Cadmore media player playing video Optimizing Publishing Infrastructure: A Case Study of ASM and ACS
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:
Optimizing Publishing Infrastructure: A Case Study of ASM and ACS
Description:
Optimizing Publishing Infrastructure: A Case Study of ASM and ACS
Thumbnail URL:
https://cadmoremediastorage.blob.core.windows.net/6908a2c1-c4da-49be-b1b6-0f89c1e1bdaf/videoscrubberimages/Scrubber_1.jpg
Duration:
T00H28M18S
Embed URL:
https://stream.cadmore.media/player/6908a2c1-c4da-49be-b1b6-0f89c1e1bdaf
Content URL:
https://cadmoreoriginalmedia.blob.core.windows.net/6908a2c1-c4da-49be-b1b6-0f89c1e1bdaf/SSP2025 5-28 1500 - Industry Breakout - ChronosHub.mp4?sv=2019-02-02&sr=c&sig=7O7kxk1dXWY2JCO9eT3k%2BjQMRLgl%2B2eD0MxkpGtOGps%3D&st=2025-06-15T04%3A08%3A57Z&se=2025-06-15T06%3A13%3A57Z&sp=r
Upload Date:
2025-06-06T00:00:00.0000000
Transcript:
Language: EN.
Segment:0 .
Hi, everyone. Oops that's late. Thanks for joining us. And it's o'clock, so we'll get started. My name is Romi bayat. I'm the head of publisher relations at konotop, so I'll give a really short introduction about the topic of today's session on publishing infrastructure and introduce konotop as an organization.
And then I'll hand over to my two guest speakers here, David Haber from the American Society for Microbiology, and Teodoro pulvirenti from the American Chemical Society, to talk about their experience of working with konotop. So the title of the session is optimizing publishing infrastructure. And what do I mean by infrastructure. And there's a lot of reports that have come out on this and really be talking about any kind of systems, any tools that publishers use throughout the workflow.
And some of these are paid, some are open source, some are shared. But in my experience of working with publishers is that no two publishers are exactly the same. They all use a different perhaps a different submission system, a different production system, similar identifiers. But there's always variety between the publishers. But what we're talking about here really is taking things apart like atomizing them.
And both David and Teo will talk about that in some more detail about why that is a good strategy and why that enables you more flexibility in your workflows. And I found a really interesting quote from a professor from University of Colorado, Jason Thatcher. He says infrastructure does make a difference for what we do and our success. So it really matters to authors as well. And the thing to bear in mind is that infrastructure reflects on your brand.
Some authors might complain about why is this system not working. And it reflects on you as a brand, whereas actually the underlying infrastructure, the underlying system that causes that. So that's the set A bit of context of why we want to talk about that. And in terms of if you're not familiar with us, we are a workflow platform for publishers, institutions, and funders, and our goal is really to make the publishing experience easier for all authors.
So we have different modules for publishers, and these can be combined in flexible ways. So we have the publishing hub that we talked about a little bit more in detail that really connects all the underlying modules, but also connects other publishing infrastructure, other systems, other tools that you might be using. Then we've got the submission module, which we'll also talk in more detail, which is a separate module can be connected to the publishing hub but can also be used in isolation.
And then we do author billing and license management. And as you can see in this visual, these can be combined in really flexible ways, but it can also be sitting on top of other existing underlying infrastructure such as peer review system, production system, finance, single sign on membership databases, any of the other tools that sit underneath that and what cornershop does with the publishing hub is provide one seamless author experience across all of the publisher's journals throughout the entire publishing workflow.
So a front end that sits in front of peer review in front of submission, but also all the other tools throughout the publishing workflow. As for the submission module, what we've done here is we really pulled that out from peer review to make it sit-in front of peer review to provide, pull out better metadata, do data verification. We have our AI extraction that allows you to upload a manuscript and metadata is extracted automatically.
We do things like funder compliance. And one of the reasons we've built in order to get better metadata for later on in the system and provide a friendlier, more unified user experience. This is connected directly to the publishing hub, which is really the overarching layer for user experience that sits in front of all the other systems. So you have your login that can sit-in front of this. You can do all the tasks integrations with peer review different statuses across your whole journal portfolio.
So again, not just across the portfolio or across one area of the workflow, but it really covers the entire workflow status, including production, finance, hookup to delivery platforms for authors to have really that one dashboard, one place to see all their interactions with your brand. I hope that makes sense. I'll hand it over to Dave to talk a little bit more about the experience of the American Society for Microbiology and how they've worked together.
Thank you. Hello, everyone. So I'm going to tell you a little story. We have a founding EIC for maybe 15 years ago. Who once a year brings up this concept called the torture index, and he feels all journals should be measured by this index. Forget the impact factor.
So basically, what this is the number of questions in your submission system times the number of times the length of time it takes you to get to first decision. And then you divide that by the impact factor. And that's how an author is going to make a decision. And so ASM fails at this. It usually it takes we reject 70% of the manuscripts a lot of the time 80% depending on the journal.
So why ask 38 questions, some with sub questions and subparts and not always check box. Yes or no. Really detailed information. It takes 30 to 60 minutes to submit a file. We have duplicate metadata all over the place we have siloed systems across production, editorial submission, peer review. So what's going on.
How can we improve this from an author's perspective. The editors love our peer review system. We have no desire to switch peer review systems, but we need to focus on what an author needs and what an author wants during submission. So we decided to separate these two steps submission, peer review. How can we do this. What is our goal and our rationale behind this.
So our high level goal was we want to reduce submission to something under 10 minutes. We want to use as much extraction as possible from manuscripts. We don't want to rely on whatever metadata an author would insert, because at the core, the metadata that matters to us is what we publish, and that comes from the manuscripts, not whatever is in a system.
So how can we grab that good information and get it into our submission system, and therefore into our peer review system without burdening authors and getting rejected. Like, why annoy people that way. And then also can we unify things in such a way so that from an author perspective, everything looks the same. Maybe we decide we're going to create a journal in our current peer review system is unable to do what we need to do.
So we want to use a different peer review system that's going to look different. Or if we don't want it to look different, it's going to cost money to make it look the same. Instead, why can we skin something so that from an author perspective, everything looks the same and is focused on what the author wants and what the author needs. So that was the goal and rationale behind splitting off peer review and submission systems.
So obviously the strategy that drove this is we want to reduce the author burden. We want this unified gateway. We want to rely on PIDs as much as possible, persistent identifiers, whether it's ORCID, Ringgold, raw, whatever the flavor is that you use. And also we want to lay a foundation because if this truly is a hub that's author focused, we need to be able to feed data in and out in a way that makes sense and is scalable, which is a problem across the board.
When we have multiple systems that have been around forever that are customized. So how can we create a new foundation to allow this to happen. All right. So when you're connecting two systems this is a challenge. It's a challenge across the board. Both Kronos hub and EJP did spectacularly and bringing these two things together.
So what we did was anything author focused. What are the key things we need to make a really quick decision from an author. So we limited our questions down to something like 6' 6 key bits of information that we need from authors that are extracted from the manuscript. This will allow us to maintain data integrity from submission into peer review.
We're not updating. The metadata grows as an article goes through production. So you don't want each step to collect the same metadata over and over again. This is a common problem. We all delude ourselves that this doesn't happen, but we know it does. And so the idea here is if we can collect good information that we know is going to match our production files, then the entire metadata cycle is clean, neat and sustainable.
All right. So what have we seen. We've gotten in many cases our submissions down to six minutes. The AI extraction of our metadata is around 80% Now I think maybe it's a little higher. Maybe it's a little lower. It depends. We're getting better metadata feeds into our peer review system than we had before.
Our profiles are now better and our outputs are now better. So in theory that's making things go faster across the board. And even if it's not making things go faster, guess what. Authors don't have to type things over and over and over again and put Harvard University as their affiliation in one system and Harvard Medical University in another, and clone slaughtering somewhere else or whatever. Like, it's more streamlined.
And when things change, our systems will be updated. So Kronos hub has helped us create that kind of overlay across our metadata structure. So the idea here is we've created this foundation and we're going to start feeding data into our other systems. So as I said before, the metadata in a publishing workflow is supposed to grow. It's not supposed to be reborn at each step.
And Kronos hub has enabled us to create that foundation. To do that, we're thinking of feeding that data into multiple systems and updating it as it goes along and feeding those data back into other systems, which is all things we've dreamed about and struggled with because we have people in our workflows manually doing things. The other thing about this is it's really allowed us to analyze the questions we ask at submission.
What's important, what's maybe not as important. When is the most appropriate spot to ask something. And at what step should we. Who should we center and who should we cater to in the interfaces we're building. So it gets to OK, so you've separated out the author perspective. Is the peer review perspective different. Is the editor perspective different.
And you can really focus your inner interfaces and your tools instead of trying to smash everything into one unified tool that will become almost impossible to maintain over time. And just a couple of things we've learned in doing something like this. You really have to look critically at how you do things and why you do things.
And just because you did something forever doesn't mean you should continue to do it forever. I mean, it's obvious to say, but it's really hard to grapple with this because this kind of thing can be really disruptive. You are intentionally Messing up your gateway to manuscripts in everything we measure is by submission, and you're basically throwing a bomb into that, and that's risky.
But if you look at it with a critical eye, you can succeed. And I think we're showing that a path, at least for ASM. This is sort of working. And if chronos hub is author centric in our view of it. And so anything author related, any information that we want to eventually pass to them, we now have a mechanism to think about, OK, so how can we get it to them in a way that makes sense to them. Because how we communicate information to an author could be fundamentally different than how we communicate that same information to an editor or a reviewer or someone else.
So it's allowing us to be really clear about how we communicate, why we communicate, and how we're integrating people into the workflow. And the other really important thing here is thinking about integrations and knowing that integration is where the future of this publishing thing we do is and it's not in unified systems necessarily. And that's really, really important.
So that's all I have for today. And thank you. Hi, everyone. All right. So now we switch to American Chemical Society. And I would like to walk you through what our experience was before and after cronos. And all I'll say here is that after this I started believing in plastic surgery because beautification is a thing.
I'll also say that as the director of editorial, I am very focused on the author experience. So if you have any specific technical question from me, I'll be happy to address it. But today I'm really here to represent the authors and their experience. So the before oops, how do you change this. I guess there is a remote under my notes. There you go.
All right. So this is the author experience essays publication. We say yesterday right before chronos hub and mix of different services. All very valuable services that the authors really love about ACEs and its journals, but clearly a mixed bag of different platforms, all sending different emails to authors. So email overload and then also pretty disjointed with each other x paragon plus is our own version of score one.
Again, and tough to play with when you want to. When you want to really play with technology and advance the outdoor experience. And this is the way we implemented Kronos app. Imagine this blanket that covers and fills in all the gaps. The value of Kronos app is really to streamline and simplify every process that will improve the outdoor experience. And so it's a system that allowed us to plug and play with different APIs.
And really this infinite ocean of opportunities came to shore for us. And now we're able to really plug everything we want and experiment with AI tools reviewer, finder, editor, finder, all things that before were unimaginable even while staying with ScholarOne, which was a big plus for us. So the huge facelift. And the result was this new author interface.
Very friendly. And you will see some comments from the authors. How to find the right journal for the author. In this case, we have Romy Burt as author. Very curious, but really how to find the right journal. What is the life of the manuscript and also select other different options across ACS journals. I must say, for CS journals, the core purpose is to really be the most trusted, high impact platforms for authors to disseminate their science.
It's also aligned with our society mission to serve the scientific community. And so to have this interface really makes a difference for us in the way we communicate science. And here are some comments right from the users. Simple and clear. You can see it across all of them. I was once an author as a former scientist, and the submission process were very, very painful.
So I wish I had cronos when I was a scientist submitting papers because simple a clear was never the case with any of the system across publishers that I've ever used. So definitely intuitive, simple, clear to use. This is what you want for your authors. So what's next for us. Just to summarize, the purpose of cronos is a consistent experience for authors so that all our different tools are plug and play and we can experiment more.
And I'll say that in a minute. Flexibility behind the scenes, the possibility to really work on the back end down the line without disrupting the author experience and then empowering the publisher so that we can all do what we want. We really embraced that. What's next for us is to really complete the submission part and roll it out to the entire portfolio, which is something that we have started doing pre-flight checks for authors at this point.
Infinite possibilities. Why not. So we are exploring all different ways that we can improve the author experience and then also the editors our major contributors to the journals. And so we were playing with ideas, an editor, an editor finder or an automatic assignment of editors when papers come in. So these are all things that we are thinking about again, because chronos offers us infinite possibility to plug and play with different tools.
With that, I'll close here and we'll be happy to take any questions. Thank you so much, TO. If any of you want to have a look at what's out there, you can visit. Hsn.io to play around with the submission interface. Obviously don't put in a real submission because then they will have to delete it.
And also published on ACEs. I created an account there. I'm not a chemist, but if you want to just see what the dashboard the publishing center looks like, feel free to create an account. Please come and talk to us at the booth 404, right in the back, right hand side of the exhibitor Hall. And the other really exciting news that I wanted to share is you might have seen a press release this morning.
We are now very pleased to announce a partnership with IEEE to build their publishing portal, which really builds on the publishing center for ACS, but expands it really across all types of content, including conference papers, meetings, everything in one place, across the board. So that's really exciting for us as well. And I think we've got time for questions. If anyone else anyone wants to ask any questions, there's a microphone up there.
OK, then I'll ask a question. Dave, you've not talked. You've not talked that much about what's next for you. Any specific things that you are thinking of integrating or bringing in the future into the interface. Yes, I think because of the way Colonel can integrate with all kinds of different tools, it means we can think about, can we offer authors the ability to select targeted reviewers in a new and different way.
So integrations, maybe with services like prophet or Global campus or something like that. Also the ability to possibly tie chronos hub into our integrity checking. And whether it's flagging manuscripts to say might need to look at something here before you even push it into the peer review system is something relatively simple now, and it may make sense to do that earlier rather than stages where we do it later.
What would be the advantage for you the organization, to have that research integrity. Check sit outside peer review. Do you have different people who look at them Yeah, so yes, we could have different people looking at it. We could form partnerships with institutions to have their research institutions in the process at submission, because we've had other questions about, who's submitting to you from our institution.
Well, we can pull your research people in, write that submission, maybe move that whole process up anyways, because maybe that's where it's more appropriate than trying to deal with things, deal with things at revision or at acceptance, where it's a real tax on resources like what are the ways that we can target and think about an activity that we normally in the past.
We traditionally did image forensics after acceptance because of resourcing and cost and all this kind of thing, but that doesn't mean that's the best spot to do it. That was the easiest spot to do it. And by nature of the way it was billed and charged, it meant that could save money that way. But because of the way you can integrate now, move it forward, what other things can you move forward.
What kinds of things can you try to save the reviewer and your editorial resources and not waste time. And I think cronos hub allows us to think like that, where it was harder to do that in the past. Yeah I wanted to add also, for those of you in the audience that are in a society or association, think a little bit broader, a DSO and a single sign on for membership. What can be done.
What can be done. I mean, outside of publishing realm, in that sense, it's something that we're also exploring it's the potential is bigger than just looking at the authorship is looking about at The Scientist. More broadly. I want to just quickly make a comment about what you said, Dave.
Bringing institutions into the research integrity check. That's possible because we also have an institutional aspect to the platform, like the Approval Dashboard and our APC workflow. So we're looking at possibly using that for research integrity approvals for institutions that want to do that so they could approve any submissions from their side before it's actually passed to peer review.
So again, an advantage if you want to decouple that step and look at it in isolation before integrating it with peer review and actually agreeing to send it to peer review. Any questions from anyone in the audience. Anything else. Yes go ahead. Is there any plans to add a production module to the submission system Not as such on the Cronus side.
So when you looked at the modules that we have, it's submission author billing, license management. But production is something that you can plug into to the author dashboard. So if we go back here I don't see the swimlanes there. But if you stop by the booth, I'm happy to give you a demo. And you can basically have any production related actions for authors surface on this dashboard. So three APIs feeding whatever systems you want to.
Jill so question for the people doing their own systems and presumably all kinds across all these systems, have you seen who actually is going to be up there and not part of the system. Yeah, it's integrated through. So if you know any exists it works through the ACEs ID. So you have to create an ACS ID. And then it links all the journals and all the actions. So you don't have to link each specific journal account to it.
So you see your actions across all your ACS journals. And it also shows it not just for corresponding authors but co-authors. So if you're a co-author on a paper, you'll see that paper in your dashboard. And if you're a corresponding author you might have an action on it. So that's the difference. Actions versus no actions.
But you see all your papers you've been involved with across all the journals. Paul Yeah. Just one question for me. You talk about integrity. Do you have integrity. No we don't. So that's something we're in UX development just now to mock up when we're talking to various integration partners.
So we will not be developing a module as such, but it's all through integration really. The approach is you can pick as a publisher best in class who you want to work with. So if you want to work with x then you can integrate with x And if not with y. But what we're looking at right now is mocking up what that dashboard can look like. So you can filter your articles you see through integrations, different traffic light signals.
Then if you want more information, you can click on a pop up and you see that. Yeah so authors are also peer reviewers. So right now, are they having to log in to the traditional peer review site. Is there any way that they can. Good question. Thanks for asking this.
I forgot about that. So we're actually building out the dashboard to have a peer reviewer view as well. So you can switch between your author view and your review view. And so obviously might be an author in one paper and a reviewer on two other papers. So you can switch between those two. So that's the next phase that's in UX design already.
And I can't remember the exact timeline for getting launched, but on the map. Jess, did I forget anything else like that. All right, well, we'll release you early. Thank you so much for coming. Please stop by the booth and have a chat. Or if you want to see a live demo, please come and see me.
Thank you so much.
Segment:0 .
Hi, everyone. Oops that's late. Thanks for joining us. And it's o'clock, so we'll get started. My name is Romi bayat. I'm the head of publisher relations at konotop, so I'll give a really short introduction about the topic of today's session on publishing infrastructure and introduce konotop as an organization.
And then I'll hand over to my two guest speakers here, David Haber from the American Society for Microbiology, and Teodoro pulvirenti from the American Chemical Society, to talk about their experience of working with konotop. So the title of the session is optimizing publishing infrastructure. And what do I mean by infrastructure. And there's a lot of reports that have come out on this and really be talking about any kind of systems, any tools that publishers use throughout the workflow.
And some of these are paid, some are open source, some are shared. But in my experience of working with publishers is that no two publishers are exactly the same. They all use a different perhaps a different submission system, a different production system, similar identifiers. But there's always variety between the publishers. But what we're talking about here really is taking things apart like atomizing them.
And both David and Teo will talk about that in some more detail about why that is a good strategy and why that enables you more flexibility in your workflows. And I found a really interesting quote from a professor from University of Colorado, Jason Thatcher. He says infrastructure does make a difference for what we do and our success. So it really matters to authors as well. And the thing to bear in mind is that infrastructure reflects on your brand.
Some authors might complain about why is this system not working. And it reflects on you as a brand, whereas actually the underlying infrastructure, the underlying system that causes that. So that's the set A bit of context of why we want to talk about that. And in terms of if you're not familiar with us, we are a workflow platform for publishers, institutions, and funders, and our goal is really to make the publishing experience easier for all authors.
So we have different modules for publishers, and these can be combined in flexible ways. So we have the publishing hub that we talked about a little bit more in detail that really connects all the underlying modules, but also connects other publishing infrastructure, other systems, other tools that you might be using. Then we've got the submission module, which we'll also talk in more detail, which is a separate module can be connected to the publishing hub but can also be used in isolation.
And then we do author billing and license management. And as you can see in this visual, these can be combined in really flexible ways, but it can also be sitting on top of other existing underlying infrastructure such as peer review system, production system, finance, single sign on membership databases, any of the other tools that sit underneath that and what cornershop does with the publishing hub is provide one seamless author experience across all of the publisher's journals throughout the entire publishing workflow.
So a front end that sits in front of peer review in front of submission, but also all the other tools throughout the publishing workflow. As for the submission module, what we've done here is we really pulled that out from peer review to make it sit-in front of peer review to provide, pull out better metadata, do data verification. We have our AI extraction that allows you to upload a manuscript and metadata is extracted automatically.
We do things like funder compliance. And one of the reasons we've built in order to get better metadata for later on in the system and provide a friendlier, more unified user experience. This is connected directly to the publishing hub, which is really the overarching layer for user experience that sits in front of all the other systems. So you have your login that can sit-in front of this. You can do all the tasks integrations with peer review different statuses across your whole journal portfolio.
So again, not just across the portfolio or across one area of the workflow, but it really covers the entire workflow status, including production, finance, hookup to delivery platforms for authors to have really that one dashboard, one place to see all their interactions with your brand. I hope that makes sense. I'll hand it over to Dave to talk a little bit more about the experience of the American Society for Microbiology and how they've worked together.
Thank you. Hello, everyone. So I'm going to tell you a little story. We have a founding EIC for maybe 15 years ago. Who once a year brings up this concept called the torture index, and he feels all journals should be measured by this index. Forget the impact factor.
So basically, what this is the number of questions in your submission system times the number of times the length of time it takes you to get to first decision. And then you divide that by the impact factor. And that's how an author is going to make a decision. And so ASM fails at this. It usually it takes we reject 70% of the manuscripts a lot of the time 80% depending on the journal.
So why ask 38 questions, some with sub questions and subparts and not always check box. Yes or no. Really detailed information. It takes 30 to 60 minutes to submit a file. We have duplicate metadata all over the place we have siloed systems across production, editorial submission, peer review. So what's going on.
How can we improve this from an author's perspective. The editors love our peer review system. We have no desire to switch peer review systems, but we need to focus on what an author needs and what an author wants during submission. So we decided to separate these two steps submission, peer review. How can we do this. What is our goal and our rationale behind this.
So our high level goal was we want to reduce submission to something under 10 minutes. We want to use as much extraction as possible from manuscripts. We don't want to rely on whatever metadata an author would insert, because at the core, the metadata that matters to us is what we publish, and that comes from the manuscripts, not whatever is in a system.
So how can we grab that good information and get it into our submission system, and therefore into our peer review system without burdening authors and getting rejected. Like, why annoy people that way. And then also can we unify things in such a way so that from an author perspective, everything looks the same. Maybe we decide we're going to create a journal in our current peer review system is unable to do what we need to do.
So we want to use a different peer review system that's going to look different. Or if we don't want it to look different, it's going to cost money to make it look the same. Instead, why can we skin something so that from an author perspective, everything looks the same and is focused on what the author wants and what the author needs. So that was the goal and rationale behind splitting off peer review and submission systems.
So obviously the strategy that drove this is we want to reduce the author burden. We want this unified gateway. We want to rely on PIDs as much as possible, persistent identifiers, whether it's ORCID, Ringgold, raw, whatever the flavor is that you use. And also we want to lay a foundation because if this truly is a hub that's author focused, we need to be able to feed data in and out in a way that makes sense and is scalable, which is a problem across the board.
When we have multiple systems that have been around forever that are customized. So how can we create a new foundation to allow this to happen. All right. So when you're connecting two systems this is a challenge. It's a challenge across the board. Both Kronos hub and EJP did spectacularly and bringing these two things together.
So what we did was anything author focused. What are the key things we need to make a really quick decision from an author. So we limited our questions down to something like 6' 6 key bits of information that we need from authors that are extracted from the manuscript. This will allow us to maintain data integrity from submission into peer review.
We're not updating. The metadata grows as an article goes through production. So you don't want each step to collect the same metadata over and over again. This is a common problem. We all delude ourselves that this doesn't happen, but we know it does. And so the idea here is if we can collect good information that we know is going to match our production files, then the entire metadata cycle is clean, neat and sustainable.
All right. So what have we seen. We've gotten in many cases our submissions down to six minutes. The AI extraction of our metadata is around 80% Now I think maybe it's a little higher. Maybe it's a little lower. It depends. We're getting better metadata feeds into our peer review system than we had before.
Our profiles are now better and our outputs are now better. So in theory that's making things go faster across the board. And even if it's not making things go faster, guess what. Authors don't have to type things over and over and over again and put Harvard University as their affiliation in one system and Harvard Medical University in another, and clone slaughtering somewhere else or whatever. Like, it's more streamlined.
And when things change, our systems will be updated. So Kronos hub has helped us create that kind of overlay across our metadata structure. So the idea here is we've created this foundation and we're going to start feeding data into our other systems. So as I said before, the metadata in a publishing workflow is supposed to grow. It's not supposed to be reborn at each step.
And Kronos hub has enabled us to create that foundation. To do that, we're thinking of feeding that data into multiple systems and updating it as it goes along and feeding those data back into other systems, which is all things we've dreamed about and struggled with because we have people in our workflows manually doing things. The other thing about this is it's really allowed us to analyze the questions we ask at submission.
What's important, what's maybe not as important. When is the most appropriate spot to ask something. And at what step should we. Who should we center and who should we cater to in the interfaces we're building. So it gets to OK, so you've separated out the author perspective. Is the peer review perspective different. Is the editor perspective different.
And you can really focus your inner interfaces and your tools instead of trying to smash everything into one unified tool that will become almost impossible to maintain over time. And just a couple of things we've learned in doing something like this. You really have to look critically at how you do things and why you do things.
And just because you did something forever doesn't mean you should continue to do it forever. I mean, it's obvious to say, but it's really hard to grapple with this because this kind of thing can be really disruptive. You are intentionally Messing up your gateway to manuscripts in everything we measure is by submission, and you're basically throwing a bomb into that, and that's risky.
But if you look at it with a critical eye, you can succeed. And I think we're showing that a path, at least for ASM. This is sort of working. And if chronos hub is author centric in our view of it. And so anything author related, any information that we want to eventually pass to them, we now have a mechanism to think about, OK, so how can we get it to them in a way that makes sense to them. Because how we communicate information to an author could be fundamentally different than how we communicate that same information to an editor or a reviewer or someone else.
So it's allowing us to be really clear about how we communicate, why we communicate, and how we're integrating people into the workflow. And the other really important thing here is thinking about integrations and knowing that integration is where the future of this publishing thing we do is and it's not in unified systems necessarily. And that's really, really important.
So that's all I have for today. And thank you. Hi, everyone. All right. So now we switch to American Chemical Society. And I would like to walk you through what our experience was before and after cronos. And all I'll say here is that after this I started believing in plastic surgery because beautification is a thing.
I'll also say that as the director of editorial, I am very focused on the author experience. So if you have any specific technical question from me, I'll be happy to address it. But today I'm really here to represent the authors and their experience. So the before oops, how do you change this. I guess there is a remote under my notes. There you go.
All right. So this is the author experience essays publication. We say yesterday right before chronos hub and mix of different services. All very valuable services that the authors really love about ACEs and its journals, but clearly a mixed bag of different platforms, all sending different emails to authors. So email overload and then also pretty disjointed with each other x paragon plus is our own version of score one.
Again, and tough to play with when you want to. When you want to really play with technology and advance the outdoor experience. And this is the way we implemented Kronos app. Imagine this blanket that covers and fills in all the gaps. The value of Kronos app is really to streamline and simplify every process that will improve the outdoor experience. And so it's a system that allowed us to plug and play with different APIs.
And really this infinite ocean of opportunities came to shore for us. And now we're able to really plug everything we want and experiment with AI tools reviewer, finder, editor, finder, all things that before were unimaginable even while staying with ScholarOne, which was a big plus for us. So the huge facelift. And the result was this new author interface.
Very friendly. And you will see some comments from the authors. How to find the right journal for the author. In this case, we have Romy Burt as author. Very curious, but really how to find the right journal. What is the life of the manuscript and also select other different options across ACS journals. I must say, for CS journals, the core purpose is to really be the most trusted, high impact platforms for authors to disseminate their science.
It's also aligned with our society mission to serve the scientific community. And so to have this interface really makes a difference for us in the way we communicate science. And here are some comments right from the users. Simple and clear. You can see it across all of them. I was once an author as a former scientist, and the submission process were very, very painful.
So I wish I had cronos when I was a scientist submitting papers because simple a clear was never the case with any of the system across publishers that I've ever used. So definitely intuitive, simple, clear to use. This is what you want for your authors. So what's next for us. Just to summarize, the purpose of cronos is a consistent experience for authors so that all our different tools are plug and play and we can experiment more.
And I'll say that in a minute. Flexibility behind the scenes, the possibility to really work on the back end down the line without disrupting the author experience and then empowering the publisher so that we can all do what we want. We really embraced that. What's next for us is to really complete the submission part and roll it out to the entire portfolio, which is something that we have started doing pre-flight checks for authors at this point.
Infinite possibilities. Why not. So we are exploring all different ways that we can improve the author experience and then also the editors our major contributors to the journals. And so we were playing with ideas, an editor, an editor finder or an automatic assignment of editors when papers come in. So these are all things that we are thinking about again, because chronos offers us infinite possibility to plug and play with different tools.
With that, I'll close here and we'll be happy to take any questions. Thank you so much, TO. If any of you want to have a look at what's out there, you can visit. Hsn.io to play around with the submission interface. Obviously don't put in a real submission because then they will have to delete it.
And also published on ACEs. I created an account there. I'm not a chemist, but if you want to just see what the dashboard the publishing center looks like, feel free to create an account. Please come and talk to us at the booth 404, right in the back, right hand side of the exhibitor Hall. And the other really exciting news that I wanted to share is you might have seen a press release this morning.
We are now very pleased to announce a partnership with IEEE to build their publishing portal, which really builds on the publishing center for ACS, but expands it really across all types of content, including conference papers, meetings, everything in one place, across the board. So that's really exciting for us as well. And I think we've got time for questions. If anyone else anyone wants to ask any questions, there's a microphone up there.
OK, then I'll ask a question. Dave, you've not talked. You've not talked that much about what's next for you. Any specific things that you are thinking of integrating or bringing in the future into the interface. Yes, I think because of the way Colonel can integrate with all kinds of different tools, it means we can think about, can we offer authors the ability to select targeted reviewers in a new and different way.
So integrations, maybe with services like prophet or Global campus or something like that. Also the ability to possibly tie chronos hub into our integrity checking. And whether it's flagging manuscripts to say might need to look at something here before you even push it into the peer review system is something relatively simple now, and it may make sense to do that earlier rather than stages where we do it later.
What would be the advantage for you the organization, to have that research integrity. Check sit outside peer review. Do you have different people who look at them Yeah, so yes, we could have different people looking at it. We could form partnerships with institutions to have their research institutions in the process at submission, because we've had other questions about, who's submitting to you from our institution.
Well, we can pull your research people in, write that submission, maybe move that whole process up anyways, because maybe that's where it's more appropriate than trying to deal with things, deal with things at revision or at acceptance, where it's a real tax on resources like what are the ways that we can target and think about an activity that we normally in the past.
We traditionally did image forensics after acceptance because of resourcing and cost and all this kind of thing, but that doesn't mean that's the best spot to do it. That was the easiest spot to do it. And by nature of the way it was billed and charged, it meant that could save money that way. But because of the way you can integrate now, move it forward, what other things can you move forward.
What kinds of things can you try to save the reviewer and your editorial resources and not waste time. And I think cronos hub allows us to think like that, where it was harder to do that in the past. Yeah I wanted to add also, for those of you in the audience that are in a society or association, think a little bit broader, a DSO and a single sign on for membership. What can be done.
What can be done. I mean, outside of publishing realm, in that sense, it's something that we're also exploring it's the potential is bigger than just looking at the authorship is looking about at The Scientist. More broadly. I want to just quickly make a comment about what you said, Dave.
Bringing institutions into the research integrity check. That's possible because we also have an institutional aspect to the platform, like the Approval Dashboard and our APC workflow. So we're looking at possibly using that for research integrity approvals for institutions that want to do that so they could approve any submissions from their side before it's actually passed to peer review.
So again, an advantage if you want to decouple that step and look at it in isolation before integrating it with peer review and actually agreeing to send it to peer review. Any questions from anyone in the audience. Anything else. Yes go ahead. Is there any plans to add a production module to the submission system Not as such on the Cronus side.
So when you looked at the modules that we have, it's submission author billing, license management. But production is something that you can plug into to the author dashboard. So if we go back here I don't see the swimlanes there. But if you stop by the booth, I'm happy to give you a demo. And you can basically have any production related actions for authors surface on this dashboard. So three APIs feeding whatever systems you want to.
Jill so question for the people doing their own systems and presumably all kinds across all these systems, have you seen who actually is going to be up there and not part of the system. Yeah, it's integrated through. So if you know any exists it works through the ACEs ID. So you have to create an ACS ID. And then it links all the journals and all the actions. So you don't have to link each specific journal account to it.
So you see your actions across all your ACS journals. And it also shows it not just for corresponding authors but co-authors. So if you're a co-author on a paper, you'll see that paper in your dashboard. And if you're a corresponding author you might have an action on it. So that's the difference. Actions versus no actions.
But you see all your papers you've been involved with across all the journals. Paul Yeah. Just one question for me. You talk about integrity. Do you have integrity. No we don't. So that's something we're in UX development just now to mock up when we're talking to various integration partners.
So we will not be developing a module as such, but it's all through integration really. The approach is you can pick as a publisher best in class who you want to work with. So if you want to work with x then you can integrate with x And if not with y. But what we're looking at right now is mocking up what that dashboard can look like. So you can filter your articles you see through integrations, different traffic light signals.
Then if you want more information, you can click on a pop up and you see that. Yeah so authors are also peer reviewers. So right now, are they having to log in to the traditional peer review site. Is there any way that they can. Good question. Thanks for asking this.
I forgot about that. So we're actually building out the dashboard to have a peer reviewer view as well. So you can switch between your author view and your review view. And so obviously might be an author in one paper and a reviewer on two other papers. So you can switch between those two. So that's the next phase that's in UX design already.
And I can't remember the exact timeline for getting launched, but on the map. Jess, did I forget anything else like that. All right, well, we'll release you early. Thank you so much for coming. Please stop by the booth and have a chat. Or if you want to see a live demo, please come and see me.
Thank you so much.
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