Cadmore media player playing video Delivering Value at a Mission-Driven Organization: Some Case Studies
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:
Delivering Value at a Mission-Driven Organization: Some Case Studies
Description:
Delivering Value at a Mission-Driven Organization: Some Case Studies
Thumbnail URL:
https://cadmoremediastorage.blob.core.windows.net/6f55e30e-3079-4abf-99be-3185d38806ad/videoscrubberimages/Scrubber_1.jpg
Duration:
T01H00M11S
Embed URL:
https://stream.cadmore.media/player/6f55e30e-3079-4abf-99be-3185d38806ad
Content URL:
https://cadmoreoriginalmedia.blob.core.windows.net/6f55e30e-3079-4abf-99be-3185d38806ad/SSP2025 5-30 1330 - Session 5B.mp4?sv=2019-02-02&sr=c&sig=gDWwXmorfU5%2BJUQEa%2Fr%2B31eIaOJYFs5Js30X%2BlyeQmA%3D&st=2025-12-05T21%3A03%3A21Z&se=2025-12-05T23%3A08%3A21Z&sp=r
Upload Date:
2025-08-15T00:00:00.0000000
Transcript:
Language: EN.
Segment:0 .
OK. Hi everyone. Welcome to this session on delivering value at a mission driven organization. I'm going to talk just a little bit, but mostly we're focus is going to be on the four case studies you're going to hear. And I will introduce the speakers in just a moment. Actually I'll introduce them now.
So first of all, we have Anna Cardoso from orchid. Nikki Pfeiffer from Center for open science, Niall O'Connor from PLOS and Robert Harrington from the American Mathematical Society. And I think they'll all tell you a little bit more about their organizations and what they do there as part of their presentations, but to get going. So a little bit of housekeeping in a good way. First of all, I want to remind you that SSPs values are around community, adaptability, inclusivity and integrity.
And one of the ways that translates is in our code of conduct. You can look at the full code if you want to by scanning the bar code. Barcode but basically the gist of it is to treat each other respectfully, listen politely, engage with people with different views from you, and generally be good people. Really I guess.
So I'm going to just say a little bit to put this session in context. It came about because as part of the work that I do at Marlborough cooperative, we quite often work with mission driven, not for profit organizations, but obviously need to be sustainable and need to develop new products, but need to do so within that sort of tension between profitability and sustainability.
So all organizations, obviously, whether you're commercial or not for profit, needs to both achieve and then maintain financial sustainability. Without that, you're not going to survive, you're not going to thrive, you're not going to be able to do your work as an organization. Typically, commercial organizations need to be both sustainable and profitable because they want to deliver that profit back to their shareholders.
Not for profit organizations need to be sustainable, and they also need to make a surplus that they can then reinvest back into their community and into their organization. Both organization types typically need both short to medium term investment initially, and that's often through investors. At orchid, where I used to live, we were used to live, used to work.
Even we were lucky to get investment from a number of publishers and other research organizations as seed funding that saw us through and that got paid back. Chris Schilling was in the audience, so he'll correct me if I'm wrong about this, but around 2019, 2020, I think. Many commercial organizations will have Angel investors and things like that, who provide that sort of seed money.
But again, they're hoping to get that money back at some point or to see it being utilized in the service of the organization. This is not an exhaustive list, but some of the sorts of ways that not for profits achieve sustainability tend to include one or more of the following. So membership fees is one way. Publications including APCs, conferences, and then products and services.
And most of what we're going to talk about in the case studies today falls into that last category, I guess. So I think not for profits have some challenges, but they also have some opportunities in this space. So there's a real tension, I think, at a not for profit organization, how open should you be versus closed. Should this product or service that you're developing be for members only or for non-members? Should you should it be free for members but paid for non-members and so on.
How do you get the balance right between generating a healthy surplus versus being seen as profiteering? So there's lots of tensions there that you have to take into account, but also can be challenges around the return on investment. So how do you make a really clear business case for this investment that you're asking for, and how do you demonstrate that the short term costs are going to be worth the long term benefits.
On the opportunities side, I think that there's some real benefits, opportunities for not for profits around their community. Focus you really know and understand what your community wants, and you're very engaged with them typically. So you have that really deep community engagement. You also have a trusted relationship with your community members, and that's super important because that's not always the case with commercial organizations.
It's not necessarily not the case, but often when there's a sort of commercial relationship, it makes for a different kind of relationship. Put it that way. I think another opportunity I've said return on investment is a challenge, but I think it's also an opportunity because typically not for profits do have more of a long term strategy. They can look further into the future and then really commit to that.
They're not doing that if you're in a publicly traded company, it's all about the quarterly returns. You might think you've got a long term strategy, but actually what you're measuring yourself on really is the quarterly shareholder reports. And also I think in many not for profits generating surplus is important, but it's secondary to serving the community which ties back into that sort of community opportunity idea.
So that's it from me. That's all you're getting in the way of context. Because really, I think the case studies are going to speak for themselves as examples of some of the ways a range of different not for profits are thinking about this and delivering products and services to respond to the needs of their community, but also their need to be sustainable to stay sustainable. So you're going to hear from Anna Cardoso about how orchid has adjusted its business model and engagement activities in Latin America to increase adoption there very successfully.
I think Nicki is going to talk about the Center for open science's work to develop a new business model that supports its mission. This is around ASF, the Open Science framework. Robert is going to talk about the American Mathematical society's efforts to develop a new content based product for mathematicians, and also some other work they're doing. And then neev will talk about his project to develop both the knowledge stack and a business model that supports a broader range of open science outputs.
So I've put below the questions that I asked them to address in their presentations. And we're also going to have a little bit of a discussion after that. And then we will turn it over to you for some questions from you. So I will hand over to Anna. Thank you. So I'm Anna Cardoso, and we've learned that telling stories is a good practice.
So I'm going to tell you a very brief story about ORCID. And it all started in 2007 when the need of persistent identifier system for published works, and another one for these people who was creating those words. Those words was very visible. And then a lot of people get involved, organizations get involved, and the conversations continue until 2010 that where we saw that business and policy working group was created, and especially very importantly as well, the creation of the 10 founding principles that you can find still in the orchid website, where formed by 2011, of course, the idea was there.
The business and policy working group was there, a lot of people were already involved, but what was needed was, of course, these resources to continue this initiative, but thankfully grants and loans came through different organizations, foundations, and publishers. So this was starting to get real. And finally, in October 2012, the registry launched and it exceeded really the expectations of the registrants, because only in the first week, 5,000 registrants were already in the registry.
By 2015, everything was going well with adoption with for researchers. But of course resources were going out and it was more needed there. So as someone said, an angel came and we got $3 dollars from Leona. And this was essentially to get more staff, to grow the staff and also to help for the consortium activities that we've started there.
Second story. Happy, happy story after break after break. Even so, finally in 2019, orchid reached break even. And since then we've posted a surplus. In 2021, there's a strategic plan was created, and this was to increase value to our stakeholders. While we maintain these two core goals of reducing administrative burden for researchers and helping our members, organizations understand the impact of the research that they facilitate and fund in 2022.
We were forgiven by the original Lenders these loans and we are using now. Orchid is using now these money to grant to fund or to give grants for these communities that need additional support. So a program, a GPP program or global participation program was created.
In fact, you can search this in our website. And now it's open in 2023. Finally the idea of the regional consortium was conceived. And this is exactly the case study I'm going to talk about. So in 2023. We did a lot of outreach around the Latin American Caribbean region, give a lot of talks about orchid, and we already know that there's a lot of adoption with researchers in the region.
But something was still missing. We even did some of this outreach with partners, partners like raw and DataCite. And we also know that since years ago that this region is a global leader in developing open research infrastructures, policies, and practices. But really, to grow adoption, orchid needed to work differently there in this region because in some countries, there was a lack of organizations to form a national consortium and also not a suitable candidate for a consortium lead organization.
So we need to think differently and do things differently. And the board at the end approved. The board approved to create original consortium. And in August 2023, the Latin American and Caribbean regional consortium was formed. This is led by the organization called consortia in Colombia, who was our previous national consortium lead with already 16 members.
Now they've grown up to 96 members in eight countries, and they keep growing. They have a lot of integrations, mainly with these platforms. And last but not least, while another milestone in the region is that we have two board members also from the region. So we have Soledad Bravo from Chile, from our Chilean consortium, and also Cesar from the regional consortium.
And that's it. Thank you. Thank you so much, Anna. And you got a better description of orchids. History from me, from her than you did from me. But now, over to Robert with the American Mathematical Society. OK thank you. Yeah, well, it says who I am on here, so I won't.
I'll skip that slide. Robert Harrington. I actually did try and I tried to get the title c-3po, but nobody wanted to give me that one. So how do I advance. Let's see. Oh, this. OK OK. So I'm not going to go into a lot of detail about the AMS.
Just know that we're old. I'm old. So it fits that I'm here. Maybe not quite as old as this though. So we were founded in 1888. We have 30,000 members. And there is this constant tension struggle, a happy tension, perhaps, between why we do what we do and how we fund ourselves, and how we support what we do what we're really here to do is to support the math community, our membership.
But the math community as a whole, we want to support the diversity of that community. We want to support research and education through that community. We want to work with other societies, such as the Ma and Siam and the London Mathematical Society, who we try and partner with when we can. I know that when I first came, gosh, it's 12.5 years now back into the AMS.
I came into the first board of Trustees meeting with all sorts of publishing jargon, thinking, gosh, am I clever or what. And of course, I just saw lots of mathematicians eyes glaze over and they just basically dropped off. So I had to reassess how to work with governance. And that's one of the key pieces of working at a society like ours is you really have to understand not just the why, but how of working across both business and mission.
And if there's a theme to today's what I'm going to talk about today is through these case studies. It is that struggle. I mean, how much should we make open source. How much should we give away. How much do we actually still need to do to make sure our operating income is relevant. But about 70% of our operating income comes from publishing. So that's significant.
It's about $25 million. So we can't just give everything away. On the other hand, everything we make is put towards programs and prizes and all the things that make the math community whole. So the case studies I'm going to use to explore that are some mathjax and AMS math view. I'll describe what they are, and I'm going to touch on a few other things quickly, assuming I don't get told to stop talking.
And the other ones here are mathscinet math reviews, the database discovery database that we have, and I'm working with Alice and her group more Brains On a new product there. How we launch something called MyOpenMath notes, really what I would call an archive preprint server for works in progress, books and lecture notes. And how we went about quickly, how we went about open access, thinking about open access, and what we're trying to now do with accessible journal archives and actually book archives, too.
But in terms of donor funds, open journal archives. So this is scary. It's math. And mathjax is a really wonderful example of what a society should do for its mission and how to go about doing that in context of its community. Mathjax essentially is a JavaScript engine for rendering, displaying complex math right in the browser, and it comes with all manner of support for assistive technologies such as screen readers and so on.
It's a 501(c)(3. We, the AMS and Siam, were right there at the beginning to support it, and we continue. I sit on the steering committee, but it broadened out. So we have a steering committee comprising at the moment, I think it's Elsevier. IEEE, Siam and ourselves around that. But it changes over the years. So it's very much a partnership, but it's open source.
It's something that we decided actually that we would basically do for the community. It's not cheap and the development is not cheap, and it's got a lot of expertise. And David Sullivan from Union College and Volker sorg, I think he's at Birmingham now, but was and Peter krautzberger were the engines behind this, the intellectual engines behind this. And it continues to develop.
And it's pretty much everyone who uses math online now. And certainly complex math is using mathjax, whether you know it or not. So this is a wonderful example of how mission and in a sense, how business works together. If we've done something, if there was something I'd rather have done better here is that we don't always trumpet ourselves. The AMS is very quiet about its achievements. I mean, I'm not sure how many of you know what the AMS actually does.
We live in this building that people think is an Nsa building, but it's actually right off 95 in Providence. And I don't just terrible about basically self-promotion. So that's why I'm employed, I think because I'm pretty good at self-promotion. So from the rendering engine, the next step was to think about how we could actually go beyond the straight PDF to a more accessible way of looking at complex mathematics and not to mimic a print form.
So we developed something called AMS math viewer. This was actually developed. It was inspired. I don't if you remember e-life lens, which was developed by substance. It really came from that as an inspiration. The two panel interactive view on content. But then we quickly realized that for math, we needed to do some other things when we really wanted to go towards the accessibility route.
So again, providing support for a significant using the Wai ARIA module to really provide semantic metadata and support for screen readers. So everything we're trying to do here is not just about what's cool, but about what is accessible to those who might need accessible options. But you can click through to equations and bring them out and bring them out. You can go right through to math reviews, mathscinet, and you can do all sorts of things interactively with this content.
And all our journals are now on this AMS math viewer. OK, so that's the product. What are we doing with it. And we've developed this. We've spent quite a lot of dollars doing this and we're struggling with that. I mean, we've made elements of the workflow, the tool chain, copyleft available. On the other hand, it's valuable.
So should we just make this open source and give it to everybody. Should we develop it and actually brand it. But then if we market it as ours and sell it, we also have to provide support. You can't just launch a product like this into the market and not provide support. And we're not a software company. So what do we do with it. And I'm not entirely sure we know at this point.
Now, it's something we're using. And the next step for us is to put it through to our book program, develop. That's how we're producing EPUBs again, for complex math. It's a conversion from latex through MathML to HTML. And the next step beyond that is for the society as a whole. How do we take that and give educators in their institutions the ability to click and play and put their lecture notes online using something based on math viewer so that they don't have to have these static PDFs.
Again, this is a wonderful example, and I need to wrap it up apparently, but I'm nowhere near the end, so. I'm going to go really fast. OK, so the next quick thing is just with math reviews. Mathscinet I touched on and we're working with Alice's more brains. It's a wonderful discovery database with 4 million articles in it.
Actually, I was going to talk about how in Germany this came over during the war, it was a red line and so on. I'm not going to wrap up quite yet. Sorry but anyway, it's one of those entities that really needs gosh, I'm now struggling how to wrap up. It's when working with more brains to develop a product there and that we are going to market as an actual product, but it's about the survival of the product itself.
I won't go into the other ones. I guess the only thing I do want to put up there. And I feel very strongly about this, is we announced at our council meeting a few weeks ago that our way of adding ourselves to a collective voice, to among hopefully a y-intercept of voices to. Resist what's happening out there is to provide actual support for our community. So we from our endowment, we're basically saying that $1 million, it's not a lot.
It's a bit like, saying I $1 million. It's not a lot of money. But compared to what NSF provides. But for the Association of Women in mathematics that lost their travel mentoring grants, it's important for us. We're going to support that. And it's not actually about us doing that. It's about how we all should collectively add, even if it's small gestures, limited gestures, if we collect a collective voice of individuals, is a collective voice that actually adds up and supports our communities.
So I think probably I will stop there because I have clearly gone way over time, I apologize. Thank you. Robert I think I'm going to make him do one of those Machu Picchu type things. Where the slides just progress next time. OK next up is Nikki from Center for open science. All right.
Thank you. Hard to follow, Robert. I'll try to do my best and keep it brief. Just a little bit about the Center for open science. Some important facts on here. But also just to call out the mission to increase the openness, integrity and reproducibility of research. Again, this is all nonprofit, mission driven organizations.
One of the things that maybe is unique is our approach to systematic approach to culture change. And so you'll see on the I guess it's your right side. This pyramid of different things that we believe are interdependent, that lead to culture change. So making it possible, making it easy, making it normative, rewarding, and required to really advance the culture towards more open scholarship practices.
So with that in mind, I'm going to focus down at the bottom of that pyramid and talking about the make it possible, make it easy piece, which is where I focus my time on the Open Science framework, which is a free open source tool that researchers use to manage and collaborate on their projects. And it supports them all the way through the entire research lifecycle, from planning to conducting to reporting, and to discovering others research.
But one part of this is the sustainability piece. And it's something, to be honest, cause has been confronted with and struggling with since its inception. We want to have this tool be free, easy to use, a public good if you will, but sustaining staining public goods is not free, and so finding the fee for service or revenue model that will support that, that's not grants, because over time that really wears out a team is to constantly be trying to churn and bring in New money.
And honestly, we know that funders don't want to support the maintenance work of technology. And so no matter what, we've been confronted with this, but we also have this other piece of tension, which is culture change is what we're trying to achieve, which means we're changing behavior, which means you're putting people towards workflows that make them uncomfortable. And the market, if you will, to counter that, would want more of the status quo.
So incremental minor changes to just improve their day to day activities versus big changes in behavior and practice. So that's a challenge that we've had to work through. So when we get to thinking about this case study and the business model, I think the things that are presented here are thinking about what is that value proposition. We have shared goals that we want to achieve for researchers and other research stakeholders.
And the one that I'm going to focus on is academic institutions, because all of us are supporting the researcher from one aspect of this. It is important to make sure that we're making it easy for researchers. And so that's always underpinning the activities that we're doing. But that's also what academic institutions want to. And then providing access to the librarians, to the content that researchers are doing all of their activities, making that fair, making it easy.
And so it's providing value added services that share those insights of what researchers are doing easy in their workflows, meeting them where they are providing a couple of key aspects of the work that the way that they already do their work. So integrating with their identity providers to logging into platforms so they don't have different accounts, things can be interoperable and more streamlined.
Reduce the burden on them. But then also, librarians really care about the metadata and the fairness and the PIDs. And so providing those tools in time, just in time with researchers, has been a key part of the business model that we've been able to provide. And so, those dashboards and insights and then access when researchers can actually tap into the access in the institutions that they have to support metadata and other curation activities.
And we're five years in sorry, five years into this business model, which didn't start until after five years of OSF. And so just to answer one of the questions Alice is going to ask is, what would I go back and change is actually thinking about this from the beginning and thinking about what are those value added services, and try to develop those in real time with the platform itself, the free side, plus the fee for service side.
All right. I think I'm passing it on. Thank you. Thank you. Nikki and last but not least, we'll hand over to neev. Thanks, Alice. So, as you said, I'm Neha O'Connor from place.
And actually, I realize how well you have organized this. Because now I can refer to how the approach that we are taking to a project that we are doing actually builds on the pyramid that Nikki showed in her slides. So what I want to talk to you about, just as a case study is a project that we are doing at the moment, which is about rethinking how we publish to support open science.
And this is a project for which we've got Grant funding from the Moore Foundation and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. And the way that we are coming to this is really thinking about how we want to be able to move more towards an open science ecosystem. So as a publisher, what's our role in making that possible. And so one of the things that I think happens a lot in this kind of framing of things is that everybody gets a bit stuck because everybody's like, well, we can't this is a multi-stakeholder problem.
As a publisher, we can't really move until the researchers move and the researchers can't really move until the funders move and the funders can't really move until, like the policy moves and the institutions move. And so everybody ends up saying, well, I can't really do anything because these people need to come with me. So we were thinking about this in terms of what can we change.
What can we do to show that it is possible just to move a bit so that at least you start doing that thing. To show like that, you're making it possible and hopefully making it easier. And then hopefully you get to that can make it normative part. And from there, you try and climb up the pyramid. So the way that we were approaching this is really thinking about the article. A lot of background work has gone into this, which I will not talk about because it would take too long.
But basically publishing is still so focused on articles, and while articles are great and they do a good thing, everything doesn't need to be an article. And so we've got this thing where because of the incentive system and the fact that researcher credit is very tied into articles and articles are the things that people count, and articles are how people often think of their business now, and they're like units of revenue and our unit of dissemination.
So everything is about an article, which actually isn't really how science works. And so that's not really how you would think about it if you were designing a system not for print, but for a digital age. Would you start with an article. Probably no. So that's what we're really thinking about. And there are two parts to the project.
One is actually thinking about this kind of beyond the article. So how do you think about the capabilities that you need to be able to make different say, the UK research excellence framework are referred to as non-traditional outputs. So that means not articles basically. How do you make them visible. How do you make them discoverable. How do you make them attributable to people.
And how do you allow people to be evaluated for a contribution to a data set, or for creating some code in the same way that they can be as the author of an article. And at the same time. And if I think in the context of this session, this is one of the really important things, we are simultaneously developing a business model that moves away from that per unit way of thinking and really begins to purposely support an open science ecosystem.
So how do you have a model that emphasizes service over output units, where you can sustain our publishing capabilities and still enable broader participation in open science. And the part that you can see in blue on my slide, or for anyone who isn't seeing it is blue, then it will be. It's on the right hand side. You can see the different stakeholders that we have to engage with, understand their needs and think about in different parts of this project.
Digital ecosystem. I think most of these are relatively straightforward and self-explanatory. The digital ecosystem are things like Crossref making sure that if you're publishing different types of outputs, that they're going to be properly disseminated and LinkedIn, that the metadata works. So that's what we're doing. And this is a research and design project.
So we're in the phase of actually developing this. And of at least through to next year. At which point we will begin to think about implementation and really having this become quote unquote, real. But I wanted to leave you with a slide, because when we were preparing for this, one of the things Alice was saying is she wanted us to suggest something either provocative or come back and think about things we'd learned.
So I was thinking about that and not just in the context of this project, but I've spent my whole career at nonprofits and the things other people have said about Robert, you mentioned governance and trying to get people engaged is something I'm really familiar with. And so I was thinking about what are the things that I think are useful. And I think my major message is really have to know why you are doing the thing.
In societies that I have worked in previously, this has been very much a no pet project. There's always someone who is telling you that they know the answer to all the things, and so you really have to have some evidence that you are addressing a validated stakeholder need. Now, that doesn't mean that you ignore the things that your colleagues with years of experience of hearing people tell you their pain points, don't.
That's not a thing to ignore, but you take that and you go out and just check. Is that still the experience that people are having. Is that still the need. Is that still what somebody wants. And I would say my major career learning has been really need to know your organization's appetite for risk. I used to think I was a very risk averse person. I have discovered that I am really wrong about that.
I'm really wrong about that. That is because I know other people who have a larger appetite for risk than me. But really particularly, I would say in a governance led organization. So this isn't so much a place thing, but my previous experience, governance led organization, somebody is enrolled for three or five years or whatever. They do not want it to fail on their watch, which often drives people into really risk averse behavior.
So you've got to think about, what's going to make it safe for them. How are you going to show this is a good way forward, develop really clear expectations, kind of an extension of the same point. You really have to share understanding of context. And what I mean by that is, even if you are hiring in someone to work on your project, how much about your organization's context do they need to understand.
I would say joining place. There is usually a conversion period for people, and I mean that in the nicest way. It's kind of a lot of what you've been told. So I'll use a personal example. I'm the chief publishing officer of place. I don't know what the impact factors of journals are. I doubt there are many chief publishing officers who can say that.
It's certainly not something I could have said as a publisher in previous roles. And so you really have to spend a while going, yeah, that's not the driver for this. So make sure that the people who are coming in from the outside are not carrying things with them, and that you have a really strong link to your mission. And then the obvious things which I know any of you who've been involved in projects would say it's going to be more work than you thought.
It's going to take more resource than you thought. It will take longer than you think. And then my final point for now is your comms team are really your best friend, like Annie, are you saying you want to tell a story. And it's exactly that thing. You have to be able to tell the story of the thing that you're doing. Otherwise, no one is going to listen to you because they don't care.
Because they have other things to do. So make sure that you really and I will say in that having a best friend, also make really sure that you know what your expertise is on the business model side of this work. We're partnering with Remco, who's the consultant who developed the scribe two open, worked with us on community action publishing. He has expertise that we don't have in-house.
He comes with really good understanding of how that works, and with somebody who has that perspective and can bring something you don't have is super important. So sorry, I've probably been a bit too long, but I'll leave it there. Thanks well, thanks to all of you. We did plan for this meeting, but actually, I think it worked out even better than we planned. That was a great wrap up, Eve, which I think fed into everything that everybody else said.
And so I hope that you've learned something from these case studies. I'm going to plan to allow about 10 minutes for questions at the end, which means that we have about 10, just over 10 minutes for a little bit of discussion. So we have some questions that they've been prepped for in advance. And then we'll hand over to you. So the first question for you all is a very pragmatic one.
How did you decide what to charge for, how much to charge or how do you expect to do so. Who was involved. How was that whole process around the nitty gritty business of the money. How did that work. So I'm going to look at maybe Nicki first. She's like, I wish you hadn't done that. Sorry.
OK. I wasn't patient. That's such a tough question. I mean, for us, it. It was a lot of trial and error, to be really honest. We had multiple versions of different fee for service products that actually still exist right now. And that's one of the things we need to work on is actually consolidating and simplifying.
Exactly who are we trying to serve and support and make sure we truly understand everything they need. So I'd say it's a work in progress. And it takes trial and error. Good answer. Anna, what about you. Because I know there was a lot of thinking that went into the original consortium. Yeah so at the very beginning for orchid, it was a little bit tricky and difficult to find the exact fee model because the researcher need to be free of charge.
And that means the institutions need to pay for the service. So once that was in place. Yeah, we have this membership consortium model that works. And also we have the board members that every year review these fees. And this is based in our fee model. So we have six principles that you can also review in the website. But I mean it works because we stated we know what we want at the very beginning.
And then we'll a way of scaling through consortia. Thank you. I think that's a really important point, that sort of keeping your thinking on that aligned with your values and your principles is probably tricky, but is going to get you to a good solution at the end. Robert, what about you.
Thank you. I mean, it's really I think I touched on it before, but it's a combination of what can we do operationally. So we have to provide a model that makes sense, and we take that to our governance in a way that they can digest and understand. And then it's a question of risk. As Naeem was talking about. It's a question of what's a comfortable risk.
How much are you going to spend on any particular project. And if it's a lot, we have to say why pretty convincingly. And it's happened that we've done that. But you have to essentially governance has to take the decision based on your input in our case. Yeah OK. Any of you, I would love to hear because you did touch on this a little bit, but I don't know whether you can share a little bit about where you are in that process with the Beyond the APC thinking, or at least the process, not the decision making necessarily.
Yeah, the process definitely. So as I mentioned, I think the really big thing for us was making sure that kind of things that the way that we're thinking about the business model makes sense that they tie-in with our values, which is very much around. We've been doing work for some years now to try and transition away from per unit pricing or per unit models, and to work much more closely with a kind of institutional base based kind of models.
And so we were partly building on what we already knew, and that the things that we had learned from the models that we have, we have three non-abc based models at the moment. And we came to this with some very clear parameters for the things that we wanted the business model to be able to do. So we wanted it to be sustainable. We wanted it to be not per unit pricing.
We wanted it to be able to support open science and then to be able to make participation accessible for people. And so starting with that framework, then I think it's very much around thinking about how you might do this in a different way. And I cannot emphasize enough how much partnering with someone who can bring that expertise from the outside, like in our case, consultant, but somebody who is able to really balance the in-house skills you have bring experience for us of not just plots, but working with other publishers or in other contexts to understand what the drivers are for library communities in terms of how they make decisions about how they allocate their budgets, and matching that with our experience of how our journals work and what's going to work for place and what places priorities are.
And I think that for us at least, leads to a more than the sum of its parts experience, which is really positive. Great thank you. I think, well, I'm looking forward to seeing the outputs from that project. OK next question. Another money question. What types of funding do you typically rely on.
Donor funding development. Philanthropic and how stable are they. How much do they sort of factor into your decision making around other types of pricing. So, Robert, maybe start with you. Yeah so one example, which I was on there somewhere, but that we started a diamond open access journal. And it's being funded by a single donor. And it's been funded in perpetuity because there's an endowment being created.
And so the interest will continue to come and hopefully grow and will fund that journal. So we have a we're lucky to have a good donor pool. Mathematicians give back as they go off and found hedge funds and things like that. But we also have grant funding. So mathjax that I was talking about also has grant funding and then we have our own reserves, which we will use for some things, and it depends on what that is and how much we want to spend and what the value is if we can't raise money elsewhere.
So sort of mixed model really. So the quick answer, which I'm really incapable of clearly is yes, a mixed model. I did actually want the details. So thank you. Let's just work our way down this way shall we. This time. Would you mind just repeating the question to make sure I answered the question you asked.
What types of funding do you typically rely on and how stable are they. So basically, what's the risk assessment between your self-generated revenue versus External Revenue. So I should probably say our CFO is here in the audience and will be checking if I know the answer to this question, she won't really. So basically we sustain ourselves. So in general like our business is self-sustaining and it's like it's earned revenue.
And that's how it works for this particular project. We did make the decision to go back out and look for grant funding and explicitly. And that's because it is really about a transformational change in what we do. That's how we're thinking about it. And finding funders who are willing to consider that, I think, has not only made it possible for us to do this work.
So, more foundation, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation are our funders. They're the people who've made the work possible, but they have also helped us to hone it into something that I think is actually a better project than it would have been without their suggestions and input, and really making us think through, how are you going to achieve the thing that you said that you were going to achieve.
Like it really pushes you. I think with grant funding, you have very specific commitments that you've made to your funder that you have to deliver on, whether in our case, whatever the outcome, you have to meet your commitments to your grant. And I think that actually has really helped us to be more focused in what we're doing and think it through a bit better. Great Nikki.
We're also probably a mixed model, but we are predominantly grant funded. So a few years ago, when we were deciding to move into the fee for service model, the mix was like 95% grants, 5% donations. That was unrestricted. And we've moved that needle. It's closer to 8085 now, but there's a long way to go. And everything else you said.
But some of those grants are government, which means they are highly restricted and some are more private foundations where you have a little bit more general support type of funds. So you can move it around to do different things. Thanks so for orchid, as I said, we reached break even in 2019 and happily reached break even in 99 2019. And what we very much agree with is with the policy principles, these principles for open science and scholarly infrastructure, that one time funds should not be used to fund ongoing operations, and the membership model provides a broadly diversified, ongoing funding.
So thank you. And in case anybody isn't already familiar with them, the principles are actually a really good place to start, not necessarily because you will agree with or be able to comply with all of them, but they're a good structure for thinking about these sorts of issues in your organization. OK last question and then we'll hand over to you. So please be thinking about your questions.
And this is the one I think that Nikki alluded to which is looking back, is there anything you do differently. Is there something you feel you did particularly well. What sort of lessons were learned. So one thing would you highlight as this we really got this right or I wish I'd done this. What's your lesson learned. And we'll head back along this way this time.
So I'm going to read this because a lot of things I think went well in my personal opinion, but mainly collaboration among mixed stakeholders was something that orchid did great. Clear sense of purpose to turn that vision into a sustainable operation. Something similar that what you said about to have clear expectations and vision and of course not least important, but the people around these initiatives have been and still are orchid passionate evangelists.
So that had had work great. Yes yeah. The passion is something money can't buy. Basically, Nikki, I answered a little bit of this in my talking, but I'll come back to it a little bit. I would say that when we started, we were not thinking about having a fee for service model. And so I think that the way that our product was developed and the way that it was even architected, made it very difficult for us to make that transition, meaning we had to invest more to even be able to offer certain interfaces and certain functionality to different views, if you will, as a product.
So I think that is a hindsight's always 20. I will say that I think that the product has done a great job of making it easy for researchers to use it. We've seen nonlinear growth. Over 850,000 researchers are using OSF, which I think is fantastic for open science. And, I think over time, we've been able to engage the right stakeholder academic institutions right now that see the value and want to support the long term sustainability.
But initially, we were all over the place with different stakeholders. So I think we honed it as time went on. But over time. Thank you. So I think a thing that has gone well, allowing that we're still kind of like halfway through our research project.
So was the time that we took at the beginning to actually think about the theoretical basis for what we want to do. So it's a bit like doing the research, the background research for your research project. And actually, rather than just going, I think I know what the answer is. And validating that I'm not completely but actually speaking to people and then feeling more so, feeling more sure that there is a real problem that you can go in and address and that it's a real thing.
The thing that really stands out to me as a thing that I've learned is something I alluded to but I think it's how difficult it is to bring people in to have somebody get up to speed with how your organization works, to understand where you're coming from, and to be able to push things forward in a new project. That's a huge amount to ask of somebody and people need it legitimately a lot of support to be able to do that. And it's not something you can do in five minutes.
And when you've got a time constraint project, you kind of have to think about how you're actually going to do that. Hiring people takes a while. Onboarding people takes a while. And then asking them to do a really strategic project with you that can be really difficult. So I think I would think about that in a more structured way in future.
And in my world of mathematics, nothing moves quickly. I think if we were, if our main weaknesses perhaps project management, I think sometimes we could do a much better job if we had some project management. And so we end up doing have I ideas. You have to execute them and actually do them. And that's probably not the best way to go about it. And we've got things done, especially with the examples that I provided.
And then perhaps just to add 1, just we again alluded to it, but we don't tell our story well enough. And to actually get engagement we need to tell that story. It's not just self-promotion, it's about actually engaging use. And I think we could do a better job with if we're looking back. Thank you all. So I'm going to slightly sum up in a very clever alliterative way to say passion, preparation, people, project management.
Oh, so pleased with myself. Thank you. So we do have a bit of time for questions. If you'd like to ask a question, please do come up and use the mic because this session is being recorded and that way the people who watch it will be able to hear what you have to say. So please, I hope you have some questions for us.
Don't all rush at once. No OK. Yes Amanda French with Crossref. I'm interested in whether you think that institutions in particular.
Typically, universities are reaching a saturation point when it comes to membership fee based services and organizations. What a brilliantly evil question, Amanda. OK, yes or no question. So not necessarily a great one, but yeah. Thank you. OK, who would like to take a stab at that. This is where I'm very glad I'm the moderator and not a speaker.
I can say two things in response to that. So the first one is that. When we've been thinking about the business model that we want to develop, we're really clear that it has to be instead of not as well as because there's just no way, I already know what the answer would be if I went in and said, hey, I have a new thing that I think you're going to love, and they'd be like, just leave me alone.
So like. So that's the first thing. And also, I will say and I'm sure others here share this pain. Coming like from as place. And this is something that's not new to the project we're doing now. But where traditionally most of our revenue relationships were not with University libraries.
You do you got to think of it as a long term thing, because people will come and say, I'd love to do this, but I haven't allocated budget to you before. And so the question is, what am I not going to have to have this. And so you do have to have a really compelling offer and a way to be able to support somebody's decision and to give them the information they need to be able to make a decision to allocate money to you instead of to somebody else.
But then there has to be a really good reason for them to want to do that. And it can't just be. My thing is brilliant. So I think it's really about understanding, what people's needs are and how you can align with them as closely as possible. In some way.
So mathematicians who are members of our society are also patrons of an institutional library. But it is a struggle. That's partly why we are constantly struggling to know exactly what we should offer open source, and if we are going to offer a product for sale, it has to be something that is of true value. So the work we're doing with more brains, for example, on math reviews, mathscinet it's really about just making sure that we extend the value of something that already is essential.
So it's future proofing, but it's not something that it's very difficult for us to launch a new product and expect that to be paid for by institutions who are suffering and will be suffering under the new institutional caps of indirect funds. So I think it's really hard. But we still have to serve our community. Mathematicians, other communities are still doing their research, at least for now.
Yeah particularly appropriate question at this time, in moments in time, isn't it Would either of you like to add anything. Yeah so I guess we are talking about delivering value. And I think that if you really show the value not only for them. But for the community, then it's very easy for them to get into it and get engaged as well.
So I guess that yeah, showing value support, also when you give examples or have another stakeholders that are showing that value, it's also important for them to understand these among the community. Thank you Amanda. That was a great question. If anybody else wants to comment on it in the audience, please feel free to as well.
I want you all to know that Neve is having a heart attack right now. So my question is, as you think you know what you're talking about, are the tactics that you've decided to do. So as you thought about what projects should we do. What is the right thing to do. How do I know that I made value from it. What is the Roi.
Sorry, I'm the CFO. The Roi in terms of that. How did you get to that. How did you think about funding it and how did you move towards being able to have the resources. So how do you make the decision to make a decision to do something in the first place. Is that.
Yeah OK making a decision in the first place is what. Let's take Matthew, for example, that I talked about before. We understood that accessibility is a vital way in which we needed to provide accessible content. And frankly, PDFs were not accessible. So we had to out, what were the models that we could use and develop that would provide accessibility.
And it's partly doing the right thing. It's partly a business proposition, because with the European Accessibility Act essentially coming in any day now, assuming the ADA still exists next year, that's going to come into force for both journals and books next year. So it's a business decision as well, really. Again, a protection, but it's the right thing to do. And that's the next step for us.
So we knew that's what we wanted to do. How to do it was a separate question. I can say that we actually offered what we now charge for free and offered it for quite a few years. Not saying that is the best model to use, but I can say that helped us make the decision that we started engaging those libraries and those institutions and just asking them, if we started to charge for this so that we could sustain the whole free public good.
OSF would you be willing to pay a low fee for that. And like 100% of them said yes. And so we were able to over time, not quickly flip that switch, but several years in the making, move that forward and have added many new members since then. So I guess for us it was really recognizing that the value proposition was already there. And then aligning on our shared goals in a way that made the value add service make sense for the people that would be paying for it.
That's a great note to close on because we are bang on time. Amazingly so. Please will you join me in thanking our speakers again for their.
Segment:0 .
OK. Hi everyone. Welcome to this session on delivering value at a mission driven organization. I'm going to talk just a little bit, but mostly we're focus is going to be on the four case studies you're going to hear. And I will introduce the speakers in just a moment. Actually I'll introduce them now.
So first of all, we have Anna Cardoso from orchid. Nikki Pfeiffer from Center for open science, Niall O'Connor from PLOS and Robert Harrington from the American Mathematical Society. And I think they'll all tell you a little bit more about their organizations and what they do there as part of their presentations, but to get going. So a little bit of housekeeping in a good way. First of all, I want to remind you that SSPs values are around community, adaptability, inclusivity and integrity.
And one of the ways that translates is in our code of conduct. You can look at the full code if you want to by scanning the bar code. Barcode but basically the gist of it is to treat each other respectfully, listen politely, engage with people with different views from you, and generally be good people. Really I guess.
So I'm going to just say a little bit to put this session in context. It came about because as part of the work that I do at Marlborough cooperative, we quite often work with mission driven, not for profit organizations, but obviously need to be sustainable and need to develop new products, but need to do so within that sort of tension between profitability and sustainability.
So all organizations, obviously, whether you're commercial or not for profit, needs to both achieve and then maintain financial sustainability. Without that, you're not going to survive, you're not going to thrive, you're not going to be able to do your work as an organization. Typically, commercial organizations need to be both sustainable and profitable because they want to deliver that profit back to their shareholders.
Not for profit organizations need to be sustainable, and they also need to make a surplus that they can then reinvest back into their community and into their organization. Both organization types typically need both short to medium term investment initially, and that's often through investors. At orchid, where I used to live, we were used to live, used to work.
Even we were lucky to get investment from a number of publishers and other research organizations as seed funding that saw us through and that got paid back. Chris Schilling was in the audience, so he'll correct me if I'm wrong about this, but around 2019, 2020, I think. Many commercial organizations will have Angel investors and things like that, who provide that sort of seed money.
But again, they're hoping to get that money back at some point or to see it being utilized in the service of the organization. This is not an exhaustive list, but some of the sorts of ways that not for profits achieve sustainability tend to include one or more of the following. So membership fees is one way. Publications including APCs, conferences, and then products and services.
And most of what we're going to talk about in the case studies today falls into that last category, I guess. So I think not for profits have some challenges, but they also have some opportunities in this space. So there's a real tension, I think, at a not for profit organization, how open should you be versus closed. Should this product or service that you're developing be for members only or for non-members? Should you should it be free for members but paid for non-members and so on.
How do you get the balance right between generating a healthy surplus versus being seen as profiteering? So there's lots of tensions there that you have to take into account, but also can be challenges around the return on investment. So how do you make a really clear business case for this investment that you're asking for, and how do you demonstrate that the short term costs are going to be worth the long term benefits.
On the opportunities side, I think that there's some real benefits, opportunities for not for profits around their community. Focus you really know and understand what your community wants, and you're very engaged with them typically. So you have that really deep community engagement. You also have a trusted relationship with your community members, and that's super important because that's not always the case with commercial organizations.
It's not necessarily not the case, but often when there's a sort of commercial relationship, it makes for a different kind of relationship. Put it that way. I think another opportunity I've said return on investment is a challenge, but I think it's also an opportunity because typically not for profits do have more of a long term strategy. They can look further into the future and then really commit to that.
They're not doing that if you're in a publicly traded company, it's all about the quarterly returns. You might think you've got a long term strategy, but actually what you're measuring yourself on really is the quarterly shareholder reports. And also I think in many not for profits generating surplus is important, but it's secondary to serving the community which ties back into that sort of community opportunity idea.
So that's it from me. That's all you're getting in the way of context. Because really, I think the case studies are going to speak for themselves as examples of some of the ways a range of different not for profits are thinking about this and delivering products and services to respond to the needs of their community, but also their need to be sustainable to stay sustainable. So you're going to hear from Anna Cardoso about how orchid has adjusted its business model and engagement activities in Latin America to increase adoption there very successfully.
I think Nicki is going to talk about the Center for open science's work to develop a new business model that supports its mission. This is around ASF, the Open Science framework. Robert is going to talk about the American Mathematical society's efforts to develop a new content based product for mathematicians, and also some other work they're doing. And then neev will talk about his project to develop both the knowledge stack and a business model that supports a broader range of open science outputs.
So I've put below the questions that I asked them to address in their presentations. And we're also going to have a little bit of a discussion after that. And then we will turn it over to you for some questions from you. So I will hand over to Anna. Thank you. So I'm Anna Cardoso, and we've learned that telling stories is a good practice.
So I'm going to tell you a very brief story about ORCID. And it all started in 2007 when the need of persistent identifier system for published works, and another one for these people who was creating those words. Those words was very visible. And then a lot of people get involved, organizations get involved, and the conversations continue until 2010 that where we saw that business and policy working group was created, and especially very importantly as well, the creation of the 10 founding principles that you can find still in the orchid website, where formed by 2011, of course, the idea was there.
The business and policy working group was there, a lot of people were already involved, but what was needed was, of course, these resources to continue this initiative, but thankfully grants and loans came through different organizations, foundations, and publishers. So this was starting to get real. And finally, in October 2012, the registry launched and it exceeded really the expectations of the registrants, because only in the first week, 5,000 registrants were already in the registry.
By 2015, everything was going well with adoption with for researchers. But of course resources were going out and it was more needed there. So as someone said, an angel came and we got $3 dollars from Leona. And this was essentially to get more staff, to grow the staff and also to help for the consortium activities that we've started there.
Second story. Happy, happy story after break after break. Even so, finally in 2019, orchid reached break even. And since then we've posted a surplus. In 2021, there's a strategic plan was created, and this was to increase value to our stakeholders. While we maintain these two core goals of reducing administrative burden for researchers and helping our members, organizations understand the impact of the research that they facilitate and fund in 2022.
We were forgiven by the original Lenders these loans and we are using now. Orchid is using now these money to grant to fund or to give grants for these communities that need additional support. So a program, a GPP program or global participation program was created.
In fact, you can search this in our website. And now it's open in 2023. Finally the idea of the regional consortium was conceived. And this is exactly the case study I'm going to talk about. So in 2023. We did a lot of outreach around the Latin American Caribbean region, give a lot of talks about orchid, and we already know that there's a lot of adoption with researchers in the region.
But something was still missing. We even did some of this outreach with partners, partners like raw and DataCite. And we also know that since years ago that this region is a global leader in developing open research infrastructures, policies, and practices. But really, to grow adoption, orchid needed to work differently there in this region because in some countries, there was a lack of organizations to form a national consortium and also not a suitable candidate for a consortium lead organization.
So we need to think differently and do things differently. And the board at the end approved. The board approved to create original consortium. And in August 2023, the Latin American and Caribbean regional consortium was formed. This is led by the organization called consortia in Colombia, who was our previous national consortium lead with already 16 members.
Now they've grown up to 96 members in eight countries, and they keep growing. They have a lot of integrations, mainly with these platforms. And last but not least, while another milestone in the region is that we have two board members also from the region. So we have Soledad Bravo from Chile, from our Chilean consortium, and also Cesar from the regional consortium.
And that's it. Thank you. Thank you so much, Anna. And you got a better description of orchids. History from me, from her than you did from me. But now, over to Robert with the American Mathematical Society. OK thank you. Yeah, well, it says who I am on here, so I won't.
I'll skip that slide. Robert Harrington. I actually did try and I tried to get the title c-3po, but nobody wanted to give me that one. So how do I advance. Let's see. Oh, this. OK OK. So I'm not going to go into a lot of detail about the AMS.
Just know that we're old. I'm old. So it fits that I'm here. Maybe not quite as old as this though. So we were founded in 1888. We have 30,000 members. And there is this constant tension struggle, a happy tension, perhaps, between why we do what we do and how we fund ourselves, and how we support what we do what we're really here to do is to support the math community, our membership.
But the math community as a whole, we want to support the diversity of that community. We want to support research and education through that community. We want to work with other societies, such as the Ma and Siam and the London Mathematical Society, who we try and partner with when we can. I know that when I first came, gosh, it's 12.5 years now back into the AMS.
I came into the first board of Trustees meeting with all sorts of publishing jargon, thinking, gosh, am I clever or what. And of course, I just saw lots of mathematicians eyes glaze over and they just basically dropped off. So I had to reassess how to work with governance. And that's one of the key pieces of working at a society like ours is you really have to understand not just the why, but how of working across both business and mission.
And if there's a theme to today's what I'm going to talk about today is through these case studies. It is that struggle. I mean, how much should we make open source. How much should we give away. How much do we actually still need to do to make sure our operating income is relevant. But about 70% of our operating income comes from publishing. So that's significant.
It's about $25 million. So we can't just give everything away. On the other hand, everything we make is put towards programs and prizes and all the things that make the math community whole. So the case studies I'm going to use to explore that are some mathjax and AMS math view. I'll describe what they are, and I'm going to touch on a few other things quickly, assuming I don't get told to stop talking.
And the other ones here are mathscinet math reviews, the database discovery database that we have, and I'm working with Alice and her group more Brains On a new product there. How we launch something called MyOpenMath notes, really what I would call an archive preprint server for works in progress, books and lecture notes. And how we went about quickly, how we went about open access, thinking about open access, and what we're trying to now do with accessible journal archives and actually book archives, too.
But in terms of donor funds, open journal archives. So this is scary. It's math. And mathjax is a really wonderful example of what a society should do for its mission and how to go about doing that in context of its community. Mathjax essentially is a JavaScript engine for rendering, displaying complex math right in the browser, and it comes with all manner of support for assistive technologies such as screen readers and so on.
It's a 501(c)(3. We, the AMS and Siam, were right there at the beginning to support it, and we continue. I sit on the steering committee, but it broadened out. So we have a steering committee comprising at the moment, I think it's Elsevier. IEEE, Siam and ourselves around that. But it changes over the years. So it's very much a partnership, but it's open source.
It's something that we decided actually that we would basically do for the community. It's not cheap and the development is not cheap, and it's got a lot of expertise. And David Sullivan from Union College and Volker sorg, I think he's at Birmingham now, but was and Peter krautzberger were the engines behind this, the intellectual engines behind this. And it continues to develop.
And it's pretty much everyone who uses math online now. And certainly complex math is using mathjax, whether you know it or not. So this is a wonderful example of how mission and in a sense, how business works together. If we've done something, if there was something I'd rather have done better here is that we don't always trumpet ourselves. The AMS is very quiet about its achievements. I mean, I'm not sure how many of you know what the AMS actually does.
We live in this building that people think is an Nsa building, but it's actually right off 95 in Providence. And I don't just terrible about basically self-promotion. So that's why I'm employed, I think because I'm pretty good at self-promotion. So from the rendering engine, the next step was to think about how we could actually go beyond the straight PDF to a more accessible way of looking at complex mathematics and not to mimic a print form.
So we developed something called AMS math viewer. This was actually developed. It was inspired. I don't if you remember e-life lens, which was developed by substance. It really came from that as an inspiration. The two panel interactive view on content. But then we quickly realized that for math, we needed to do some other things when we really wanted to go towards the accessibility route.
So again, providing support for a significant using the Wai ARIA module to really provide semantic metadata and support for screen readers. So everything we're trying to do here is not just about what's cool, but about what is accessible to those who might need accessible options. But you can click through to equations and bring them out and bring them out. You can go right through to math reviews, mathscinet, and you can do all sorts of things interactively with this content.
And all our journals are now on this AMS math viewer. OK, so that's the product. What are we doing with it. And we've developed this. We've spent quite a lot of dollars doing this and we're struggling with that. I mean, we've made elements of the workflow, the tool chain, copyleft available. On the other hand, it's valuable.
So should we just make this open source and give it to everybody. Should we develop it and actually brand it. But then if we market it as ours and sell it, we also have to provide support. You can't just launch a product like this into the market and not provide support. And we're not a software company. So what do we do with it. And I'm not entirely sure we know at this point.
Now, it's something we're using. And the next step for us is to put it through to our book program, develop. That's how we're producing EPUBs again, for complex math. It's a conversion from latex through MathML to HTML. And the next step beyond that is for the society as a whole. How do we take that and give educators in their institutions the ability to click and play and put their lecture notes online using something based on math viewer so that they don't have to have these static PDFs.
Again, this is a wonderful example, and I need to wrap it up apparently, but I'm nowhere near the end, so. I'm going to go really fast. OK, so the next quick thing is just with math reviews. Mathscinet I touched on and we're working with Alice's more brains. It's a wonderful discovery database with 4 million articles in it.
Actually, I was going to talk about how in Germany this came over during the war, it was a red line and so on. I'm not going to wrap up quite yet. Sorry but anyway, it's one of those entities that really needs gosh, I'm now struggling how to wrap up. It's when working with more brains to develop a product there and that we are going to market as an actual product, but it's about the survival of the product itself.
I won't go into the other ones. I guess the only thing I do want to put up there. And I feel very strongly about this, is we announced at our council meeting a few weeks ago that our way of adding ourselves to a collective voice, to among hopefully a y-intercept of voices to. Resist what's happening out there is to provide actual support for our community. So we from our endowment, we're basically saying that $1 million, it's not a lot.
It's a bit like, saying I $1 million. It's not a lot of money. But compared to what NSF provides. But for the Association of Women in mathematics that lost their travel mentoring grants, it's important for us. We're going to support that. And it's not actually about us doing that. It's about how we all should collectively add, even if it's small gestures, limited gestures, if we collect a collective voice of individuals, is a collective voice that actually adds up and supports our communities.
So I think probably I will stop there because I have clearly gone way over time, I apologize. Thank you. Robert I think I'm going to make him do one of those Machu Picchu type things. Where the slides just progress next time. OK next up is Nikki from Center for open science. All right.
Thank you. Hard to follow, Robert. I'll try to do my best and keep it brief. Just a little bit about the Center for open science. Some important facts on here. But also just to call out the mission to increase the openness, integrity and reproducibility of research. Again, this is all nonprofit, mission driven organizations.
One of the things that maybe is unique is our approach to systematic approach to culture change. And so you'll see on the I guess it's your right side. This pyramid of different things that we believe are interdependent, that lead to culture change. So making it possible, making it easy, making it normative, rewarding, and required to really advance the culture towards more open scholarship practices.
So with that in mind, I'm going to focus down at the bottom of that pyramid and talking about the make it possible, make it easy piece, which is where I focus my time on the Open Science framework, which is a free open source tool that researchers use to manage and collaborate on their projects. And it supports them all the way through the entire research lifecycle, from planning to conducting to reporting, and to discovering others research.
But one part of this is the sustainability piece. And it's something, to be honest, cause has been confronted with and struggling with since its inception. We want to have this tool be free, easy to use, a public good if you will, but sustaining staining public goods is not free, and so finding the fee for service or revenue model that will support that, that's not grants, because over time that really wears out a team is to constantly be trying to churn and bring in New money.
And honestly, we know that funders don't want to support the maintenance work of technology. And so no matter what, we've been confronted with this, but we also have this other piece of tension, which is culture change is what we're trying to achieve, which means we're changing behavior, which means you're putting people towards workflows that make them uncomfortable. And the market, if you will, to counter that, would want more of the status quo.
So incremental minor changes to just improve their day to day activities versus big changes in behavior and practice. So that's a challenge that we've had to work through. So when we get to thinking about this case study and the business model, I think the things that are presented here are thinking about what is that value proposition. We have shared goals that we want to achieve for researchers and other research stakeholders.
And the one that I'm going to focus on is academic institutions, because all of us are supporting the researcher from one aspect of this. It is important to make sure that we're making it easy for researchers. And so that's always underpinning the activities that we're doing. But that's also what academic institutions want to. And then providing access to the librarians, to the content that researchers are doing all of their activities, making that fair, making it easy.
And so it's providing value added services that share those insights of what researchers are doing easy in their workflows, meeting them where they are providing a couple of key aspects of the work that the way that they already do their work. So integrating with their identity providers to logging into platforms so they don't have different accounts, things can be interoperable and more streamlined.
Reduce the burden on them. But then also, librarians really care about the metadata and the fairness and the PIDs. And so providing those tools in time, just in time with researchers, has been a key part of the business model that we've been able to provide. And so, those dashboards and insights and then access when researchers can actually tap into the access in the institutions that they have to support metadata and other curation activities.
And we're five years in sorry, five years into this business model, which didn't start until after five years of OSF. And so just to answer one of the questions Alice is going to ask is, what would I go back and change is actually thinking about this from the beginning and thinking about what are those value added services, and try to develop those in real time with the platform itself, the free side, plus the fee for service side.
All right. I think I'm passing it on. Thank you. Thank you. Nikki and last but not least, we'll hand over to neev. Thanks, Alice. So, as you said, I'm Neha O'Connor from place.
And actually, I realize how well you have organized this. Because now I can refer to how the approach that we are taking to a project that we are doing actually builds on the pyramid that Nikki showed in her slides. So what I want to talk to you about, just as a case study is a project that we are doing at the moment, which is about rethinking how we publish to support open science.
And this is a project for which we've got Grant funding from the Moore Foundation and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. And the way that we are coming to this is really thinking about how we want to be able to move more towards an open science ecosystem. So as a publisher, what's our role in making that possible. And so one of the things that I think happens a lot in this kind of framing of things is that everybody gets a bit stuck because everybody's like, well, we can't this is a multi-stakeholder problem.
As a publisher, we can't really move until the researchers move and the researchers can't really move until the funders move and the funders can't really move until, like the policy moves and the institutions move. And so everybody ends up saying, well, I can't really do anything because these people need to come with me. So we were thinking about this in terms of what can we change.
What can we do to show that it is possible just to move a bit so that at least you start doing that thing. To show like that, you're making it possible and hopefully making it easier. And then hopefully you get to that can make it normative part. And from there, you try and climb up the pyramid. So the way that we were approaching this is really thinking about the article. A lot of background work has gone into this, which I will not talk about because it would take too long.
But basically publishing is still so focused on articles, and while articles are great and they do a good thing, everything doesn't need to be an article. And so we've got this thing where because of the incentive system and the fact that researcher credit is very tied into articles and articles are the things that people count, and articles are how people often think of their business now, and they're like units of revenue and our unit of dissemination.
So everything is about an article, which actually isn't really how science works. And so that's not really how you would think about it if you were designing a system not for print, but for a digital age. Would you start with an article. Probably no. So that's what we're really thinking about. And there are two parts to the project.
One is actually thinking about this kind of beyond the article. So how do you think about the capabilities that you need to be able to make different say, the UK research excellence framework are referred to as non-traditional outputs. So that means not articles basically. How do you make them visible. How do you make them discoverable. How do you make them attributable to people.
And how do you allow people to be evaluated for a contribution to a data set, or for creating some code in the same way that they can be as the author of an article. And at the same time. And if I think in the context of this session, this is one of the really important things, we are simultaneously developing a business model that moves away from that per unit way of thinking and really begins to purposely support an open science ecosystem.
So how do you have a model that emphasizes service over output units, where you can sustain our publishing capabilities and still enable broader participation in open science. And the part that you can see in blue on my slide, or for anyone who isn't seeing it is blue, then it will be. It's on the right hand side. You can see the different stakeholders that we have to engage with, understand their needs and think about in different parts of this project.
Digital ecosystem. I think most of these are relatively straightforward and self-explanatory. The digital ecosystem are things like Crossref making sure that if you're publishing different types of outputs, that they're going to be properly disseminated and LinkedIn, that the metadata works. So that's what we're doing. And this is a research and design project.
So we're in the phase of actually developing this. And of at least through to next year. At which point we will begin to think about implementation and really having this become quote unquote, real. But I wanted to leave you with a slide, because when we were preparing for this, one of the things Alice was saying is she wanted us to suggest something either provocative or come back and think about things we'd learned.
So I was thinking about that and not just in the context of this project, but I've spent my whole career at nonprofits and the things other people have said about Robert, you mentioned governance and trying to get people engaged is something I'm really familiar with. And so I was thinking about what are the things that I think are useful. And I think my major message is really have to know why you are doing the thing.
In societies that I have worked in previously, this has been very much a no pet project. There's always someone who is telling you that they know the answer to all the things, and so you really have to have some evidence that you are addressing a validated stakeholder need. Now, that doesn't mean that you ignore the things that your colleagues with years of experience of hearing people tell you their pain points, don't.
That's not a thing to ignore, but you take that and you go out and just check. Is that still the experience that people are having. Is that still the need. Is that still what somebody wants. And I would say my major career learning has been really need to know your organization's appetite for risk. I used to think I was a very risk averse person. I have discovered that I am really wrong about that.
I'm really wrong about that. That is because I know other people who have a larger appetite for risk than me. But really particularly, I would say in a governance led organization. So this isn't so much a place thing, but my previous experience, governance led organization, somebody is enrolled for three or five years or whatever. They do not want it to fail on their watch, which often drives people into really risk averse behavior.
So you've got to think about, what's going to make it safe for them. How are you going to show this is a good way forward, develop really clear expectations, kind of an extension of the same point. You really have to share understanding of context. And what I mean by that is, even if you are hiring in someone to work on your project, how much about your organization's context do they need to understand.
I would say joining place. There is usually a conversion period for people, and I mean that in the nicest way. It's kind of a lot of what you've been told. So I'll use a personal example. I'm the chief publishing officer of place. I don't know what the impact factors of journals are. I doubt there are many chief publishing officers who can say that.
It's certainly not something I could have said as a publisher in previous roles. And so you really have to spend a while going, yeah, that's not the driver for this. So make sure that the people who are coming in from the outside are not carrying things with them, and that you have a really strong link to your mission. And then the obvious things which I know any of you who've been involved in projects would say it's going to be more work than you thought.
It's going to take more resource than you thought. It will take longer than you think. And then my final point for now is your comms team are really your best friend, like Annie, are you saying you want to tell a story. And it's exactly that thing. You have to be able to tell the story of the thing that you're doing. Otherwise, no one is going to listen to you because they don't care.
Because they have other things to do. So make sure that you really and I will say in that having a best friend, also make really sure that you know what your expertise is on the business model side of this work. We're partnering with Remco, who's the consultant who developed the scribe two open, worked with us on community action publishing. He has expertise that we don't have in-house.
He comes with really good understanding of how that works, and with somebody who has that perspective and can bring something you don't have is super important. So sorry, I've probably been a bit too long, but I'll leave it there. Thanks well, thanks to all of you. We did plan for this meeting, but actually, I think it worked out even better than we planned. That was a great wrap up, Eve, which I think fed into everything that everybody else said.
And so I hope that you've learned something from these case studies. I'm going to plan to allow about 10 minutes for questions at the end, which means that we have about 10, just over 10 minutes for a little bit of discussion. So we have some questions that they've been prepped for in advance. And then we'll hand over to you. So the first question for you all is a very pragmatic one.
How did you decide what to charge for, how much to charge or how do you expect to do so. Who was involved. How was that whole process around the nitty gritty business of the money. How did that work. So I'm going to look at maybe Nicki first. She's like, I wish you hadn't done that. Sorry.
OK. I wasn't patient. That's such a tough question. I mean, for us, it. It was a lot of trial and error, to be really honest. We had multiple versions of different fee for service products that actually still exist right now. And that's one of the things we need to work on is actually consolidating and simplifying.
Exactly who are we trying to serve and support and make sure we truly understand everything they need. So I'd say it's a work in progress. And it takes trial and error. Good answer. Anna, what about you. Because I know there was a lot of thinking that went into the original consortium. Yeah so at the very beginning for orchid, it was a little bit tricky and difficult to find the exact fee model because the researcher need to be free of charge.
And that means the institutions need to pay for the service. So once that was in place. Yeah, we have this membership consortium model that works. And also we have the board members that every year review these fees. And this is based in our fee model. So we have six principles that you can also review in the website. But I mean it works because we stated we know what we want at the very beginning.
And then we'll a way of scaling through consortia. Thank you. I think that's a really important point, that sort of keeping your thinking on that aligned with your values and your principles is probably tricky, but is going to get you to a good solution at the end. Robert, what about you.
Thank you. I mean, it's really I think I touched on it before, but it's a combination of what can we do operationally. So we have to provide a model that makes sense, and we take that to our governance in a way that they can digest and understand. And then it's a question of risk. As Naeem was talking about. It's a question of what's a comfortable risk.
How much are you going to spend on any particular project. And if it's a lot, we have to say why pretty convincingly. And it's happened that we've done that. But you have to essentially governance has to take the decision based on your input in our case. Yeah OK. Any of you, I would love to hear because you did touch on this a little bit, but I don't know whether you can share a little bit about where you are in that process with the Beyond the APC thinking, or at least the process, not the decision making necessarily.
Yeah, the process definitely. So as I mentioned, I think the really big thing for us was making sure that kind of things that the way that we're thinking about the business model makes sense that they tie-in with our values, which is very much around. We've been doing work for some years now to try and transition away from per unit pricing or per unit models, and to work much more closely with a kind of institutional base based kind of models.
And so we were partly building on what we already knew, and that the things that we had learned from the models that we have, we have three non-abc based models at the moment. And we came to this with some very clear parameters for the things that we wanted the business model to be able to do. So we wanted it to be sustainable. We wanted it to be not per unit pricing.
We wanted it to be able to support open science and then to be able to make participation accessible for people. And so starting with that framework, then I think it's very much around thinking about how you might do this in a different way. And I cannot emphasize enough how much partnering with someone who can bring that expertise from the outside, like in our case, consultant, but somebody who is able to really balance the in-house skills you have bring experience for us of not just plots, but working with other publishers or in other contexts to understand what the drivers are for library communities in terms of how they make decisions about how they allocate their budgets, and matching that with our experience of how our journals work and what's going to work for place and what places priorities are.
And I think that for us at least, leads to a more than the sum of its parts experience, which is really positive. Great thank you. I think, well, I'm looking forward to seeing the outputs from that project. OK next question. Another money question. What types of funding do you typically rely on.
Donor funding development. Philanthropic and how stable are they. How much do they sort of factor into your decision making around other types of pricing. So, Robert, maybe start with you. Yeah so one example, which I was on there somewhere, but that we started a diamond open access journal. And it's being funded by a single donor. And it's been funded in perpetuity because there's an endowment being created.
And so the interest will continue to come and hopefully grow and will fund that journal. So we have a we're lucky to have a good donor pool. Mathematicians give back as they go off and found hedge funds and things like that. But we also have grant funding. So mathjax that I was talking about also has grant funding and then we have our own reserves, which we will use for some things, and it depends on what that is and how much we want to spend and what the value is if we can't raise money elsewhere.
So sort of mixed model really. So the quick answer, which I'm really incapable of clearly is yes, a mixed model. I did actually want the details. So thank you. Let's just work our way down this way shall we. This time. Would you mind just repeating the question to make sure I answered the question you asked.
What types of funding do you typically rely on and how stable are they. So basically, what's the risk assessment between your self-generated revenue versus External Revenue. So I should probably say our CFO is here in the audience and will be checking if I know the answer to this question, she won't really. So basically we sustain ourselves. So in general like our business is self-sustaining and it's like it's earned revenue.
And that's how it works for this particular project. We did make the decision to go back out and look for grant funding and explicitly. And that's because it is really about a transformational change in what we do. That's how we're thinking about it. And finding funders who are willing to consider that, I think, has not only made it possible for us to do this work.
So, more foundation, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation are our funders. They're the people who've made the work possible, but they have also helped us to hone it into something that I think is actually a better project than it would have been without their suggestions and input, and really making us think through, how are you going to achieve the thing that you said that you were going to achieve.
Like it really pushes you. I think with grant funding, you have very specific commitments that you've made to your funder that you have to deliver on, whether in our case, whatever the outcome, you have to meet your commitments to your grant. And I think that actually has really helped us to be more focused in what we're doing and think it through a bit better. Great Nikki.
We're also probably a mixed model, but we are predominantly grant funded. So a few years ago, when we were deciding to move into the fee for service model, the mix was like 95% grants, 5% donations. That was unrestricted. And we've moved that needle. It's closer to 8085 now, but there's a long way to go. And everything else you said.
But some of those grants are government, which means they are highly restricted and some are more private foundations where you have a little bit more general support type of funds. So you can move it around to do different things. Thanks so for orchid, as I said, we reached break even in 2019 and happily reached break even in 99 2019. And what we very much agree with is with the policy principles, these principles for open science and scholarly infrastructure, that one time funds should not be used to fund ongoing operations, and the membership model provides a broadly diversified, ongoing funding.
So thank you. And in case anybody isn't already familiar with them, the principles are actually a really good place to start, not necessarily because you will agree with or be able to comply with all of them, but they're a good structure for thinking about these sorts of issues in your organization. OK last question and then we'll hand over to you. So please be thinking about your questions.
And this is the one I think that Nikki alluded to which is looking back, is there anything you do differently. Is there something you feel you did particularly well. What sort of lessons were learned. So one thing would you highlight as this we really got this right or I wish I'd done this. What's your lesson learned. And we'll head back along this way this time.
So I'm going to read this because a lot of things I think went well in my personal opinion, but mainly collaboration among mixed stakeholders was something that orchid did great. Clear sense of purpose to turn that vision into a sustainable operation. Something similar that what you said about to have clear expectations and vision and of course not least important, but the people around these initiatives have been and still are orchid passionate evangelists.
So that had had work great. Yes yeah. The passion is something money can't buy. Basically, Nikki, I answered a little bit of this in my talking, but I'll come back to it a little bit. I would say that when we started, we were not thinking about having a fee for service model. And so I think that the way that our product was developed and the way that it was even architected, made it very difficult for us to make that transition, meaning we had to invest more to even be able to offer certain interfaces and certain functionality to different views, if you will, as a product.
So I think that is a hindsight's always 20. I will say that I think that the product has done a great job of making it easy for researchers to use it. We've seen nonlinear growth. Over 850,000 researchers are using OSF, which I think is fantastic for open science. And, I think over time, we've been able to engage the right stakeholder academic institutions right now that see the value and want to support the long term sustainability.
But initially, we were all over the place with different stakeholders. So I think we honed it as time went on. But over time. Thank you. So I think a thing that has gone well, allowing that we're still kind of like halfway through our research project.
So was the time that we took at the beginning to actually think about the theoretical basis for what we want to do. So it's a bit like doing the research, the background research for your research project. And actually, rather than just going, I think I know what the answer is. And validating that I'm not completely but actually speaking to people and then feeling more so, feeling more sure that there is a real problem that you can go in and address and that it's a real thing.
The thing that really stands out to me as a thing that I've learned is something I alluded to but I think it's how difficult it is to bring people in to have somebody get up to speed with how your organization works, to understand where you're coming from, and to be able to push things forward in a new project. That's a huge amount to ask of somebody and people need it legitimately a lot of support to be able to do that. And it's not something you can do in five minutes.
And when you've got a time constraint project, you kind of have to think about how you're actually going to do that. Hiring people takes a while. Onboarding people takes a while. And then asking them to do a really strategic project with you that can be really difficult. So I think I would think about that in a more structured way in future.
And in my world of mathematics, nothing moves quickly. I think if we were, if our main weaknesses perhaps project management, I think sometimes we could do a much better job if we had some project management. And so we end up doing have I ideas. You have to execute them and actually do them. And that's probably not the best way to go about it. And we've got things done, especially with the examples that I provided.
And then perhaps just to add 1, just we again alluded to it, but we don't tell our story well enough. And to actually get engagement we need to tell that story. It's not just self-promotion, it's about actually engaging use. And I think we could do a better job with if we're looking back. Thank you all. So I'm going to slightly sum up in a very clever alliterative way to say passion, preparation, people, project management.
Oh, so pleased with myself. Thank you. So we do have a bit of time for questions. If you'd like to ask a question, please do come up and use the mic because this session is being recorded and that way the people who watch it will be able to hear what you have to say. So please, I hope you have some questions for us.
Don't all rush at once. No OK. Yes Amanda French with Crossref. I'm interested in whether you think that institutions in particular.
Typically, universities are reaching a saturation point when it comes to membership fee based services and organizations. What a brilliantly evil question, Amanda. OK, yes or no question. So not necessarily a great one, but yeah. Thank you. OK, who would like to take a stab at that. This is where I'm very glad I'm the moderator and not a speaker.
I can say two things in response to that. So the first one is that. When we've been thinking about the business model that we want to develop, we're really clear that it has to be instead of not as well as because there's just no way, I already know what the answer would be if I went in and said, hey, I have a new thing that I think you're going to love, and they'd be like, just leave me alone.
So like. So that's the first thing. And also, I will say and I'm sure others here share this pain. Coming like from as place. And this is something that's not new to the project we're doing now. But where traditionally most of our revenue relationships were not with University libraries.
You do you got to think of it as a long term thing, because people will come and say, I'd love to do this, but I haven't allocated budget to you before. And so the question is, what am I not going to have to have this. And so you do have to have a really compelling offer and a way to be able to support somebody's decision and to give them the information they need to be able to make a decision to allocate money to you instead of to somebody else.
But then there has to be a really good reason for them to want to do that. And it can't just be. My thing is brilliant. So I think it's really about understanding, what people's needs are and how you can align with them as closely as possible. In some way.
So mathematicians who are members of our society are also patrons of an institutional library. But it is a struggle. That's partly why we are constantly struggling to know exactly what we should offer open source, and if we are going to offer a product for sale, it has to be something that is of true value. So the work we're doing with more brains, for example, on math reviews, mathscinet it's really about just making sure that we extend the value of something that already is essential.
So it's future proofing, but it's not something that it's very difficult for us to launch a new product and expect that to be paid for by institutions who are suffering and will be suffering under the new institutional caps of indirect funds. So I think it's really hard. But we still have to serve our community. Mathematicians, other communities are still doing their research, at least for now.
Yeah particularly appropriate question at this time, in moments in time, isn't it Would either of you like to add anything. Yeah so I guess we are talking about delivering value. And I think that if you really show the value not only for them. But for the community, then it's very easy for them to get into it and get engaged as well.
So I guess that yeah, showing value support, also when you give examples or have another stakeholders that are showing that value, it's also important for them to understand these among the community. Thank you Amanda. That was a great question. If anybody else wants to comment on it in the audience, please feel free to as well.
I want you all to know that Neve is having a heart attack right now. So my question is, as you think you know what you're talking about, are the tactics that you've decided to do. So as you thought about what projects should we do. What is the right thing to do. How do I know that I made value from it. What is the Roi.
Sorry, I'm the CFO. The Roi in terms of that. How did you get to that. How did you think about funding it and how did you move towards being able to have the resources. So how do you make the decision to make a decision to do something in the first place. Is that.
Yeah OK making a decision in the first place is what. Let's take Matthew, for example, that I talked about before. We understood that accessibility is a vital way in which we needed to provide accessible content. And frankly, PDFs were not accessible. So we had to out, what were the models that we could use and develop that would provide accessibility.
And it's partly doing the right thing. It's partly a business proposition, because with the European Accessibility Act essentially coming in any day now, assuming the ADA still exists next year, that's going to come into force for both journals and books next year. So it's a business decision as well, really. Again, a protection, but it's the right thing to do. And that's the next step for us.
So we knew that's what we wanted to do. How to do it was a separate question. I can say that we actually offered what we now charge for free and offered it for quite a few years. Not saying that is the best model to use, but I can say that helped us make the decision that we started engaging those libraries and those institutions and just asking them, if we started to charge for this so that we could sustain the whole free public good.
OSF would you be willing to pay a low fee for that. And like 100% of them said yes. And so we were able to over time, not quickly flip that switch, but several years in the making, move that forward and have added many new members since then. So I guess for us it was really recognizing that the value proposition was already there. And then aligning on our shared goals in a way that made the value add service make sense for the people that would be paying for it.
That's a great note to close on because we are bang on time. Amazingly so. Please will you join me in thanking our speakers again for their.
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