the end of the summer of 1963,<fn-link id="xr14" href="fn14"><sup>14</sup></fn-link> could be fixed. Correcting the British edition was not a problem. The British publisher Jonathan Cape had printed its own Advanced Reading Copy, and perhaps even galleys, and Pynchon had sent a letter discussing corrections for it, almost certainly pointing out the newly discovered problems, to Candida Donadio on March 4.<fn-link id="xr15" href="fn15"><sup>15</sup></fn-link> He also informed Lippincott, telling Stewart (Sandy) "Richardson about them all because Bantam bought it for paperback and the goofs ought to be cleared up before then."<fn-link id="xr16" href="fn16"><sup>16</sup></fn-link> The Lippincott hardcover, Pynchon must have hoped, would be the only edition that had not been cleaned up, and he even harbored the illusion that hardback reprints could be fixed as well, explaining to Sale at the end of June, "all I could do was write Richardson . . . and ask him to edit it [the mistake] out of any other printings there might be."<fn-link id="xr17" href="fn17"><sup>17</sup></fn-link></p>
<p>Lippincott never made the corrections for the three hardcover reprints, the last of which was issued in June 1963,<fn-link id="xr18" href="fn18"><sup>18</sup></fn-link> but the 1964 Bantam paperback was published in a corrected state, meaning either Richardson passed on the corrections or Pynchon informed Bantam of his post-publication edits as he had done with Jonathan Cape, whose edition also lacks the obvious errata found in the first American edition. Those with the edition of <italic>V.</italic> published by Lippincott find "'the city is only the desert — gebel — in disguise.' Gebel, Gebrail. Why should he not call himself by the desert's name? Why not?" (83),<fn-link id="xr19" href="fn19"><sup>19</sup></fn-link> whereas those in possession of a British or a Bantam edition, read at the same point in the novel, "the city is only the desert in disguise" (Cape, 83). On the following page of the Lippincott text, a sentence begins "But Gebrail/Gebel, the desert's angel, had . . ." while the corrected version reads, "But the desert's angel had . . ." (Cape, 84; Bantam, 72).<fn-link id="xr20" href="fn20"><sup>20</sup></fn-link> "They stayed to near Last Call," (149) in the Lippincott edition becomes "They stayed till 9:30 or 10" (Bantam, 135) — although the Jonathan Cape/Vintage edition contains a typo so that 9:30 is printed with a dot between 9 and 3 instead of a colon (149) — and in the first line of the next paragraph of the Cape and Bantam editions, "around midnight" (Lippincott, 149) has been removed. In the Epilogue, "[T]hough it was June" (456), as well as "After seven months" (458), is left out of the British and Bantam editions.</p>
<p>The most obvious problems, then, had been solved on both sides of the Atlantic by the spring of 1964, but the fact that the novel put out by Lippincott needed to be corrected was soon forgotten. The Modern Library <italic>V.</italic> (1966) was published in the original form, apparently having been printed using the film that was used to print the first edition or film produced from a copy of that edition. That does not mean corrections could not have been made. The Cape edition also seems to have been produced from a Lippincott copy, for besides using the same font and design as was used in the U.S. edition, the production staff at Cape did its best to align the British edition's pages to those in the American one, adding an extra line after the roman numeral v above the fifth section of Chapter 3 on page 81 so that page 85 and those that follow it in the chapter match the Lippincott edition, despite the changes made to pages 83 and 84, the latter of which begins and ends with the same words in both editions. However the various editions of <italic>V.</italic> were produced, of those that were printed from 1963 to 1966, only the British one and the Bantam mass market paperback contain Pynchon's final revisions, while the Lippincott and Modern Library texts contain the errors that contributed to Pynchon's condemning <italic>V.</italic> as "the worst novel in decades"<fn-link id="xr21" href="fn21"><sup>21</sup></fn-link> and referring to it as "that wretched novel of mine."<fn-link id="xr22" href="fn22"><sup>22</sup></fn-link></p>
<p>The issue, in any case, should have been settled, indeed had been settled in Britain and in the United States for about twenty years — between 1967 and 1986 — while the corrected Bantam edition was the only U.S. text being reproduced, but the problem resurfaced when Bantam lost the rights to reprint its edition and Lippincott's fiction catalogue was taken over by Harper and Row in the mid-1980s. The text of the first Perennial reprint — which also seems to have been produced using the original Lippincott edition, even though the chapter titles are centered rather than flushed to the left — followed the original American text to the letter and the later reprints continue to do so, with the exception of the introduction of new typos after two resettings, one in 1999 and the other in 2005. Meanwhile, the text that continues to be printed in Britain follows the Cape edition. Consequently, since 1986, the two versions of <italic>V.</italic> that were issued between 1963 and 1966 have been available to readers, and as in 1963, the corrected, near definitive edition,<fn-link id="xr23" href="fn23"><sup>23</sup></fn-link> has only been the British one, a Vintage paperback in its present manifestation, while those in the U.S who have been relying on the Perennial imprints, or the newly released Penguin e-book, have been reading an unauthorized text.</p>
</body>


<!-- =============== Back Matter (Ancillary) ======= -->
<back>
<fn-group>
 <fn><label><fn-link href="xr1" id="fn1">1</fn-link></label><p>Pynchon did not, he told Smith, significantly change the text, although he would later move the chapter now called the Epilogue to the end of the book. See Thomas Pynchon, letter to Corlies Smith, August 31, 1961 and Herman and Krafft.</p></fn>
 <fn><label><fn-link href="xr2" id="fn2">2</fn-link></label><p>For a comparison of the galleys and the published version of the book, see Herman, Krafft, and Krafft.</p></fn>
 <fn><label><fn-link href="xr3" id="fn3">3</fn-link></label><p>Herman, Krafft, and Krafft, p. 156.</p></fn>
 <fn><label><fn-link href="xr4" id="fn4">4</fn-link></label><p>Thomas Pynchon, letter to Faith and Kirkpatrick Sale, June 29, 1963.</p></fn>
 <fn><label><fn-link href="xr5" id="fn5">5</fn-link></label><p>I have avoided discussing typos in what follows unless they relate to passages that were reworked in the Jonathan Cape and Bantam editions.</p></fn>
 <fn><label><fn-link href="xr6" id="fn6">6</fn-link></label><p>Herman and Krafft, p. 3.</p></fn>
 <fn><label><fn-link href="xr7" id="fn7">7</fn-link></label><p>Thomas Pynchon, letter to Faith and Kirkpatrick Sale, March 9, 1963.</p></fn>
 <fn><label><fn-link href="xr8" id="fn8">8</fn-link></label><p>The passage was let stand. It is the only problem that Pynchon discusses that was not fixed, and all the passages that were corrected are related to errors that he told Sale about. His "on and on like that," therefore, must concern Esther-in-Rachel's-raincoat-type errors and suggests that, if he had had the freedom to do whatever he wanted after March 1963, he would have altered quite a few passages. The extent of the corrections that Pynchon had proposed but that were not made can only be a matter of conjecture until his letter to Donadio of March 4 — which should be more detailed than the one he sent to Sale as it concerns corrections for the British edition — at The Morgan Library is made available or the letter sent to Richardson comes to light. Unless otherwise noted, citations from <italic>V.</italic> are from the Lippincott edition (1963).</p></fn>
 <fn><label><fn-link href="xr9" id="fn9">9</fn-link></label><p>5'1" becomes "five foot one" (232, [2005]) while 4'10" becomes "four foot nine" (29, [2005]) in the most recent edition, which seems to have been proofread without reference to earlier copies, something  evinced, for example, by the introduction of italicized titles <italic>New York Times</italic> (429 [2005]) and <italic>L'Enlèvement des Vierges Chinoises — Rape of the Chinese Virgins</italic> (440 [2005]); of accents over "Orléanist" and "duc d'Orléans" (437 [2005]); and perhaps most significantly, of a period after the V (547 [2005]) that is placed under the text on the last page, a design feature in the original edition that now risks being read as part of the text.</p></fn>
 <fn><label><fn-link href="xr10" id="fn10">10</fn-link></label><p>The average height, which we must assume Esther had because the absence of any information about it suggests that it is unremarkable, would probably be below 5'5"; Jane Russell, for example, was considered tall at 5'7" (see <italic>Life</italic>). The problem is perhaps complicated by the next paragraph, in which Pynchon writes, "The girl [Esther] was always swiping things and then getting all kittenish when she was caught" (128). If "things" means clothes, especially garments other than coats or perhaps blouses, then revision is required, although the comment is vague enough to avoid raising any obvious questions. In any case, Esther, it could be argued, wouldn't steal clothes it was impossible for her to wear.</p></fn>
 <fn><label><fn-link href="xr11" id="fn11">11</fn-link></label><p>Pynchon's self-critical approach to his work is evident in his introduction to <italic>Slow Learner</italic> (1984); in letters he wrote to Donadio about <italic>The Crying of Lot 49</italic> in which he calls the novel "'a short story, but with gland trouble,' and hopes that [she] 'can unload it on some poor sucker'" (Gussow); and in a July 1, 1970 letter to Cork in which he worries "that the novel [which became <italic>Gravity's Rainbow</italic> (1973)] 'could be the biggest piece of shit since <italic>The Crying of Lot 49</italic>'" (see Howard).</p></fn>
 <fn><label><fn-link href="xr12" id="fn12">12</fn-link></label><p>Pynchon writes "in the same paragraph." See Thomas Pynchon, letter to Faith and Kirkpatrick Sale, Mar. 9, 1963.</p></fn>
 <fn><label><fn-link href="xr13" id="fn13">13</fn-link></label><p>Pynchon comments on Lippincott's pushing back the publication's date in a November 1962 letter. See Thomas Pynchon, letter to Faith and Kirkpatrick Sale, Nov. 23, 1962.</p></fn>
 <fn><label><fn-link href="xr14" id="fn14">14</fn-link></label><p>An internal memo dated Sept. 4, [1963] that is reprinted on the last page of <italic>Of a Fond Ghoul</italic> notes that both Bantam and the Modern Library have contracts to reprint the book.</p></fn>
 <fn><label><fn-link href="xr15" id="fn15">15</fn-link></label><p>See Gussow.</p></fn>
 <fn><label><fn-link href="xr16" id="fn16">16</fn-link></label><p>Thomas Pynchon, letter to Faith and Kirkpatrick Sale, Mar. 9, 1963.</p></fn>
 <fn><label><fn-link href="xr17" id="fn17">17</fn-link></label><p>Thomas Pynchon, letter to Faith and Kirkpatrick Sale, June 29, 1963. Pynchon is discussing the use of the word <italic>gebel</italic>. There is no mention of any of the other problems. Pynchon seems to be responding to a comment Sale made about the word when she forwarded reviews to him, the comments Pynchon made in March on the subject apparently having been forgotten.</p></fn>
 <fn><label><fn-link href="xr18" id="fn18">18</fn-link></label><p>Lippincott may have thought to do so if it had had the opportunity to release its own paperback edition, something it considered doing. See the September 4 memo that concludes <italic>Of A Fond Ghoul</italic> for the in-house discussion about printing a paperback edition, which Lippincott was unable to do because of the Modern Library contract, as a hand written note dated September 24 at the bottom of the letter states.</p></fn>
 <fn><label><fn-link href="xr19" id="fn19">19</fn-link></label><p>Patrick Hurley, in his dictionary of Pynchon character names, calls the <italic>gebel</italic>-passage "a rare instance of a clever, multifaceted name explained fully" (65), a fact that perhaps renders the passage valuable in that it illustrates something Pynchon tries to do even when naming marginal characters.</p></fn>
 <fn><label><fn-link href="xr20" id="fn20">20</fn-link></label><p>W. T. Lahmon, Jr. points out, without elaboration, "there are a few silent changes in the Bantam reprint–for instance, at the beginning of the Epilogue" (86 n4) and J. Kerry Grant notes that <italic>gebel</italic> has been "omitted from Bantam ed." (54) in <italic>A Companion to V.</italic> without attempting to explain the omission.</p></fn>
 <fn><label><fn-link href="xr21" id="fn21">21</fn-link></label><p>Thomas Pynchon, letter to Faith and Kirkpatrick Sale, Mar. 9, 1963.</p></fn>
 <fn><label><fn-link href="xr22" id="fn22">22</fn-link></label><p>Thomas Pynchon, letter to Faith and Kirkpatrick Sale, June 29, 1963.</p></fn>
 <fn><label><fn-link href="xr23" id="fn23">23</fn-link></label><p>A definitive edition would have typos cleared up.</p></fn>
</fn-group>

<ref-list>

  <ref id="R1">
    <label></label>
    <element-citation publication-type="book">
      <person-group person-group-type="author">
        <name>
          <surname>Grant</surname>
          <given-names>J. Kerry</given-names>
        </name>
      </person-group>
      <source>A Companion to <italic>V.</italic></source>
      <date>
 <year>2001</year>
      </date>
      <publisher-loc>Athens</publisher-loc>
      <publisher-name>University of Georgia Press</publisher-name>
    </element-citation>
  </ref>

  <ref id="R2">
    <label></label>
    <element-citation publication-type="journal">
      <person-group person-group-type="author">
        <name>
          <surname>Gussow</surname>
          <given-names>Mel</given-names>
        </name>
      </person-group>
      <date>
 <year>1998</year>
 <month>March</month>
 <day>04</day>
      </date>
      <article-title>"Pynchon's Letters Nudge His Mask"</article-title>
      <source>New York Times</source>
      <uri>http://www.nytimes.com/1998/03/04/books/pynchon-s-letters-nudge-his-mask.html?pagewanted=all</uri>
      <date-in-citation content-type="access-date"><year>accessed 2012-01-04</year></date-in-citation>
    </element-citation>
  </ref>

   <ref id="R3">
    <label></label>
    <element-citation publication-type="journal">
      <person-group person-group-type="author">
        <name>
          <surname>Herman</surname>
          <given-names>Luc</given-names>
        </name>
        <name>
          <surname>Krafft</surname>
          <given-names>John M</given-names>
        </name>
      </person-group>
      <article-title>"Fast Learner: The Typescript of Pynchon's <italic>V.</italic> at the Harry Ransom Center in Austin"</article-title>
      <source>Texas Studies in Literature and Language</source>
      <date>
 <season>Spring</season>
 <year>2007</year>
      </date>
      <issue>1</issue>
      <volume>49</volume>
      <fpage>1</fpage>
      <lpage>20</lpage>
      <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1353/tsl.2007.0005</pub-id>
    </element-citation>
  </ref>

  <ref id="R4">
    <label></label>
    <element-citation publication-type="journal">
      <person-group person-group-type="author">
        <name>
          <surname>Herman</surname>
          <given-names>Luc</given-names>
        </name>
        <name>
          <surname>Krafft</surname>
          <given-names>John M</given-names>
        </name>
        <name>
          <surname>Krafft</surname>
          <given-names>Sharon B</given-names>
        </name>
      </person-group>
      <article-title>"Missing Link: The <italic>V.</italic> Galleys at the Morgan Library and the Harry Ransom Center"</article-title>
      <source>Variants</source>
      <date>
 <year>2008</year>
      </date>
      <volume>7</volume>
      <fpage>139</fpage>
      <lpage>157</lpage>
    </element-citation>
  </ref>

  <ref id="R5">
    <label></label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="website">
      <person-group person-group-type="author">
        <name>
          <surname>Howard, Gerald.</surname>
        </name>
      </person-group>
 (<date>
 <year>2005</year>
      </date>).
      <article-title>"Pynchon from A to V"</article-title>.
      <source>Book Forum</source>.
      <uri>http://www.bookforum.com/archive/sum_05/pynchon.html</uri>,
      <date-in-citation content-type="access-date"><year>accessed 2012-04-23</year></date-in-citation>.
    </mixed-citation>
  </ref>

  <ref id="R6">
    <label></label>
    <element-citation publication-type="book">
      <person-group person-group-type="author">
        <name>
          <surname>Hurley</surname>
          <given-names>Patrick</given-names>
        </name>
      </person-group>
      <source>Pynchon Character Names: A Dictionary</source>
      <date>
 <year>2008</year>
      </date>
      <publisher-loc>Jefferson</publisher-loc>
      <publisher-name>McFarland</publisher-name>
    </element-citation>
  </ref>

  <ref id="R7">
    <label></label>
    <element-citation publication-type="journal">
      <article-title>"Jane Russell Can Be Seen Everywhere But in a Movie"</article-title>
      <source>Life</source>
      <date>
 <year>2008</year>
        <month>April</month>
        <day>13</day>
      </date>
      <fpage>8</fpage>
      <lpage>9, 11</lpage>
    </element-citation>
  </ref>

   <ref id="R8">
    <label></label>
    <element-citation publication-type="bookchapter">
      <person-group person-group-type="author">
        <name>
          <surname>Lahmon, Jr.</surname>
          <given-names>W.T.</given-names>
        </name>
      </person-group>
      <chapter-title>"Pentecost, Promiscuity, and Pynchon's <italic>V.</italic>:  From the Scaffold to the Impulsive"</chapter-title>
      <source>Mindful Pleasures</source>
 <person-group person-group-type="editor">
        <name>
          <surname>Levine</surname>
          <given-names>George</given-names>
        </name>
        <name>
          <surname>Leverenz</surname>
          <given-names>David</given-names>
        </name>
      </person-group>
      <date>
 <year>1976</year>
      </date>
      <publisher-loc>Boston</publisher-loc>
      <publisher-name>Little Brown</publisher-name>
      <fpage>69</fpage>
      <lpage>86</lpage>
    </element-citation>
  </ref>

  <ref id="R9">
    <label></label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="letter">
      <person-group person-group-type="author">
        <name>
          <surname>Pynchon</surname>
        </name>
      </person-group>, Thomas.
      (<date>
 <year>1962</year>
 <month>, November</month>
 <day> 23</day>
      </date>).
      <article-title> Letter to Faith and Kirkpatrick Sale</article-title>.
      <location>Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center, The University of Texas at Austin</location>.
    </mixed-citation>
  </ref>

  <ref id="R10">
    <label></label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="letter">
      <person-group person-group-type="author">
        <name>
          <surname>Pynchon</surname>
        </name>
      </person-group>, Thomas.
      (<date>
 <year>1963</year>
 <month>, March</month>
 <day> 09</day>
      </date>).
      <article-title> Letter to Faith and Kirkpatrick Sale</article-title>.
      <location>Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center, The University of Texas at Austin</location>.
    </mixed-citation>
  </ref>

  <ref id="R11">
    <label></label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="letter">
      <person-group person-group-type="author">
        <name>
          <surname>Pynchon</surname>
        </name>
      </person-group>, Thomas.
      (<date>
 <year>1963</year>
 <month>, June</month>
 <day> 29</day>
      </date>).
      <article-title> Letter to Faith and Kirkpatrick Sale</article-title>.
      <location>Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center, The University of Texas at Austin</location>.
    </mixed-citation>
  </ref>

  <ref id="R12">
    <label></label>
    <element-citation publication-type="book">
      <person-group person-group-type="author">
        <name>
          <surname>Pynchon</surname>
          <given-names>Thomas</given-names>
        </name>
      </person-group>
      <source>Slow Learner</source>
      <date>
 <year>1984</year>
      </date>
      <publisher-loc>Boston</publisher-loc>
      <publisher-name>Little Brown</publisher-name>
    </element-citation>
  </ref>

  <ref id="R13">
    <label></label>
    <element-citation publication-type="book">
      <person-group person-group-type="author">
        <name>
          <surname>Pynchon</surname>
          <given-names>Thomas</given-names>
        </name>
      </person-group>
      <source>V.</source>
      <date>
 <year>1963</year>
      </date>
      <publisher-loc>Philadelphia</publisher-loc>
      <publisher-name>J. B. Lippincott</publisher-name>
    </element-citation>
  </ref>

  <ref id="R14">
    <label></label>
    <element-citation publication-type="book">
      <person-group person-group-type="author">
        <name>
          <surname>Pynchon</surname>
          <given-names>Thomas</given-names>
        </name>
      </person-group>
      <source>V.</source>
      <date>
 <year>1963</year>
      </date>
      <publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>
      <publisher-name>Jonathan Cape</publisher-name>
    </element-citation>
  </ref>

  <ref id="R16">
    <label></label>
    <element-citation publication-type="book">
      <person-group person-group-type="author">
        <name>
          <surname>Pynchon</surname>
          <given-names>Thomas</given-names>
        </name>
      </person-group>
      <source>V.</source>
      <date>
 <year>1966</year>
      </date>
      <publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>
      <publisher-name>The Modern Library</publisher-name>
    </element-citation>
  </ref>

  <ref id="R15">
    <label></label>
    <element-citation publication-type="book">
      <person-group person-group-type="author">
        <name>
          <surname>Pynchon</surname>
          <given-names>Thomas</given-names>
        </name>
      </person-group>
      <source>V.</source>
      <date>
 <year>1964</year>
      </date>
      <publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>
      <publisher-name>Bantam</publisher-name>
    </element-citation>
  </ref>

  <ref id="R18">
    <label></label>
    <element-citation publication-type="book">
      <person-group person-group-type="author">
        <name>
          <surname>Pynchon</surname>
          <given-names>Thomas</given-names>
        </name>
      </person-group>
      <source>V.</source>
      <date>
 <year>1986</year>
      </date>
      <publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>
      <publisher-name>Perennial Library</publisher-name>
    </element-citation>
  </ref>


  <ref id="R17">
    <label></label>
    <element-citation publication-type="book">
      <person-group person-group-type="author">
        <name>
          <surname>Pynchon</surname>
          <given-names>Thomas</given-names>
        </name>
      </person-group>
      <source>V.</source>
      <date>
 <year>1995</year>
      </date>
      <publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>
      <publisher-name>Vintage</publisher-name>
    </element-citation>
  </ref>

  <ref id="R19">
    <label></label>
    <element-citation publication-type="book">
      <person-group person-group-type="author">
        <name>
          <surname>Pynchon</surname>
          <given-names>Thomas</given-names>
        </name>
      </person-group>
      <source>V.</source>
      <date>
 <year>2005</year>
      </date>
      <publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>
      <publisher-name>Harper Perennial/Modern Classics</publisher-name>
    </element-citation>
  </ref>

  <ref id="B20">
    <label></label>
    <element-citation publication-type="book">
      <person-group person-group-type="author">
        <name>
          <surname>Pynchon</surname>
          <given-names>Thomas</given-names>
        </name>
        <name>
          <surname>Smith</surname>
          <given-names>Corlies M</given-names>
        </name>
      </person-group>
      <source>Of a Fond Ghoul: Being the Correspondence between Corlies M. Smith and Thomas Pynchon</source>
      <year>1990</year>
      <publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>
      <publisher-name>Blown Litter Press</publisher-name>
    </element-citation>
  </ref>
  
</ref-list>
</back>
</article>
It looks pretty complex, but I assure you, it's not really so bad once you've got your head around it. If you've never seen an HTML document, then yes, this looks pretty daunting, but it's a simple tag system. <p> signifies the start of a paragraph, for instance. Each "opening tag" has a closing tag that looks like this: </p>. Tags must always match.
Anyway, from there you can simply use the toolset to do the following (the first line is the command, the rest are the tool's output):
tools/gengalleys.sh ./Eve.xml
INFO: Running PDF transform: /home/Mounts/TERA1/Documents/Programming/MEXMLGalleyPlugin/meXml/tools/genfop.sh ./Eve.xml
INFO: Running saxon transform: java -jar /home/Mounts/TERA1/Documents/Programming/MEXMLGalleyPlugin/meXml/tools/saxon9.jar -o /home/Mounts/TERA1/Documents/Programming/MEXMLGalleyPlugin/meXml/tools/../transform/debug/new.fo ./Eve.xml /home/Mounts/TERA1/Documents/Programming/MEXMLGalleyPlugin/meXml/tools/../transform/jpub/jpub3-APAcit-xslfo.xsl
INFO: Running FOP transform: fop -c /home/Mounts/TERA1/Documents/Programming/MEXMLGalleyPlugin/meXml/tools/../transform/fop.xconf /home/Mounts/TERA1/Documents/Programming/MEXMLGalleyPlugin/meXml/tools/../transform/debug/new.fo ./7-13-2012-Eve.pdf
Default page-height set to: 11in
Default page-width set to: 8.26in
The following feature isn't implemented by Apache FOP, yet: table-layout="auto" (on fo:table) (See position 1:4817)
The following feature isn't implemented by Apache FOP, yet: table-layout="auto" (on fo:table) (See position 5:2074)
The following feature isn't implemented by Apache FOP, yet: table-layout="auto" (on fo:table) (See position 5:2566)
INFO: Running HTML transform: /home/Mounts/TERA1/Documents/Programming/MEXMLGalleyPlugin/meXml/tools/genfop.sh ./Eve.xml
INFO: Running saxon transform: java -jar /home/Mounts/TERA1/Documents/Programming/MEXMLGalleyPlugin/meXml/tools/saxon9.jar -o ./7-13-2012-Eve.html.tmp ./Eve.xml /home/Mounts/TERA1/Documents/Programming/MEXMLGalleyPlugin/meXml/tools/../transform/jpub/jpub3-APAcit-html.xsl
Warning: at xsl:stylesheet of file:/home/Mounts/TERA1/Documents/Programming/MEXMLGalleyPlugin/meXml/transform/jpub/main/jpub3-html.xsl:
  Running an XSLT 1.0 stylesheet with an XSLT 2.0 processor
This has created me a PDF document and its HTML counterpart, which I can then upload into OJS. There is also a plugin component for OJS that will allow you to generate the documents on the fly on the site, but I make no guarantee as to its stability. Also, if you change the template, previous documents will change, which is not good practice for an online journal, which should be immutable.
Whichever route you choose, it's not actually so hard to produce galleys. The second method is somewhat time consuming, but can be facilitated by using a copy and paste starter template through a tool such as http://xing.github.com/wysihtml5/ .
In the final (maybe!) part of this guide, I'll discuss what to do once you're ready to go, the things you need to do after launch and some strategies for the "difficult second issue".
Part 5 >>

 

Starting an Open Access Journal: a step-by-step guide part 5

Following on from part 1, part 2, part 3 and part 4, this is the third in a series of posts designed to get a new journal off the ground.
So, you've got your issue together. It's all typeset, final galleys are uploaded and you're ready to launch.Pressing the final button is scary and is a cause for celebration, but it's by no means the end of this issue, nor of the immense (but now manageable) task of continued editing.
This final portion of the guide aims to provide a list of post-publication tasks that you need to undertake.
Launch!

ISSN

Notify your ISSN centre that your first issue has been published. This is a requirement of the ISSN issue in the first place.

DOAJ

Submit your title to the Directory of Open Access Journals. This will ensure that your journal is integrated with library catalogue software such as SFX, although I believe these updates take six months to propagate.

Upload your DOI information to CrossRef

In your journal, go to User Home -> Journal Manager -> System Plugins -> Import/Export Plugins -> CrossRef XML Export Plugin -> Import/Export Data. Select the new articles or issue that you want to export. Then, go to your CrossRef panel and upload the resultant XML file. You'll get an email when this has been processed. Providing there has been no errors, the DOI URLs will now be active and should resolve.
CrossRef

JournalTOCs

Add your new title to JournalTOCs after following the instructions for enabling RSS. You probably also want to add your journal to the New Journals mailing list. Roddy Macleod, who runs the JournalTOCs setup, also sent me a link to an article that makes the case for RSS feeds on journals.

Archiving

Now is the time to get your archival system up and running. CLOCKSS have a very quick turnaround, it seems. By their estimate, I'll be ready to go in a week. If you're based in the UK, you might also be interested in the British Library's electronic deposit service.

The Difficult Second Issue

If a journal survives beyond its second issue, I think its fairly certain to continue. Make sure you have content ready to tide you over. If there's a conference that would yield an edited collection, a special issue could be just the thing.
We can change the scholarly publishing world, but it's up to you. I hope this guide has provided some useful information on what's involved and ways to go about it. If you want to email me about anything herein, feel free.
In the meanwhile, good luck.

Starting an Open Access Journal: a step-by-step guide part 1 | Dr. Martin Paul Eve | Senior Lecturer in Literature, Technology and Publishing
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)