3. Workflow components modelled with Linked Data Notifications (LDN)

The following models each describe a “notification” between a repository and a journal system. One component which is common to all is the URI called URI-P. This URI identifies a resource in the repository (typically a preprint). For the purpose of these models, it is assumed that both metadata and the actual manuscript may be retrieved by a remote system (e.g. the journal) by visiting URI-P and from there, for example, follow HTTP Link Headers that convey the necessary information, as outlined in the Signposting concept. In the model presented below, the request for review is initiated by the author, through the repository. However, we also envision an alternative use case in which the request for review is initiated by a peer review service that has identified a preprint or article which would be of interest.

Notification 1: Request for review initiated via repository

Pre-state

A preprint manuscript and associated metadata have been deposited in a repository by an author. The author has requested that the preprint be reviewed by a journal for possible publication there. Overlay peer review and other services available to authors and the repositories would be listed in a registry/directory that could be accessed in an automated way via the repository interface.

Model

Notes

The acknowledgement notification (LDN-A), while not entirely necessary, can be a highly useful response to let the repository and author know that their request for review is being considered.

Notification 2: Outcome of review

Pre-state

The journal has reviewed a submission from the repository, and wishes to inform the submitting repository of the result.

Model

Notes

The reviews (metadata, comments, decision) are held by the journal (since this is where the review was conducted), but it is identified by URI-R which may be shared with the repository in the payload of the notification (LDN-O). Just the presence of URI-R may be enough to indicate that the journal has carried out a review of this manuscript and the URI-R can be recorded in the metadata associated with the manuscript in the repository so that the same manuscript is not re-submitted for review to the same journal. How much metadata might be made available by de-referencing the URI-R would depend on the journal’s privacy policy for reviews. However the strength of this general approach is that the preprint and the review of that preprint are linked to each other – that is, it is possible to find the review from the preprint, and vice versa.

Notification 3: General update

Pre-state

The journal is already aware of a preprint identified by URI-P and held in the repository. The journal wishes to notify the repository that it has new information about the preprint, for example that the preprint has now been reviewed, will be published, and now has a PID for the version of record which may be added to the metadata record associated with URI-P, held in the repository.

Model