Cadmore media player playing video Trends in Academic Publishing 2024
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:
Trends in Academic Publishing 2024
Description:
Trends in Academic Publishing 2024
Thumbnail URL:
https://cadmoremediastorage.blob.core.windows.net/099144bd-2e2d-45d0-a387-aa10f983f71a/videoscrubberimages/Scrubber_1.jpg
Duration:
T00H26M09S
Embed URL:
https://stream.cadmore.media/player/099144bd-2e2d-45d0-a387-aa10f983f71a
Content URL:
https://cadmoreoriginalmedia.blob.core.windows.net/099144bd-2e2d-45d0-a387-aa10f983f71a/industry_breakout__deanta (1080p).mp4?sv=2019-02-02&sr=c&sig=FKiMAu0Vbh7avQn6vAzXbC4BiwjjjkTE3EuGygsYj1M%3D&st=2025-04-29T20%3A34%3A58Z&se=2025-04-29T22%3A39%3A58Z&sp=r
Upload Date:
2024-12-03T00:00:00.0000000
Transcript:
Language: EN.
Segment:0 .
And over the past 25 years, Julian has seen a fair amount of change, both strategic and creative, and says she vastly prefers the former. But a huge, huge thanks to both of them for coming today. And this presentation is not really about data. But for those of us, for those of you who don't know us, we are a technology led, production focused publishing solutions company headquartered in Dublin, but with offices in Chennai.
And we work with a range of publishers across books and journals offering technology led services, consultancy and production workflow tools, particularly our AI powered XML first production platform, which we call landstad. And as our surveys continue to show, this industry is evolving quickly. And whilst publishers still operate within a predominantly conservative culture, publishers are looking for innovative partners able to develop new technologies and efficient ways of working without adding to cost or complexity.
And that's really why data was formed. And our mission has always been to use technology to simplify operations, future proof content and change the way the production experiences for all. But before getting into this year's survey results, I want to take a quick look at last year's. And it's a familiar pattern with publishers seeing themselves as working in a cautious but traditional way, struggling to modernize despite a plethora of workflow reviews.
And all this was the volume of work is ballooning and some uncertainty around revenues. And so to this year's and we start with outcomes, the strategies and goals that publishers are chasing. And stating the obvious publishing is busy, but this busyness is not news.
And this business is not really just about doing more of the same. The product mix is changing. Industrywide oaa continues to balloon and the economic model is becoming a key headache for many. And this topic came up at the recent IPG conference in London and also the redux conference in Edinburgh last month. Demand for digital first content is also on the rise.
In fact, the only thing in decline is print. And this may be an easy to overlook trend with. Important point here is that strategically, publishers are moving more and more towards a digital centric content. But operationally, as we shall see, they are still using print centric workflows to manage the work. We would argue that as consumer habits become more digital centric, publishers must follow suit and digitally transform their business.
And when you look at the strategies that publishers are prioritizing, there is evidence of a shift towards digital transformation. But the goal here is not necessarily about being quicker. In fact, as you'll see here, speed is way down on the pecking order compared to previous years. It's about being smarter and smarter in this context means creating a bigger impact with fewer resources and simpler workflows.
But whilst publishers are looking for simplicity, the market, it seems, is becoming increasingly complex and many publishers are scrambling to stay on top of new products, new technologies and maintain margins. And the risk is that this complexity becomes distracting and publishers take their eye off core principles, which is about quality and the needs of their customers.
And when we look at the internal hurdles that publishers are facing, they're not necessarily cash flow. That's the real issue. And this is pretty low down the pecking order here, too. The biggest barriers, it seems, are outdated technologies and inefficient practices. Those print centric workflows I spoke about earlier.
And there's a growing recognition that to evolve, publishers need to examine the skills they develop and the talents that they employ. So on to our second section. Operations in which we asked publishers about how they get the job done. And 20 years ago, before outsourcing production began, production departments were as powerful as any other.
But as reliance on vendors has grown, production has become an arm's length service, and size and influence of production teams is stagnating. A survey suggests that only 25% of production teams are growing, despite workloads increasing. And for many, this lack of capacity is having a serious impact on their business. And this impact is particularly serious because the smaller the team, the more carefully publishers need to plan and prioritize their work.
But as our survey says, considerable time is being spent on outdated practices, performing rote tasks and management and administration, all using old school tech like word excel, PDFS and email. Some publishers even manage their typesetting internally. And although it has made authors into into customers, only 26% say that more time is being spent with authors.
And given the poor use of time, we ask the same question every year and our survey should modernising production be a key business priority? And every year the answer is a resounding yes. Historically, workflow reviews have been about cutting costs, not necessarily changing practices. And for instance, we still see very few using XML first platforms with online editorial capabilities. It is, however, the first time that this chart has been topped by publishers targeting business intelligence, not just a faster way of working.
From there, efficiency drives. So into our final section, people and culture, in which we look at the people skills and culture that publishers are employing. And dying to start it out as book specialists believing that journal publishing was already well down the road to automation.
We've since found out that's not entirely true. And despite journal publishers seeing themselves as innovative and progressive, many are still held back by ingrained legacy systems and poor interoperability of legacy tech. Book publishers, it seems, are much harder on themselves and see themselves as less dynamic and much worse at staying up to date with technology. A substantial 28% of book publishers also playing the long game and were waiting for AI tech to solve all of their problems at once.
And so with shrinking internal teams, but more work to be done, a vendor is seen as part of the solution or part of the problem. And for our part, Dane to have invested heavily to automate production to the extent that we are now licensing landstad and most welcome this investment. But some would argue that consolidation is affecting choice in the vendor market, whilst others want to balance vendor power with a degree of independence and autonomy.
And finally, what about ai? Is it a help or a hindrance? Can it help now? Or are book publishers right to wait for a complete solution? Our survey suggests that clear lines are developing and AI has approval when it comes to the management of a process, but it warrants concerns when it introduces content, co-creation, things like peer reviews, abstracts or seos and publishers are being urged to take a stand on AI and formulate a policy about it.
Even though we're very much at the infancy of this era, deign to see AI as transformative and are already working on next generation tools to support our clients. But you'll need to come and talk to us at the booth if you want to find out a bit more about that. So that's a real whistle stop. Talk about the trends. I'm now going to spend the next 10 minutes talking to our panelists and I've got a couple of questions just to start.
So the first question is that with nearly 60% of publishers industry wide stating that the increasingly complex economic and business model is the key external trend impacting our organization, I wanted to ask Gillian, what is it about publishing that so complex and what's your organization doing to overcome that? I think, pardon me specifically for oaa, we've seen a huge change where a subsub specialty journal.
So we have a very small. Group of potential subscribers even and away with our single journal. Things are fine, but neurosurgery doesn't fund o.r. as a specialty right now. So we're going to have to figure out different business models for funding, be it by industry or some other way, because that's just not it hasn't filtered down to neurosurgery yet.
So for us, from an income perspective, that isn't something that we can plan to make a ton of money on. So, OK. Just go Japanese ascalon. We I think just the business, the business model is just the business. It's getting women, women a non-profit. So getting funding for us is it depends on how the organization is doing.
So for us, it's the business part of it is really just sort of based on revenue. So I don't really have much to say on that. I guess I'll add one thing I just thought of, and that's that we're noticing some institutional subscriptions, looking for some sort of add on. We get 15 for a discount or something like that. So from a complications perspective with a single subscriptions employee, the the variables are growing greatly.
Yeah I was going to ask, are you seeing the industry becoming more complex? If you look back kind of five, 10 years, is this a different landscape we're moving into? Yes I think before we could just sell a subscription and that was fine. Then it became an open access license or not an open access license, a site license, but it was still kind of a single point of sale.
And now it is getting a lot more complicated and. OK thank you. The second question I'm going to put to Jennifer first of all, is by some margin, the top two internal hurdles which are preventing publishers from achieving their goals were outdated technologies and inefficient working practices. And I just wanted to ask what you felt.
It was about those two things that makes it so hard to overcome. I would say comfort more than anything else. The story that I tell many of my colleagues many times is I worked for American psychiatric association back in 1999 when they had just made this radical change to framemaker, which at the time was new and revolutionary, and the only program that did XML first and that kind of thing.
And I left in 2003 and came back in 2019 and they were still doing exactly the same systems, still using framemaker, still doing exactly the same way. I walked into the job and within a week I was doing it, you know, exactly the same way I had done it 20 years earlier. So the hard part is just the comfort level. Everyone's comfortable with what it doesn't. It isn't broke. Don't fix it, you know, and I'm facing that a lot now with people going, why?
Why do we need to do this? I can ask, how do you address that? How do you overcome that? Well, I tell that story, first of all, and I remind everybody of that story repeatedly. But I just I keep talking about, you know, we're we're we have a lot of legacy staff, people who've been there a very long time. You know, we don't have a lot of young staff.
And at some point, the generation is going to shift and we're going to be looking for people who can do these sorts of things. And there are people, kids coming out of college now are not being trained in framemaker. You know, they know indesign, they know XML, they know those sorts of things. And for a forward looking process, we have to really think, think logistically like what's good for us long term and do we want to be proactive or reactive about it?
Do you want to say something? I started at the journal in 99 and we used quark. We did switch to Instagram, we did switch to indesign because quark just stopped updating anything and that was our reason for switching. I have a similar situation, so yeah, I have a similar situation in that I have more than half my staff has been there 20 years, but luckily they are open to changing.
We've always, because we're a very small staff, have worn many different hats. Each of us will wear 3 or 4 hats and I think that opens a little more room for being willing to try out new things, which is good. Excellent. Thank you. Third question 40% of publishers stated that the rise of AI led publishing technologies is impacting their organization, and we ask publishers to indicate out of a range of possible AI applications whether their organization would support them in principle or in practice.
Plagiarism detection was by far the most popular. Whilst I supported co-creation was was the least popular. Where do you see AI technologies making the most impact in your organization? I think we are dealing with direct patient care articles and so I think we will be exceedingly conservative in how we do things. We do have a good, I think the potential for sort of a closed use case scenario of our own work.
But yeah, I think we're going to watch and see for quite a while. I mean, for us, for me personally, I'm enjoying seeing some of the AI copy editing and the grammar checkers, but we're looking into research integrity, that sort of thing. Again, we're also medical health related, so we'll have to be very cautious about how where content comes from and what what it means for the for the people who are going to read the guidelines that we publish and things like that.
So it's again, a very cautious approach. But for the workflows, the AI generated workflows and things like that, I mean, I think there's a real it's a it's a catch-22. It's going to be great. It's going to make things a little simpler. But it also does it you get the fear of is it going to eliminate my job kind of thing. So there's a balance there.
I can I ask, have either of you formulated an organizational policy? Is that something you're looking into? We know publishers who've had independent consultants come in and help them literally create kind of a document they share with their staff that that talks about the interaction they can have with AI tools. Is that something you're looking at? We we generally are just we don't allow we don't allow AI generated material.
If we if an author tries to submit that, we ask that they provide all of the sources for the material, which often they can't get from the AI that they've generated it from. Same thing with figures and art, that kind of thing. There has to be original and we have to have the source documented source of all of the elements. That's our formal policy. It's the same.
We have allowed AI images if they are completely unrelated to patient data. So we had somebody submit they imagined the most fully efficient, efficient sized to make a board operating room scenario through AI. So they wanted to basically publish that sort of imagined perfection. And so we did allow that with a clear.
A reference in the thing but yeah it'll it'll it'll be a while and staff doesn't want to touch it so we're good. OK final question before we open it back up to the audience. At 55% by far and away, the primary target for efficiency drives was increased data analytics and business intelligence, whilst less than half that figure saw reducing single person dependencies as a high priority.
I just wanted to ask and if I can again start with Jennifer, what are your key goals when considering adopting new technologies? I would say we're pretty much split on that. We have a lot of silos in our in our department and our organization. So it's it's we've been working really hard lately to be breaking those down, become more familiar with what everybody else does and how we do it.
And that's been part of this too is just, OK, well let's evaluate what works for everyone and how can we make it work better. And understanding how the books work versus how the journals work, that kind of thing. Because we've always been sort of separate, very isolated. The books people are the books people and the journals people are the journals people, and each has their own workflow and their own process.
And but at the same time, I mean, for example, my we have no set way of accumulating data. You know, we have to sort of dig when, when someone asks, you know, this is for some how do we do this? What's our goal for this? What are what's our practices for this? We have to dig for those sorts of answers. And so we we're very much looking for a way to to streamline that as well, to, to to keep track of our revenues and our processes and things like that and be able to find that information at the drop of a hat.
Yeah I think for us, we are the journals group. We've always been separate from our association, so we're doing the same, you know, de siloing, but with our association, the education departments and meeting departments, how can all of that data come in together? And that's where I mean, we have patient pages. I could help with the rough draft of that and then it can be vetted.
But yeah, I think that's the the main thing is, is surfacing a lot of that information that can be used across the association that right now is on a spreadsheet. I would agree with that too, because same thing, you know, publishing is within the greater apa and we sort of have. And operated as our own entity for a while in a sense that people don't really know what we do or how we do it.
And the decisions are made that are for the organization don't necessarily apply to what we do in publishing that kind of thing. So there's been a lot of we've been trying to make the rest of the organization more aware and become ourselves more aware of what, again, education meetings, research, what they do, because we have always just operated within our bubble. Can I ask when you're looking at technologies, is hyperconnectivity important to you?
Are you are you building up a sort of tech stack that can can talk to each other where you might have a title management system and a production system? And are you considering a kind of do you have a vision for what your technology stack might look like in five years time, for instance? No, I think for us that needs to be a higher conversation with the association, especially because I'd like them to spend that money.
That would be the ideal. But but I think the journals is a small enough piece. We put out a lot of information, but in the greater picture, the association, it would definitely need to be a higher level buy in. So ideally, yes, someday I would have the same reaction. No, but yeah, I mean, think that we do have we are we're right now we're still sort of learning. We're sort of learning what's available.
Again, we've been doing things the same way for so long that a big part of it is learning what's available and what we haven't been paying attention to and trying to figure out how that works with what we do. And so I think that we would like to have a plan, but we have to first understand what we need and what what's available to us and what kind of things we can what we can use it for. Yeah OK.
Well, thank you very much. We've got about five minutes for audience audience questions. And they can either be to myself about the trends or they can be to Jillian or Jennifer about their reactions. But I'm happy to take any questions anyone might have. Please thank you. Do you need the microphone?
Hello? yeah. So I was kind of curious about the single person dependencies, which I kind of interpreted the same way you did, which is breaking down silos and not having. And I am curious that it's so low. And I was wondering if you thought that was because people don't think it's important or because they've already started to break down those silos.
Well, I guess from my point of view, we do a lot of workflow workshops with publishers of all shapes and sizes. And quite frankly, we're shocked at the amount of single person dependencies that there are within these organizations where we've had instances where individuals have told us in front of their bosses that it's taken them three months to plan for a one week holiday and because the workloads, they've got the lack of technology to kind of pass on any information and because they're operating in a silo with limited tech.
So I think it's something you guys can tell me. It seems to be quite common in publishing that that kind of instance, I think a lot of people in here maybe have the same experience as that. So I don't particularly see it as a shock, that stat. I think for us we see technology something that can address that, but it's a surprise to us. It's not higher up the list because it would seem like a very kind of easy win for technology.
I don't know about your sounds. If I could just. Everyone will relate to this. It's faster if I do it. And that's really I think where it comes from is that there's one person who's better at that software or better at that process, and they're like, I'll just. I'll just do it. It's I don't have time to explain it to you.
I'll do it. And we let them do that because we don't want to take the time to learn it ourselves. But the problem is that then you have that one person and that one person quits, retires, is fired or whatever, and then you're left with a void and no one knows how to run that program or publish that book or whatever it is. I think for us, we still have a few left and.
I don't know. I feel like because journal publishing happens so quickly. Time goes by so much faster than you realize that you'll be like, yeah, we need to have some redundancy set up. So we need to figure out some succession planning. And then it's a year and a half later and I'm lucky enough that I've had two people give me 10 year lead times for retirement.
That's that's how far in advance they're thinking. Like, I can retire in '10 years. OK, let's start figuring out a plan for how we can train people with all the things you do. So I think that's probably a journal thing, especially a small journal thing where you own something so completely and there's the whole you can remember seven things and then you can chunk those seven things into a one thing and then remember seven other things.
And that's how you're you organize things. And the best way to find out how little you know about someone's job is ask them to write the sop and then have somebody else do it. And that each step should have at least seven 1421 more things under that headline because in their mind that's one step. And so yeah, it's a lot of work to build up all of those sops. So any other questions, please?
OK thank you all for coming. I really appreciate your time. Come and see us in the booth. And thank you to Jonathan.
Segment:0 .
And over the past 25 years, Julian has seen a fair amount of change, both strategic and creative, and says she vastly prefers the former. But a huge, huge thanks to both of them for coming today. And this presentation is not really about data. But for those of us, for those of you who don't know us, we are a technology led, production focused publishing solutions company headquartered in Dublin, but with offices in Chennai.
And we work with a range of publishers across books and journals offering technology led services, consultancy and production workflow tools, particularly our AI powered XML first production platform, which we call landstad. And as our surveys continue to show, this industry is evolving quickly. And whilst publishers still operate within a predominantly conservative culture, publishers are looking for innovative partners able to develop new technologies and efficient ways of working without adding to cost or complexity.
And that's really why data was formed. And our mission has always been to use technology to simplify operations, future proof content and change the way the production experiences for all. But before getting into this year's survey results, I want to take a quick look at last year's. And it's a familiar pattern with publishers seeing themselves as working in a cautious but traditional way, struggling to modernize despite a plethora of workflow reviews.
And all this was the volume of work is ballooning and some uncertainty around revenues. And so to this year's and we start with outcomes, the strategies and goals that publishers are chasing. And stating the obvious publishing is busy, but this busyness is not news.
And this business is not really just about doing more of the same. The product mix is changing. Industrywide oaa continues to balloon and the economic model is becoming a key headache for many. And this topic came up at the recent IPG conference in London and also the redux conference in Edinburgh last month. Demand for digital first content is also on the rise.
In fact, the only thing in decline is print. And this may be an easy to overlook trend with. Important point here is that strategically, publishers are moving more and more towards a digital centric content. But operationally, as we shall see, they are still using print centric workflows to manage the work. We would argue that as consumer habits become more digital centric, publishers must follow suit and digitally transform their business.
And when you look at the strategies that publishers are prioritizing, there is evidence of a shift towards digital transformation. But the goal here is not necessarily about being quicker. In fact, as you'll see here, speed is way down on the pecking order compared to previous years. It's about being smarter and smarter in this context means creating a bigger impact with fewer resources and simpler workflows.
But whilst publishers are looking for simplicity, the market, it seems, is becoming increasingly complex and many publishers are scrambling to stay on top of new products, new technologies and maintain margins. And the risk is that this complexity becomes distracting and publishers take their eye off core principles, which is about quality and the needs of their customers.
And when we look at the internal hurdles that publishers are facing, they're not necessarily cash flow. That's the real issue. And this is pretty low down the pecking order here, too. The biggest barriers, it seems, are outdated technologies and inefficient practices. Those print centric workflows I spoke about earlier.
And there's a growing recognition that to evolve, publishers need to examine the skills they develop and the talents that they employ. So on to our second section. Operations in which we asked publishers about how they get the job done. And 20 years ago, before outsourcing production began, production departments were as powerful as any other.
But as reliance on vendors has grown, production has become an arm's length service, and size and influence of production teams is stagnating. A survey suggests that only 25% of production teams are growing, despite workloads increasing. And for many, this lack of capacity is having a serious impact on their business. And this impact is particularly serious because the smaller the team, the more carefully publishers need to plan and prioritize their work.
But as our survey says, considerable time is being spent on outdated practices, performing rote tasks and management and administration, all using old school tech like word excel, PDFS and email. Some publishers even manage their typesetting internally. And although it has made authors into into customers, only 26% say that more time is being spent with authors.
And given the poor use of time, we ask the same question every year and our survey should modernising production be a key business priority? And every year the answer is a resounding yes. Historically, workflow reviews have been about cutting costs, not necessarily changing practices. And for instance, we still see very few using XML first platforms with online editorial capabilities. It is, however, the first time that this chart has been topped by publishers targeting business intelligence, not just a faster way of working.
From there, efficiency drives. So into our final section, people and culture, in which we look at the people skills and culture that publishers are employing. And dying to start it out as book specialists believing that journal publishing was already well down the road to automation.
We've since found out that's not entirely true. And despite journal publishers seeing themselves as innovative and progressive, many are still held back by ingrained legacy systems and poor interoperability of legacy tech. Book publishers, it seems, are much harder on themselves and see themselves as less dynamic and much worse at staying up to date with technology. A substantial 28% of book publishers also playing the long game and were waiting for AI tech to solve all of their problems at once.
And so with shrinking internal teams, but more work to be done, a vendor is seen as part of the solution or part of the problem. And for our part, Dane to have invested heavily to automate production to the extent that we are now licensing landstad and most welcome this investment. But some would argue that consolidation is affecting choice in the vendor market, whilst others want to balance vendor power with a degree of independence and autonomy.
And finally, what about ai? Is it a help or a hindrance? Can it help now? Or are book publishers right to wait for a complete solution? Our survey suggests that clear lines are developing and AI has approval when it comes to the management of a process, but it warrants concerns when it introduces content, co-creation, things like peer reviews, abstracts or seos and publishers are being urged to take a stand on AI and formulate a policy about it.
Even though we're very much at the infancy of this era, deign to see AI as transformative and are already working on next generation tools to support our clients. But you'll need to come and talk to us at the booth if you want to find out a bit more about that. So that's a real whistle stop. Talk about the trends. I'm now going to spend the next 10 minutes talking to our panelists and I've got a couple of questions just to start.
So the first question is that with nearly 60% of publishers industry wide stating that the increasingly complex economic and business model is the key external trend impacting our organization, I wanted to ask Gillian, what is it about publishing that so complex and what's your organization doing to overcome that? I think, pardon me specifically for oaa, we've seen a huge change where a subsub specialty journal.
So we have a very small. Group of potential subscribers even and away with our single journal. Things are fine, but neurosurgery doesn't fund o.r. as a specialty right now. So we're going to have to figure out different business models for funding, be it by industry or some other way, because that's just not it hasn't filtered down to neurosurgery yet.
So for us, from an income perspective, that isn't something that we can plan to make a ton of money on. So, OK. Just go Japanese ascalon. We I think just the business, the business model is just the business. It's getting women, women a non-profit. So getting funding for us is it depends on how the organization is doing.
So for us, it's the business part of it is really just sort of based on revenue. So I don't really have much to say on that. I guess I'll add one thing I just thought of, and that's that we're noticing some institutional subscriptions, looking for some sort of add on. We get 15 for a discount or something like that. So from a complications perspective with a single subscriptions employee, the the variables are growing greatly.
Yeah I was going to ask, are you seeing the industry becoming more complex? If you look back kind of five, 10 years, is this a different landscape we're moving into? Yes I think before we could just sell a subscription and that was fine. Then it became an open access license or not an open access license, a site license, but it was still kind of a single point of sale.
And now it is getting a lot more complicated and. OK thank you. The second question I'm going to put to Jennifer first of all, is by some margin, the top two internal hurdles which are preventing publishers from achieving their goals were outdated technologies and inefficient working practices. And I just wanted to ask what you felt.
It was about those two things that makes it so hard to overcome. I would say comfort more than anything else. The story that I tell many of my colleagues many times is I worked for American psychiatric association back in 1999 when they had just made this radical change to framemaker, which at the time was new and revolutionary, and the only program that did XML first and that kind of thing.
And I left in 2003 and came back in 2019 and they were still doing exactly the same systems, still using framemaker, still doing exactly the same way. I walked into the job and within a week I was doing it, you know, exactly the same way I had done it 20 years earlier. So the hard part is just the comfort level. Everyone's comfortable with what it doesn't. It isn't broke. Don't fix it, you know, and I'm facing that a lot now with people going, why?
Why do we need to do this? I can ask, how do you address that? How do you overcome that? Well, I tell that story, first of all, and I remind everybody of that story repeatedly. But I just I keep talking about, you know, we're we're we have a lot of legacy staff, people who've been there a very long time. You know, we don't have a lot of young staff.
And at some point, the generation is going to shift and we're going to be looking for people who can do these sorts of things. And there are people, kids coming out of college now are not being trained in framemaker. You know, they know indesign, they know XML, they know those sorts of things. And for a forward looking process, we have to really think, think logistically like what's good for us long term and do we want to be proactive or reactive about it?
Do you want to say something? I started at the journal in 99 and we used quark. We did switch to Instagram, we did switch to indesign because quark just stopped updating anything and that was our reason for switching. I have a similar situation, so yeah, I have a similar situation in that I have more than half my staff has been there 20 years, but luckily they are open to changing.
We've always, because we're a very small staff, have worn many different hats. Each of us will wear 3 or 4 hats and I think that opens a little more room for being willing to try out new things, which is good. Excellent. Thank you. Third question 40% of publishers stated that the rise of AI led publishing technologies is impacting their organization, and we ask publishers to indicate out of a range of possible AI applications whether their organization would support them in principle or in practice.
Plagiarism detection was by far the most popular. Whilst I supported co-creation was was the least popular. Where do you see AI technologies making the most impact in your organization? I think we are dealing with direct patient care articles and so I think we will be exceedingly conservative in how we do things. We do have a good, I think the potential for sort of a closed use case scenario of our own work.
But yeah, I think we're going to watch and see for quite a while. I mean, for us, for me personally, I'm enjoying seeing some of the AI copy editing and the grammar checkers, but we're looking into research integrity, that sort of thing. Again, we're also medical health related, so we'll have to be very cautious about how where content comes from and what what it means for the for the people who are going to read the guidelines that we publish and things like that.
So it's again, a very cautious approach. But for the workflows, the AI generated workflows and things like that, I mean, I think there's a real it's a it's a catch-22. It's going to be great. It's going to make things a little simpler. But it also does it you get the fear of is it going to eliminate my job kind of thing. So there's a balance there.
I can I ask, have either of you formulated an organizational policy? Is that something you're looking into? We know publishers who've had independent consultants come in and help them literally create kind of a document they share with their staff that that talks about the interaction they can have with AI tools. Is that something you're looking at? We we generally are just we don't allow we don't allow AI generated material.
If we if an author tries to submit that, we ask that they provide all of the sources for the material, which often they can't get from the AI that they've generated it from. Same thing with figures and art, that kind of thing. There has to be original and we have to have the source documented source of all of the elements. That's our formal policy. It's the same.
We have allowed AI images if they are completely unrelated to patient data. So we had somebody submit they imagined the most fully efficient, efficient sized to make a board operating room scenario through AI. So they wanted to basically publish that sort of imagined perfection. And so we did allow that with a clear.
A reference in the thing but yeah it'll it'll it'll be a while and staff doesn't want to touch it so we're good. OK final question before we open it back up to the audience. At 55% by far and away, the primary target for efficiency drives was increased data analytics and business intelligence, whilst less than half that figure saw reducing single person dependencies as a high priority.
I just wanted to ask and if I can again start with Jennifer, what are your key goals when considering adopting new technologies? I would say we're pretty much split on that. We have a lot of silos in our in our department and our organization. So it's it's we've been working really hard lately to be breaking those down, become more familiar with what everybody else does and how we do it.
And that's been part of this too is just, OK, well let's evaluate what works for everyone and how can we make it work better. And understanding how the books work versus how the journals work, that kind of thing. Because we've always been sort of separate, very isolated. The books people are the books people and the journals people are the journals people, and each has their own workflow and their own process.
And but at the same time, I mean, for example, my we have no set way of accumulating data. You know, we have to sort of dig when, when someone asks, you know, this is for some how do we do this? What's our goal for this? What are what's our practices for this? We have to dig for those sorts of answers. And so we we're very much looking for a way to to streamline that as well, to, to to keep track of our revenues and our processes and things like that and be able to find that information at the drop of a hat.
Yeah I think for us, we are the journals group. We've always been separate from our association, so we're doing the same, you know, de siloing, but with our association, the education departments and meeting departments, how can all of that data come in together? And that's where I mean, we have patient pages. I could help with the rough draft of that and then it can be vetted.
But yeah, I think that's the the main thing is, is surfacing a lot of that information that can be used across the association that right now is on a spreadsheet. I would agree with that too, because same thing, you know, publishing is within the greater apa and we sort of have. And operated as our own entity for a while in a sense that people don't really know what we do or how we do it.
And the decisions are made that are for the organization don't necessarily apply to what we do in publishing that kind of thing. So there's been a lot of we've been trying to make the rest of the organization more aware and become ourselves more aware of what, again, education meetings, research, what they do, because we have always just operated within our bubble. Can I ask when you're looking at technologies, is hyperconnectivity important to you?
Are you are you building up a sort of tech stack that can can talk to each other where you might have a title management system and a production system? And are you considering a kind of do you have a vision for what your technology stack might look like in five years time, for instance? No, I think for us that needs to be a higher conversation with the association, especially because I'd like them to spend that money.
That would be the ideal. But but I think the journals is a small enough piece. We put out a lot of information, but in the greater picture, the association, it would definitely need to be a higher level buy in. So ideally, yes, someday I would have the same reaction. No, but yeah, I mean, think that we do have we are we're right now we're still sort of learning. We're sort of learning what's available.
Again, we've been doing things the same way for so long that a big part of it is learning what's available and what we haven't been paying attention to and trying to figure out how that works with what we do. And so I think that we would like to have a plan, but we have to first understand what we need and what what's available to us and what kind of things we can what we can use it for. Yeah OK.
Well, thank you very much. We've got about five minutes for audience audience questions. And they can either be to myself about the trends or they can be to Jillian or Jennifer about their reactions. But I'm happy to take any questions anyone might have. Please thank you. Do you need the microphone?
Hello? yeah. So I was kind of curious about the single person dependencies, which I kind of interpreted the same way you did, which is breaking down silos and not having. And I am curious that it's so low. And I was wondering if you thought that was because people don't think it's important or because they've already started to break down those silos.
Well, I guess from my point of view, we do a lot of workflow workshops with publishers of all shapes and sizes. And quite frankly, we're shocked at the amount of single person dependencies that there are within these organizations where we've had instances where individuals have told us in front of their bosses that it's taken them three months to plan for a one week holiday and because the workloads, they've got the lack of technology to kind of pass on any information and because they're operating in a silo with limited tech.
So I think it's something you guys can tell me. It seems to be quite common in publishing that that kind of instance, I think a lot of people in here maybe have the same experience as that. So I don't particularly see it as a shock, that stat. I think for us we see technology something that can address that, but it's a surprise to us. It's not higher up the list because it would seem like a very kind of easy win for technology.
I don't know about your sounds. If I could just. Everyone will relate to this. It's faster if I do it. And that's really I think where it comes from is that there's one person who's better at that software or better at that process, and they're like, I'll just. I'll just do it. It's I don't have time to explain it to you.
I'll do it. And we let them do that because we don't want to take the time to learn it ourselves. But the problem is that then you have that one person and that one person quits, retires, is fired or whatever, and then you're left with a void and no one knows how to run that program or publish that book or whatever it is. I think for us, we still have a few left and.
I don't know. I feel like because journal publishing happens so quickly. Time goes by so much faster than you realize that you'll be like, yeah, we need to have some redundancy set up. So we need to figure out some succession planning. And then it's a year and a half later and I'm lucky enough that I've had two people give me 10 year lead times for retirement.
That's that's how far in advance they're thinking. Like, I can retire in '10 years. OK, let's start figuring out a plan for how we can train people with all the things you do. So I think that's probably a journal thing, especially a small journal thing where you own something so completely and there's the whole you can remember seven things and then you can chunk those seven things into a one thing and then remember seven other things.
And that's how you're you organize things. And the best way to find out how little you know about someone's job is ask them to write the sop and then have somebody else do it. And that each step should have at least seven 1421 more things under that headline because in their mind that's one step. And so yeah, it's a lot of work to build up all of those sops. So any other questions, please?
OK thank you all for coming. I really appreciate your time. Come and see us in the booth. And thank you to Jonathan.
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