Stewart Baker, Systems and Institutional Repository Librarian at Western Oregon University published an OMM Assessment of open source journal management software (https://doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0023.101) in which Janeway is one of the platforms assessed.
We are pleased to note that Janeway scored 83% and came second to PKP’s OJS and that the assessment noted “system also had a relatively low number of practices that could not be rated”.
The assessment notes: “Of the practices rated, only three had not been implemented to some degree”. These are:
I’m pleased to say that, today, we are releasing an InDesign template in Janeway under the CC BY 4.0 license so that small publishers can have a professional template that they can re-use. All that is required is to give us a credit line for the re-use. The template is otherwise free.
The template and all code is available on our GitHub repository.
— Martin Paul Eve
This evening’s hack fun for me (MPE) was to add KBART metadata export into Janeway. This took 39 minutes. KBART is a metadata standard that makes it easy for libraries to ingest content into their catalogues.
So, what did I do. Well, first, I added a URL route in our api call:
url(r'^kbart/csv$', views.kbart, name='kbart'),
url(r'^kbart/tsv$', views.kbart_tsv, name='kbart'),
The KBART specification states that fields should be tab delimited but I’ve decided to also include CSV…
My (MPE’s) weekend hacking activity was to build out open peer review in Janeway. That is, like in F1000’s system, the ability for reviewers to consent to their reviews being shared alongside the published article.
While this sounds like a major structural change, because of Janeway’s architecture it was actually pretty easy to do. It took 2hrs 45 minutes. The first thing I did was to add a setting to every journal that allows the editor to enable or disable open peer review.
When this mode is enabled, reviewers are presented with a checkbox, at review time, to…
Last weekend I wrote about how we were detecting anonymization of metadata in Janeway.
This week, this process has been improved further. We now have the ability to run documents through pandoc in order to detect whether there are specific bits of text inside the file itself!
So, for instance, we look specifically for certain terms: the authors’ names and institutions; the words “previous” (“my previous work”); words pertaining to “funding”. This allows us to set a flag on each of the documents.
We can then allow the editor to go in and have a look to see what’s causing…
Lots of the journals that run on Janeway, unsurprisingly, use a double-blind peer review process, in which it must not be clear, to various parties, who authored various documents.
People are rubbish, though, at anonymizing their documents. Sometimes they write their details in the file (their name, for instance), other times they cite their own work, sometimes they cite grant numbers that can be traced back to them. It’s all very difficult.
Hence, it was of interest, recently, when SAGE announced a $5,000 grant to “build an open source tool that will allow authors to check if a…
We’ve recently completed a 1.0 of our new Typesetting Plugin, yay!
This plugin was developed as an optional stage that can be used to replace the Production and Proofing stages by wrapping them into a single looping stage. Now you can assign a typesetter, receive their response and immediately send it out to the authors for proofreading (or proof it yourself) without having to make the article between stages. …
We are Andy, Mauro and Martin and we develop the Janeway publishing platform.