Cadmore media player playing video Publishing Systems that Enable Collaboration and Build Community
Video Player
Accessibility
Using forms mode, you can utilize keyboard shortcuts to make usability more efficient.
Space bar will play and pause the video. Pressing escape will close all displays and pressing it again will jump to the end of the player.
You can press A to open the Keyboard Shortcut Dialog which also provides an audio description of the player and all of its features.
Language
1x
Play Speed
Adjust Volume
Transcript
Search
Result Count
of
Click to jump to result
Search
Re-center
Segments
Result Count
of
Click to jump to result
Search
Name:
Publishing Systems that Enable Collaboration and Build Community
Description:
Publishing Systems that Enable Collaboration and Build Community
Thumbnail URL:
https://cadmoremediastorage.blob.core.windows.net/032a078b-4465-462c-bc3a-f30a170f2fed/videoscrubberimages/Scrubber_1.jpg
Duration:
T00H38M02S
Embed URL:
https://stream.cadmore.media/player/032a078b-4465-462c-bc3a-f30a170f2fed
Content URL:
https://cadmoreoriginalmedia.blob.core.windows.net/032a078b-4465-462c-bc3a-f30a170f2fed/highwire_press___publishing_systems_that_enable_collaboratio.mp4?sv=2019-02-02&sr=c&sig=pjVNDc5hAgp4wtP4%2BmZ2EsCS9mciVaL7fpPRzVXoD1w%3D&st=2025-04-29T19%3A35%3A35Z&se=2025-04-29T21%3A40%3A35Z&sp=r
Upload Date:
2024-12-03T00:00:00.0000000
Transcript:
Language: EN.
Segment:0 .
My name is Tony Alves. I head up the product management team at highwire press. That's the platform division of MPs limited. I have been part of the scholarly communication community since 1990. Building workflow systems for over two decades and participating in many industry initiatives and working groups. In this talk, we're going to celebrate collaboration.
My fellow community representatives will each provide a lightning presentation about how their services, their initiative or product fits into our shared scholarly infrastructure and supports the ideals and missions of our industry. The scholarly community is a virtuous circle. Each individual player has a role in building and facilitating knowledge and scholarship, be they a researcher, an institution, a funder, or a publisher.
Even the general public who both help fund our endeavor as well as benefit from the fruits of our labor are part of this circle, holding all of these constituents together, enabling the work that each member of this vital and virtuous circle are engaged in our technology systems that facilitate workflow and provide access to innovative tools. Systems like high Wire's new digicore pro streamline the publishing process from Article conception to scholarship dissemination, bringing multiple players into a common environment for the benefit of the researcher and the reader.
Our community is vast, with many different organizations working together to create rules, standards and various processes that allow people and machines to collaborate. They allow people in machines to communicate, evaluate, and preserve scholarship. Many of these organizations are non-profit, volunteer led, and rely on funding from the scholarly community to fulfill their missions.
Our industry is also full of innovators and entrepreneurs who love to build new tools and services wherever they see a need. As technology evolves, it presents us with new, more efficient ways to enhance content to link content, to build knowledge, graphs, to check integrity issues, to expand the reach, and in general, to innovate for the common good of the scholarly communications industry, be they industry standards or innovative products, they often come together to perform those important tasks within the ecosystem of a publishing workflow system like high Wire's new digicore pro.
For example, the collection of persistent identifiers such as orchid IDs, credit designation organization, IDs, funding and grant IDs. These can all be collected during the submission process and carried along in the metadata as the scholarly submission traverses the workflow. Similarly, tools that provide quality assurance and integrity checks like plagiarism, paper mill and image manipulation detection systems that monitor industry compliance, such as funding disclosures and data deposit mandates.
The end products for content enhancement like taxonomy builders, plain language summaries and citation analysis are all integrated into publishing workflows, into publishing workflow systems like digicore pro, enabling the editorial staff to quickly and easily assess and enhance scholarly content as it moves through the workflow. All of these working together to benefit the scholarship. Workflow systems are bringing together solutions to urgent problems faced by the scholarly publishing industry.
For example, there is a reviewer crisis and we need to diversify and professionalize our reviewer pool. Systems like the DG core pro help by assisting editors and editorial staff in building their author and reviewer pools through integration of databases and products that expand outreach to researchers, bringing those researchers into a collaborative environment.
It is easier than ever before to reach beyond the editors own network, to bring scholars from throughout the world and engage them in the publishing process. I will now quickly hand over the presentation to my esteemed community representatives so they can drive this point home by talking about how they help build the scholarly community through collaboration, by integrating into the scholarly workflow.
Chris Thank you. Hi, everybody. Good afternoon. Great to see such a good turnout. My name is Chris shillam. I'm the executive director of orchid. Thanks to Tony for putting together a great panel with lots of folks who are doing very interesting stuff in the community.
Orchid is a nonprofit organization. We provide the PID that's persistent identifier. You'll probably hear that jargon a lot in the next few slides for people. So we provide three things the ORCID ID, which is a unique identifier free of charge to researchers. We have about 8.5 million active researchers. Anybody can come and get one attached to the ORCID ID is the orchid profile the ORCID record.
This contains the researchers scholarly profile, their works, their affiliations, their education, et cetera. And very importantly, we have the orchid API, which enables systems run by all of these good folks you're going to hear from to talk to our data. We have over $5,000 systems connected to orchid around the skull ecosystem. Why does that any of that matter, you would ask. Well, we would contend that persistent identifiers and the metadata that go with them are the building blocks of the scholarly communications infrastructure.
They enable the key entities of research where the people in our case, the organizations they work for through roar and other institutional identifiers. Ringgold the work they do through the funding they receive to be connected. And when those things are connected, a lot of capabilities are enabled by those connections. So an integrated research data ecosystem where all of those key entities are connected together, enables better tracking of research outcomes, something that funders care a lot about, that national government policymakers care a lot about.
You probably care about a lot yourselves. If your publishers, they enable accurate attribution and discoverability of people, the work they do, the funding they've got. Very importantly, they reduce administrative burden for researchers. So researchers spend hours and hours and hours typing the same data about their work and their profiles into myriad forms and systems.
It's a complete waste of their time. A couple of studies have been done one in Australia, one in the UK that demonstrate millions and millions of dollars can be saved by not having researchers do this. And that's what the PID infrastructure enables. And you may have heard of the FAIR data principles, a key element of enabling fair interoperability of all these elements of the research workflow.
So one of the things that we're really working on at orchid at the moment to help with that process of reducing administrative burden is rather than have researchers populate their ORCID profiles manually, which they can do, and in some cases that's the only way to get data into those systems. But a lot of our organizations hold a lot of validated information about researchers, whether that's publishers who publish works, who know who's published them, universities who on their faculty and who they've awarded degrees to.
Funders have awarded funding to individuals. So we enable a mechanism always with the researchers permission, because researchers are always in control of their ORCID records for these trusted organizations to add that data into their ORCID record for them. Publishers do that a lot. We work with Crossref to enable a flow called auto update, and researchers love it when magically, sometimes before the publishers even told them their publication lands up in their ORCID record.
They get an alert from us before the publishers even told them it's been published and they love that. And the more data that gets into orchid that way, the more trustworthy it is. Because if an organization said it and it's more likely to be true than if somebody said it about themselves, increases data reuse reduces administrative burden. One of the ways that can happen and any of you in the room that are service providers, our members, we have about 1,200 members of about 850 of them are universities.
A lot of them want to integrate their systems, as do publishers with ORCID, which they can do themselves through our APIs. But much more efficient is if a vendor system, a service provider system has done this for them. So last year, we revamped what we call our certified service provider program. We define specific criteria for orchid certification in a number of workflows.
Then universities, publishers who are buying systems can be confident that their ORCID integration works well and meets best practices. And we offer, as I'm doing here, to people who are certified the recommendations and the publicity that we can give to those vendors. So that's me. If you'd like to know more about any of that, I'll be around for the whole conference.
Come find me and I'm going to hand over to Dick. All right. Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you, Chris, for that wonderful overview for orchid convey. Well, what is convey. Convey is a very unique system. It was designed similar to the orchid platform.
It was designed to help alleviate a lot of that administrative burden for the individuals, the researcher who's having to enter information, not just about their financial interests, but also those non-financial relationships that they hold across the community. And so it's a system that helps alleviate that pain. Point of having to reenter data allows a process for individuals to have to just essentially review their information for any organization that uses, convey and enter that data into that disclosure workflow specific to that organization.
And of course, for the organizations, it allows a user friendly platform to help tailor the information that they are needing from that particular individual. How does convey help support the community and all of this. So currently, the process for disclosure is very disjointed, hence the administrative burden. As you see, the researcher is not just submitting as an author, but they're also engaging as perhaps a board member for a academic society.
They are a faculty member at their home academic institution. Each one of these different types of organizations that are listed there, the individual could be submitting a disclosure for various different purposes. And for each one of those different purposes, they're having to currently enter that data from scratch because they're stored in various different platforms. Various different requirements are behind those disclosure forms.
And so hence they're not easily transferable from one place to the next. Convey helps alleviate all of that burden by creating those data standards that are agnostic to the type of organization, hence creating a single platform that allows individuals to be able to submit from one organization to the next without having to re-enter their relationship information.
A quick history of why the AAMC, the Association of American Medical Colleges, actually came into this space. There was a report published by the Institute of Medicine many, many years ago that specifically talked about the administrative burden that individuals face. I'm not going to go through every single one of these line items here, but essentially it was driven by the community. There was a need that the association was approached for solving and hence why convey took shape.
So here we are with convey today. It's been in use for a few years now. We have over 175,000 users in the system, with over 300,000 disclosures submitted across over 50 STM clients. We are currently integrated with various different systems. I just have a couple of them listed there on the screen. But really the idea there is to help streamline that disclosure process even further by integrating into these various different systems, such as info, which is primarily for academic institutions.
Editorial manager e-journal press we are also working on an integration with highwire press and ethos, along with many other systems that are not currently listed on there. However, the idea there is to help streamline that process not just for the individuals, but also for the organizations that are receiving that disclosure data. So with that, I will be also around for the entire conference also at the exhibit Hall.
If any of you would like to know more about convey or have any questions, please come by and I will hand it over to Yvonne. You good morning, everybody. I'll quickly go into what the switchboard is all about. Truly mission driven, community led initiative. Collaborative initiative. As the theme of this talk of this session, designed to simplify the sharing of information between stakeholders about open access publication throughout the whole publication journey and sharing of information is really metadata.
It's not like an email system, but it's standardized protocols for to support specific predefined use cases. Well, that's a mouthful. It's all about trust, collaboration, efficiency. And the stakeholders are the research funders, the research institutions, libraries and the publishers. And at this point, I want to mention a video animation. We don't have time for that, but there is a one minute video animation to basically introduce the concept as to why this has come about and why these three stakeholder groups got together five, six years ago to shape this idea and build it.
Now, why was it founded in the first place. It was because these stakeholders are faced with a myriad of systems and processes for related publication level information. And on the left hand side, you just see the publishers on the right hand side, the research institutions and the library systems, and you see a number of boxes there with partner systems and these are all the vendor systems that everybody at their choice is making use of.
And the challenge in the middle is building these technical connections, but also on an individual article level, having communication and exchange probably by email to figure out what's going on, whether an author is eligible to comply with mandates and to report on funded articles. Now, the answer is nothing new happens in every industry. There's nothing exciting or exotic about the switchboard in that respect.
I always compare with Swift in banking, which was founded in 1972 by 4 banks getting together and thinking, hey it's a good idea to agree a standardized protocol, to exchange metadata, to support the payments and the transactions overseas and between different banks. I always like to use that comparison because switchboard is nothing different. The idea is being underwater back end, boring API based metadata exchange.
Nobody needs to see it. The whole idea originally was to facilitate and still is, by the way, system to system communication, which brings simplicity, transparency, efficiency and cost effectiveness. Now why do participants join. And this is the last slide, but I'll talk longest about it and I have to put on my glasses and I didn't switch on my timer. So, Tony, how long do I have.
Still fine. Yeah good. So the participants being the research funders, the publishers, institutions, and consortia, why do they join. Of course, different flavor of interpreting the services and open infrastructure, community and mission. But by and large, that is the four reasons that they join. Let me focus on publishers here. Being at SSP, basically the services provided is around the standardized data exchange.
It enables you to send standardized set of metadata to specific stakeholders. Now, in case of a published article, that would be all the affiliations of all the authors that are in the published article and the research funders who funded the underlying research. Any publisher with a contractual obligation to report on these sort of things, probably because you're in a deal or have an agreement can fulfill better by doing it through switchboards because it's standardized and the output is delivered in a JSON format that can be Fed into any receiving system, whether it's oable, whether it's consortia manager, whether it's a focus, whether it's an institutional repository.
The standardized JSON format allows it to be Fed into any system. Now it's not only if you have a deal, I can't stress that enough. If you have subscribed to open or diamond or No Deal at all for any publisher, any article, it enables you to proactively push to those dedicated and relevant stakeholders regardless of business model.
So by and large or in all, by all means, it's providing a better service to your stakeholders. And I'm excited. You may have seen it. This morning it was announced that Wiley has joined the switchboard to start to report through switchboard exactly for these reasons that I'm mentioning. Now, various publishers who have joined have realized by getting in a good shape to basically push through these metadata.
It also brings great benefits internally at the publishing house themselves because it encourages you to improve your metadata and it also gets it to you available at your own end in a standardized format, which supports your own business purposes and strategies. Second reason open infrastructure. All our partners, everybody who supports the switchboard and participates, sees the benefit of bringing the community together and to agree and to adopt a standardized exchange of metadata and to build and operate the supporting shared open infrastructure.
Open infrastructure is the foundation on which other services may be built. As Tony was showing in his introductory slides, it eases the integration with ecosystem and downstream systems and as a neutral, not for profit party, it reduces transactional costs and it's a safe place for publication metadata. I can't stress enough we're not a commercial entity. We're not building a database.
Nobody can buy the wonderful metadata in switchboard. It is just a message hub to enable you to send your metadata to targeted stakeholders that you choose to send your data to. I want to click to the next slide, which isn't there. But the third and fourth reason the community and the mission learn or just advance. Everybody who participates in switchboard generally happily attends our monthly client advisory board meetings.
Some people tell me it brings them as much, if not more, to join these meetings and learn from each other than participating in conferences. It's also to share best practices and lessons learned. We often do research projects to dive into things like we did last year with the research funder pilot, really looking at the consistency between structured metadata and the Jets XML and the attribution section in the version of record and what the challenges are around that.
And last but not least, the mission of the switchboard supported by everybody, is to support the drive for a again, agnostic of business model, whether it's diamond subscribe to open or green doesn't matter. But everybody who joins this initiative feels that bringing this efficiency and transparency is just helping the movement to open access scheme integrity hub.
Thank you very much. Good afternoon, everybody. Indeed, great to see so many people in the audience today. My name is Jill Lucas. I'm the Chief Information officer for SDM solutions. And one of the instigators of the integrity hub. Thanks to Tony and colleagues for having me. So I'll try to keep this really brief and speak about the integrity hub in three slides in three minutes.
Starting with that notion of collaboration, I think the common thread for all of our presentations here today, you mentioned that today, Tony, to my mind, the integrity hub is really around harnessing collaboration for a single purpose, and that is encapsulated in our mission statement research, integrity, equipping the scholarly communication community with data intelligence technology to protect research integrity. It's been very rewarding to see that sort of call to action and to address this challenge collectively has received a lot of traction right from the start, and we are currently actively supported by over 35 organizations, individuals from those organizations that are actively participating in our working groups, task forces in some shape, or form.
So there are three main pillars to the technology. And I'll start on the right with the enabling infrastructure or the technology. And this really speaks about the tools that we are developing as part of the stem integrity hub program. These are screening tools to really invest in the detection and the prevention of research integrity issues rather than the remediation at the end with retractions and all of the struggles that come with that, we have a series of tools that are instrumented into two applications.
These tools are some of them are developed internally, others are developed externally. Some were contributed by the publishers that are taking part in the program. And we also integrate with third party service providers like clear skies or PubPeer. The unique feature in that technology set is the ability to detect duplicate submissions. So the same manuscript being submitted to different journals across different publishers, different editorials at the same time, which is a challenge in and of itself, but often also in indication of paper mill activity at play.
The hope is more than technology, though. We have a legal framework to govern the flow of data that respects privacy, confidentiality. So to be able to look for patterns across these data silos over again, combining insights across different journals, publishers, editorial systems in a way that is respectful of confidentiality, privacy and security. There's also a policy aspect, and this, of course, we do not do in isolation.
We work with organizations like cope to develop editorial policies and practices, to inform editors and the broader community on how to act in case it is determined that a manuscript may have come from a paper mill. And then also a really important aspect of the stem integrity hub is knowledge share. We do a lot of that on an ongoing basis through the working groups and the task forces, but we also organize events and we participate in conferences and presentations like this to really help spread the word and help people to learn from each other, combine insights, combine knowledge and use that as the basis for collective action.
Also in this pillar, we have some resources and some educational material that is available. For example, on image manipulation. There's resources on the website if you'd like to check that out. So where do we stand today. And again, it's been very rewarding to see the traction and the support that we received for this initiative. Really from day one.
There was an article in the scholarly kitchen a couple of days ago, so I would encourage you to take a look at that. That speaks about progress in words. I thought maybe for this occasion it's nice to speak about progress in numbers. So this tells the story of where we stand today with the integrity in numbers. 35 publishers, organizations participating.
We have eight integrations with external databases and tools to collectively look for patterns that are indicative of research integrity issues, paper mill origins and/or otherwise. More than 100 individuals that are actively participating and supporting the work, almost 20 publishers. And I think actually today we have 20 because this is already outdated from a couple of days ago that are actively using the technology using these screening services, including also that duplicate submissions checker tool.
And of course, this is a case where you really see that network effect and the more publishers, the more journals join the powerful this tool will be. That brings us today at quite a significant scale. So with these tools, if you combine them, we scan over 20,000 submitted manuscripts every month looking for patterns, correlations across all of that data, all of that content. And of course, this is expected to grow quite significantly still this year.
As the other speakers I'm Rance today. I'm around tomorrow and Friday, so please find me if you'd like to chat a little bit more. Thank you. Great all right. Hello, my name is Jessica Thibodeaux with the Copyright Clearance Center, or CTC. For anybody who's not aware, CTC is a leading information solutions provider with deep domain expertise in copyright and voluntary collective licensing, but also persistent identifiers, metadata, content workflows.
And more. C.c.c. released the state of scholarly metadata visual report last year, which identified multiple pain points throughout the research life cycle where data and metadata is missing, incomplete or not interoperable. We uncovered many opportunities to better leverage persistent identifiers and better quality metadata throughout the process and service providers.
Publishing systems like my fellow panelists here have a really important role to play in collaborating to create a more robust network of interoperable data and systems. But the good news is that progress is being made. Come see me during the poster session. Shameless plug, and I can tell you a little bit more about that. CCC is also a service provider working to this end.
Our Ringold suite is a leading persistent identifier solution widely adopted by scholarly communication stakeholders. We hold over 620,000 records with corresponding persistent identifiers for organizations that produce, consume and fund scholarly research. The database includes granular organization, hierarchies and over 30 descriptive metadata elements, which Chris alluded to in terms of the importance of having that descriptive metadata to provide additional context about each organization and the relationships amongst those organizations.
We also hold external identifiers to enable broader data interoperability. For example, we are a registration agency for the ignited the open ISO standard ID for creators and their affiliations, and we hold isni IDs for upwards of 99.9% of the Ringold organizations that we hold in our database. Why is this important. It provides an open layer that enables a crosswalk so that you can get to other identifiers and other data sets.
Ringgold is an important pillar of CCC scholarly communication suite, which also includes rightslink for scientific communications and management, workflow tool and intelligence. These services together support the key stages of the workflows. And they integrate with many of the most widely adopted systems to seamlessly collect and exchange data. Ringgold data in particular powers standardized methods for authors to for example, select their affiliations within key workflows, whether it be search and discovery, Conference Management systems, submission, peer review management systems and more.
Why is this important. Well, there are critical use cases that are supported by this information informing funding, eligibility under agreements, creating modeling and analyzing new sustainable models, identifying potential conflicts of interest, bad actors or other integrity issues that might exist between authors, contributors, peer reviewers and their organizations, and to enable more accurate reporting around research, output and related impact.
So in summary, leveraging persistent identifiers and high quality standardized metadata enables that more Seamless Exchange of data across systems. It's the interoperability and continued collaboration across scholarly communications will only help improve the state of scholarly metadata. Thank you. And I have a pleasure of summarizing what have been said.
And again, Thanks, Tony, for creating the session and Thank you, everyone, for coming. My name is Oleg and I'm a founder, CEO, and almost everything in the company called prof. What profit does is what arguably is a most important part of scholarly communication, namely the peer review. What differs scholarly publishing from any other form of printed matter.
Printed media dissemination is this review process. You can abandon all the journals and move all to the preprints you can. Switch to the times when you just sent your manuscripts to each other, but you have to review it because there is no such thing as academic truth unless it has been verified. And peer review is the least level of verification, which one can create.
This would prof is trying to do. Myself, myself and my fellow founders were actually scientists. We are physicists and physics is a very old data science. It has been data science before. The name has been even invented. So we mostly work with the data. And let me show you what the data is. There are about 160 million of published documents, research articles of various kinds.
Around 40, 45,000 of them are open access understood broadly from through open access to preprints to various grape publications like manuscripts and theses, et cetera, to those documents which we analyze all of them. There are about 70, 77, 78 millions of authors. This is how many people have ever published. Interestingly, about half of them are not active anymore. So our impression that the scientific community grows is correct, but the growth is not as drastic as intuitively would feel.
What we know about these people is their publications. What we know about their publications is what their scientific content is. We developed what's called arguably the biggest science ontology in the world alive and growing on the everyday basis, which captures this subtle difference between. And general English language text and scientific publications.
The publication is not a narrative. It's a set of statements between concepts. Scientific concepts is a broad. Cloud semantic. Semantic cloud, I would argue. And the statement is what the paper is about. And we are able to extract this information from the papers and use it to annotate the papers and people by proxy. So we know what those are published.
We can do the annotation. This makes a peer review system because for every manuscript which any publisher would give us, we will dig out several thousand people who would be expert enough to review this manuscript. Not all of them are good. Peer reviewers for a variety of different reasons. And I would even argue, and we often get into this conversation when we deal with our clients that there is no such thing as an ideal peer reviewer.
And this is why you mostly need editors, because the editor is the person who decides what would be a proper peer reviewer here, a more senior or junior person, somebody who worked on this maybe even 10 years ago or 15 years ago, or somebody who is working on this today and last five years. How senior is this person at all. How well known is the person. Because a person who is a very good author may be a very poor peer reviewer and actually vice versa.
So it's very. It's very broad and very vague. Who is a good peer reviewer? And it is up to the Jordan and the editor. And this is where they come at full might is to decide whom exactly I'm looking for. And we give them this possibility. We say, OK, here's your several thousand people and here is the dashboard filtering dashboard, which allows you to select whom you are looking for.
And this also helps us to create, to give you various advantages, such as. Since the conflicts of interest of various kinds increase the diversity, reach out to people who are expert enough but come from places less known so they are not in the immediately in the editors kind of memory or they don't think about them directly. Cross-check our suggestions with your own reviewer's database. See whether you are actually up to date here.
So access, very niche experts, people who published very similar articles. Access different subtopics within the document, whether it's I interested in the methods or in research question, whereas the person should be an expert. All this can be done because, as I said, we truly understand the nature of the publication and restricted structure. We understand its semantics and based on this we can change.
We can allow you to tune this information in many ways, what's important for us and why it's important to be part of the workflows like highwire, there is much more information that we can use as the simplest one would be every journal, every publisher has availability of their experts. This availability is not shared across the publishers. So as a researcher, I can get five requests in 10 days from five different publishers simply because they didn't know that I already said no, I don't have time to review right now, which of course, creates a completely unnecessary burden on us and creates The overall, I would say, unhealthy environment when you start to feel that you are being spammed, although in principle you understand that this is part of my community service to be a peer reviewer.
So could this information be shared. Yes Is this in everybody's interest. Yes we are trying to be a platform, which can consolidate such information and make sure that the burden is a little bit leveraged across the platforms, across the publishers, so that researchers get attracted more uniformly. Our ambition is to build a peer reviewers community so that which will be decentralized away from any particular publisher and where it can be not only reflected this person is available as a peer reviewer or is not available as a peer reviewer, but also how good they are, what they contribute to which would also allow two peer reviewers to share, at least to some extent, the success of the papers that they reviewed and many other similar things.
So I'm here the whole week and I'm happy to talk to anybody of you who is interested in this and Thank you. So that basically brings us to the end of the session. Thank you, everybody, for joining us today. Thank you very much to my panelists for their contributions. And as you can probably guess that one of the things that I've spent a lot of time on over the years is working in scholarly publishing, particularly in helping to build community and helping to build a lot of these different types of initiatives that Service Scholarship in general.
So again, Thank you, everybody. And you're free to go to the next session.
Segment:0 .
My name is Tony Alves. I head up the product management team at highwire press. That's the platform division of MPs limited. I have been part of the scholarly communication community since 1990. Building workflow systems for over two decades and participating in many industry initiatives and working groups. In this talk, we're going to celebrate collaboration.
My fellow community representatives will each provide a lightning presentation about how their services, their initiative or product fits into our shared scholarly infrastructure and supports the ideals and missions of our industry. The scholarly community is a virtuous circle. Each individual player has a role in building and facilitating knowledge and scholarship, be they a researcher, an institution, a funder, or a publisher.
Even the general public who both help fund our endeavor as well as benefit from the fruits of our labor are part of this circle, holding all of these constituents together, enabling the work that each member of this vital and virtuous circle are engaged in our technology systems that facilitate workflow and provide access to innovative tools. Systems like high Wire's new digicore pro streamline the publishing process from Article conception to scholarship dissemination, bringing multiple players into a common environment for the benefit of the researcher and the reader.
Our community is vast, with many different organizations working together to create rules, standards and various processes that allow people and machines to collaborate. They allow people in machines to communicate, evaluate, and preserve scholarship. Many of these organizations are non-profit, volunteer led, and rely on funding from the scholarly community to fulfill their missions.
Our industry is also full of innovators and entrepreneurs who love to build new tools and services wherever they see a need. As technology evolves, it presents us with new, more efficient ways to enhance content to link content, to build knowledge, graphs, to check integrity issues, to expand the reach, and in general, to innovate for the common good of the scholarly communications industry, be they industry standards or innovative products, they often come together to perform those important tasks within the ecosystem of a publishing workflow system like high Wire's new digicore pro.
For example, the collection of persistent identifiers such as orchid IDs, credit designation organization, IDs, funding and grant IDs. These can all be collected during the submission process and carried along in the metadata as the scholarly submission traverses the workflow. Similarly, tools that provide quality assurance and integrity checks like plagiarism, paper mill and image manipulation detection systems that monitor industry compliance, such as funding disclosures and data deposit mandates.
The end products for content enhancement like taxonomy builders, plain language summaries and citation analysis are all integrated into publishing workflows, into publishing workflow systems like digicore pro, enabling the editorial staff to quickly and easily assess and enhance scholarly content as it moves through the workflow. All of these working together to benefit the scholarship. Workflow systems are bringing together solutions to urgent problems faced by the scholarly publishing industry.
For example, there is a reviewer crisis and we need to diversify and professionalize our reviewer pool. Systems like the DG core pro help by assisting editors and editorial staff in building their author and reviewer pools through integration of databases and products that expand outreach to researchers, bringing those researchers into a collaborative environment.
It is easier than ever before to reach beyond the editors own network, to bring scholars from throughout the world and engage them in the publishing process. I will now quickly hand over the presentation to my esteemed community representatives so they can drive this point home by talking about how they help build the scholarly community through collaboration, by integrating into the scholarly workflow.
Chris Thank you. Hi, everybody. Good afternoon. Great to see such a good turnout. My name is Chris shillam. I'm the executive director of orchid. Thanks to Tony for putting together a great panel with lots of folks who are doing very interesting stuff in the community.
Orchid is a nonprofit organization. We provide the PID that's persistent identifier. You'll probably hear that jargon a lot in the next few slides for people. So we provide three things the ORCID ID, which is a unique identifier free of charge to researchers. We have about 8.5 million active researchers. Anybody can come and get one attached to the ORCID ID is the orchid profile the ORCID record.
This contains the researchers scholarly profile, their works, their affiliations, their education, et cetera. And very importantly, we have the orchid API, which enables systems run by all of these good folks you're going to hear from to talk to our data. We have over $5,000 systems connected to orchid around the skull ecosystem. Why does that any of that matter, you would ask. Well, we would contend that persistent identifiers and the metadata that go with them are the building blocks of the scholarly communications infrastructure.
They enable the key entities of research where the people in our case, the organizations they work for through roar and other institutional identifiers. Ringgold the work they do through the funding they receive to be connected. And when those things are connected, a lot of capabilities are enabled by those connections. So an integrated research data ecosystem where all of those key entities are connected together, enables better tracking of research outcomes, something that funders care a lot about, that national government policymakers care a lot about.
You probably care about a lot yourselves. If your publishers, they enable accurate attribution and discoverability of people, the work they do, the funding they've got. Very importantly, they reduce administrative burden for researchers. So researchers spend hours and hours and hours typing the same data about their work and their profiles into myriad forms and systems.
It's a complete waste of their time. A couple of studies have been done one in Australia, one in the UK that demonstrate millions and millions of dollars can be saved by not having researchers do this. And that's what the PID infrastructure enables. And you may have heard of the FAIR data principles, a key element of enabling fair interoperability of all these elements of the research workflow.
So one of the things that we're really working on at orchid at the moment to help with that process of reducing administrative burden is rather than have researchers populate their ORCID profiles manually, which they can do, and in some cases that's the only way to get data into those systems. But a lot of our organizations hold a lot of validated information about researchers, whether that's publishers who publish works, who know who's published them, universities who on their faculty and who they've awarded degrees to.
Funders have awarded funding to individuals. So we enable a mechanism always with the researchers permission, because researchers are always in control of their ORCID records for these trusted organizations to add that data into their ORCID record for them. Publishers do that a lot. We work with Crossref to enable a flow called auto update, and researchers love it when magically, sometimes before the publishers even told them their publication lands up in their ORCID record.
They get an alert from us before the publishers even told them it's been published and they love that. And the more data that gets into orchid that way, the more trustworthy it is. Because if an organization said it and it's more likely to be true than if somebody said it about themselves, increases data reuse reduces administrative burden. One of the ways that can happen and any of you in the room that are service providers, our members, we have about 1,200 members of about 850 of them are universities.
A lot of them want to integrate their systems, as do publishers with ORCID, which they can do themselves through our APIs. But much more efficient is if a vendor system, a service provider system has done this for them. So last year, we revamped what we call our certified service provider program. We define specific criteria for orchid certification in a number of workflows.
Then universities, publishers who are buying systems can be confident that their ORCID integration works well and meets best practices. And we offer, as I'm doing here, to people who are certified the recommendations and the publicity that we can give to those vendors. So that's me. If you'd like to know more about any of that, I'll be around for the whole conference.
Come find me and I'm going to hand over to Dick. All right. Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you, Chris, for that wonderful overview for orchid convey. Well, what is convey. Convey is a very unique system. It was designed similar to the orchid platform.
It was designed to help alleviate a lot of that administrative burden for the individuals, the researcher who's having to enter information, not just about their financial interests, but also those non-financial relationships that they hold across the community. And so it's a system that helps alleviate that pain. Point of having to reenter data allows a process for individuals to have to just essentially review their information for any organization that uses, convey and enter that data into that disclosure workflow specific to that organization.
And of course, for the organizations, it allows a user friendly platform to help tailor the information that they are needing from that particular individual. How does convey help support the community and all of this. So currently, the process for disclosure is very disjointed, hence the administrative burden. As you see, the researcher is not just submitting as an author, but they're also engaging as perhaps a board member for a academic society.
They are a faculty member at their home academic institution. Each one of these different types of organizations that are listed there, the individual could be submitting a disclosure for various different purposes. And for each one of those different purposes, they're having to currently enter that data from scratch because they're stored in various different platforms. Various different requirements are behind those disclosure forms.
And so hence they're not easily transferable from one place to the next. Convey helps alleviate all of that burden by creating those data standards that are agnostic to the type of organization, hence creating a single platform that allows individuals to be able to submit from one organization to the next without having to re-enter their relationship information.
A quick history of why the AAMC, the Association of American Medical Colleges, actually came into this space. There was a report published by the Institute of Medicine many, many years ago that specifically talked about the administrative burden that individuals face. I'm not going to go through every single one of these line items here, but essentially it was driven by the community. There was a need that the association was approached for solving and hence why convey took shape.
So here we are with convey today. It's been in use for a few years now. We have over 175,000 users in the system, with over 300,000 disclosures submitted across over 50 STM clients. We are currently integrated with various different systems. I just have a couple of them listed there on the screen. But really the idea there is to help streamline that disclosure process even further by integrating into these various different systems, such as info, which is primarily for academic institutions.
Editorial manager e-journal press we are also working on an integration with highwire press and ethos, along with many other systems that are not currently listed on there. However, the idea there is to help streamline that process not just for the individuals, but also for the organizations that are receiving that disclosure data. So with that, I will be also around for the entire conference also at the exhibit Hall.
If any of you would like to know more about convey or have any questions, please come by and I will hand it over to Yvonne. You good morning, everybody. I'll quickly go into what the switchboard is all about. Truly mission driven, community led initiative. Collaborative initiative. As the theme of this talk of this session, designed to simplify the sharing of information between stakeholders about open access publication throughout the whole publication journey and sharing of information is really metadata.
It's not like an email system, but it's standardized protocols for to support specific predefined use cases. Well, that's a mouthful. It's all about trust, collaboration, efficiency. And the stakeholders are the research funders, the research institutions, libraries and the publishers. And at this point, I want to mention a video animation. We don't have time for that, but there is a one minute video animation to basically introduce the concept as to why this has come about and why these three stakeholder groups got together five, six years ago to shape this idea and build it.
Now, why was it founded in the first place. It was because these stakeholders are faced with a myriad of systems and processes for related publication level information. And on the left hand side, you just see the publishers on the right hand side, the research institutions and the library systems, and you see a number of boxes there with partner systems and these are all the vendor systems that everybody at their choice is making use of.
And the challenge in the middle is building these technical connections, but also on an individual article level, having communication and exchange probably by email to figure out what's going on, whether an author is eligible to comply with mandates and to report on funded articles. Now, the answer is nothing new happens in every industry. There's nothing exciting or exotic about the switchboard in that respect.
I always compare with Swift in banking, which was founded in 1972 by 4 banks getting together and thinking, hey it's a good idea to agree a standardized protocol, to exchange metadata, to support the payments and the transactions overseas and between different banks. I always like to use that comparison because switchboard is nothing different. The idea is being underwater back end, boring API based metadata exchange.
Nobody needs to see it. The whole idea originally was to facilitate and still is, by the way, system to system communication, which brings simplicity, transparency, efficiency and cost effectiveness. Now why do participants join. And this is the last slide, but I'll talk longest about it and I have to put on my glasses and I didn't switch on my timer. So, Tony, how long do I have.
Still fine. Yeah good. So the participants being the research funders, the publishers, institutions, and consortia, why do they join. Of course, different flavor of interpreting the services and open infrastructure, community and mission. But by and large, that is the four reasons that they join. Let me focus on publishers here. Being at SSP, basically the services provided is around the standardized data exchange.
It enables you to send standardized set of metadata to specific stakeholders. Now, in case of a published article, that would be all the affiliations of all the authors that are in the published article and the research funders who funded the underlying research. Any publisher with a contractual obligation to report on these sort of things, probably because you're in a deal or have an agreement can fulfill better by doing it through switchboards because it's standardized and the output is delivered in a JSON format that can be Fed into any receiving system, whether it's oable, whether it's consortia manager, whether it's a focus, whether it's an institutional repository.
The standardized JSON format allows it to be Fed into any system. Now it's not only if you have a deal, I can't stress that enough. If you have subscribed to open or diamond or No Deal at all for any publisher, any article, it enables you to proactively push to those dedicated and relevant stakeholders regardless of business model.
So by and large or in all, by all means, it's providing a better service to your stakeholders. And I'm excited. You may have seen it. This morning it was announced that Wiley has joined the switchboard to start to report through switchboard exactly for these reasons that I'm mentioning. Now, various publishers who have joined have realized by getting in a good shape to basically push through these metadata.
It also brings great benefits internally at the publishing house themselves because it encourages you to improve your metadata and it also gets it to you available at your own end in a standardized format, which supports your own business purposes and strategies. Second reason open infrastructure. All our partners, everybody who supports the switchboard and participates, sees the benefit of bringing the community together and to agree and to adopt a standardized exchange of metadata and to build and operate the supporting shared open infrastructure.
Open infrastructure is the foundation on which other services may be built. As Tony was showing in his introductory slides, it eases the integration with ecosystem and downstream systems and as a neutral, not for profit party, it reduces transactional costs and it's a safe place for publication metadata. I can't stress enough we're not a commercial entity. We're not building a database.
Nobody can buy the wonderful metadata in switchboard. It is just a message hub to enable you to send your metadata to targeted stakeholders that you choose to send your data to. I want to click to the next slide, which isn't there. But the third and fourth reason the community and the mission learn or just advance. Everybody who participates in switchboard generally happily attends our monthly client advisory board meetings.
Some people tell me it brings them as much, if not more, to join these meetings and learn from each other than participating in conferences. It's also to share best practices and lessons learned. We often do research projects to dive into things like we did last year with the research funder pilot, really looking at the consistency between structured metadata and the Jets XML and the attribution section in the version of record and what the challenges are around that.
And last but not least, the mission of the switchboard supported by everybody, is to support the drive for a again, agnostic of business model, whether it's diamond subscribe to open or green doesn't matter. But everybody who joins this initiative feels that bringing this efficiency and transparency is just helping the movement to open access scheme integrity hub.
Thank you very much. Good afternoon, everybody. Indeed, great to see so many people in the audience today. My name is Jill Lucas. I'm the Chief Information officer for SDM solutions. And one of the instigators of the integrity hub. Thanks to Tony and colleagues for having me. So I'll try to keep this really brief and speak about the integrity hub in three slides in three minutes.
Starting with that notion of collaboration, I think the common thread for all of our presentations here today, you mentioned that today, Tony, to my mind, the integrity hub is really around harnessing collaboration for a single purpose, and that is encapsulated in our mission statement research, integrity, equipping the scholarly communication community with data intelligence technology to protect research integrity. It's been very rewarding to see that sort of call to action and to address this challenge collectively has received a lot of traction right from the start, and we are currently actively supported by over 35 organizations, individuals from those organizations that are actively participating in our working groups, task forces in some shape, or form.
So there are three main pillars to the technology. And I'll start on the right with the enabling infrastructure or the technology. And this really speaks about the tools that we are developing as part of the stem integrity hub program. These are screening tools to really invest in the detection and the prevention of research integrity issues rather than the remediation at the end with retractions and all of the struggles that come with that, we have a series of tools that are instrumented into two applications.
These tools are some of them are developed internally, others are developed externally. Some were contributed by the publishers that are taking part in the program. And we also integrate with third party service providers like clear skies or PubPeer. The unique feature in that technology set is the ability to detect duplicate submissions. So the same manuscript being submitted to different journals across different publishers, different editorials at the same time, which is a challenge in and of itself, but often also in indication of paper mill activity at play.
The hope is more than technology, though. We have a legal framework to govern the flow of data that respects privacy, confidentiality. So to be able to look for patterns across these data silos over again, combining insights across different journals, publishers, editorial systems in a way that is respectful of confidentiality, privacy and security. There's also a policy aspect, and this, of course, we do not do in isolation.
We work with organizations like cope to develop editorial policies and practices, to inform editors and the broader community on how to act in case it is determined that a manuscript may have come from a paper mill. And then also a really important aspect of the stem integrity hub is knowledge share. We do a lot of that on an ongoing basis through the working groups and the task forces, but we also organize events and we participate in conferences and presentations like this to really help spread the word and help people to learn from each other, combine insights, combine knowledge and use that as the basis for collective action.
Also in this pillar, we have some resources and some educational material that is available. For example, on image manipulation. There's resources on the website if you'd like to check that out. So where do we stand today. And again, it's been very rewarding to see the traction and the support that we received for this initiative. Really from day one.
There was an article in the scholarly kitchen a couple of days ago, so I would encourage you to take a look at that. That speaks about progress in words. I thought maybe for this occasion it's nice to speak about progress in numbers. So this tells the story of where we stand today with the integrity in numbers. 35 publishers, organizations participating.
We have eight integrations with external databases and tools to collectively look for patterns that are indicative of research integrity issues, paper mill origins and/or otherwise. More than 100 individuals that are actively participating and supporting the work, almost 20 publishers. And I think actually today we have 20 because this is already outdated from a couple of days ago that are actively using the technology using these screening services, including also that duplicate submissions checker tool.
And of course, this is a case where you really see that network effect and the more publishers, the more journals join the powerful this tool will be. That brings us today at quite a significant scale. So with these tools, if you combine them, we scan over 20,000 submitted manuscripts every month looking for patterns, correlations across all of that data, all of that content. And of course, this is expected to grow quite significantly still this year.
As the other speakers I'm Rance today. I'm around tomorrow and Friday, so please find me if you'd like to chat a little bit more. Thank you. Great all right. Hello, my name is Jessica Thibodeaux with the Copyright Clearance Center, or CTC. For anybody who's not aware, CTC is a leading information solutions provider with deep domain expertise in copyright and voluntary collective licensing, but also persistent identifiers, metadata, content workflows.
And more. C.c.c. released the state of scholarly metadata visual report last year, which identified multiple pain points throughout the research life cycle where data and metadata is missing, incomplete or not interoperable. We uncovered many opportunities to better leverage persistent identifiers and better quality metadata throughout the process and service providers.
Publishing systems like my fellow panelists here have a really important role to play in collaborating to create a more robust network of interoperable data and systems. But the good news is that progress is being made. Come see me during the poster session. Shameless plug, and I can tell you a little bit more about that. CCC is also a service provider working to this end.
Our Ringold suite is a leading persistent identifier solution widely adopted by scholarly communication stakeholders. We hold over 620,000 records with corresponding persistent identifiers for organizations that produce, consume and fund scholarly research. The database includes granular organization, hierarchies and over 30 descriptive metadata elements, which Chris alluded to in terms of the importance of having that descriptive metadata to provide additional context about each organization and the relationships amongst those organizations.
We also hold external identifiers to enable broader data interoperability. For example, we are a registration agency for the ignited the open ISO standard ID for creators and their affiliations, and we hold isni IDs for upwards of 99.9% of the Ringold organizations that we hold in our database. Why is this important. It provides an open layer that enables a crosswalk so that you can get to other identifiers and other data sets.
Ringgold is an important pillar of CCC scholarly communication suite, which also includes rightslink for scientific communications and management, workflow tool and intelligence. These services together support the key stages of the workflows. And they integrate with many of the most widely adopted systems to seamlessly collect and exchange data. Ringgold data in particular powers standardized methods for authors to for example, select their affiliations within key workflows, whether it be search and discovery, Conference Management systems, submission, peer review management systems and more.
Why is this important. Well, there are critical use cases that are supported by this information informing funding, eligibility under agreements, creating modeling and analyzing new sustainable models, identifying potential conflicts of interest, bad actors or other integrity issues that might exist between authors, contributors, peer reviewers and their organizations, and to enable more accurate reporting around research, output and related impact.
So in summary, leveraging persistent identifiers and high quality standardized metadata enables that more Seamless Exchange of data across systems. It's the interoperability and continued collaboration across scholarly communications will only help improve the state of scholarly metadata. Thank you. And I have a pleasure of summarizing what have been said.
And again, Thanks, Tony, for creating the session and Thank you, everyone, for coming. My name is Oleg and I'm a founder, CEO, and almost everything in the company called prof. What profit does is what arguably is a most important part of scholarly communication, namely the peer review. What differs scholarly publishing from any other form of printed matter.
Printed media dissemination is this review process. You can abandon all the journals and move all to the preprints you can. Switch to the times when you just sent your manuscripts to each other, but you have to review it because there is no such thing as academic truth unless it has been verified. And peer review is the least level of verification, which one can create.
This would prof is trying to do. Myself, myself and my fellow founders were actually scientists. We are physicists and physics is a very old data science. It has been data science before. The name has been even invented. So we mostly work with the data. And let me show you what the data is. There are about 160 million of published documents, research articles of various kinds.
Around 40, 45,000 of them are open access understood broadly from through open access to preprints to various grape publications like manuscripts and theses, et cetera, to those documents which we analyze all of them. There are about 70, 77, 78 millions of authors. This is how many people have ever published. Interestingly, about half of them are not active anymore. So our impression that the scientific community grows is correct, but the growth is not as drastic as intuitively would feel.
What we know about these people is their publications. What we know about their publications is what their scientific content is. We developed what's called arguably the biggest science ontology in the world alive and growing on the everyday basis, which captures this subtle difference between. And general English language text and scientific publications.
The publication is not a narrative. It's a set of statements between concepts. Scientific concepts is a broad. Cloud semantic. Semantic cloud, I would argue. And the statement is what the paper is about. And we are able to extract this information from the papers and use it to annotate the papers and people by proxy. So we know what those are published.
We can do the annotation. This makes a peer review system because for every manuscript which any publisher would give us, we will dig out several thousand people who would be expert enough to review this manuscript. Not all of them are good. Peer reviewers for a variety of different reasons. And I would even argue, and we often get into this conversation when we deal with our clients that there is no such thing as an ideal peer reviewer.
And this is why you mostly need editors, because the editor is the person who decides what would be a proper peer reviewer here, a more senior or junior person, somebody who worked on this maybe even 10 years ago or 15 years ago, or somebody who is working on this today and last five years. How senior is this person at all. How well known is the person. Because a person who is a very good author may be a very poor peer reviewer and actually vice versa.
So it's very. It's very broad and very vague. Who is a good peer reviewer? And it is up to the Jordan and the editor. And this is where they come at full might is to decide whom exactly I'm looking for. And we give them this possibility. We say, OK, here's your several thousand people and here is the dashboard filtering dashboard, which allows you to select whom you are looking for.
And this also helps us to create, to give you various advantages, such as. Since the conflicts of interest of various kinds increase the diversity, reach out to people who are expert enough but come from places less known so they are not in the immediately in the editors kind of memory or they don't think about them directly. Cross-check our suggestions with your own reviewer's database. See whether you are actually up to date here.
So access, very niche experts, people who published very similar articles. Access different subtopics within the document, whether it's I interested in the methods or in research question, whereas the person should be an expert. All this can be done because, as I said, we truly understand the nature of the publication and restricted structure. We understand its semantics and based on this we can change.
We can allow you to tune this information in many ways, what's important for us and why it's important to be part of the workflows like highwire, there is much more information that we can use as the simplest one would be every journal, every publisher has availability of their experts. This availability is not shared across the publishers. So as a researcher, I can get five requests in 10 days from five different publishers simply because they didn't know that I already said no, I don't have time to review right now, which of course, creates a completely unnecessary burden on us and creates The overall, I would say, unhealthy environment when you start to feel that you are being spammed, although in principle you understand that this is part of my community service to be a peer reviewer.
So could this information be shared. Yes Is this in everybody's interest. Yes we are trying to be a platform, which can consolidate such information and make sure that the burden is a little bit leveraged across the platforms, across the publishers, so that researchers get attracted more uniformly. Our ambition is to build a peer reviewers community so that which will be decentralized away from any particular publisher and where it can be not only reflected this person is available as a peer reviewer or is not available as a peer reviewer, but also how good they are, what they contribute to which would also allow two peer reviewers to share, at least to some extent, the success of the papers that they reviewed and many other similar things.
So I'm here the whole week and I'm happy to talk to anybody of you who is interested in this and Thank you. So that basically brings us to the end of the session. Thank you, everybody, for joining us today. Thank you very much to my panelists for their contributions. And as you can probably guess that one of the things that I've spent a lot of time on over the years is working in scholarly publishing, particularly in helping to build community and helping to build a lot of these different types of initiatives that Service Scholarship in general.
So again, Thank you, everybody. And you're free to go to the next session.
Form Title Download
Transcript
Form Title Bookmark
Entire Media
Segment(s)
Custom Clip
Start At:
End At:
Form Title Share
Entire Media
Segment(s)
Custom Clip
Start At:
End At:
Form Title Accessibility and Keyboard Shortcuts
The cadmore media player is a professional video and audio player experience designed to deliver media as well as relevant transcript, segmentation, and metadata. On the screen is a traditional html video player with buttons such as play, pause, forward, captioning, language and play speed selection and more. Adjacent to the video player are generally tabs, one of which shows a scrolling transcript of the video and the other shows any segmentation of the media, sometimes referred to as chapters. At the top of the video is a menu bar containing an Explore button and Tools button. The Explore button allows you to dig deeper into the video by opening up an explore dialog which contains tabs for a visual navigation of the video using thumbnails, an about tab which contains rich metadata about the media, a segments tab which contains further information about the video, and a related tab which contains links to other media related to this media. The tools button opens a menu with options for sharing the media on social media, creating bookmarking links, creating embed codes for your website, generating citations, and more.
Keyboard Shortcuts
Keyboard shortcuts only work while you are in forms mode. By entering forms mode, you will be able to quickly access portions of the media player with single key commands.
Spacebar: Play/Pause Toggle
I: Info Menu,
O: Tools Menu
T: Transcript Tab,
S: Segments Tab
F: Forward 15,
R: Rewind 15
L: Languages,
P: Playspeed
M: Mute Toggle,
V: Volume Bar
N: Video Only Toggle,
B: Full Screen Toggle
C: Captions Toggle
Escape: Closes dialogs and menus / Exits Player
Z: Next Transcript Chapter
X: Previous Transcript Chapter
Q: Next Transcript Paragraph
W: Previous Transcript Paragraph
Entire Media
Segment(s)
Custom Clip
Start At:
End At:
Embed Size
-
You Size - Responsive
-
We Size - Responsive
-
Picture Overlay Popup
-
400 x 225
-
512 x 288
-
400 x 700
-
768 x 1024
-
1024 x 512
-
1280 x 608
Form Title Cite
No citation provided.
Info
Segments
Related
Thumbnails
Exit Clip Mode
You have requested to see a portion of the video outside of the clip.
Click OK to switch to the full video or click if you would like to stay inside the clip. You can always go back to the clip with Tools and Clip Mode