Name: Where are my Authors? Marketing, Analytics and Data for an Open Research Future
Uploaded: 2024-02-02T00:00:00.0000000
Duration: T01H29M28S
Description: Where are my Authors? Marketing, Analytics and Data for an Open Research Future

Name: Where are my Authors? Marketing, Analytics and Data for an Open Research Future

Description: Where are my Authors? Marketing, Analytics and Data for an Open Research Future

Thumbnail URL: https://cadmoremediastorage.blob.core.windows.net/1646a5d0-7f96-4f87-83d2-b172fc81536c/videoscrubberimages/Scrubber_1.jpg

Duration: T01H29M28S

Embed URL: https://stream.cadmore.media/player/1646a5d0-7f96-4f87-83d2-b172fc81536c

Content URL: https://cadmoreoriginalmedia.blob.core.windows.net/1646a5d0-7f96-4f87-83d2-b172fc81536c/session_1d__where_are_my_authors__marketing%2c_analytics_and_d.mp4?sv=2019-02-02&sr=c&sig=QxL9ZzNHjKF5CHqXWOiaexvQqt0A%2FP38KcqsGWpNOWk%3D&st=2024-11-20T03%3A18%3A41Z&se=2024-11-20T05%3A23%3A41Z&sp=r

Upload Date: 2024-02-02T00:00:00.0000000

Transcript: Language: EN.
Segment:0 .
Good morning, everyone. I think we still have a few people coming in, but we'll make a start. Thank you, everyone, for joining us this morning. My name is Mitzi lucraft and I'm a Sr. Consultant at TB communications. I'm really pleased to have an excellent lineup with me today. I'm going to ask them to introduce themselves.
We are speaking about where are my authors marketing, analytics and data for an open research future. Panelists, would you like to just give a very brief introduction? Are these on? Hi, I'm Matt jampala. I'm the vice president of publications at Au. We are a society publisher that does books and journals. Thank you.
Hi, I'm Natasha white. I'm the VP for journal marketing at Hawaii. Hi, I'm Sarah Girard. I'm the head of marketing patients at. Small sized organization to some in the room. Also publishing journals. Books Thank you. OK, so code of conduct.
Please do have a look if anyone has not already done so. But I'm going to keep us moving on. When I submitted this talk, I titled it Where are my authors? But I want to start with a different question today, which is why? Why does that matter? Why do I need to know where my authors are? Communications works with publishers, associations and services across the scholarly communications sector and on the surface of it, the questions and problems that our clients come to us with could look very similar, but in fact, they could look very different.
But in fact they have a very similar problem that they share. It might be that they are transitioning their journals to open access and are looking for support with that strategy. It might be that they've seen a dip in submissions. It might be that their marketing channels that they have been using are no longer performing as well as they used to or their community are no longer responding in the way that they had previously.
It might be that there are just so many new digital channels and they're not sure which way they would like to be using all of those with their teams in house. So behind these examples, there's a common problem, which is that there is a shift to an author centric publishing system. Now, whilst this relationship with authors is not exclusively tied to the transition to open access, that is where we are focusing the conversation today.
And the reason for this is market sizing, published in 2022, showed that in 2021, just under half of all publication journal publications were open access. And with the memo and the growth of the drive of open access in Europe via momentum, especially via coalition s, this will only continue. So what we're seeing is publishers are shifting that relationship that they have previously had with their communities, where they have focused on B2B marketing and marketing into institutions and instead are needing to shift that focus to understand where authors are instead, and not just thinking about a researcher, as an author, but researchers also in their different roles.
So thinking about the role as a peer reviewer in how they interact with those journals. So open access is setting new expectations and there are strategic considerations. Where authors are is a much bigger question than perhaps it had been previously. Researchers are working increasingly internationally. They might be working across discipline boundaries, so knowing who your potential author base is, is a much more sophisticated question requiring a look at your data.
And there are different expectations of your authors. There's more competition. So the Directory of Open Access journal listed approximately 10,000 open access journals in 2014 and compare that to over 19,000 in 2023. So your authors have more choice. So experience of your authors now becomes a much bigger question. So I'm really pleased to have our panelists today who are going to be covering many different approaches to who, where and how you can reach authors using data technology and shifts in marketing.
Thinking about an author centric system. There are many decisions that need to be considered. Do your authors have funding for apcs? Do they understand the differentiation that your journals can offer? Good data, sophisticated technologies, the right mix of channels and the right message is the combination that will help you target the authors, that can be supporting the growth of your journals in this open access transition.
We're going to cover this from a number of angles. First of all, Matt is going to speak to agu's experience of setting that strategy and that shift in terms of Open Access Journals. What does that mean in terms of that collaboration between publishing and marketing? And what are some of the myths that need to be addressed with your authors? Natasha will be looking at this from the data and technology perspective and why his experience of how to target those authors looking at that data and also what does that mean in terms of the skills and opportunities for your marketing teams?
And then lastly, Sarah will be covering this in terms of the insights that you can apply to look at the right messaging and motivate sessions to bring authors to your journals. We're going to try and keep this fairly interactive. Now, what I hadn't realized when we set up polls is that Hoover only allows you to view your polls in the app. So I'm going to encourage everyone to head to Hoover now, if you haven't already done so, and just answer these first two questions for us.
So just understanding what stage of the transition you are at and the journals that you currently have in your portfolio. So I'm just going to have a quick look at the polls on there. I can see we already had 55 responses to the stage of the transition. So I'm just going to give everyone just a moment to answer that and then I'll hit the Share.
So hopefully you can all see that as well. Nobody be tempted to go look at the metadata of the musical live stream while you're there. There will be no singing in this presentation, I'm afraid. All right. We have 72 answers ticking up, so I'll give it another moment.
OK, I'm going to share those results. So hopefully you can all see those as well. Unfortunately, they won't show on the screen. This is only available in the app. My apologies. That was something that I had not understood when we uploaded them. thinking Wi-Fi. It's not on our side, so I can see the answers.
Let me just share. Share those myself. So what I can see is, um, the majority of people in this room are a combination of folio or hybrid in their portfolio. There are very few folio publishers. Five out of 83 responses in here, 12 are new to this topic in terms of open access and for didn't know anything at all. So so welcome.
This is going to be an informative talk I'm sure. Um, in terms of areas that we are represented, um, we've got 2092 answers to this one. I'll try again to share that doesn't allow me to do it. OK so we've got um, 32 out of 93, so approximately a third of the room are publishing an editorial. Uh, an 18 are representing technology, much fewer sales and marketing in the room. So seven sales, eight marketing, five production and 14 leadership, nine other.
Um, I'm curious what the others are. Anybody in other. No no takers? Well, as I say, we're going to try and keep this fairly interactive. So we do have polls throughout the session. We will be taking questions after all, the panelists have spoken, but also giving you plenty of time to engage with the topics that we're covering.
So so I'm going to hand over to Matt. Thank you, Matt. Thanks, Matthew. Can everyone hear me? all right. So I'm going to give you the sort of editorial perspective, which I gather is a majority of the people in the room are coming from that editorial perspective.
American Geophysical union, we've been transitioning to open access for the past, say, 15 years at least, mainly because it's the right thing to do. But also there are more and more incentives to make sure that we do that. Take that transition now and that we're thoughtful about making sure we have some sort of sustainable operations at the end of that process, I have to say, I really do love the title of this.
Where are my authors? I don't know how many of you remember the old movie dude, where's my car? But think, dude, where's my authors? And it's not just about reaching them, but it's about understanding where they are. What their state of mind is, I think is important when you're making these decisions about transitioning and about thinking about what messages will resonate with them, and then how to actually find them and deliver those messages.
So just a little bit of an overview about American Geophysical Union. So the American Geophysical Union focuses on the Earth and space sciences. We really believe that it's important to have that community work with the domain expertise for our journals and our books program. So that's our sort of happy place, working very closely with the experts in our field to do a peer review and create our products.
We have 23 peer reviewed journals at agu, and as I said, we've been transitioning to open access. So we started with launching a full open access journals about 10 years ago. And then have moved in the past three, four years into actually transitioning journals. So we're now up to 10 of our journals are fully open access and 13 of them are subscription journals with the hybrid open access options.
it takes a lot of people to make all of our program work. So we work with more than 800 editors. And that's because they're managing more than 17,000 submissions a year to publish over 7,500 articles a year in our program. We also have a books program and won't be talking about that today. But we're also working to move to open access there.
And there's completely different challenges for books. And we have just speaking about open science, we have our preprint server called Earth and space science open archive, which is part of the mix as well. I'll also mention we have a partnership with Wiley. It's our publishing partner and all of the work in terms of transitioning is being done in, in accord with the publications committee at Au and governance.
With its council and board. So I think we've made a lot of progress. So far. So we're doing the work in open science just to make things open in as many ways as possible. So as of last year, we made it so that this wasn't true before. All members have access to our journals as part of their membership.
Previous to that, you had to members had to select a journal to subscribe to as part of membership, but now it's included in We have a very low membership fee. So this does open up our materials to a lot of people. Um, we also are doing a lot of opening up through green open access. So we have two year rolling embargo to open up anything that was behind a paywall.
We're very permissive with sharing on your personal website and sharing an institutional repositories after six months. You can do that with a final version of record as I mentioned, we have our preprint server. We encourage people to share their including the accepted article version. so all journals that have that gold open access and we're transitioning more journals.
Think I've discussed that already. Um, and as part of this, we really, um, we want to make sure not only do we end up sustainable at the end, but that we're still inclusive, that anyone who could participate with us before can still publish with us. So we really want to take away any barrier that fees will cause.
There you go. Um, so we've made progress. So you can see if you look at that red line is our hybrid journal portfolio in 2022. You can see over the past several years, we've had a really steep increase in uptake of open access in our journals, largely due to transformative agreements and funder mandates, et cetera.
And if you look at the blue line, that includes the hybrid portfolio and our fully open access journals and as of last year, we were over 50, we were 52% open access, and that was before transitioning our largest journal at the end of last year. Geophysical research letters transition and think will be around 2/3 open access by the end of the year. We have one more big journal to do this year.
So one of the things we want to do is we really want to, as we make these decisions, balance between our objectives. So really try to stay in the sweet spot between these three things, emphasizing open science and all of it, not just open access, but fair data, permissive re-use, reproducibility aspects of that with the sustainability. So we want to make sure that we can fund our operations and that we can support the work that our volunteers and editors are doing.
And then the inclusivity. We want to continue to expand who's participating with us across all demographics globally. And then we want inclusive policies and again, minimizing those funding barriers. So just our latest journal that we're going through the transition process. I figured I'd walk you through some of the thoughts that we're considering as we do our next journal and that we've done for the previous three journals we've transitioned.
So we for water resources research, we looked at things like output by country, the current open access uptake in that journal, which is over 44% at the moment, um, that where our authors are by region what their institutions are. Do they have access to transformative agreements. and what's the percentage of papers that aren't listing any grant funding at all? Conversely, that is, do we have a lot of papers that are listing grant funding so they have access to be able to pay that fee?
Um, what, what are the subscription fees that would be ditching in order to move to the transition? And how much would we have to charge to, to cover the lost revenue? And importantly, taking into consideration any discounts or expected number of waivers so that we're looking at really what's the average fee that we're taking in order to cover our revenues.
And we want to make sure that the editorial board is coming along with us. So where are they? Are they asking for this? And this particular journal, the board has been sort of demanding it for years. So we're in a good position there. However, I'll share with you, we did some surveys of the authorship as well, and this is actually from a couple of years ago.
But we sort of asked them, well, what do you think if we moved, what would happen? And so first we asked them about what are their funder requirements. So you can see there some percentage of them by region. It varies feel that they are required to publish open access. A greater feel that they have requirements around data and sharing data openly and then even greater have requirement for sharing a repository.
And then some are required to share through preprints or some sort of green other green sharing. But when we asked to what extent you can afford, we see that many say that they have support for either all or only one paper a year. And then there's definitely a portion that said. I don't have any support. I'll get back to this because I think some of this you have to take with a grain of salt. Sometimes people don't answer this question.
They don't actually know what the real answer is. and then we ask people, would you be more likely or less likely to publish with us? And almost 50% And again, this was a couple of years ago said we'd be less likely to publish with you even in this community where many people are sort of coming and community town halls have sort of demanding that we move to open access. And that's because we, you know, one of the things we want to avoid and that transformative agreements help us with is we don't want individual authors having to make these sort of microeconomic decisions.
Am I going to send someone to a meeting? Am I going to or am I going to publish this paper by this piece of equipment? Or am I going to publish another paper, open access. So we do want to take those decisions out of their hands and put it more in at a higher institutional level. And that's why we're lucky and I'm sure many of you are at places that are working on the same lines that we have access to publication and funder agreements.
So this map actually the key is missing, but it shows all the places that Wylie has transformative agreements plus overlaid with where are we offering automatic and discounts and waivers through research for life. And we're convinced that we're expanding this the imprint on the globe where people have their costs covered through one of these routes. So that puts us in a good place.
But also cover this a little bit. These transformative agreements are important. They help ease that decision making. It takes individual decisions away from people deciding, oh, do I have the money to pay for this or not? And it elevates that to at the institutional level. But not everybody is aware. So if authors have encountered a confusing landscape in the past, then they might have these questions in their head.
You know, does my institution cover me? I don't know. Am I covered for only hybrid open access? So publishing open access in a subscription journal, or am I covered for publishing and fully open access journals? And for many people it varies year to year or it's been shifting over the past several years. So they may have had a case where they tried to get coverage.
And they hit a cap or they. They could publish in one journal and on another. And you know, if nothing applies to me, can I get a waiver? We see a lot of people who decide just to go elsewhere because they assume they see the fee and they assume they can't get a waiver because they're in a country that is known to have a lot of grant funding. So they assume if I'm in the us, I can't get a waiver from you.
That's not true. We've increased our funding for that. Um, as I said, their past experience is going to determine their expectations. So we need to work closely with our marketing teams in order to get the right message to them. Tell them yes, you do have access to funding through one of these routes and we'll help guide you through the confusing landscape.
Um, and so that's where I think I'll leave you that. How are we going to reach them? How are we going to give them that message that we will work with them, we will make sure they're covered. Thank you, Matt. OK, it's back over to you for anyone who joined us after the start of the presentation. My apologies.
You have to use the Whova app to take part in the polls, and I cannot show the results on the screen. We can look at them within the app. So if you head back to Hoover, there is now a question, which is what are the main open access myths? Your open access marketing needs to address head on and whilst people are adding their thoughts to that, I'm just going to read a few back that we already had answered in this question.
So we had that. It's too expensive. That was a few times that apk's are expensive, that free publications have no value. Open access fees have to be paid directly out of my grant. Transformative agreements are the only way libraries help the open access transition or that they harm pure open access publications. The open access journals and predatory journals are the same thing that it's utopian and the best option, no questions asked.
Um, there are many more in here, so predatory comes up a few times. But the belief that open access means no cost, that it's expensive. Funding comes up many times the cost, the quality, Uh, all the things. That's that's a good comment here. Here, I've added that one. Um, so we're going to, we're going to come back to address this when we, when we get around to the panel.
But please do continue to add your thoughts. And we're going to also find a way of sharing all of this back out with apologies that it's not easy to share it on the screen today. With that, I'm going to hand over to Natasha, who's going to take us into data and technology. Thanks so much. So lovely to see you all here today. Thought I'd just start a little bit about myself.
So I've been in open access North marketing for over 20 years now, and the beginning of my journey started in 2001 in this field. I started at biomed central and we didn't have a business model at all for these open access journals that were very new EndNote one really knew much about. And I'd left a really big brand nature brand to come here. And it like, how do we make this work.
And how do we make this business work? We knew that researchers and libraries really loved the idea, so we invented the author pays or the APC as we know it today. Model And this is where customers really became those sorry, the authors became transactional customers for the first time. So think, as my colleagues have sort of mentioned, authors, is always very important to Journals and publishers and that marketing to them was very important.
But for the first time they became those transactional customers and the marketing changed from that sort of B2B model to a, B to C model. And now I'm at Wiley 14 years or so later. And what's different today in my marketing is the scale and in terms of the number of journals. Obviously biomed central is about 200 journals when I was there and Wiley is like 1,600 journals. So looking at and it's obviously a huge number of authors that are coming into those journals all the time and a huge number of articles, but also the competition is much greater.
We heard that just in the plenary. You know, there's lots of open access publishing going on, as Matthew was talking about and Matthew was talking about. There's a lot of open access publishing. So as a marketing professional, you've got to look at how do you get ahead, how do you put your content out there that's going to get noticed and et cetera. So publisher having to adapt and really to meet authors needs in a different way.
And get noticed. And at Wiley we're investing hugely in marketing and data resources. So by that I mean sort of in the people that we're hiring, in the processes that we're doing and also the technology. And it's really an exciting time for marketing generally, and I'll talk about that a little bit. But things are really, really changing.
And as a marketing professional, that's really exciting. You know, I've been in, as I said, the business of open access and author marketing for 20 years. But um, and with that you've seen, you know, open access, really change the publishing model. But now in marketing, you're really seeing the model change. And think, you know, I'm always learning and trying new things. And I think that's really good fun. But in terms of priorities and requirements, you'll see up here we've got three areas I'm going to talk about.
So good data. So you've really got to have a really good foundation for your marketing data. Secondly, the technology and I'll talk a little bit about that. And then also the sort of analytics. So real time analytics and understanding what's happening, what you can learn from that and how you can change. So number one, the data model and this is really important in that B2C world that I talked about, the marketing world that we're in, the key to success to get noticed and for us to really reach authors at the right time with the right message in the right way is the data model.
So the data needs to be really organized. And by that I mean. You know, in a very organized way in terms of your database model. Oh, gosh. So just press the wrong button here. Um, Yeah. So you've got to have a centralized publishing data model to really understand and target authors at the right time.
So we're all consumers in our everyday lives, right? We're ordering from Amazon, we're getting uber, and that's the same for researchers and authors, right? So last night I went out for a dinner with a colleague who's actually in the audience here based in Portland, and I had to get an Uber, and I went onto the app. It knew exactly where I was. It was amazing. It then, you know, put in where I was going to go.
It told me, hey, your taxi is right outside. Brilliant got into the taxi and then told me to put my seat belt on. I was like, Oh my god, how does it know I'm in the taxi? And then you get, you know, you get there to your destination and it goes, you know, how was your journey and how would you like to tip your driver and therefore knows where you are? Researchers and authors are also consumers, right?
So they are having that experience in their everyday life. And that's us. As publishers, we need to adapt and to offer that to so that they, you know, they're used to that in their everyday lives. They want that in their publishing experience too. So it's really important that we look at our authors in the same way.
And that's what the big tech companies are doing. They're organizing their data right in this way. They're making sure that they know everything about their customers and targeting them along their journey. And that's the same with us. So to target the authors, we need to know where they are in the journey, what they publishing and where do they last publish, what subject area, what are they reading?
Who are they funded by? Et cetera. Et cetera. Et cetera. That all needs to be organized and put into one unified customer profile. And that's really important. So you can then target those authors and you know exactly where they are and say, OK, you're now at this point in the journey.
And you can send out that messaging to them. This is sounds wonderful, but it's actually quite difficult to do. And one of the keys is to having the right skills and people in your team. So it's not an easy task to do. You need to hire the right data engineers who have that skill, but they also understand publishing and they also know marketing.
It's a very complex business that we live in, right? So what I've found over recent years is that you've got to hire the right skills into the Department to be able to do this work for you and to organize this data. And you have that really good data foundation. So that's step one or tip one. Tip two is the marketing technology and the key to having, you know, this key or this tip is that you've now got your data really well organised, but you need to have systems in place and marketing technology and software in place to take that data, that organized data and create and deploy the right messages at the right time.
And again, my advice is that you need to have the right people to run that too. So it's a bit like you can buy a Ferrari. Well, we probably can't because we work in publishing, but someone can buy a Ferrari and then, you know, but if they don't have the right skills, if they're not that Formula One driver, they're not going to get around that course and win that race, are they? They're not going be able to get, you know, to the right place.
If I was driving a Ferrari, I'd probably only get halfway down the street and get out and, you know, wouldn't be able to do it. So you'd have to hire those right people who can do that activation and use that technology. So that's another thing. And, you know, that's a theme, I think, of all of my points here. Mean in marketing, we've always been good copywriters, we've been creative.
And that's, you know, for decades. That's one area. And I think Sarah talk a bit later. That's still very important today, right? You need to be able to craft the right messages that will get noticed. There is so much stuff coming at people now, you know, in their inboxes, on their social media. You need to be saying the right things to get that attention.
You need to repeat that message, et cetera. But what's different is the technology. So at Wiley, we've really invested heavily in the marketing technology. We're using the Adobe marketing stack and you know, I can talk about that for a while, but won't today. Obviously people can come and talk to me about that any time. And we've just started on this journey and it really has revolutionized the way that we're able to market to our customers.
And and I've got an example on screen here that I wanted to share with you. So while we have lots of hybrid journals and acceptance, they get asked, do you want to publish open access or not? So they get on screen sort of a yes no, and our technology will be able to take everyone that sort of has said has not said yes. So anyone that said no or hasn't acted yet on that and target them with messages, emails on social and say, hey, you're from Germany, you've got a transitional agreement with Wiley and why don't you publish in this lovely journal?
It's got open access and it gives you x, y, z, you know, and that will follow them. That will get an email. They'll go on the social site, they'll go on Google and that that will tell them that message exactly the right time when they've said just said no or they haven't taken that action in their publication journey. And that technology allows you to do that precise, trigger based, you know, micro-targeting, just like in your consumer life, you might be buying a new dress, a new pair of running shoes.
You'll put it in your basket and think, oh, it's quite expensive. I'll come back to that. But then you'll get an email going, oh, do you want those Nike's or you know, whatever shoes you're buying, will you go on a social site and you'll see another advert for you might get an offer for it that will just nudge you right into that.
OK yeah, I do want that open access option. I will pay that APC. It's covered by, you know, my German institution anyway. And that's the same thing that we're doing here, and that's what the technology allows you to do. And then my last tip, don't know how I'm doing on time. I'm OK is real time analytics. And this is absolutely key. There's no point in doing any of that if you're not learning what you're doing every day.
And it has to be very much every day. So in the old days, I remember my first job in marketing. I did direct mail. Do people remember that? You did leaflets. You sent it in the post. Well, actually look back quite fondly on those days, but on the back, you have your order form and I've put a code for every different list that I had.
So you might remember I was marketing this encyclopedia of astronomy and astrophysics and eyed by the society of, you know, UK society, the Uc society list and put the codes on the back of the thing and then I'll send off my direct mail and, and I'll sit by the fax machine. Yep remember those and see the orders coming in. Yeah and I'd look that's come from that list, put it into my spreadsheet, do a calculation on how much I can spend on the list and how much I was getting for my books that have come back from that list.
And that's your Roi. Well, luckily things have moved on and it's all digital now, but the principle is the same, and that's what we're doing at Wiley. So we're looking continuously checking which lists, which adverts are doing well and which aren't. We use now this tracking code that goes onto the URL. So I don't know whether you ever notice you click on an ad, you go to a website, you've got a really long URL and it's telling people like myself, marketers, what is where they've come from, which ad they've clicked on, which email lists they've clicked on, et cetera.
That follows you from the advert onto the journal website into the submission site and it'll tell me, Oh yeah, that person who clicked on the advert on Google or Facebook or wherever, um, has submitted via the submission site that that journal or journal is on. So, you know, that's great. And then we but we have to gain have people who can analyze that and build the dashboards so that we can understand what they're doing.
So again, hire the right people in the team who can create your dashboard and, you know, analyze that data and inform you. And as I said, this needs to be done daily. You know, really quickly, this adverts doing well, put more money in that cetera. Et cetera. And the results are really good and are showing us a lot of how the personalization is working.
So just to finish, as I said, marketing is a really thrilling and a really thrilling time now. And I'm constantly learning every day, what we're doing. And I wanted to share this model with you today. So I hope you've enjoyed this, um, this talk and, but I wanted you to share with you that this is not something that I've made up myself. This is from the McKinsey personalization operating model, and I've got a couple of links on here.
I don't actually we're sharing the slides afterwards. But anyway, you can email me or find me on the app and I can share these links with you, but this just talks you through the, the principle, the McKinsey model here where, you know, number one data foundation, build that 360 customer view. Number two, mine the data I'm sorry mining the data to identify and act along the different insights along the journey and the signals and then craft the right messages and send them out, you know, at speed.
And then lastly, you know, measure that. So you're delivering that and then measuring that and feed that back into the data model. So it's sort of that virtuous circle. So this is, you know, what that's based on. And yeah, we're going to take some questions, I think, afterwards, aren't we? Thank you.
Thanks, Natasha. OK, back over to you. So back into Hoover. Um, the next question we had for you. Is about those skills gaps that you see for your marketing teams in this transition, especially thinking about what you've heard so far. obviously a lot, um, that we've covered is around identifying the strategy as, as Matt covered and, and looking where to, to, to actually pursue that marketing.
And then as Natasha has covered, is starting to think about how to use that data and technology to work for you. I'm going to read out some of what I can see here. So we have no marcom team is a pretty significant one in there. Um, networking, copywriting systems, knowledge of open access. So actually understanding what's happening.
Switching gears, Engagement I think there's a lot in here around how to actually use the data and technology. But I think probably going to come out to, um, in Sarah's presentation is that broader understanding of the messaging as well. And how to use insights to actually impact, um, impact the messaging that you use at those right moments in time.
So please keep adding to those polls. We're going to come back to that in our discussion section of our session in a little while. But over to Sarah now. Thanks, Sara. I think that was the one that when I went to answer, like there's a very small character limit. So in order to encapsulate what you want to say, you had to like it's 12 characters or something.
So I'm sure we can have more discussion on that. Well, hi, everybody, and Thank you for joining us today. Apologies that I've got my notes on a laptop. So I'm going to be trying to move to different machines at the same time, but hopefully I'll actually keep up with the slides on the board. Just a little bit of background information on aip publishing, which is the organization that I'm working for.
We're a sort of small to mid-sized publisher, not for profit in the physical sciences space. So it's sort of broad and niche at the same time. We're a mission led organization. We're owned by the American Institute of physics, and our revenues are used to support aip and their work with the physical sciences community. We publish around 30 peer reviewed journals. Some are our own titles and some are published on behalf of other society partners.
A third of our journals are gold open access, and all of them offer open access options for our authors. Before we move on to the Q&A and discussion part of our forum today, I want to take a couple of minutes to talk about how we're using customer insights to AIP Publishing to help understand our researcher community in an open science landscape, to know who they are and where to find them.
All right. So like many of you, I'm sure we've been working on managing this transition period with an eye to moving to a fully open access world in the near future. This shift from a, b, B2B to a, B to C focused marketing is a really significant change in a small organization like ours, and it certainly doesn't happen overnight. It requires new approaches to marketing, to the data and infrastructure to support that activity.
A renewed focus on the author experience and a change in mindset to align the organization around the author as our primary audience. We quickly realized that within our organization we had a knowledge gap that we really needed to understand our researcher community much more thoroughly in order to best meet their needs and to market to them most effectively. What are their beliefs and values and how does that align with our specific brand?
What do they think about open access and what are the actual factors that are driving them when they're making a decision about where to submit their articles? Where are the commonalities within the communities that we serve, and where are there differences based on geographic region or career stage or author needs? Last year, we added a new customer inside function to our team and we've started a program of research and customer feedback to answer some of these key questions and to inform our marketing and author engagement strategies and to develop customer personas and research journey maps that we can then use to segment and target our audience.
Our hypothesis is that by understanding the researcher journey and the author experience, we can communicate with them in compelling ways that address their needs and build brand loyalty. It's still a work in progress, but I want to share with you today some of what we've learned so far. So this is a busy chart. don't have to look at it in too much detail.
But according to the Edelman Trust barometer, which is run on an annual basis and looks at how consumers trust brands on a global basis, 58% of the global marketplace buys or advocates for brands based on beliefs and values. Our broad research question was, how does our brand measure up? What brand values are most important to our community? Do our authors think that we embody those values? How do they match up with how we see ourselves or how we want to be perceived?
And how different are we from other publishers? We started our customer insight work with a large scale brand health survey to understand the needs and perceptions of our global physical sciences research community. Making sure to include points of view beyond our existing known universe of submitting authors. You can see from the color lines in the chart that the responses from our survey don't all align. This tells us where we need to strengthen our value proposition and reinforce our messaging and where we want to lean into the brand values that resonate most strongly with our authors.
We also wanted to understand what characteristics authors value most in a publisher. Our community has told us that they want a publisher who's relevant and who has influence and who makes the publication process easy and fast for them. Their most immediate need is on meeting their own publication needs the need to get published, to build their reputation, to get readership and viewers.
For their own work. After those needs are met, then their characteristics start to look at things that benefit the larger community at whole. They want to publisher they can trust. They want somebody who they feel is helping to push their field forward and is serving the physical sciences community.
There are also a lot of practical factors that come into play when authors are deciding where to submit. Is the scope of the journal, the right fit for their article? How important is it for your specific community to publish with a society? For example, does the author's institution have a read and publish agreement with your organization that allows them to publish with you without having to pay the APC out of pocket?
Understanding our author needs and aligning on values is essential, but we also need to add the context of open access to the landscape. The shift to open science is disruptive for some of our authors, just as it is for our organizations and our teams. And we have a role to play in supporting them in this transition.
We learned from our research that our community is particularly receptive to open access overall. They see it as a very strong net benefit to the physical sciences community writ large. But almost 40% of our survey respondents also felt that open access publishing makes it more difficult for authors to get published. There are clear, clearly barriers to overcome.
And as Matt mentioned earlier, sort of myths to dispel. And there are different drivers that motivate our authors to publish open access. Some of the key barriers that we're seeing include organizational resistance and APC feeds fees. Not a surprise. We know that APC models can be inequitable, that fees can be disproportionate depending on where you come from.
In India, for example, they are often not eligible for waivers that are given to low income countries by some organizations at the meeting in Frankfurt last year. Harini calamur from impact science reminded us as publishers that even a $500 APC is the equivalent of a monthly salary for an early career researcher in India. It's really significant. Last year, AP joined up with three other society publishers in the physics space, iop, aps and optica, to conduct a joint research study that was facilitated by TBI communications that focused on the perceptions, behaviors and barriers to open science.
In that study, almost 70% of early career researchers said that they had difficulty finding funding for open access publications. Funder and institutional requirements to publish are not ubiquitous. As much as I think that some of us seem to think that that's the driving force behind everyone's decision making.
So while national and funder mandates to publish away are increasingly the norm in the UK and Europe, for example, over half of the global researchers in our study indicated that their research funder did not require or encourage them to publish open access. And if we look at the charts on the right hand side, over 43% of the respondents said that their employer or their institution required or encouraged away publishing. But then there's a huge difference in variation if you look at those results by a specific geographic region.
We also saw significant differences in response based on career stage and geographic region to this question. Which of the following is more important to you as a researcher? Making work available open access without barriers or having an unrestricted choice of where to publish. Early career researchers feel much more strongly about, oh, while more experienced research, researchers valued having that unrestricted choice.
Whether the mindset is a reflection of their current place in time, needing to build their publishing output and reputation or a lasting sense of mission is something that we'll want to monitor going forward. And for researchers in the global south, sharing their work without barriers to access is more important than unrestricted choice of where to publish.
By understanding what motivates a particular author, we can segment our marketing and tailor our messages much more effectively. Our customer Insight Research so far has yielded a wide base of shared experiences and needs among our physical sciences community, as well as important nuances in how they engage with open science.
But there are also key differentiators that influence where and how they consume content and receive marketing messages. An ever expanding mix of content distribution and communication channels poses a real challenge for marketers. I just wanted to share two examples from AP where we've been experimenting with meeting our authors where they are.
The first is in using social media more strategically with regionally focused campaigns. In the fall of last year, we expanded our team on the ground in China, and they began creating video content in mandarin, specifically for our WeChat channel. Before that, we were simply posting new content from our journals, along with an occasional call for paper messages. Not only did the videos themselves generate engagement, but the viewers began to follow our channel and are now engaging with us in our content much more regularly.
We're also working on an integration between WeChat and our manuscript tracking system so that we can update authors in China on the status of their manuscript within the channel that they prefer to receive messages in. Another new to us channel that we're testing is ResearchGate. More and more we know that researchers are consuming content and in particular open access content from platforms that are not the publisher's own website.
Our ad campaign in ResearchGate for two of our new open access journal launches, apl materials and apl energy are currently outperforming banner ads that are hosted on our own site as well as our paid Google adword campaigns. We just heard from Natasha that customer data and segmentation is a really critical strategy for selecting the right channels and targeting author marketing.
I admit to being really jealous of the systems and the infrastructure and process that Wiley has in place to manage this. We are not there yet, but we're on our way. The next steps for aip are to make our customer insights actionable and to set us up to be able to scale our author focused marketing efforts. We're currently completing our author personas work, and we're investing in a customer data platform and the infrastructure that we need to combine our author data and demographics with the knowledge that we've gained about our customer needs in order to optimize our author outreach.
Author marketing is an ongoing engagement. We can reinforce our messaging and our authors on all the channels that are available to us, from email and social media to transactional author communications, even our corporate website messaging. So in closing, I'd just like to reiterate that not all authors are the same. It's not in our best interest to treat them as they are.
They have diverse needs and drivers to publish and variable factors that influence where they decide to submit. They're engaging with publishers in an array of traditional and emerging ways. We need to understand their motivations, and we need to be prepared to experiment, to test new approaches, to analyze results, and to reallocate budgets as needed, to find our authors and meet them where they are.
Thank you. Thank you, Sarah. Thank you all. Panelists, we have one more poll for you, which is what types of insights you're using to inform marketing decisions. So again, so whilst you're busy putting those into Hoover, I'll start sharing some of that.
It's good to hear that there is no one who's not using any insights to inform their marketing. Uh, there is a lot that's looking at author submission and acceptance data. currently on the rise looking at this live. Competitor analysis is actually coming up very highly. Um, and also actual campaign analytics, so especially email, campaign analytics and website analytics.
Slightly under the rest at the moment was still on the rise is the advertising campaign metrics. So impressions, clicks and conversions. And again, slightly below the rest is the customer feedback and reviews and the social media metrics. But on the whole, it's a fairly diverse set at play. We're going to talk about all of the poll topics that you've been feeding into and we'd encourage you to also, as we start to discuss these topics as a panel, to also give us your input.
So we will come to your questions as well. But first of all, we're going to discuss a few of the topics that we've covered so far. So, panel, first of all, Natasha was covering skills that all the marketing teams now need, and I'm going to turn it back back to you. In terms of what does the what does the Modern marketing team need to include? And I'm going to I'm just going to remind you of what some of the discussions on the poll came back as.
So skill gap skills gaps included that knowledge of tech skills, data insights, engagement system analytics, markham's copywriting automation. Sarah, perhaps I could start with you. What does this look like for. Dragon no, he just gave a thumbs up. You give a thumbs up?
Try again. But don't know how to turn it on either. So I've always been of the mindset that marketing is as much an analytical job as a creative position. You know, even back in the days that Natasha's referencing, where we were tracking direct mail results by hand, you know, capabilities with an Excel spreadsheet were as critical as being able to write good copy or have an eye for design.
But for us now, I think that sort of analytical and data analysis area is one that our traditional marketing teams haven't had and is an area that, at least within our organization, we are sort of proactively figuring out how we fill that skills gap. So there's more and more data and analytics about the results of the campaigns that we're running and the tests that we're doing and having someone to proactively manage all of that, rather than having it, you know.
Dispersed amongst several different people think would be a way to help us be much more efficient. So that's a gap for us that we're looking to figure out how to fill. Yeah I suppose a related topic in there becomes more and more opportunities for marketers, is it possible to be a generalist anymore? That that was exactly what I was thinking. I'm thinking in the old days, you'd remember interviewing people and saying, you know, on the spectrum of that analytical, creative, where are you?
You know, and because you needed a mix, like in any team, right? You need a mix of people. But think the days are gone when you would be trying to recruit for that generalist marketer. And you know, now it's very much, you know, that would be impossible. Well, not impossible, but very hard to find. I think, you know, having specialist people or teams if you're bigger.
But, you know, even in a small organization, you know, having a specialist person who's looking at data and building that side of things and then having your content marketers and the sort of more traditional skills there is probably what I would recommend rather than looking for everyone that can do everything. Everything Yeah. What does that interaction look like in terms of those skills in marketing with publishing?
Um, yeah, I think that the interaction is that the, the data can give us information. About what? Well, what messages are resonating and what messages people need to receive? and. It's really true that we I've found that we need people on the editorial team that can help dice up the data on all their submissions and what they're doing and what's happening, and someone in marketing that's got the market analytics lens and have those people talking to each other to really make sense of what's happening.
Yeah um, and because, you know, I'm most familiar with all the anecdotal data of people who come to me and say council members were talking about making these moves and transitions saying, but I can't participate with you anymore. I'm at x institution and don't have any way of publishing with you. And then I'll go look up where they are. And I'll say, well, you have a transformative agreement, your fee is covered.
Um, so it's combining that anecdotal evidence of frustration and, and not understanding with like what is, you know, what's actually happening with the data world we have. Absolutely and using that two way interaction to really inform those conversations. Um, I'm going to move us on to then looking at the customer data and the insights. So again, turning back to our polls, it was, it was, again, really interesting to, to see that there are insights coming from across the board.
So submissions, data market research, competitor analysis, feedback from customers, website analytics, social email campaigns, advertising campaigns, slightly less so. But um, I think Sarah raised this in terms of it's not always necessarily in-house data that's available. So what are, what are the potential ways that, especially some of the societies and publishers who are new, newer to this experience and starting to get started, where should they be looking for some of this information?
Anyone want to start us off? There Michael. Um, so, you know, one of the sort of external data sources or sets of, of information that, that we want to look at is where, where prospective authors are publishing. So using sources like web of science and dimensions information to actually look at, you know, where are areas, you know, within certain fields that are sort of Trending in terms of submissions and publications?
Who are those authors? Alderweireld towards are they publishing? Have they ever published open access before? So looking at that kind of external information. Um, and then the other side of that is also tracking where do you rejected authors go? So, you know, taking a look at where, you know, people who have submitted been through peer review and rejected by your in-house editorial teams, where are they ultimately ending up being published and is that a potential sort of lead source for us to think about in the future?
So if we're losing people, why and you know, why why did we decline them in the first place? Is there a, you know, scope issue that we actually should be addressing, but also potentially sort of new target sources for, you know, leads lists or doing email campaigns with Clarivate or somebody like that? So Yeah. Natasha yeah, I mean, I'd echo those sources, but sort of just to reinforce that a lot of this information is that you really need to look at is in your data and think that would if you know, you asked for recommendations for societies and I'd say that's where you should start looking at your own data.
And you talked about, you know, authors being rejected. Well, we have a campaign at Wiley that as soon as someone's rejected will then say, OK, here's some other journals that you could publish in and obviously we've got a big portfolio. Um, and you know, compare them. We're launching a new product soon that's going to be a bit like don't know whether you have it in America, but in England, compare the market.com where you basically have, you know, the different journals alongside what can they offer, what are the open access and open research policies and that type of thing.
It's like you need to offer them that choice. So think. And there's lots of ideas like that. You know, I shared the hybrid open access trigger one, but there's lots of trigger points along that journey that you need to look at and go, OK, what do we know about those authors and how can we get them to stay with the journal or journals that you're looking at?
So I'd start there. Thanks yeah, well, this was just making me think about connecting that data back to some of the people who were doing the decision making. So the editorial boards, the editors really we found when we show them how they're actually behaving, we, you know, we can get them to be aware of their behavior and try to change it. So when we've tried to close the gap in terms of getting peer reviewers from all over the world, when we actually show them a gap in the number of people that are submitting articles from China.
And the number of board members and reviewers from China, they can see that and say, oh, well, you know, we've got a problem here. We need to solve. And likewise, if you're rejecting a lot of material, really looking at it and trying to understand why and how can you collaborate with the other parts of your portfolio to, you know, if there's something worth publishing there to make sure it gets captured.
But yeah, that internal data is going to be really important for all of that. Thanks I'm going to turn it to a question that came in ahead of the session, which is also related to the insights and behavioral data we've been talking about. So one question asked authors are both content creators and content consumers. How do publishers get reliable insights into their behavior as content creators as well as, on the other hand, getting reliable insights on their behavior as the content user?
So tying tying that evidence up and that that insight work up. Natasha yeah, I think that's really important because readers are authors and they've just got a different hat and actually research that we've done says a lot of authors that are publishing is because, you know, they've read something on our website. And so again, it's using the tools that are available. So we have Wiley online library, which we can see exactly who's reading at what times, and you can trigger again, create segments and go, you know, these people are reading something in neuroscience and you can have adverts saying, why don't you publish in these other journals?
Um, but also looking at the patterns and the timings of that. And I think that's key. It's quite hard. And you know, that's one question I ask myself at night, you know, like how can when do they're about to submit? I think that's the question. I'm sort of know, a lot of the triggers that I've talked about today, like one rejection is a firm point.
You know, that they've just been rejected or they've just been accepted off the open access or they've just been published. Ask them, you know, how their experience was and do they want a promotional service that we offer or something like that. But I think that how, you know, and I think that's in the reading, you know, if you can see that they're reading stuff and then maybe they visit the author guidelines or you know, that that's the sort of thing.
So I think tying those behaviors and those triggers together is really important. Um, but yeah, to do that, you need the technology again to show you what they're doing and, and understanding that and then being able to send out the marketing at that time. Yeah, it's exactly as you described. It's not just having the data, but understanding. What does that tell you in terms of those signals?
What's that pointing to in terms of the point that author is at in their journey? We've got one more panel question before we head this out to ask your questions from the audience. So the last topic that we started earlier on was around those myths to address. So again, I'm just going to pull back up those poll responses we heard.
Um, the APCs are expensive. Open access equals free. Um, a lot around quality, around um, if it's, if it's difficult, um, around whether they have funding, whether it's valuable. Um, so. One one thing that I was keen to hear is obviously some of these risks come down to explaining through the messaging.
But open access has also raised some of these myths and challenges. So that there is the rise of predatory publishing. Um, there's also been various conversations in this conference and elsewhere around research integrity. So are there ways that marketing can help authors overcome some of those concerns and those myths that you see? Anyone want to start us off?
So well. This is going to be a little bit off topic, but I was just thinking the marketing that we do needs to reduce confusion. So, um, and would actually wondering, do we have any librarians in the audience? We got one. 0203 hiding in the back.
So as we've tried to start messaging more to our authors saying, hey, we understand you're not really aware of these opportunities we've started actually bumping into. We've actually got some libraries that are protecting the members of their institutions saying we don't want you know, we've got this agreement, but we don't want you chasing our authors. Um, and, and so I think that that's just sort of symptomatic of the fact that there's confusion all around.
And there's different motivators for the libraries. And institutions, for the publishers, for the authors, for the author, when they're a reader. And I think we have to really work together to solve those problems and doing a little bit of work just recently, um, if you don't even have internal data, you can do focus group work like I was following. Just happened to be in the room with an editor for like a board meeting and they were like, I'm going to submit a paper to the journal now.
And they like got stuck. When it was time to talk about the fact that they had access to one of these agreements. And we realized there was something broken on that particular journal site when it came time to check off the box saying that they had access to these agreements. So I just feel like the work we're doing has to be focused on reducing the confusion and making sure that we have the picture across the publishing interaction and the institutional interactions.
Yeah, that's, that's a really important one for me actually, is that this conversation is obviously we started out talking about marketing. Um, but, but that communication comes from a much broader sweep of where researchers are engaging with you as a publisher. So every interaction, including through, through all of those systems. I'm just to sort of share anecdotally some thoughts that.
Correspond to what Matt was just talking about. You know, we hear from authors directly all the time as well, something like at a scientific conference. They'll come up to the booth and say, hey, I can't publish with you anymore. My funder requires me to publish open access and my institution doesn't have an agreement with you. And this journal is not gold. Et cetera.
And you look it up and it's like, oh, actually, we do have a read and publish agreement with your institution. There's definitely a lack of awareness amongst the author community themselves about, you know, where they can and where they can't publish. And it is really difficult for us as marketers and as organizations to figure out how to reach those people with directed messaging, right?
Because, you know, the message is not the same for everyone out there. Not everybody does have access to those kind of agreements. And we also see, you know, even within our submission system, when they are asked, you know, when they're notified, you know, you've got an agreement, you know, you can choose to publish open access. We have authors who say like, oh, no, that's OK. Like they opt out because they don't understand what we're necessarily asking of them, I think.
Yeah Natasha yeah, I mean, I'd agree with what. Sarah just saying it's keeping it simple and you know, at the point in the journey. But one thing that you asked about was how it can marketing can help with research integrity. So I just have one thought to share on that was. You know, talked about in my talk about organizing the data into, you know, an organized database.
And one of the areas is sort of that, um, eligibility. So are they opted in to everything. That's obviously very important from a marketing point of view, and that's a whole other topic that probably could take us, you know, GDPR and everything. That's very important from a marketing point of view that you collect that, but also you can working with your research integrity and editorial colleagues, you can note, And bad actors.
So, you know, they're reviewers or editors and authors that you don't want to be working with in the future. This can be included in the data and then it will mean, if you're not going out and inviting them again. Because I think one of the things is you don't want to be contacting these people, you know, to come back into the system. And it sort of proliferates that problem.
So that's one way marketing can help with that situation. I'm sure there's lots of others, but just one that came to mind. That's a great one to add. Thank you. All right. We have about 17 minutes for questions. So would anybody like to get us started? Are there any areas that. That have come up today or not come up today that you would like to hear more about in this transition?
I just had a quick comment to make. Um, I think it's I really appreciated all of your presentations. I think one thing that's really important to bear in mind when you're marketing to authors is you need to be careful not to assume that just because they object or have concerns about publishing, that their concerns are necessarily rooted in. Right so, for example, it is a myth that all open access journals are predatory.
It is not a myth that there is a connection between predatory publishing and open access. When you tell if you tell authors that that's a myth, they're going to stop listening to you because they know better. And so the marketing has to be really carefully rooted in actual reality. It can't just be rooted in an ideological position or then you're not really marketing your, your proselytizing and authors are going to.
Back off from that. So it's just a. That's a great, great reminder. Is there anything the panel would like to raise in terms of specifically addressing that myth around predatory journals? Well, I would say that I don't think that we're saying that. Think like your point. We're not saying, oh, open access is perfect utopia.
I think your marketing messages should be about what it is about your publishing operation that's important and why you're publishing operation has chosen to move forward in open access. And for us at it's really open science writ large, as these practices, including transparency and sharing and other things that we think is important and think have to talk about the research integrity as being part of that open access done correctly.
Any other thoughts? Hi, I'm Elizabeth and I have a question, I think, for Natasha. And it is. I could see that you are on the society side of marketing and I wondered if you can talk a little bit about the balance between your analytics and the society's perspective. So how do you balance the need, for example, a society saying, I'd like a marketing plan at the beginning of the year with the dynamic nature of what you described or balance, you know, input into marketing, um, like a marketing perspective, if it's different to like what your data show.
How do you balance that? It's a really good question because actually these the campaigns are very dynamic. So in the old days, you'd be going, oh, here's your leaflet, you know, and it's very tangible. And they could see it. And even up to probably, you know, I don't know, five years ago we were doing very much product led marketing.
So you'd send the Journal of x to every single person in the database in neuroscience. I'm going, you know, because it's that subject area. My point is that's not useful anymore because, you know, they're just going to get millions of emails and ignore them. And it, you know, hopefully it came across, you know, that it's really important that you think about the author as the customer and what they need.
So in the point of their journal, you send something, but it's very societies. So I can't see that marketing. You know, I didn't get that email. I didn't, you know, I don't see that advert. It's like we don't see the advert because you're not from Germany and you haven't just published in the Journal because, you know, obviously our as I've described the campaigns are set up that way.
So it is really difficult and actually something I grapple with daily. So I'll have and you know, meetings with our societies and they'll be like, oh, I don't think do enough marketing for us. And I'm like, Oh my god, we do so much, but you can't see it. And, you know, I'm just being very honest and open about that. So with, you know, how do you.
So how do we show that? So we obviously present that and we show what the mock up looks like and everything like that. Um, but I think it is also important to, you know, do single campaigns. So for Google ads, we do have separate adverts for every journal, um, and things like that. So there are, there will be some, but these big programs that I've illustrated today is very difficult. And I think apart from showing them almost like a brochure flip journal, you know, sorry, a flip chart of all the different campaigns and taken through it is hard to do.
So hopefully that's answer your question. I don't know whether I quite answered it, but. The main thing is it is difficult to illustrate that. And show that. Is there any similar experiences on your side? Like, do you feel that? Matt because obviously Matt's so I'm here laughing because I was I've had editors say, why, why doesn't why don't you do this?
I just got this email from nature geoscience or whatever telling me it's time to submit my paper. And I was like, well, because you submitted your last paper there and it's time for, you know, like their automatic campaign. If you had submitted to our journal, you would get the same email. So yeah, it's just a funny, funny thing that we see sometimes and then we get other people on the other side that complain about those emails.
Yeah think know, to the question earlier about predatory publishers, people are just sending loads and loads and loads of emails, so we don't want to be doing that. We want to make it at a relevant time in their journey and that's a much better experience for the author. And then they'll, you know, have that, um, you know, it will come at the right time for them to go, Oh yeah, I'll be nudged into that rather than just bombarding them with stuff, so.
Yeah Yeah. Sorry um, also, I'd like to think that the proof is in the results as well. So, you know, it's not about the output to be able to say, oh, well, we did this many campaigns for you. It's about the outcomes, right? Are you actually generating the submissions from the people that they want to receive them from?
Are they good submissions? Are they getting through to publication? Is the readership staying high, et cetera? So I think that's where, you know, that sort of data and analytics piece comes back in. So there's a lot more, a lot more results sharing that we could probably all do better, to be honest and, you know, less, oh, look at this, you know, pretty advertisement that we created for you that nobody ever looked at.
Absolutely Hi. Hi Thank you very much for an excellent presentation. Really liked the way it was also broken out. Um, Natasha, I have a question for you. I don't know if actually you recollect, we met at biomed central with vitek, and this must be about 17 years back or so. Um, the question, the, the database is the foundation of all, what we do.
Uh, how do you disambiguate these authors when you mine the data? And what is the, what is, is there a technology that you use and the database store that you use? Is it something off the shelf or is while you build it themselves? So the database is Snowflake. Snowflake yeah, they're familiar with.
Yeah, I'm familiar with that. And how do you deduplicate the authors? Um, so they have, um, single identifiers like in the submission system, they'll have that, but still also by email, which is sort of maybe thought as, as old fashioned, but we do use email. So in our experience, what we have found is that an author has multiple emails. Yeah, and that's true.
And then in the reader also has that when he's a reader, he has a different email too. Yeah and you talked about linking the reader to the author back in terms of understanding behavior. And that's the problem we find in terms of creating the author databases. Yeah um, well, think can use it by, you know, understanding the author and their profiles and building that up.
Um, but the main thing is, is yeah, having a single ORCID we use as well, so like having several think so you know, the author will have an identifier with you, they'll logged in obviously um, with one email address and then be hopefully publishing the same one. But if they're not, you can often link up the same, you know, with the manuscripts et cetera, that they're using. But also, um, using other identifiers like ORCID that we use at Wiley.
Don't know. Any other systems, other identifiers? No, I think this is a known problem. Yeah um, so if there are other databases or ways that you're starting to disambiguate in the room, would anybody like to share those? Massive amount of evidence. My guess is it would be about 2,530% of.
Yeah, it's a small number. Yeah Yeah. So and hopefully they only have one. Yeah it is so foundational to our world. Yeah, but. Yeah, but let's connect afterwards, because I'm sure maybe we can get our brains together. I feel like this is a problem we can solve.
Yeah Hi. Maybe we could also assume that some authors are having to mental journeys at once with one email. They're a reader. And one with one email. They're writing papers, so they need those two different messages at once. That's true. Hey Tim Lloyd from lib links.
Just on that last point, access journeys is a really good thing to think about, but too many of our platforms and systems have different login and authentication silos. And so what happens is you're collecting this information, you can't disambiguate it. But if you give authors a simple, consistent access journey that is flexible, that solves that one. My question is actually about ResearchGate.
I'd love Sarah. If you could talk a little bit more about how usage on alternate platforms can help with marketing, and maybe that does that help reach a new audience, for example? Yeah so full disclosure, this is a really new test for us, we've literally been running it for about a month and a half, so we're kind of just starting down the ResearchGate path, although I know that a lot of other publishers have done pretty extensive agreements with them to actually sort of share content via the site as well.
So we're sort of we've been experimenting with using sort of branded journal pages on the platform as well as actually using them as a sort of targeted banner ad campaigns. And yeah, like I said, the. We don't. What we don't know is whether the users are different from those that are already engaging with us on our own platform.
But we do know that we've gotten a lot more clickthroughs to our submission site and to find out more information about the journals from those pages than we have from our own. So I'll keep you posted if you want to reach out. Happy to sort of share further results as they go in. And I'm sure if you talk to somebody from researchgate, they could give you a good pitch as well. Think Wiley might have more data on this as well, right?
Yeah Yeah. We have about 300 journals that are syndicated there. Third party content as soon as it's published, goes into ResearchGate and we've been doing that for about a year now. So we do have some more data. I actually don't have it to hand. It's not something part of the talk, but I'll be happy to share that.
And what the sort of data struggle that we're having at the moment is understanding, because obviously they are not. We want them to submit. That's the end goal of, you know, this relationship. It's obviously great that more people are reading and there are really good stats to show actually. People reading on ResearchGate go to our website and the figures kick up, which we didn't expect, but we want to look at, you know, try and attract submissions.
And it's hard because they're not necessarily going to, you know, submit that day or, you know, that week even. And that in my talk I talked about that URL tracking code that's lost as soon as they did it straight away. So we can't actually track them. So we're doing like email match backs to see, you know, if they've been on ResearchGate reading and then submitted to a WileyPLUS journal in, you know, six months or something.
But it's not ideal. So I think it's early days in terms of really understanding how effective the platform is for driving submissions. But I think in terms of readership, it's really working. And in certain regions, particularly. But I'm happy to share, you know, maybe we could afterwards if people touch base with us, get our details and we can share that.
Thank you. Think this might be our last question? Oh, really? That's the last question. OK OK. Thank you. I'm lucky. I'm from top editor also services. I originally from China.
I noticed Sarah use WeChat at the channel to attract the Chinese authors. I want to know how it works. Do you have any other methods to attract more Chinese authors? Yeah that's a great question and I'd be happy to also put you in contact with our marketing manager in China who could share a lot more detail about what she's been testing on the ground there.
So for us, you know, submissions from China are a huge source in our community. We get almost 50% of all of the submissions that come into publishing are actually from China. Um, we are using the social media platforms to share content and do direct outreach, but we've also been trying to use them for more sort of engagement type campaigns. So we're, we've been working with our editors and assistant editors and editorial board members who are located in the region.
They've been filming videos for us and doing testimonials. We've we've tried a couple of author webinar type programs, so providing advice on, you know, how to get published and what makes a good article abstract, et cetera. So that kind of author outreach seems to be really effective for us. Um, it is a, you know, it takes time and effort.
It's a little bit of a heavy lift. It's not an easy kind of automated approach like the data driven approaches are. Um, but I think that it's a good way to actually sort of build those rep, build your reputation in the community and those sort of hopefully more long lasting relationships with the authors. Anything to add? Just something that Sarah mentioned.
The WeChat notifications is something that we're about to pilot as well. We've actually partnered with Charlesworth who are here the conference to use their WeChat gateway, and so I'm quite excited about that. I think that's, you know, again, that sort of real time. So it links up with the submission system and can alert authors. You know, there are tools going out for peer review.
And I think that sort of value add is, you know, an interesting marketing tool. And then on top of that, you can obviously know where they are in the journey and do WeChat advertising on top of that. So that might be one thing to look at. Actually, we have an employee at Wiley that's actually a shared employee that sits in the Beijing office and she does updates on WeChat account for us and has been immensely successful.
We've been growing followers. But she yeah, she shares anything we would share on Twitter or Facebook in the Uc she translates and shares on WeChat and she's also used it as a channel for generating interest in webinars that we host where she'll she'll host those in Mandarin or sometimes it's Mandarin in English. If we have an editor of a journal speaking.
And it's been really a great place. And I think she even does a we have TikTok videos that go on in which is the Chinese version of TikTok. And so that's been really a great channel for us. This one. Also Baidu. It's another one where we're doing advertising and this year.
So that would be another channel to investigate with Baidu. I don't know whether which is the better Baidu baike. Yeah, there you go. Sorry, my pronunciation. Well, I feel that we've covered a lot of ground in the past hour and a half. I would like to Thank Matt, Natasha and Sarah hugely for their preparation and input.
Yeah I hope you've all.

Cadmore media player playing video Where are my Authors? Marketing, Analytics and Data for an Open Research Future

Video Player

Transcript

Segments

End of Video Player Control