OJS or OMP for proceedings

Hello!
I’m looking for some input on what would be the most suitable platform for conference proceedings, OJS or OMP. I’m mainly curious about metadata and presentation issues with either system.

I would like to hear your thoughts about this. Any input would be greatly appreciated.

/Magnus

I think I heard someone is planning to use OJS for conference proceedings, @mtub did you mention this?

But to answer the question, I would definitely use OJS.

Thanks for the input! What are the advantages of OJS, in your opinion?

My initial thought about this is that since OMP can handle ISBN, it would be a good fit, at least for proceedings that are already being assigned ISBNs (not sure what the common practice is for proceedings?).

On the other hand, OJS is better at representing separate papers/articles with a dedicated landing page for each submission, which would just be a long table of contents with no abstracts.

There’s probably alot more to it, stuff going on under the hood, different possibilities of exporting and getting the content harvested that I haven’t got a slightest clue about.

/Magnus

Hi @ajnyga
I think right now neither OJS nor OMP is suitable for proceedings publication. I feel OMP more suitable but facing the following issues -
Issue with OMP:
Proceedings can be configured in OMP as monographic series (as proceedings should be) with identifiers, ISSN, ISBN, and DOI as well for single proceedings (not a series) ISSN will not be required. But have 3 major problems

  1. OMP does not have the option of separate landing page for each contribution (chapter) with its own metadata. Earlier I saw an issue opened but pkp team discontinued working on that. Latest reease OMP 3.1.2-2 have option to add abstract and page numbers for each chapter in the backend however its not showing in the frontend, it would be great if omp can have article detail page (or chapter detail page) for each chapter with option in setting to include or not abstract similar to the ojs.
  2. OMP does not support crossref export for doi metadata registration. If plugin get developed it should have option to specify metadata as, proceedings, proceedings series, Monograph, Edited Volume, Thesis, etc. according to crossref requirement for different kind of publications.
  3. Google scholar indexing (If OMP have different article detail page for each chapter then google scholar indexing problem may be resolved).

I am using OMP for proceedings due to it has option to add ISSN, ISBN , DOI and Editor (which is necessary)
Issue with OJS:
If OJS used for proceedings publications, I feel following difficulty-

  1. OJS does not have option to use ISBN Identifier.
  2. OJS does not have option to show editor of the proceedings (However I saw some work going on to add editor for edited volume in OJS).
  3. Crossref export will register each article as journal article however crossref have different registration option for the Proceedings and (unless make changes to crossref export plugin) currently crossref plugin does not have option to specify exported metadata as proceedings, series or edited volume.
  4. Google scholar will consider each contribution as journal article (instead proceedings or chapter) which belongs to a specic issue instead of specific conference title.

Regarding the landing pages for OMP, there appears to be some development and discussion going on: https://github.com/pkp/pkp-lib/issues/5280. I hope to see this implemented.

It seems to me that there from your list @aabahishti, the steps to make OMP a suitable place for proceedings are fewer and less elaborate than modifying OJS to work. The Crossref export will of course be more convoluted when using OMP, but on the other hand it would be incorrectly registered if using the OJS-plugin, so it should be manually registered anyway.

Yes, Right now I am using OMP for proceedings and registering DOI manually, But I am expecting to get chapter landing page soon.
OMP is more suitable to me bcz OMP exposes its metadata as Book/Book Chapter which I consider proper for proceedings and edited volume both. In my view using OJS for either proceedings or edited volume will expose its metadata as journal/journal article (which would not be standard).