Cadmore media player playing video New Directions in Publisher Collaborations and Access to Content
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:
New Directions in Publisher Collaborations and Access to Content
Description:
New Directions in Publisher Collaborations and Access to Content
Thumbnail URL:
https://cadmoremediastorage.blob.core.windows.net/5611e48e-0f33-4854-b3d9-597e031c3f68/thumbnails/5611e48e-0f33-4854-b3d9-597e031c3f68.png
Duration:
T00H47M02S
Embed URL:
https://stream.cadmore.media/player/5611e48e-0f33-4854-b3d9-597e031c3f68
Content URL:
https://cadmoreoriginalmedia.blob.core.windows.net/5611e48e-0f33-4854-b3d9-597e031c3f68/new_directions_in_publisher_collaborations_and_access_to_con.mp4?sv=2019-02-02&sr=c&sig=MOl6zkJDOKJSOL%2BzlUu5hAuQBUA1x9Y8vve4tu498dI%3D&st=2024-12-22T14%3A46%3A49Z&se=2024-12-22T16%3A51%3A49Z&sp=r
Upload Date:
2024-04-10T00:00:00.0000000
Transcript:
Language: EN.
Segment:0 .
I want to talk about the scholarly publishing collective, which is a collaboration between nonprofit scholarly journal publishers. It's managed by Duke University Press and through the collective, members of the collective can make use of hosting and electronic fulfillment services, collection, sales and marketing to the institutional market and print subscription and fulfillment management.
And we have four hosting partners and then one strategic services partner who I think is blocked there, but so is Michigan State University press BJ Penn State University press, the Society of biblical literature, University of Illinois press and longleaf services. And what the collective really is, is, is this group's attempt to intervene in the publishing services market.
And the hope is that through collaboration that we can maintain mission driven nonprofit publishers as a viable publishing option for journal owners and societies, especially in the humanities and social sciences, and that by maintaining a non-profit, values driven, mission based option, that this will overall keep prices low on subscription journals, allow these kinds of publishers more room and head space to experiment around and innovate around, OK, and offer greater value alignment with our library partners as well as maintaining biblio diversity.
So what the collective does or what brought the collective about, generally speaking, was these changes in our world that we're putting particular pressure on smaller journal publishing programs, especially in the University press world. So what we were seeing were mergers and acquisitions amongst technology partners and services vendors, as well as, say, proquest and epsco, leaving us all with reduced options.
The aggregations that a lot of these kinds of publishers depended on for revenue were our were in are maxing out in size and are no longer as feasible to drive the revenue that's needed. The rise of importance in global and consortium markets. A lot of these smaller programs have not been equipped to go out and negotiate with consortia and have a global presence. And then ultimately, what they need to be able to do is retain the publishing partners that they have and attract new ones, which requires them to have the ability to brand and promote their journals and the society that's associated with them.
So that's what the collective has put together in terms of its services and is trying to address. All toward the goal of sustaining the mission of nonprofit University presses and societies. I am Ralph young from aces, senior director of digital strategy, and I'm really happy to share with you some of my observations about how, as a community, we watch the laptop as a community, how publishers have been working together over the last few years to come to build some common infrastructure together and do some pretty exciting things.
And if you were in this industry maybe like seven or eight years ago, you know, that has not always been the case as an employee at that time. If you were working with for a publisher, you probably knew exactly who your competitors were and you probably didn't do a lot with them. I know at aces, if I had an occasion to talk to an Elsevier colleague at that time, I might be grilled on exactly what was the nature of that meeting.
Why did you have the conversation, what was discussed? And you know, that's just not the case anymore. There's been a real shift in mindset and we now realize that we can really work together in a pretty competitive way. And do some interesting things together. A useful analogy that was said to me one time from Jay Flynn at Wiley that I want to share with you, because I think it's really pretty apt.
Imagine publishers as airlines and as airline industry is highly competitive and they compete on routes and they compete on preferred gates at airports and things like that. But they came together a long time ago and built a common reservation system for making airline reservations. They come together for fuel service at airports. They come together for baggage handling at airports.
And, you know, they really have shown that you can work together in a pre competitive way. And do some very interesting things that solve common problems and make us all more efficient. And that's what I see our industry starting to do today. There's and I'll share with you a few things that we have done and talk about maybe where we're going as well. So I saw two direct catalysts that really spurred change in the areas of providing access to content.
One was the emergence of PSI hub, you know, in that space where publishers considered each other as competitors, suddenly a new entrant came on the scene and that became the competitor. And that was the start of the shift of the mindset to say, maybe we really can start doing things together and working together. And then I give Roger Schoenfeld from Ithaca, sandor, a whole lot of credit for this talk that I'm referencing here that was at the STM meeting in Frankfurt in 2015, where he just laid bare what we as an industry had failed to do, and that was that we were failing to keep pace with our constituencies in terms of how they were using our products and services and how they were accessing our content.
Roger made observations like the PC is not the device. Researchers are starting to use mobile devices to access content. The library is not the starting point. They're using a whole myriad of different sources to discover content. The campus is not the Work Location. We're moving away from the campus and working in many different ways.
And that room was filled with a number of CEOs from publishers that heard all of this and said, OK, we need to do something. And we need to improve our products and services for the benefit of researchers. And so there are two initiatives that I've been really involved with over the last few years that are working to do that. And I have the logos of all of the publishers and other participants in the ecosystem here that are work that are collaborating on these two initiatives.
One is Seamless Access. Seamless access is all about simplifying the way in which researchers can use their academic or their corporate credentials to log into the products and services that publishers provide. Seamless access really helps to establish that key relationship that is very important to us between an individual and their affiliated institution.
And so, yes, today we are some of these publishers are using that Association and using that service to provide access to paywalled content based upon their institutional affiliation. But we're starting to see some publishers also do more interesting things here, like starting to have log ins to peer review systems being done with that technology, because again, that's a key relationship.
The individual to the affiliated institution is a key relationship there. And then GetFTR is all about providing streamlined access to the research itself. This is really focusing more on starting at the. Every service and simplifying the pathway from that discovery service to the content at the publisher site. What GetFTR also signals open access content so that the discovery service can signal to the user that an article is open access in particular, that can be pretty difficult to ferret out hybrid in a hybrid journal which of the articles in a hybrid journal are open access and GetFTR helps to solve that problem as well.
So with those foundational pieces, axe and some others are starting to do some experimentation around syndicating content. Probably you've heard the first instance of this was Springer nature, working with researchgate to syndicate content on the researchgate platform. And now some other publishers like Rockefeller and Wiley and I think karger have joined that pilot as well. Ax with the publishers listed here, Wiley, r-s.c., and Taylor Francis, we are working with Elsevier on their Science Direct platform, and we are syndicating some of our content to Science Direct.
You see the note here that ACEs has about 34,000 articles from six of our organic chemistry journals that are now positioned on Science Direct. That means that they are discoverable in the search engine on Science Direct. That means that soon Elsevier doesn't quite have it yet they'll be discoverable through the recommendation system on Science Direct as well. And we're doing this to see if that will increase the overall accessibility of content to the researchers.
I should note here, open access content can be directly consumed on the Science Direct platform and then for paywalled content, get after is used to help the researcher get access to the content on the publisher site. So that's just a sampling of some of the things we've been doing. There's a lot more that we are doing and can be done, but I'll wait for the discussion for that.
For Alison. Guys got it. Hi, I'm Andrea Lopez. I'm the director of sales partnerships and initiatives for reviews. But I'm here today to talk to you about the Subscribe to open community practice.
And I'm just going to really briefly describe what Subscribe to open is I've heard it mentioned a few times today, which is a good sign that the community practice is actually working because when we first started talking about this model, people just didn't understand it and they thought we were a little bit they're very skeptical. So it's an open access model that uses current subscription budget and all the infrastructure.
So nothing changes for librarians, for the sales agents. Simply, we asked librarians if you value the content, continue to subscribe. If all of our renewals come in and we take into account the normal churn, then we publish that year's volume under C by license. If we don't, it remains behind a paywall and in reviews. We tried this with three journals in 2020.
They were all successful. We added 5 more in 2021. Those eight were successful and then they were successful again in 2022. And in 2023. We are going to take the bold step of doing this with all 51 of our journals. And when we develop subscribe it open and I say we did this in cooperation with raine Crowe from the Cambridge group.
It was named by our editor in chief, was out running one day and he I remember he got back from his run and he called me, said, I think I thought of a name for this model and it was Subscribe to open and we decided not to trademark the name because we really hope some other publishers would adopt the model and we were happy to see a few did. And so we decided to form a community of practice, and this was to encourage the adoption and to promote collaboration among all the stakeholders, not just publishers, but we had some librarians who were really enthusiastic about it.
We invited funders, we invited sales agents were consultants, and they come from all over the world. And it started with just 14 of us, and that was in 2020. And we're almost close to 100 participants and we have monthly meetings. They're informal. They're a little harder to manage now that there's 100 people, not 14. But it really provides all of these people from all the different stakeholder places to share their experiences.
We request advice from each other, we promote the model, and then we look for advocacy for the model. And I think the first thing we did all together as a group is we put out a survey, and from that survey we saw that people just didn't understand the model. So we started speaking. We, we spoke at Earl Charleston, UK, and this was a librarian, sometimes a sales agent, a publisher, sometimes two publishers.
But we were starting to speak together on this. We also recently put out a statement in response to the OCP memo from the community of practice. We have for the first time a group of publishers who are under the Subscribe to Open Model will have a booth together at Charleston. And the fact that we heard subscribe to open mentioned several times today leads me to believe that our community is working in organizing and making sure people know what this model is and that it's becoming more of a mainstream model.
Not just some odd thing that reviews decided to do three years ago. And in 2020, there are four publishers and we they published 24 journals. In 2022, 12 different publishers were published 95 journals. And for next year, we're forecasting there'll be at least 15 different publishers who will be publishing 145 of their journals under the studio publication.
And I really believe that the community of practice has been a major force in this expansion because we can all talk to each other, we can talk to our partners, the librarians, we can talk to a sales agent. Funders subscribe to open came about because there's often funding not behind there's not funding behind certain types of publications. In our case, we do reviews, there's not funding, but we invited funders because we wanted them to understand what it was.
Perhaps in the future there could be some involvement. So we do feel that it's been successful and I'll just do a pitch if anybody's interested. I see several members here in the room, several new ones. Please feel free to go to the website or to let me know if you're interested in joining. I'll hand it over. Heather Thank you.
Great I want to thank all of our speakers so far for sticking to time so that we have the majority of the session for some discussion. I just want to kick off getting a little bit of feedback. Kick off with Andrea. So with the community of practice, you mentioned you have a variety of different stakeholders. How has the complexity of the group changed as more and more stakeholders come on board?
What are the types of activities that are being added as a result of that increase in participation? It's but you have to get it. It's become more complex as it's become more of a global group. So I think just the practicality of trying to have a meeting where everybody can join and we have it at 7 AM civic time. And that makes it hard because we now have the numbers from Australia, from China, so they can't participate.
So we need to think about maybe breaking the group out a little bit. The percentage has stayed about the same. I think there's about a little over 55% publishers, 37% librarians. And the balance is some consultants, some funders and sales agents. And just follow on to that for Alison, as different stakeholders get involved in the conversations around the scholarly publishing collective, how, how, how are those conversations changing?
So the collective is very young. It we launched the platform, the hosting platform and the, the access fulfillment in January of 2022 and the year prior to that was largely spent building the platform or men importing all of the subscriber and holdings data that all of these journals had had at their previous from their previous hosts. So with a lot of the effort and attention of the collective members being focused just on those very operational pieces, and with the collective leveraging University presses, technology, infrastructure and customer sales and customer relations, that created a lot of alignment just right there, a lot of alignment of focus.
I think that this will be something that we're going to have to consider how to manage as we come out of this sort of phase that we're in now, which is stabilization and look toward growing the collective, extending the affordances we have to other members. So I think, you know, as you can see, it's primarily right now the members are largely University presses. So there's a ton of shared perspective there.
There is one learned society and. And I think that going forward we are going to be welcoming people one more internationally and to more societies. So I think we're going to have to figure out sort of how to manage that. But we haven't hit that just yet. We have a question from the chat.
How do you subscribe to open work for authors? Do they submit to the journal without truly knowing whether their content will be open or paywalled? Well, I can speak from angry views perspective as our authors are invited. They don't always know because of the way the model is set up. So far, all the publishers that are in this tried to open who have published have been successful.
But it is an unknown for the very beginning. But we don't take submissions, so it is a little bit different from us. I don't know if there's another subscribe open publisher here who takes submissions. Well, we have one journal that we are investigating, taking subscribe to open and yeah, that is exactly how it would work.
And right now one of the challenges is that the journals, editors and the society that it's associated with have gotten are very thrilled that right now the journal is open access and is guaranteed to be open access. The problem is, is that its current model is not sustaining it. So one of the conversations we're having is what does it look like to have that not be a guaranteed thing going forward?
Like if in a year where it doesn't get Subscribe to the level and then it wouldn't be open, so. Angela, do we have a mic Renner or should she go to the mike? If you're a journalist who has a fair amount of federally funded research that now has to be made open in one way, shape or form, or will have to be made open in one way, shape or form and/or plan as funded.
It seems to take the wind out of the Subscribe to open threat of it'll go behind a paywall if enough libraries don't pay. How do you see like funder mandates working in? How will that affect the model of subscribe to open? And again, I might open it up to some of the other subscribe to open publishers because we do strictly review journals. There aren't usually funder mandates on review journals and there's not funding behind them.
So I don't know if there's another publisher who does have funded articles that might want to answer how they see that going. And that will probably be one of our subjects at our next Subscribe to Open community practice review articles may be required to meet those federally funded standards when the agencies put out their plans. So thank you. Do we have any other subscribed?
Open publishers that want to. Comment or. I have a good idea. Mike's not on. Thank you so much. No no.
Hello aha. Technology so I'm a librarian and I'm one of the librarians on the Subscribe to open community of practice. And I can say that that is one really one of the issues under discussion right now and there are several ideas coming up. Green open access is one option, for example, for a closed year and other ways of guarantee to subscribers that their content will be made open.
So, yes, it's a very hot topic of discussion and we are thinking about ways at the community thinking. And with publisher and librarian input. Thank you. I want to go back to Ralph for a second and I'll say the content syndication or content co-hosting. For a long time researchgate was mentioned and for a long time the only publisher that was really working with researchgate was Springer Nature.
And so we kind of set it aside. But then with more and more publishers, some of whom are with us here today, doing agreements with researchgate, it's got a lot more interesting to take a look at. And then the Science Direct pilot that Ralph mentioned. I mean, this is it's a small scale pilot now, but this is a big deal. This is publishers saying we're not going to try to keep everyone on our platform at all costs and kind of let's put the content where some of the researcher eyes are.
You you mentioned sum of the forces behind the conversations that eventually ended up in the pilot. But can you say a little bit, because it's an amazing thing that it actually happened and it must have been times when it didn't look like it would. Yeah, I mean, I think it does represent the shift you're talking about, heather, where publishers are starting to realize, you know, for a long time we thought we were building websites that needed to be sticky, you know, that we wanted to get the eyeballs on our sites and keep them there.
And I think that that publishers are letting go of that. Right and I think it signifies a shift to the content and recognizing that what we really want to try to accomplish is we want to get our content to the researchers that need to access our content. And so that's the shift that in mindset that I think that these initiatives are representing. I mentioned there is more work to be done in order to really make this work.
More broadly, though, we need to worry about usage, reporting of content that is off platform. There was an initiative a few years ago called distributed usage logging that crossref was working with and it kind of fizzled out. The STM Association is going to you'll hear an announcement that we are reinvigorating that, if you will, in light of the more interest in content co-hosting and syndication.
So that will be coming soon. And then another, another thing that is really needed as more content is starting to be published, open access. That means more content is going to be consumed in a very large number of different platforms out there. It's no longer all coming back to the single publisher site and what happens when content changes, what happens when a retraction is issued or when an expression of concern is issued or something like that?
We do have a research integrity challenge here as we move to more open access publishing. While those changes are reflected on the publisher site, how are those changes going to be promulgated out to all of the places where that open access content might live? And some of you might be thinking, well, we do have Crossmark from crossref that partially addresses that challenge.
But the challenge with Crossmark is that the end user has to do the click in order to check to see if they have the most recent content. And it does nothing to stop the proliferation of out-of-date content that might already be hosted out there. Who knows where? So we need we need to work on things like that as well. Probably have some open access publish in the room who are like we.
Our content's been in multiple places for a long time. But it is increasingly a challenge, particularly with e-books. I have a question for Alison. Increased efficiency comes often through standardization. And I would imagine in some of the conversations around the collective, there are standardization challenges that need to be addressed for publishers that have multiple journals and multiple society journals.
Every one is special and unique. And has different formatting requirements and the like. But so what are those conversations like? So those conversations are very up front and very we went into this very consciously deciding to be quite communicative and quite transparent and quite clear about how this would work. As you say, if you're a publisher with multiple journals, that you already have a challenge, right?
You have the challenge of just standardizing within your own list or your own program. And you also probably bear the scars of what happens when you didn't do that while you were in the process of learning that lesson. So at least everybody came into it with some sense of that. And then from there. From the beginning, we were just like, this is how this is going to work.
This is this is the platform we have. These these are the features of the platform. Here's where there is flexibility. Here's areas where there aren't flexibility. This is how the term here's how term access will work. Here's how perpetual access would work. And so, I mean, essentially, we gave people an out, you know, if this didn't work, you don't have to be part of the collective or you don't have to use this service within the collective.
So at this point and again, it's still early days, I know this is not going to last. But as far as the really critical operational areas where we needed to standardize, we have and I think it's because we went into it with that ethos. And I think mentioned during the planning call when I posed the same question that this was something that Duke had to reckon with before the collective was even born around Duke journals.
Right so we have we publish over 60 journals and across many disciplines and they're all sold by the same library sales and relations team. They're all marketed by the same team. They're they're all supported by the same customer relations team and they're all hosted on the same technology platform. And, you know, it's been for my whole career in working with this has been explaining to our poor journals, partnership manager, why this seemingly simple thing that his editor just asked for can't be done or can't happen or can't happen for less than a shocking amount of money or what is a shocking amount of money in upland.
So we were able to sort of spin all of those lessons learned into this and inform that going forward because. You know, we started publishing, we start we started offering directly our journals for digital sales and access in 2004. And, and so from 2004 until maybe like 2014, let's just say a nice, even 10 years, we didn't understand what the value of standardization was.
And we were just kind of shoveling our PDFS at our platform vendor at the time, which was high wire and letting them tell us they were the experts, letting them tell us how it should work and what it could do. And it was only as we really matured as a digital publisher that we understood the costs of the lack of standardization and the lack of not understanding what was in that Black box. And so when we migrated our own journals in 2017 from high wire to Silver care, that was a moment to say, let's break that.
Let's fix everything. Let's get it all standardized. We know what we have. And so, I mean, part of the value of a collaboration is that all of these publishers, they in this case, they were all migrating from jstor. Jstor ended its journal hosting program at the end of 2021. They all had about 18 months notice that they were going to have to do this, and they had never reckoned directly with their digital managing, their digital content and its presence.
So we were there having just managed a massive migration of our own in 2017, to share those lessons learned and to leverage them. And they were there to share with us how JSTOR an operation that hosted and sold for multiple publishers, how that worked. And we were able to use that to inform and build collaboratively how the operations were going to work. Jackie do we have any questions in the chat?
Not at the moment. And any questions around the room? All right. Because I always have another question. You know me, Andrea, you mentioned that the community of practices international now and literally has people from the other side of the world and some of the challenges there. I mean, open access has evolved differently in different places.
So I would imagine the contributions from folks, particularly maybe from Latin America, are quite different. Or is it a challenge to get people to join from areas where, you know, open is really more readily expected? It's been a challenge to get people to participate from places where there are no mandates and they don't have the interest in just getting somebody to take the interest has been difficult, and I think there's the language barrier to trying to get people to come in.
And I think we see people will read the notes, but they might not be comfortable participating in something that's held in English. So we really we need to start thinking about how we can be more inclusive to everybody in our community and practice. It started out pretty much European, North American basements growing. So we have to give some thought.
But when you start with 14 and then you move up to 100, there's a lot of growing pains that we're realizing you have to figure out how to work with the larger, more global group. Yeah, it's a real it's a really important point. Social infrastructure, education, sending ambassadors out a lot of initiatives like ORCID. And I think DOJ. I know also they have ambassadors that go out research for life has a new country connector program where we're goes are going to local communities and raising awareness.
Not all infrastructure is technical infrastructure. Those was very technical. That's naturally where our brain goes. But that social infrastructure must be so important. Are you finding, Alison, that that's an issue with the collective as well? Generally having people go out and educate folks about the need for those kinds of services. Well, I mean, I'm the one who has to go an army one and educate.
So you know where. The collective right now is largely operating for the benefit of two. I mean, we hope it operates for the benefit of the whole ecosystem, but its most immediate beneficiaries are the members who are receiving these core infrastructure services that are absolutely necessary to journal publishing in 2022 and the otherwise did not have it.
And we see it as serving others. Three we see it as serving the library community. Duke University Press is a well known and trusted partner to libraries all over the world. We're we're known for our transparency. We're known for our partnership and collaboration and communication. And so, you know, by. By bringing these other journals in to the sales operation.
And in that sales team and that agent network, we're raising the profile of the journals and making it easier for librarians to trust that they can engage and that they can bring those holdings in and know that they'll be well supported and well served by a trusted partner. And then we believe that we're serving the entire again, especially the humanities and social science community, which is built on the back of what are generally very small journals serving very fairly niche areas with fairly narrow in the grand scheme of things, readerships.
That doesn't mean they're unimportant. They are. They make up the backbone of humanist learning and life. And we really believe that for the Humanities and non quantitative social sciences to thrive, University presses and these small humanities societies and associations need to thrive. So, so that's kind of the social infrastructure we're trying to build and bolster.
Have any questions yet, sophie? Hi Thank you so much. I hope I'm not diverting the conversation, but I would like to get your opinions and thoughts on how syndicated partnerships with academic publishers and other information companies such as Wikipedia or even researchgate, how these partnerships will change access to content for STM publishing and academic research.
I think there are a couple of examples, heather, we talked about briefly. I don't remember them off the top of my head, but. So I guess that's for me. So how it will change the landscape of the publishing industry? I think that this is a grand time of experimentation. I think that we don't know, to be honest with you.
I think, you know, I think that it does represent that shift, as I said, to toward making sure that content is available conveniently wherever the publisher has to meet the publisher. I'm sorry, meet the researcher where they are. And so, yeah, I think that it's just the time of experimentation, to be honest with. To what degree were researchers pointed to during the initial conversations as an impetus behind the pilot?
So, I mean, we didn't interview researchers to say, would you like this? But we are conducting some surveying now that it's active to find out, you know, a qualitative assessment of how it's going. And it's all quite positive, as you might imagine. There's we really haven't had any negative responses like that. And again, where this goes, we don't know.
Could this become more reciprocal, where publishers exchange content and host content reciprocally? I'll mention what Alison said about standards really made this happen. You know, all the publishers involved in the Science Direct pilot were able to contribute their content. Elsevier and Elsevier could practically just process it as their own, because we've all been working to standardize our content formats over the years.
And so it was not that big a deal, you know, for them to do that. So just standards really made that happen. Montana Hello. I have a question because a lot of the discussion has been focused on juveniles. Yes but the big next step, the big transformation that we are seeing coming heavily is for books.
So how do you see all the lessons learned from the journalist perspective, informing the book publishers transformation? Yeah, Yeah. We don't do a lot of book publishing, so I'm probably not the best person to speak to that in terms of how the business models might be a bit different in the decision points might be a bit different there.
I think that a lot of the underlying technology challenges that we've been working to overcome would apply equally to book publishing as it does to journal publishing. So I think there's possible to leverage there. But as far as more of the kind of business strategy side of things, I'm not really a good person to speak to that. Thank you. Do you want to talk about.
I was just going to say in the Subscribe to Open community of practice, we have the direct open publishers as well. So we include discussions about both Subscribe to Open and direct. Open so both books and journals. Yeah and two of the most well known subscribe to open efforts that I'm familiar with are University Press efforts and MIT presses.
I can't remember the direct to open and Michigan's fund to mission and this is where each of them I think is essentially to say this is not I'm not expert on their models but I think each of them has bundled up their book, their list of books for a year and asked libraries to subscribe to open the entire list or some or subscribe to a level 2 open part of the list. And then they'll make the books open on their platform and there's knowledge unlatched, which I guess would be classified as a collective action.
Well, it's kind of an early subscribe knowledge and latch would acted as an aggregator for presented libraries with a list a large list of books for multiple publishers and asked the libraries if they wanted to pledge money to potentially open any given title. And each title had a limit, had a threshold on it. Yeah, right. So just in terms of open access, if you're talking about books, there are those efforts.
But one thing I will note, it's broadening more into publisher collaborations is that from at least again in the humanities where monograph is King, where we're book is the career making. Move books offer ebooks operated differently than journals. From the very beginning, there were very few. Almost actually, we were probably the only one to say, let's create an e-book platform and host and sell our own e-book collection instead.
People joined either sold individual titles through epsco and proquest and the various entities that epsco in proquest gobbled up over the years or. Or they put them into. Programs like js store for the same purpose or project muse or Oxford University presses University Press scholarship online. So from the very beginning, ebooks in the humanities have been mostly in some sort of collective.
Platform yeah, if I could just add one huge difference. Which is kind of obvious. What we're saying is that as I write this book, you can still sell the book and problems everywhere have an open access version. Yeah so the point that John was just making is that when you're talking about open access books, there almost always is still a print book that is still being sold.
And there's another initiative called tome toward an open monograph ecosystem that is a collaboration between r, l, a U presses and whatever Association beans or beans and probus are part of. No, but basically that is a method whereby. So let's say Duke University Press acquires a book. And we see that author is from an institution that's that participates in tome, then that author.
And we can approach the library and say, would you like to pledge $15,000 to make this book open? And that doesn't cover the costs of publishing a monograph, but it's events it significantly. And then we can make up the rest selling print books and selling digital, even still selling digital books through other channels. Yeah, I will say at delta, I think we work with a lot of publishers who publish their own ebooks and also publish on behalf of other publishers, like other societies or some of the examples that Allison mentioned.
Geoscience world hosts books, EOP host books. I really I mean, one of the things is publishers have done co-branding relationships for a long time, which frankly, I hear from librarians that they're really confused and they don't want to accidentally buy something twice. So the more aggregation, the more ways you can buy it, the more you risk spending your money to buy something you may have already bought.
So it brings like workflow and those kinds of challenges to light. But there are really, really interesting models and I think we're going to see more of that coming. We have a question from the chat. Jackie, how does syndication benefit both parties like ACF hosting information on science direct? How does that benefit ACEs and how does that benefit elsevier? Yeah, I mean, the benefit to ACEs is broader access to our content.
And so we are looking at usage patterns, we are looking at referral patterns from Science Direct. I can say that initially when the pilot launched, we saw about a three times more referrals coming from Science Direct to our platform. You know, we haven't solved all the challenges yet about really tracking usage. Well, that I mentioned earlier, but that's its broader readership is clearly what we're looking for.
The benefits to the entity hosting the content are probably not quite so clear. I think that Elsevier is doing this as participating with us as an experiment. As I've just said, if this experiment is successful and we move into a more reciprocal kind of arrangement, well, then Elsevier would enjoy the same things that the participating publishers are enjoying right now.
Ralph, you teased it a little bit. You said there's some other publisher collaborations. I don't know if you can talk a little bit about that without stealing the Thunder of upcoming. Sure Yeah. So under the context of research integrity, since I mentioned that in one of my comments here, publishers also working together to tackle research integrity challenges I think is really interesting.
You know, we've been collaborating. We've been kind of contributing our content collectively for years to the authenticate service in order to detect plagiarism. Well, think about doing that on steroids, kind of to detect more fraudulent research, submissions to paper mill submissions to detect simultaneous submissions to detect image manipulations, things like that we can really work together on.
But we need to work together, you know, doing that individually, that kind of doesn't make sense. So there is an initiative again under STM called the integrity hub. If you haven't heard about that, I encourage you to look that up because it is trying to address the challenges that I just described.
It's very early days. And so if you haven't heard about that, please do look at it. It's great. And I mentioned at the beginning that I've been working on the get after and Seamless access, so feel free to throw me some questions on that front. Well, if we're good here in the room and we're good in the chat, Mary Beth told me we get into few minutes early, so let's do it.
After a final round of applause for our speakers.
Segment:0 .
I want to talk about the scholarly publishing collective, which is a collaboration between nonprofit scholarly journal publishers. It's managed by Duke University Press and through the collective, members of the collective can make use of hosting and electronic fulfillment services, collection, sales and marketing to the institutional market and print subscription and fulfillment management.
And we have four hosting partners and then one strategic services partner who I think is blocked there, but so is Michigan State University press BJ Penn State University press, the Society of biblical literature, University of Illinois press and longleaf services. And what the collective really is, is, is this group's attempt to intervene in the publishing services market.
And the hope is that through collaboration that we can maintain mission driven nonprofit publishers as a viable publishing option for journal owners and societies, especially in the humanities and social sciences, and that by maintaining a non-profit, values driven, mission based option, that this will overall keep prices low on subscription journals, allow these kinds of publishers more room and head space to experiment around and innovate around, OK, and offer greater value alignment with our library partners as well as maintaining biblio diversity.
So what the collective does or what brought the collective about, generally speaking, was these changes in our world that we're putting particular pressure on smaller journal publishing programs, especially in the University press world. So what we were seeing were mergers and acquisitions amongst technology partners and services vendors, as well as, say, proquest and epsco, leaving us all with reduced options.
The aggregations that a lot of these kinds of publishers depended on for revenue were our were in are maxing out in size and are no longer as feasible to drive the revenue that's needed. The rise of importance in global and consortium markets. A lot of these smaller programs have not been equipped to go out and negotiate with consortia and have a global presence. And then ultimately, what they need to be able to do is retain the publishing partners that they have and attract new ones, which requires them to have the ability to brand and promote their journals and the society that's associated with them.
So that's what the collective has put together in terms of its services and is trying to address. All toward the goal of sustaining the mission of nonprofit University presses and societies. I am Ralph young from aces, senior director of digital strategy, and I'm really happy to share with you some of my observations about how, as a community, we watch the laptop as a community, how publishers have been working together over the last few years to come to build some common infrastructure together and do some pretty exciting things.
And if you were in this industry maybe like seven or eight years ago, you know, that has not always been the case as an employee at that time. If you were working with for a publisher, you probably knew exactly who your competitors were and you probably didn't do a lot with them. I know at aces, if I had an occasion to talk to an Elsevier colleague at that time, I might be grilled on exactly what was the nature of that meeting.
Why did you have the conversation, what was discussed? And you know, that's just not the case anymore. There's been a real shift in mindset and we now realize that we can really work together in a pretty competitive way. And do some interesting things together. A useful analogy that was said to me one time from Jay Flynn at Wiley that I want to share with you, because I think it's really pretty apt.
Imagine publishers as airlines and as airline industry is highly competitive and they compete on routes and they compete on preferred gates at airports and things like that. But they came together a long time ago and built a common reservation system for making airline reservations. They come together for fuel service at airports. They come together for baggage handling at airports.
And, you know, they really have shown that you can work together in a pre competitive way. And do some very interesting things that solve common problems and make us all more efficient. And that's what I see our industry starting to do today. There's and I'll share with you a few things that we have done and talk about maybe where we're going as well. So I saw two direct catalysts that really spurred change in the areas of providing access to content.
One was the emergence of PSI hub, you know, in that space where publishers considered each other as competitors, suddenly a new entrant came on the scene and that became the competitor. And that was the start of the shift of the mindset to say, maybe we really can start doing things together and working together. And then I give Roger Schoenfeld from Ithaca, sandor, a whole lot of credit for this talk that I'm referencing here that was at the STM meeting in Frankfurt in 2015, where he just laid bare what we as an industry had failed to do, and that was that we were failing to keep pace with our constituencies in terms of how they were using our products and services and how they were accessing our content.
Roger made observations like the PC is not the device. Researchers are starting to use mobile devices to access content. The library is not the starting point. They're using a whole myriad of different sources to discover content. The campus is not the Work Location. We're moving away from the campus and working in many different ways.
And that room was filled with a number of CEOs from publishers that heard all of this and said, OK, we need to do something. And we need to improve our products and services for the benefit of researchers. And so there are two initiatives that I've been really involved with over the last few years that are working to do that. And I have the logos of all of the publishers and other participants in the ecosystem here that are work that are collaborating on these two initiatives.
One is Seamless Access. Seamless access is all about simplifying the way in which researchers can use their academic or their corporate credentials to log into the products and services that publishers provide. Seamless access really helps to establish that key relationship that is very important to us between an individual and their affiliated institution.
And so, yes, today we are some of these publishers are using that Association and using that service to provide access to paywalled content based upon their institutional affiliation. But we're starting to see some publishers also do more interesting things here, like starting to have log ins to peer review systems being done with that technology, because again, that's a key relationship.
The individual to the affiliated institution is a key relationship there. And then GetFTR is all about providing streamlined access to the research itself. This is really focusing more on starting at the. Every service and simplifying the pathway from that discovery service to the content at the publisher site. What GetFTR also signals open access content so that the discovery service can signal to the user that an article is open access in particular, that can be pretty difficult to ferret out hybrid in a hybrid journal which of the articles in a hybrid journal are open access and GetFTR helps to solve that problem as well.
So with those foundational pieces, axe and some others are starting to do some experimentation around syndicating content. Probably you've heard the first instance of this was Springer nature, working with researchgate to syndicate content on the researchgate platform. And now some other publishers like Rockefeller and Wiley and I think karger have joined that pilot as well. Ax with the publishers listed here, Wiley, r-s.c., and Taylor Francis, we are working with Elsevier on their Science Direct platform, and we are syndicating some of our content to Science Direct.
You see the note here that ACEs has about 34,000 articles from six of our organic chemistry journals that are now positioned on Science Direct. That means that they are discoverable in the search engine on Science Direct. That means that soon Elsevier doesn't quite have it yet they'll be discoverable through the recommendation system on Science Direct as well. And we're doing this to see if that will increase the overall accessibility of content to the researchers.
I should note here, open access content can be directly consumed on the Science Direct platform and then for paywalled content, get after is used to help the researcher get access to the content on the publisher site. So that's just a sampling of some of the things we've been doing. There's a lot more that we are doing and can be done, but I'll wait for the discussion for that.
For Alison. Guys got it. Hi, I'm Andrea Lopez. I'm the director of sales partnerships and initiatives for reviews. But I'm here today to talk to you about the Subscribe to open community practice.
And I'm just going to really briefly describe what Subscribe to open is I've heard it mentioned a few times today, which is a good sign that the community practice is actually working because when we first started talking about this model, people just didn't understand it and they thought we were a little bit they're very skeptical. So it's an open access model that uses current subscription budget and all the infrastructure.
So nothing changes for librarians, for the sales agents. Simply, we asked librarians if you value the content, continue to subscribe. If all of our renewals come in and we take into account the normal churn, then we publish that year's volume under C by license. If we don't, it remains behind a paywall and in reviews. We tried this with three journals in 2020.
They were all successful. We added 5 more in 2021. Those eight were successful and then they were successful again in 2022. And in 2023. We are going to take the bold step of doing this with all 51 of our journals. And when we develop subscribe it open and I say we did this in cooperation with raine Crowe from the Cambridge group.
It was named by our editor in chief, was out running one day and he I remember he got back from his run and he called me, said, I think I thought of a name for this model and it was Subscribe to open and we decided not to trademark the name because we really hope some other publishers would adopt the model and we were happy to see a few did. And so we decided to form a community of practice, and this was to encourage the adoption and to promote collaboration among all the stakeholders, not just publishers, but we had some librarians who were really enthusiastic about it.
We invited funders, we invited sales agents were consultants, and they come from all over the world. And it started with just 14 of us, and that was in 2020. And we're almost close to 100 participants and we have monthly meetings. They're informal. They're a little harder to manage now that there's 100 people, not 14. But it really provides all of these people from all the different stakeholder places to share their experiences.
We request advice from each other, we promote the model, and then we look for advocacy for the model. And I think the first thing we did all together as a group is we put out a survey, and from that survey we saw that people just didn't understand the model. So we started speaking. We, we spoke at Earl Charleston, UK, and this was a librarian, sometimes a sales agent, a publisher, sometimes two publishers.
But we were starting to speak together on this. We also recently put out a statement in response to the OCP memo from the community of practice. We have for the first time a group of publishers who are under the Subscribe to Open Model will have a booth together at Charleston. And the fact that we heard subscribe to open mentioned several times today leads me to believe that our community is working in organizing and making sure people know what this model is and that it's becoming more of a mainstream model.
Not just some odd thing that reviews decided to do three years ago. And in 2020, there are four publishers and we they published 24 journals. In 2022, 12 different publishers were published 95 journals. And for next year, we're forecasting there'll be at least 15 different publishers who will be publishing 145 of their journals under the studio publication.
And I really believe that the community of practice has been a major force in this expansion because we can all talk to each other, we can talk to our partners, the librarians, we can talk to a sales agent. Funders subscribe to open came about because there's often funding not behind there's not funding behind certain types of publications. In our case, we do reviews, there's not funding, but we invited funders because we wanted them to understand what it was.
Perhaps in the future there could be some involvement. So we do feel that it's been successful and I'll just do a pitch if anybody's interested. I see several members here in the room, several new ones. Please feel free to go to the website or to let me know if you're interested in joining. I'll hand it over. Heather Thank you.
Great I want to thank all of our speakers so far for sticking to time so that we have the majority of the session for some discussion. I just want to kick off getting a little bit of feedback. Kick off with Andrea. So with the community of practice, you mentioned you have a variety of different stakeholders. How has the complexity of the group changed as more and more stakeholders come on board?
What are the types of activities that are being added as a result of that increase in participation? It's but you have to get it. It's become more complex as it's become more of a global group. So I think just the practicality of trying to have a meeting where everybody can join and we have it at 7 AM civic time. And that makes it hard because we now have the numbers from Australia, from China, so they can't participate.
So we need to think about maybe breaking the group out a little bit. The percentage has stayed about the same. I think there's about a little over 55% publishers, 37% librarians. And the balance is some consultants, some funders and sales agents. And just follow on to that for Alison, as different stakeholders get involved in the conversations around the scholarly publishing collective, how, how, how are those conversations changing?
So the collective is very young. It we launched the platform, the hosting platform and the, the access fulfillment in January of 2022 and the year prior to that was largely spent building the platform or men importing all of the subscriber and holdings data that all of these journals had had at their previous from their previous hosts. So with a lot of the effort and attention of the collective members being focused just on those very operational pieces, and with the collective leveraging University presses, technology, infrastructure and customer sales and customer relations, that created a lot of alignment just right there, a lot of alignment of focus.
I think that this will be something that we're going to have to consider how to manage as we come out of this sort of phase that we're in now, which is stabilization and look toward growing the collective, extending the affordances we have to other members. So I think, you know, as you can see, it's primarily right now the members are largely University presses. So there's a ton of shared perspective there.
There is one learned society and. And I think that going forward we are going to be welcoming people one more internationally and to more societies. So I think we're going to have to figure out sort of how to manage that. But we haven't hit that just yet. We have a question from the chat.
How do you subscribe to open work for authors? Do they submit to the journal without truly knowing whether their content will be open or paywalled? Well, I can speak from angry views perspective as our authors are invited. They don't always know because of the way the model is set up. So far, all the publishers that are in this tried to open who have published have been successful.
But it is an unknown for the very beginning. But we don't take submissions, so it is a little bit different from us. I don't know if there's another subscribe open publisher here who takes submissions. Well, we have one journal that we are investigating, taking subscribe to open and yeah, that is exactly how it would work.
And right now one of the challenges is that the journals, editors and the society that it's associated with have gotten are very thrilled that right now the journal is open access and is guaranteed to be open access. The problem is, is that its current model is not sustaining it. So one of the conversations we're having is what does it look like to have that not be a guaranteed thing going forward?
Like if in a year where it doesn't get Subscribe to the level and then it wouldn't be open, so. Angela, do we have a mic Renner or should she go to the mike? If you're a journalist who has a fair amount of federally funded research that now has to be made open in one way, shape or form, or will have to be made open in one way, shape or form and/or plan as funded.
It seems to take the wind out of the Subscribe to open threat of it'll go behind a paywall if enough libraries don't pay. How do you see like funder mandates working in? How will that affect the model of subscribe to open? And again, I might open it up to some of the other subscribe to open publishers because we do strictly review journals. There aren't usually funder mandates on review journals and there's not funding behind them.
So I don't know if there's another publisher who does have funded articles that might want to answer how they see that going. And that will probably be one of our subjects at our next Subscribe to Open community practice review articles may be required to meet those federally funded standards when the agencies put out their plans. So thank you. Do we have any other subscribed?
Open publishers that want to. Comment or. I have a good idea. Mike's not on. Thank you so much. No no.
Hello aha. Technology so I'm a librarian and I'm one of the librarians on the Subscribe to open community of practice. And I can say that that is one really one of the issues under discussion right now and there are several ideas coming up. Green open access is one option, for example, for a closed year and other ways of guarantee to subscribers that their content will be made open.
So, yes, it's a very hot topic of discussion and we are thinking about ways at the community thinking. And with publisher and librarian input. Thank you. I want to go back to Ralph for a second and I'll say the content syndication or content co-hosting. For a long time researchgate was mentioned and for a long time the only publisher that was really working with researchgate was Springer Nature.
And so we kind of set it aside. But then with more and more publishers, some of whom are with us here today, doing agreements with researchgate, it's got a lot more interesting to take a look at. And then the Science Direct pilot that Ralph mentioned. I mean, this is it's a small scale pilot now, but this is a big deal. This is publishers saying we're not going to try to keep everyone on our platform at all costs and kind of let's put the content where some of the researcher eyes are.
You you mentioned sum of the forces behind the conversations that eventually ended up in the pilot. But can you say a little bit, because it's an amazing thing that it actually happened and it must have been times when it didn't look like it would. Yeah, I mean, I think it does represent the shift you're talking about, heather, where publishers are starting to realize, you know, for a long time we thought we were building websites that needed to be sticky, you know, that we wanted to get the eyeballs on our sites and keep them there.
And I think that that publishers are letting go of that. Right and I think it signifies a shift to the content and recognizing that what we really want to try to accomplish is we want to get our content to the researchers that need to access our content. And so that's the shift that in mindset that I think that these initiatives are representing. I mentioned there is more work to be done in order to really make this work.
More broadly, though, we need to worry about usage, reporting of content that is off platform. There was an initiative a few years ago called distributed usage logging that crossref was working with and it kind of fizzled out. The STM Association is going to you'll hear an announcement that we are reinvigorating that, if you will, in light of the more interest in content co-hosting and syndication.
So that will be coming soon. And then another, another thing that is really needed as more content is starting to be published, open access. That means more content is going to be consumed in a very large number of different platforms out there. It's no longer all coming back to the single publisher site and what happens when content changes, what happens when a retraction is issued or when an expression of concern is issued or something like that?
We do have a research integrity challenge here as we move to more open access publishing. While those changes are reflected on the publisher site, how are those changes going to be promulgated out to all of the places where that open access content might live? And some of you might be thinking, well, we do have Crossmark from crossref that partially addresses that challenge.
But the challenge with Crossmark is that the end user has to do the click in order to check to see if they have the most recent content. And it does nothing to stop the proliferation of out-of-date content that might already be hosted out there. Who knows where? So we need we need to work on things like that as well. Probably have some open access publish in the room who are like we.
Our content's been in multiple places for a long time. But it is increasingly a challenge, particularly with e-books. I have a question for Alison. Increased efficiency comes often through standardization. And I would imagine in some of the conversations around the collective, there are standardization challenges that need to be addressed for publishers that have multiple journals and multiple society journals.
Every one is special and unique. And has different formatting requirements and the like. But so what are those conversations like? So those conversations are very up front and very we went into this very consciously deciding to be quite communicative and quite transparent and quite clear about how this would work. As you say, if you're a publisher with multiple journals, that you already have a challenge, right?
You have the challenge of just standardizing within your own list or your own program. And you also probably bear the scars of what happens when you didn't do that while you were in the process of learning that lesson. So at least everybody came into it with some sense of that. And then from there. From the beginning, we were just like, this is how this is going to work.
This is this is the platform we have. These these are the features of the platform. Here's where there is flexibility. Here's areas where there aren't flexibility. This is how the term here's how term access will work. Here's how perpetual access would work. And so, I mean, essentially, we gave people an out, you know, if this didn't work, you don't have to be part of the collective or you don't have to use this service within the collective.
So at this point and again, it's still early days, I know this is not going to last. But as far as the really critical operational areas where we needed to standardize, we have and I think it's because we went into it with that ethos. And I think mentioned during the planning call when I posed the same question that this was something that Duke had to reckon with before the collective was even born around Duke journals.
Right so we have we publish over 60 journals and across many disciplines and they're all sold by the same library sales and relations team. They're all marketed by the same team. They're they're all supported by the same customer relations team and they're all hosted on the same technology platform. And, you know, it's been for my whole career in working with this has been explaining to our poor journals, partnership manager, why this seemingly simple thing that his editor just asked for can't be done or can't happen or can't happen for less than a shocking amount of money or what is a shocking amount of money in upland.
So we were able to sort of spin all of those lessons learned into this and inform that going forward because. You know, we started publishing, we start we started offering directly our journals for digital sales and access in 2004. And, and so from 2004 until maybe like 2014, let's just say a nice, even 10 years, we didn't understand what the value of standardization was.
And we were just kind of shoveling our PDFS at our platform vendor at the time, which was high wire and letting them tell us they were the experts, letting them tell us how it should work and what it could do. And it was only as we really matured as a digital publisher that we understood the costs of the lack of standardization and the lack of not understanding what was in that Black box. And so when we migrated our own journals in 2017 from high wire to Silver care, that was a moment to say, let's break that.
Let's fix everything. Let's get it all standardized. We know what we have. And so, I mean, part of the value of a collaboration is that all of these publishers, they in this case, they were all migrating from jstor. Jstor ended its journal hosting program at the end of 2021. They all had about 18 months notice that they were going to have to do this, and they had never reckoned directly with their digital managing, their digital content and its presence.
So we were there having just managed a massive migration of our own in 2017, to share those lessons learned and to leverage them. And they were there to share with us how JSTOR an operation that hosted and sold for multiple publishers, how that worked. And we were able to use that to inform and build collaboratively how the operations were going to work. Jackie do we have any questions in the chat?
Not at the moment. And any questions around the room? All right. Because I always have another question. You know me, Andrea, you mentioned that the community of practices international now and literally has people from the other side of the world and some of the challenges there. I mean, open access has evolved differently in different places.
So I would imagine the contributions from folks, particularly maybe from Latin America, are quite different. Or is it a challenge to get people to join from areas where, you know, open is really more readily expected? It's been a challenge to get people to participate from places where there are no mandates and they don't have the interest in just getting somebody to take the interest has been difficult, and I think there's the language barrier to trying to get people to come in.
And I think we see people will read the notes, but they might not be comfortable participating in something that's held in English. So we really we need to start thinking about how we can be more inclusive to everybody in our community and practice. It started out pretty much European, North American basements growing. So we have to give some thought.
But when you start with 14 and then you move up to 100, there's a lot of growing pains that we're realizing you have to figure out how to work with the larger, more global group. Yeah, it's a real it's a really important point. Social infrastructure, education, sending ambassadors out a lot of initiatives like ORCID. And I think DOJ. I know also they have ambassadors that go out research for life has a new country connector program where we're goes are going to local communities and raising awareness.
Not all infrastructure is technical infrastructure. Those was very technical. That's naturally where our brain goes. But that social infrastructure must be so important. Are you finding, Alison, that that's an issue with the collective as well? Generally having people go out and educate folks about the need for those kinds of services. Well, I mean, I'm the one who has to go an army one and educate.
So you know where. The collective right now is largely operating for the benefit of two. I mean, we hope it operates for the benefit of the whole ecosystem, but its most immediate beneficiaries are the members who are receiving these core infrastructure services that are absolutely necessary to journal publishing in 2022 and the otherwise did not have it.
And we see it as serving others. Three we see it as serving the library community. Duke University Press is a well known and trusted partner to libraries all over the world. We're we're known for our transparency. We're known for our partnership and collaboration and communication. And so, you know, by. By bringing these other journals in to the sales operation.
And in that sales team and that agent network, we're raising the profile of the journals and making it easier for librarians to trust that they can engage and that they can bring those holdings in and know that they'll be well supported and well served by a trusted partner. And then we believe that we're serving the entire again, especially the humanities and social science community, which is built on the back of what are generally very small journals serving very fairly niche areas with fairly narrow in the grand scheme of things, readerships.
That doesn't mean they're unimportant. They are. They make up the backbone of humanist learning and life. And we really believe that for the Humanities and non quantitative social sciences to thrive, University presses and these small humanities societies and associations need to thrive. So, so that's kind of the social infrastructure we're trying to build and bolster.
Have any questions yet, sophie? Hi Thank you so much. I hope I'm not diverting the conversation, but I would like to get your opinions and thoughts on how syndicated partnerships with academic publishers and other information companies such as Wikipedia or even researchgate, how these partnerships will change access to content for STM publishing and academic research.
I think there are a couple of examples, heather, we talked about briefly. I don't remember them off the top of my head, but. So I guess that's for me. So how it will change the landscape of the publishing industry? I think that this is a grand time of experimentation. I think that we don't know, to be honest with you.
I think, you know, I think that it does represent that shift, as I said, to toward making sure that content is available conveniently wherever the publisher has to meet the publisher. I'm sorry, meet the researcher where they are. And so, yeah, I think that it's just the time of experimentation, to be honest with. To what degree were researchers pointed to during the initial conversations as an impetus behind the pilot?
So, I mean, we didn't interview researchers to say, would you like this? But we are conducting some surveying now that it's active to find out, you know, a qualitative assessment of how it's going. And it's all quite positive, as you might imagine. There's we really haven't had any negative responses like that. And again, where this goes, we don't know.
Could this become more reciprocal, where publishers exchange content and host content reciprocally? I'll mention what Alison said about standards really made this happen. You know, all the publishers involved in the Science Direct pilot were able to contribute their content. Elsevier and Elsevier could practically just process it as their own, because we've all been working to standardize our content formats over the years.
And so it was not that big a deal, you know, for them to do that. So just standards really made that happen. Montana Hello. I have a question because a lot of the discussion has been focused on juveniles. Yes but the big next step, the big transformation that we are seeing coming heavily is for books.
So how do you see all the lessons learned from the journalist perspective, informing the book publishers transformation? Yeah, Yeah. We don't do a lot of book publishing, so I'm probably not the best person to speak to that in terms of how the business models might be a bit different in the decision points might be a bit different there.
I think that a lot of the underlying technology challenges that we've been working to overcome would apply equally to book publishing as it does to journal publishing. So I think there's possible to leverage there. But as far as more of the kind of business strategy side of things, I'm not really a good person to speak to that. Thank you. Do you want to talk about.
I was just going to say in the Subscribe to Open community of practice, we have the direct open publishers as well. So we include discussions about both Subscribe to Open and direct. Open so both books and journals. Yeah and two of the most well known subscribe to open efforts that I'm familiar with are University Press efforts and MIT presses.
I can't remember the direct to open and Michigan's fund to mission and this is where each of them I think is essentially to say this is not I'm not expert on their models but I think each of them has bundled up their book, their list of books for a year and asked libraries to subscribe to open the entire list or some or subscribe to a level 2 open part of the list. And then they'll make the books open on their platform and there's knowledge unlatched, which I guess would be classified as a collective action.
Well, it's kind of an early subscribe knowledge and latch would acted as an aggregator for presented libraries with a list a large list of books for multiple publishers and asked the libraries if they wanted to pledge money to potentially open any given title. And each title had a limit, had a threshold on it. Yeah, right. So just in terms of open access, if you're talking about books, there are those efforts.
But one thing I will note, it's broadening more into publisher collaborations is that from at least again in the humanities where monograph is King, where we're book is the career making. Move books offer ebooks operated differently than journals. From the very beginning, there were very few. Almost actually, we were probably the only one to say, let's create an e-book platform and host and sell our own e-book collection instead.
People joined either sold individual titles through epsco and proquest and the various entities that epsco in proquest gobbled up over the years or. Or they put them into. Programs like js store for the same purpose or project muse or Oxford University presses University Press scholarship online. So from the very beginning, ebooks in the humanities have been mostly in some sort of collective.
Platform yeah, if I could just add one huge difference. Which is kind of obvious. What we're saying is that as I write this book, you can still sell the book and problems everywhere have an open access version. Yeah so the point that John was just making is that when you're talking about open access books, there almost always is still a print book that is still being sold.
And there's another initiative called tome toward an open monograph ecosystem that is a collaboration between r, l, a U presses and whatever Association beans or beans and probus are part of. No, but basically that is a method whereby. So let's say Duke University Press acquires a book. And we see that author is from an institution that's that participates in tome, then that author.
And we can approach the library and say, would you like to pledge $15,000 to make this book open? And that doesn't cover the costs of publishing a monograph, but it's events it significantly. And then we can make up the rest selling print books and selling digital, even still selling digital books through other channels. Yeah, I will say at delta, I think we work with a lot of publishers who publish their own ebooks and also publish on behalf of other publishers, like other societies or some of the examples that Allison mentioned.
Geoscience world hosts books, EOP host books. I really I mean, one of the things is publishers have done co-branding relationships for a long time, which frankly, I hear from librarians that they're really confused and they don't want to accidentally buy something twice. So the more aggregation, the more ways you can buy it, the more you risk spending your money to buy something you may have already bought.
So it brings like workflow and those kinds of challenges to light. But there are really, really interesting models and I think we're going to see more of that coming. We have a question from the chat. Jackie, how does syndication benefit both parties like ACF hosting information on science direct? How does that benefit ACEs and how does that benefit elsevier? Yeah, I mean, the benefit to ACEs is broader access to our content.
And so we are looking at usage patterns, we are looking at referral patterns from Science Direct. I can say that initially when the pilot launched, we saw about a three times more referrals coming from Science Direct to our platform. You know, we haven't solved all the challenges yet about really tracking usage. Well, that I mentioned earlier, but that's its broader readership is clearly what we're looking for.
The benefits to the entity hosting the content are probably not quite so clear. I think that Elsevier is doing this as participating with us as an experiment. As I've just said, if this experiment is successful and we move into a more reciprocal kind of arrangement, well, then Elsevier would enjoy the same things that the participating publishers are enjoying right now.
Ralph, you teased it a little bit. You said there's some other publisher collaborations. I don't know if you can talk a little bit about that without stealing the Thunder of upcoming. Sure Yeah. So under the context of research integrity, since I mentioned that in one of my comments here, publishers also working together to tackle research integrity challenges I think is really interesting.
You know, we've been collaborating. We've been kind of contributing our content collectively for years to the authenticate service in order to detect plagiarism. Well, think about doing that on steroids, kind of to detect more fraudulent research, submissions to paper mill submissions to detect simultaneous submissions to detect image manipulations, things like that we can really work together on.
But we need to work together, you know, doing that individually, that kind of doesn't make sense. So there is an initiative again under STM called the integrity hub. If you haven't heard about that, I encourage you to look that up because it is trying to address the challenges that I just described.
It's very early days. And so if you haven't heard about that, please do look at it. It's great. And I mentioned at the beginning that I've been working on the get after and Seamless access, so feel free to throw me some questions on that front. Well, if we're good here in the room and we're good in the chat, Mary Beth told me we get into few minutes early, so let's do it.
After a final round of applause for our speakers.
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