OJS vs OMP for grant deliverable management

,

I’m working as a project manager on a grant out of the University of Pennsylvania. Some of the deliverables to the funder include 9 edited volumes and one handbook (not necessarily published). I am looking for a way to keep track of the 100+ manuscripts that will be coming in and the edits from various parties. I’m wondering which would be a better system given the following:
-extensive peer review will not be part of the workflow
-we will not be posting these volumes on line; this is merely a way to keep track of our files and streamline our workflow
-we will only want to create one author submission site where, ideally, only invited, solicited contributors would submit their chapters/articles
-the 3 to 4 editors across volumes will mostly remain the same, with an additional 1 to 2 changing for each one

Are there any other factors that I’m not keeping in mind? Does anyone have any thoughts on what might make the most sense?

Many thanks for your help on this!

-Sarah

Hi @sidotis,

At a glance, you might consider OJS for this. The distinguishing factors between OJS and OMP generally focus on the publishing front-end (which you won’t be using), and in the workflow, OMP has an emphasis on edited volumes (not relevant to your needs) and ONIX metadata (likewise). Of course, I’d suggest exploring either before you make a decision, but I think OJS is a better place to start.

Regards,
Alec Smecher
Public Knowledge Project Team

1 Like

Hi Alec,

Thanks so much for your help and quick response on this! So these will be edited volumes in so far as ten different people will be contributing to them and there will be a volume editor (who will change from volume to volume), but there will also be staff from the grant that will remain consistent across all of the volumes. So, it could function as a journal that only publishes special issues, where there’s: me (the admin), two co-editors, and a special issue editor, especially because the front-end and the meta-data don’t really matter so much to us.

I should add: these will eventually be published, but we’ll be sending the text to a publisher who will then put them into production, and it seems like that’s where the meta-data and front-end will come in.

In any event, many many thanks for your help on this!

Yours,
Sarah

Hi @sidotis,

Hmm, I think either could suit you well, but the edited volume stuff is in OMP, so you may just have tipped the balance back in that direction. We have a testdrive installation of each if you’d like to explore a little. (FYI, it’s the wild west inside those, as users have full range to play with the software.)

Regards,
Alec Smecher
Public Knowledge Project Team

1 Like

Hi @asmecher - super helpful to know! I’ve done both of the test drives, but will dive back in and see what they’re like knowing OMP will work for edited volumes. One more question: can authors submit their chapter to an edited volume via OMP, or would I have to upload their submissions as the admin?

Thanks again for all of your help on this, very much appreciated!

Sarah

Hi @sidotis,

The Volume Editor would typically submit the chapters as part of the submission process, but once that’s done, you can assign all the various authors to the submission using the Participants list on the right-hand side, and that’ll permit them to participate in the various review and editorial processes as needed.

Regards,
Alec Smecher
Public Knowledge Project Team

1 Like