PKP Warsaw 2026: OMP Metadata Clinic

At the PKP Warsaw 2026 Sprint, the OMP Metadata & Dissemination Clinic tackled missing book and chapter metadata and DOAB registration gaps.

Group Members

Janek Ciarka, Warsaw University
Agnieszka Gralak, Lodz University Press
Israel, PKP (Note Captain)
Joanna Skopińska, Lodz University Press
Toby Steiner, Thoth Open Metadata (Note Captain)
Jesper Boserup Thestrup, Royal Danish Library
Adam Wasaznik

Abstract

This working group examined the complexity of metadata and dissemination for OMP titles, focusing on challenges publishers face registering books on platforms such as DOAB when metadata fields are missing or scattered. Scope included BISAC/Thema subject vocabularies, persistent identifiers, platform requirements, Crossref XML, relevant legal requirements, documentation gaps, and the OMP-Thoth metadata plugin. Chapter-level metadata emerged as a particularly significant gap. The group’s key result was a recommendation to consolidate metadata into a single, dedicated section within OMP’s editorial workflow, rather than leaving it scattered and unlabeled. Proposed next steps include pursuing this as an OMP development package and, as an interim solution, considering the OMP-Thoth plugin for publishers ready to begin metadata export now.

Background

The group’s motivating use case was a publisher wanting to register OMP titles with DOAB. DOAB requires descriptors that OMP does not currently capture, so publishers must export core metadata via the ONIX plugin or a simple CSV, then manually edit or enhance it to meet DOAB’s requirements. This raises further questions about editing ONIX files and identifying which additional fields are needed.

Extending from this case, the group noted that covering platforms beyond DOAB currently means repeating this manual process for each one: generating Crossref XML, preparing a submission for OCLC WorldCat, or applying to the Web of Science Book Citation Index, among others. Publishers often don’t know where to begin, since the overall problem feels overwhelmingly complex.

The group’s discussion also touched on broader questions: how to link OMP metadata into the wider publishing ecosystem, which fields and galley formats can be mapped as metadata, the distinction between BITS and JATS as it relates to OMP, and accessibility considerations tied to legislation such as the ADA and the European Accessibility Act.

Goals

• Draft an initial recommendation addressing missing metadata across OMP, especially at chapter level.
• Identify gaps in keywords, references, funding, subject codes, and contributor information.
• Connect findings to recommendations from Zoe Wake Hyde’s “OMP: Under the Spotlight” report.
• Document a practical workflow for locating and improving metadata within OMP.

Results

Interface review. Using the OMP Testdrive instance, the group traced where metadata currently lives in OMP. Findings included: the “Metadata” section should be renamed “Subject Classification,” since it only holds free-text keywords; ORCID and ROR support both depend on plugins not yet available for OMP; ISBN is an unvalidated free-text field; and “Categories” is used inconsistently across presses, with more clarity needed from OMP core.

Missing metadata. Chapter-level references are entirely unsupported in OMP core, though a plugin exists for OMP 3.4 — the group proposed integrating this into core. Other gaps span both book and chapter level: controlled-vocabulary keywords (Thema, BISAC, VIAF), DOI support, separate publication dates, AI-use disclosure policy, accessibility information, and dedicated funding fields.

Overarching recommendation. The group’s central recommendation is a single, dedicated metadata section within OMP’s editorial workflow, available to editors at every submission step, replacing today’s scattered, unlabeled fields. The group also recommended guidance on which fields are required for which use cases.

OMP-Thoth plugin. As an interim option, the group outlined how publishers can send data to Thoth, enhance it there, and export ONIX, MARC, or Crossref XML for platforms like DOAB and OAPEN, with paid packages available for full registration support.

Accessibility. The group pointed to the COPIM Accessibility Working Group as a starting resource for accessibility questions.

Next Steps

• Pursue a dedicated OMP metadata section as a formal development package.
• Make the metadata section available to editors throughout the submission workflow.
• Integrate guidance on which metadata fields are required for specific use cases.
• Consider the OMP-Thoth plugin as an interim metadata export solution.

Read the full notes here.