Cadmore media player playing video Innovative forms of scholarly publishing
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:
Innovative forms of scholarly publishing
Description:
Innovative forms of scholarly publishing
Thumbnail URL:
https://cadmoremediastorage.blob.core.windows.net/702576df-a79d-4a2a-a7ed-008c168201cf/videoscrubberimages/Scrubber_1.jpg?sv=2019-02-02&sr=c&sig=SnikOxKC%2F6UYwSXiRK66TtgS5GJwQc6F92VEhC0TXE8%3D&st=2023-09-21T08%3A29%3A16Z&se=2023-09-21T12%3A34%3A16Z&sp=r
Duration:
T00H34M51S
Embed URL:
https://stream.cadmore.media/player/702576df-a79d-4a2a-a7ed-008c168201cf
Content URL:
https://asa1cadmoremedia.blob.core.windows.net/asset-4068e6be-6220-4f57-9cec-a5968f5fd039/20 - Innovative Forms of Scholarly Publishing-HD 1080p.mov
Upload Date:
2021-06-03T00:00:00.0000000
Transcript:
Language: EN.
Segment:0 .
[MUSIC PLAYING]
ROBERT BOISSY: Well, hello, everybody. Welcome to this Niso Plus Innovative Forms of Scholarly Publishing discussion session. My name is Robert Boissy. I'm director of Account Development for Springer Nature, and I am here today to get the discussion going with Kath Burton, Stephanie Dawson, and Sara Cohen. And I am going to say one word first about our session.
ROBERT BOISSY: The word "innovative" is something we discussed before while we were getting ready for this session. And I think that we want to expand on that a little bit. And the ideas in publishings, development, the words can also be things like "evolution," "opportunity," and even "adaptation." So "innovation" kind of has company at the table today. And now, I'm going to let our speakers-- discussion leaders-- introduce themself, starting with Kath Burton, if you would.
KATH BURTON: Hi, thank you, Bob. As Bob says, I'm Kath Burton. And I work in portfolio development for the humanities journal program at Routledge Taylor & Francis. That kind of gives you a bit of a hint as to how I got here. My role involves engaging across the humanities to dig into challenges and opportunities for how we might develop our existing program in tune with the diverse publication needs of researchers and practitioners in the field.
KATH BURTON: I'm grateful to Niso conference organizers, and to my co-panelists today for the opportunity to spotlight some of the work we've been doing at Routledge, and to widen the conversation about publishing the humanities to a broader audience.
ROBERT BOISSY: Stephanie?
STEPHANIE DAWSON: Hi, I'm Stephanie Dawson, CEO of the startup ScienceOpen. I bring some rather contradictory experiences to the mix. So I studied biology at Yale and have a published paper on Drosophila genetics. And I got my PhD in German literature and have a publication on Faust in the German-- in the Goethe yearbook. So I worked for the publisher De Gruyter in Berlin, 270 years old, and went on to join the founding team of ScienceOpen, now eight years old.
STEPHANIE DAWSON: And as a head of a startup, I have spent the last years thinking a lot about where the publishing industry is heading, and how we can get there faster. And in case you don't know, ScienceOpen, just in a nutshell, we're an interactive discovery environment with over 67 million book and article records, and offer services for publishers from promotion, metadata services, all the way to open access hosting and full publishing solutions.
ROBERT BOISSY: OK, Sara?
SARA COHEN: Thanks, Bob. I'm Sara Cohen, and I am Senior Acquiring Editor for American Studies, Media Studies, and Music at University of Michigan Press. I have been at Michigan for two years. I've been working in scholarly publishing for 10. I started out actually working for a contractor who did some project management stuff for PLOS, and then went into the University press world, where I worked at Universal North Carolina Press for a couple of years as an assistant.
SARA COHEN: Then I was at Temple for six years. Now I'm at Michigan. Prior to working in scholarly publishing, I earned a PhD in English from the University of Minnesota. I'm not also an expert on fruit flies. I so many questions for Stephanie now. I'm also grateful to Niso and my co-panelists for the opportunity to present today, and to talk about some of the really cool digital publishing work that we've been doing at Michigan.
ROBERT BOISSY: OK, thank you for those good descriptions so everyone knows who's talking. And for the first question, I'm going to ask that the order be Kath, and then Sara, and then Stephanie. The first question is, we'd just like you to describe a project that you have worked on recently that you think maybe pushes the boundaries of publishing a little bit. So Kath, why don't you start us off.
KATH BURTON: OK, thank you. So over the past couple of years, we've been hearing more and more from scholars worldwide about engaged research practices in the humanities, finding that, increasingly, humanities scholars are doing work that is conducted with and for public partners in the course of the research, teaching, preservation, and programming that they're doing. So we're thinking that this publicly engaged research not only advances community life, but the diversity and inclusivity of the humanities, and also, perhaps a bit more significantly, bridges that divide between research and practice, positioning experts from the academy and community at the center of public narratives around the value of the humanities in society and addressing society's most pressing challenges.
KATH BURTON: So in partnership with the National Humanities Alliance, and in part inspired by Andrew W. Mellon-funded humanitiesforall.org database of over 1,800 publicly engaged humanities projects, we started to look more closely at the challenges, opportunities, and model practices associated with publishing publicly engaged research. We first brought together a collection of published books and journal articles that showcase the breadth of engaged scholarship being published.
KATH BURTON: And then, during February 2020, we convened a working group comprising publishers and scholars so that we could dig into the challenges, opportunities, and model practices associated with publication and publicly engaged scholarship. Well, I'm pleased to say that we actually made it through all of 2020's trials and tribulations, and the working group endured.
KATH BURTON: So in the course of that working group, we're drawing out the challenges. And we found that established publishing structures, for instance, associated with validating and maintaining integrity via peer review, profiling process as well as outcomes, the overall impact of the work and how this contributes to career progression, are evolving to embrace the new forms of knowledge emerging through the course of more engaged research practices.
KATH BURTON: To give this background a bit more life, and to draw an example from one of our working group participants, Darcy Cullen and colleagues from the University of British Columbia Press have created RavenSpace. It's a platform and model of publishing for community engaged interactive works in Indigenous studies. As Darcy tells it in the working paper that we've just published, RavenSpace came about through recognizing the need for publishing practices to adapt to new kinds of scholarship, and the ethical and methodological considerations particular to working with Indigenous peoples in their cultural heritage.
KATH BURTON: The RavenSpace platform, scholars and Indigenous communities, worked together to design and conduct their research. The resulting platform, therefore, supports collaboration and digital capacity building, as well as novel ways of presenting content produced in the course of the project. So RavenSpace projects, like those created in [INAUDIBLE] at [INAUDIBLE] represent the evolution of digital scholarship in the humanities, while pointing to the need for existing systems and traditional publication outlets to adapt and accommodate more of the engaged work being done.
KATH BURTON: Just to bring this back to the initial question, during the course of our project, we centered on four key challenges that could broadly be characterized as value, inclusivity, publishing lifecycle, and process. What perhaps connects these four challenges, and that we might dig into today, is a need for scholarly publications to evolve to better reflect the diverse processes, participants, and value of engaged scholarship that is now emerging across the humanities.
ROBERT BOISSY: OK, thank you, Kath. Sara is next up.
SARA COHEN: Thank you. So I recently worked on the first ever-- as far as we know-- peer-reviewed rap album, A.D. Carson's I Used to Love to Dream. And while there's scholarship about hip hop, this project is unique in that it performs what scholar Loren Kajikawa calls "hip hop as scholarship." And it takes the form of what the author calls a "mixtape essay," a hybrid genre that brings together the hip hop mixtape, the scholarly essay, and the personal essay.
SARA COHEN: Dr. Carson's work reflects on and theorizes his specific experience as a Black man in the US, while at the same time thinking through themes like home, family, and place. The album thinks deeply about Decatur, Illinois, which is the Rust Belt city that he's from. Oh my goodness, my notes just closed. What happens now?
ROBERT BOISSY: It's off the cuff then.
SARA COHEN: Yeah, it looks like maybe-- so anyway, I will try to do it off the cuff unless I can get back into my notes. Anyway, so this was a pretty unusual project for us to take on, not having published a hip hop album before. And some of the early, excellent work was done by my former colleague Mary Francis, who's now Director at Penn Press. Mary worked with one of our series editors at the Press to really think with the author about whether or not we could publish a rap mixtape, and also did the initial work on selling the author on working with us.
SARA COHEN: And I'm grateful to her for that. When I took over the project, I needed to figure out how to have it peer-reviewed, and I also needed to figure out how we would publish a hip hop mixtape essay. So I'm happy to talk about the peer review in the Q&A. I've been fielding lots of questions about that since we published this over the summer. But in terms of how we published it, we were able to do so largely because of the affordances of our digital publishing platform, Fulcrum.
SARA COHEN: Fulcrum allows us to publish traditional monographs in electronic form. But it also allows us to make what our director, Charles Watkinson, calls "book-like things" out of nontraditional materials. In this case, we created an EPUB out of Dr. Carson's liner notes, and embedded MP3 files of the tracks in the liner notes. Because of our commitment to accessibility at Michigan, there are also captions for the lyrics that are embedded in the EPUB.
SARA COHEN: And as he raps the lyrics, they highlight as you go through. And this is something intended for people with hearing impairments, but lots of folks who don't have any impairments said that it was great-- told us that it was great to be able to see the lyrics as he was saying them and kind follow along in that way. We also published several supporting materials for the project, including a short documentary about the making of the mixtape, a link to a playlist on Bandcamp, and a couple of pieces of writing that Dr. Carson published elsewhere but retained permission for.
SARA COHEN: And those pieces reflect on the tracks on the album, so they're great teaching tools. And if I'm allowed to close with a brag, we learned last week that the project received the 2021 Prose Award for Best eProduct, edging out some much more traditional products. So that was very exciting news for Dr. Carson and for the Press.
ROBERT BOISSY: That's great, Sara. Thank you for sharing that. Stephanie, you're up.
STEPHANIE DAWSON: I just love that project, I think. So fantastic. So we're coming at it from a slightly more STM focus. And one question that has been particularly relevant during the current COVID-19 crisis, but has also been building in urgency for some time, is whether we could speed up the research cycle by sharing work in progress.
STEPHANIE DAWSON: And I'm mostly talking about-- and mostly this is taking the form of-- the preprint, so buzzword of the year. And a project that ScienceOpen has been helping to develop is the UCL Press Journal UCL Open: Environment. It launched last spring. It has a completely transparent workflow based on open review of preprints. So authors submit their research article, and a quick internal review decides whether it is appropriate for the Journal and warrants expert review.
STEPHANIE DAWSON: If yes, the article is posted open access and flagged as a preprint with a CC-BY license. Editors, authors, and also readers-- so really trying to reach that kind of community input that CAP has really developed-- can invite expert reviewers. And after at least two open reviews have been posted-- and these are integrated with ORCID and with Crossref-- then the editor makes a decision, either requests revisions or accepts the manuscript for publication.
STEPHANIE DAWSON: It can go through multiple rounds of revision and review until it's finally ready. And at that point, it's professionally typeset in XML and published to the website. The journal has a relatively low APC. That's covered for all UCL authors. It's really embedded in the library, and really part of their mission to create new and more open outlets for the UCL community.
STEPHANIE DAWSON: So in this way, really early research results can be made available during the review process. For example, in an article published in the Journal about the environmental impact of single use masks in the UK was actually even mentioned in The Guardian during the peer review process, and has now been reviewed. So getting that information out there quicker, at least to start a discussion around it, was very important in April and May.
STEPHANIE DAWSON: So ScienceOpen is now working on a related preprint project with open review for the University of South Africa. We're also hosting Africa archive preprints, and making all of those-- all of those can take advantage of an interactive overlay that allows open peer review on all of those documents. So I really-- I think that preprints are here to stay.
STEPHANIE DAWSON: I think last year has really shown the benefit of getting that research out there faster. But I think they do need to be paired with an open expert review infrastructure. Beyond what ScienceOpen is doing, there are some really interesting projects out there by Review Commons, preLights is fantastic, Peerage of Science, Peer Community In, F1000, and the new eLife preprint review.
STEPHANIE DAWSON: So there are a bunch of us working on ways to actually review preprints and sort of bring those two needs together-- sort of the review and the speed of getting the early results out there. So I think we already heard that peer review will be something we'll probably come back to in the discussion, and happy to talk about that further.
ROBERT BOISSY: OK, very good. Yeah, we seem to have everything-- different emphasis in publishing. We have kind of different kinds of publishing objects in here. We have different approaches to review threading through. Would any of you like to comment on the others' projects before we go on to the next question? Or should we just keep going? All right, let's try to keep going then. So I'm going to ask that the order change up this time.
ROBERT BOISSY: We'll start with Sara, and then Stephanie, and then Kath. The question to you is, the publishing environment and scholarly processes in general seem to be moving towards openness. Can you take up that theme of openness in terms of its effects for readers, and librarians, and authors-- maybe some mixture of those if you can? So again, we'll start with Sara.
SARA COHEN: Sure, thank you. So when we talk about open access at Michigan, two issues about audience come up. The first is accessibility, which I spoke a little bit about in my response to the first question. Second is diversity, equity, and inclusion. At Michigan, we have a really strong commitment to accessibility across our publishing program. In order to ensure that our ebooks are accessible to folks with visual and auditory disabilities, we require that all of our authors create alt text for the illustrations in their books, and captions for any audio or visual materials that are going to go up on Fulcrum, our digital publishing platform.
SARA COHEN: And we talk about open access as another way to demonstrate our commitment to accessibility, because it makes our publications available to anyone, anywhere in the world who has an internet connection. Like many other publishers, we're also strongly committed to diversity, equity, and inclusion. And publishing open access is a way to ensure that we're being inclusive and that we're reaching a diverse audience with our publications, again, because the only barrier to the content is internet access.
SARA COHEN: So that's sort of the audience thing. In terms of how this impacts authors, I think that the more readers we can reach, the better it is for our authors. And I find that the majority of my authors are really open to the idea of open access publishing, seeing it as both a way to reach a wider audience, and in some cases, as a political imperative that makes their work available to the people that they write about.
SARA COHEN: And as Kath was talking about RavenSpace, I was thinking a lot about that, making sure that there's this open conversation between scholars and Indigenous communities who are writing about indigeneity. I think that's such an awesome project. Based on my conversations with colleagues at the Press, this isn't true across all disciplines. So not authors in all disciplines are as excited about OA as the authors that I work with.
SARA COHEN: And I think that's partially because I do media studies, I do music, I do American studies. These are all fields that-- where I think that people are particularly concerned about reaching a wider audience-- in some cases, a crossover audience with the work that they're doing. And then, of course, there's the big challenge of finding funding to make work available OA, right? Somebody's got to pay for it.
SARA COHEN: And so scholars, often, who are coming from smaller universities, or scholars who are adjuncts or other contingent faculty, have more trouble coming up with the funds to make stuff OA. That's one of the big challenges that we encounter at the Press. I'm happy to talk about that more in the Q&A. And those are sort of my thoughts there. I didn't talk much about librarians, but I'm hoping my sister panelists will do that.
ROBERT BOISSY: [LAUGHS] OK, we're going to switch to Stephanie then.
STEPHANIE DAWSON: OK, so what-- we're realizing that "open," once applied really at the article level, is now being applied to the whole process. At an early stage, hypotheses are being shared openly as registered reports. Data collection is being done collaboratively in the open, and stored in fair data repositories. Preliminary results are being published as preprints.
STEPHANIE DAWSON: Open review reports are posted with a CC-BY license, and so on. So I really think it will be impossible to put that genie back into the bottle. And I don't think we want to. I think real collaboration requires sharing, and not just-- and we're seeing that that sharing can be spread out throughout the entire process.
STEPHANIE DAWSON: And this definitely increases the opportunities for authors to make part or all of the process open. And I think that's one thing that we're also seeing, that authors maybe feel more comfortable with some pieces of the process and less with others. There are authors who love the collaborative data work, but in the end, still want to publish that paper in a prestigious journal.
STEPHANIE DAWSON: And vise versa, authors who would, of course, publish open access, but open data is something they don't even want to start discussing. So I also think that this-- spreading this across processes is increasing the challenges of curation for librarians. And as more and more of the library budget is spent to fund open projects, and fund also everything from open data all the way to paying for APCs, I think libraries need more and more to think of new and attractive ways to showcase the open access projects of their faculty and students.
STEPHANIE DAWSON: This is-- we're doing some interesting work with the UCL library on highlighting the outputs around the sustainable development goals, highlighting the outputs around COVID-19. And I think there can be some really interesting ways that the libraries can rethink, when as a certain larger amount of their budget goes towards paying for open, how can they present that in different ways.
STEPHANIE DAWSON: So less thinking about curating for their own communities, and really thinking about, OK, we're curating-- we're creating open for the world. How does that change our mission? And I think that's something that I'm starting to pick up more and more in different discussions.
ROBERT BOISSY: OK, Kath, you get the last word on openness here.
KATH BURTON: Thank you, Bob. I appreciate both Sara and Stephanie's comments before. And I think some of the things that I'm going to talk about echo some of the things that have already gone before, not least around some of that evolutionary practice in terms of opening up parts of the research cycle, and exposing that to a broader range of audiences, but also perhaps just opening up the evolution of the diverse elements of the research ecosystem.
KATH BURTON: It kind of makes me think about those things really lending themselves to more openness in publication generally, rather than so specifically around issues of open access and accessibility, and obviously an underlying cost, and business models that are associated those structures. So it's kind of that spirit of sharing, and collaborating, and preserving that I think is echoed in some of the engaged humanities research practices that I've previously been describing.
KATH BURTON: For instance, working with public partners requires a different set of skills in partnership building and collaboration, and can often be really valuable but messy process that's worth sharing around. And that process, simultaneously, isn't always codified in traditional publications or traditional ways. So we're starting to see how opening up the underexposed research processes can boost the impact of scholarly communications, something akin to what, I think, Stephanie was getting at with some of the STG processes, and some of those other parts of the process that don't typically get talked about much, which in turn, I think, maybe provides authors, librarians, and readers alike with opportunities to gain insights into new forms of knowledge and tackle those grand challenges in everyday life.
KATH BURTON: But I do recognize there are some tensions here. And that's perhaps to be expected when new ways of doing come about. But I guess I'd just like to zoom in on one dimension of this move towards openness that might be worth touching on collectively. And that's sort of focusing-- I'm not sure this is entirely the right word-- but guidance, or perhaps training.
KATH BURTON: Sometimes we find that that practical support and guidance for open scholarship practices in support of engaged research in the humanities feels like an area that isn't necessarily invoked in everyday conversation about openness, but is definitely an area where those involved in both scholarly and publishing processes can support readers, librarians, and authors to embed more of openly engaged practices across the research and publishing lifecycle.
KATH BURTON: So if we could maybe find ways to navigate an increasingly digital complex publishing workflow, which can be a challenge for all, we could also present a neat opportunity to those involved in scholarly communications to support new scholarly practices now emerging. Not only adapt the workflows and processes to accommodate more openly the work being done, but to work alongside scholars to create tools and resources that support this evolution.
KATH BURTON: There is that obvious cost element here. And obviously, resources are scarce. But if we want our system to truly evolve in line with the changing research ecosystem, perhaps training and guidance seems like a solid investment in an area where we need to put our focus.
ROBERT BOISSY: Hmm, OK. All right, very good. We're doing well on time. Our last question-- kind of the capstone here-- maybe is a little briefer. But we're going to ask you each to tell us something about the structure of publishing itself. Specifically, what I'd like each of you to consider is, what really deserves to endure in scholarly publishing, and what kinds of walls can just come right down?
ROBERT BOISSY: And to answer this, I'm going to start with Stephanie, and then Kath and Sara. So Stephanie, what's coming down and what's staying with us?
STEPHANIE DAWSON: So being in Berlin, we always like to talk about walls coming down. So [LAUGHS] good intro. I believe that an essential part of the work that academic publishers do is to verify and validate research by organizing expert peer review. And this can and really must endure. I think this is one of-- at the heart of what academic publishers do.
STEPHANIE DAWSON: But I also believe that this review should be as open as possible. So for me, the walls of that black box of peer review can come down. But peer review is often used not just to confirm academic rigor, but also to identify and reward excellence. And those rewards of excellence have been traditionally tied to financial incentives for publishers and authors.
STEPHANIE DAWSON: And open access, I think, has really started to change that equation. And I think we need to see more innovation in the area of business models that can support both open, and reward excellence in novel ways. And I don't think we are there yet. I think there's a lot of work still to do. I see us making really novel open products.
STEPHANIE DAWSON: But I think we still need to come up with some good ways to finance and reward those.
ROBERT BOISSY: OK, got it-- I just-- if you see me pause anywhere in here, it's because I'm taking notes. We're going to switch over to Kath.
KATH BURTON: I think I probably just have one word. And I don't mean to sound trite, but it is humans. And so not to be too simplistic, but that's what I think, or that's what, or rather who must endure in our scholarly communications endeavor. We're going to be embracing a more digitally diverse research and publishing ecosystem. We're going to require more brains. Yes, we can take it-- I apologize for the tinkle in the background if you heard it.
KATH BURTON: Yes, we can take advantage of the technologies. But we also need the people to work out what that means for us individually and collectively, and to provide support for our scholarly communities. So I think somewhat connectedly to that point, barriers to cross-sector collaboration can come down. We found this in our working group, that we share a lot of similarities regardless of backgrounds.
KATH BURTON: That the diverse perspectives of publishers and scholars alike combined to shape openly, effectively, what matters in terms of the evolving scholarly communications landscape.
ROBERT BOISSY: OK, so Niso recommended practice-- keep the people. Very good! Sara, what have you got to say on the topic?
SARA COHEN: Well, that's a tough act to follow, to keep the humans. And I'm going to actually go back and kind of echo what Stephanie said, which I think is also very much about the humans, because I am extremely conservative about peer review. And I think that that's part of the human touch is the humans who vet projects at the early stage, like me as an acquisitions editor, and then the people who vet it beyond that in the form of peer review, and then the people who vet it even beyond that in the form of book reviewers, and bloggers, and things like that.
SARA COHEN: So I really think that the curation and the vetting that we do is what makes our work as scholarly publishers unique, and what adds value to our publishing program. I think that there's lots of room to think about what peer review looks like. I'm fascinated by the open peer review model that Stephanie has been talking about. I know a little bit about it. I don't know how it would work in humanities monograph publishing, but it's something I'd love to keep thinking about.
SARA COHEN: And I think that one of the big things we can rethink in peer review is who counts as an expert-- getting beyond this model that it has to be a tenured faculty member somewhere. I also think there's always room to make the peer review process kinder and more generous. And that's something that I'm always trying to think about. I think it can be a really mean, rotten process, and I don't think it has to be.
SARA COHEN: In terms of what walls can still come down, I love the answers that my sister panelists have given. And I really struggled answering this question. Not because I think that everything's perfect, but just because I think sometimes it's hard to think of what the walls are that need to come down until you hit those walls. But one of the things that I wanted to mention is that I'd like to see-- perhaps unsurprisingly, based on the other things I've talked about on this panel, I'd like to see more scholarship that moves away from text as the primary medium.
SARA COHEN: So in addition to the mixtape essay that I talked about, we've also published a project that's a series of podcasts-- pardon me-- accompanied by an introductory essay. [CLEARS THROAT] We have another series of podcasts coming out by the same author. And I think this is a really cool model for scholars to work in, especially people who work in sound studies or who are thinking critically about sound. And in April, we're publishing a project on screen composing that the author describes as a video monograph.
SARA COHEN: And here, each chapter has a video accompanied by a short essay. And each video is made by the author to kind of demonstrate how to do this practice of screen composing that he's writing about. So I'm going to definitely keep thinking about ways that we can publish stuff that doesn't look like a monograph. And again, I appreciate the suggestions that Kath and Stephanie had here.
SARA COHEN: I think they had really great responses.
ROBERT BOISSY: Oh, that's great. I am going to ask is if anybody has any final comments that they need to get in before we switch to the next phase of our discussion session. Any last things? OK, well, we're going to leave it to that then. And I want to say it's been a great privilege to work with this group. I'm really thrilled with it.
ROBERT BOISSY: And I know there will be a lively discussion with the full Niso Plus complement coming up. I'd like everybody to be thinking along the lines of, is there a role, perhaps, for Niso to be involved in some area of recommended practice? I wasn't just making fun of that. I want people to think about that. If there's something that needs to be kind of organized in any of what we talked about, I'd like the audience to think about that.
ROBERT BOISSY: But with that, I am going to say let's move on to our next section of the discussion. [MUSIC PLAYING]
Segment:0 .
[MUSIC PLAYING]
ROBERT BOISSY: Well, hello, everybody. Welcome to this Niso Plus Innovative Forms of Scholarly Publishing discussion session. My name is Robert Boissy. I'm director of Account Development for Springer Nature, and I am here today to get the discussion going with Kath Burton, Stephanie Dawson, and Sara Cohen. And I am going to say one word first about our session.
ROBERT BOISSY: The word "innovative" is something we discussed before while we were getting ready for this session. And I think that we want to expand on that a little bit. And the ideas in publishings, development, the words can also be things like "evolution," "opportunity," and even "adaptation." So "innovation" kind of has company at the table today. And now, I'm going to let our speakers-- discussion leaders-- introduce themself, starting with Kath Burton, if you would.
KATH BURTON: Hi, thank you, Bob. As Bob says, I'm Kath Burton. And I work in portfolio development for the humanities journal program at Routledge Taylor & Francis. That kind of gives you a bit of a hint as to how I got here. My role involves engaging across the humanities to dig into challenges and opportunities for how we might develop our existing program in tune with the diverse publication needs of researchers and practitioners in the field.
KATH BURTON: I'm grateful to Niso conference organizers, and to my co-panelists today for the opportunity to spotlight some of the work we've been doing at Routledge, and to widen the conversation about publishing the humanities to a broader audience.
ROBERT BOISSY: Stephanie?
STEPHANIE DAWSON: Hi, I'm Stephanie Dawson, CEO of the startup ScienceOpen. I bring some rather contradictory experiences to the mix. So I studied biology at Yale and have a published paper on Drosophila genetics. And I got my PhD in German literature and have a publication on Faust in the German-- in the Goethe yearbook. So I worked for the publisher De Gruyter in Berlin, 270 years old, and went on to join the founding team of ScienceOpen, now eight years old.
STEPHANIE DAWSON: And as a head of a startup, I have spent the last years thinking a lot about where the publishing industry is heading, and how we can get there faster. And in case you don't know, ScienceOpen, just in a nutshell, we're an interactive discovery environment with over 67 million book and article records, and offer services for publishers from promotion, metadata services, all the way to open access hosting and full publishing solutions.
ROBERT BOISSY: OK, Sara?
SARA COHEN: Thanks, Bob. I'm Sara Cohen, and I am Senior Acquiring Editor for American Studies, Media Studies, and Music at University of Michigan Press. I have been at Michigan for two years. I've been working in scholarly publishing for 10. I started out actually working for a contractor who did some project management stuff for PLOS, and then went into the University press world, where I worked at Universal North Carolina Press for a couple of years as an assistant.
SARA COHEN: Then I was at Temple for six years. Now I'm at Michigan. Prior to working in scholarly publishing, I earned a PhD in English from the University of Minnesota. I'm not also an expert on fruit flies. I so many questions for Stephanie now. I'm also grateful to Niso and my co-panelists for the opportunity to present today, and to talk about some of the really cool digital publishing work that we've been doing at Michigan.
ROBERT BOISSY: OK, thank you for those good descriptions so everyone knows who's talking. And for the first question, I'm going to ask that the order be Kath, and then Sara, and then Stephanie. The first question is, we'd just like you to describe a project that you have worked on recently that you think maybe pushes the boundaries of publishing a little bit. So Kath, why don't you start us off.
KATH BURTON: OK, thank you. So over the past couple of years, we've been hearing more and more from scholars worldwide about engaged research practices in the humanities, finding that, increasingly, humanities scholars are doing work that is conducted with and for public partners in the course of the research, teaching, preservation, and programming that they're doing. So we're thinking that this publicly engaged research not only advances community life, but the diversity and inclusivity of the humanities, and also, perhaps a bit more significantly, bridges that divide between research and practice, positioning experts from the academy and community at the center of public narratives around the value of the humanities in society and addressing society's most pressing challenges.
KATH BURTON: So in partnership with the National Humanities Alliance, and in part inspired by Andrew W. Mellon-funded humanitiesforall.org database of over 1,800 publicly engaged humanities projects, we started to look more closely at the challenges, opportunities, and model practices associated with publishing publicly engaged research. We first brought together a collection of published books and journal articles that showcase the breadth of engaged scholarship being published.
KATH BURTON: And then, during February 2020, we convened a working group comprising publishers and scholars so that we could dig into the challenges, opportunities, and model practices associated with publication and publicly engaged scholarship. Well, I'm pleased to say that we actually made it through all of 2020's trials and tribulations, and the working group endured.
KATH BURTON: So in the course of that working group, we're drawing out the challenges. And we found that established publishing structures, for instance, associated with validating and maintaining integrity via peer review, profiling process as well as outcomes, the overall impact of the work and how this contributes to career progression, are evolving to embrace the new forms of knowledge emerging through the course of more engaged research practices.
KATH BURTON: To give this background a bit more life, and to draw an example from one of our working group participants, Darcy Cullen and colleagues from the University of British Columbia Press have created RavenSpace. It's a platform and model of publishing for community engaged interactive works in Indigenous studies. As Darcy tells it in the working paper that we've just published, RavenSpace came about through recognizing the need for publishing practices to adapt to new kinds of scholarship, and the ethical and methodological considerations particular to working with Indigenous peoples in their cultural heritage.
KATH BURTON: The RavenSpace platform, scholars and Indigenous communities, worked together to design and conduct their research. The resulting platform, therefore, supports collaboration and digital capacity building, as well as novel ways of presenting content produced in the course of the project. So RavenSpace projects, like those created in [INAUDIBLE] at [INAUDIBLE] represent the evolution of digital scholarship in the humanities, while pointing to the need for existing systems and traditional publication outlets to adapt and accommodate more of the engaged work being done.
KATH BURTON: Just to bring this back to the initial question, during the course of our project, we centered on four key challenges that could broadly be characterized as value, inclusivity, publishing lifecycle, and process. What perhaps connects these four challenges, and that we might dig into today, is a need for scholarly publications to evolve to better reflect the diverse processes, participants, and value of engaged scholarship that is now emerging across the humanities.
ROBERT BOISSY: OK, thank you, Kath. Sara is next up.
SARA COHEN: Thank you. So I recently worked on the first ever-- as far as we know-- peer-reviewed rap album, A.D. Carson's I Used to Love to Dream. And while there's scholarship about hip hop, this project is unique in that it performs what scholar Loren Kajikawa calls "hip hop as scholarship." And it takes the form of what the author calls a "mixtape essay," a hybrid genre that brings together the hip hop mixtape, the scholarly essay, and the personal essay.
SARA COHEN: Dr. Carson's work reflects on and theorizes his specific experience as a Black man in the US, while at the same time thinking through themes like home, family, and place. The album thinks deeply about Decatur, Illinois, which is the Rust Belt city that he's from. Oh my goodness, my notes just closed. What happens now?
ROBERT BOISSY: It's off the cuff then.
SARA COHEN: Yeah, it looks like maybe-- so anyway, I will try to do it off the cuff unless I can get back into my notes. Anyway, so this was a pretty unusual project for us to take on, not having published a hip hop album before. And some of the early, excellent work was done by my former colleague Mary Francis, who's now Director at Penn Press. Mary worked with one of our series editors at the Press to really think with the author about whether or not we could publish a rap mixtape, and also did the initial work on selling the author on working with us.
SARA COHEN: And I'm grateful to her for that. When I took over the project, I needed to figure out how to have it peer-reviewed, and I also needed to figure out how we would publish a hip hop mixtape essay. So I'm happy to talk about the peer review in the Q&A. I've been fielding lots of questions about that since we published this over the summer. But in terms of how we published it, we were able to do so largely because of the affordances of our digital publishing platform, Fulcrum.
SARA COHEN: Fulcrum allows us to publish traditional monographs in electronic form. But it also allows us to make what our director, Charles Watkinson, calls "book-like things" out of nontraditional materials. In this case, we created an EPUB out of Dr. Carson's liner notes, and embedded MP3 files of the tracks in the liner notes. Because of our commitment to accessibility at Michigan, there are also captions for the lyrics that are embedded in the EPUB.
SARA COHEN: And as he raps the lyrics, they highlight as you go through. And this is something intended for people with hearing impairments, but lots of folks who don't have any impairments said that it was great-- told us that it was great to be able to see the lyrics as he was saying them and kind follow along in that way. We also published several supporting materials for the project, including a short documentary about the making of the mixtape, a link to a playlist on Bandcamp, and a couple of pieces of writing that Dr. Carson published elsewhere but retained permission for.
SARA COHEN: And those pieces reflect on the tracks on the album, so they're great teaching tools. And if I'm allowed to close with a brag, we learned last week that the project received the 2021 Prose Award for Best eProduct, edging out some much more traditional products. So that was very exciting news for Dr. Carson and for the Press.
ROBERT BOISSY: That's great, Sara. Thank you for sharing that. Stephanie, you're up.
STEPHANIE DAWSON: I just love that project, I think. So fantastic. So we're coming at it from a slightly more STM focus. And one question that has been particularly relevant during the current COVID-19 crisis, but has also been building in urgency for some time, is whether we could speed up the research cycle by sharing work in progress.
STEPHANIE DAWSON: And I'm mostly talking about-- and mostly this is taking the form of-- the preprint, so buzzword of the year. And a project that ScienceOpen has been helping to develop is the UCL Press Journal UCL Open: Environment. It launched last spring. It has a completely transparent workflow based on open review of preprints. So authors submit their research article, and a quick internal review decides whether it is appropriate for the Journal and warrants expert review.
STEPHANIE DAWSON: If yes, the article is posted open access and flagged as a preprint with a CC-BY license. Editors, authors, and also readers-- so really trying to reach that kind of community input that CAP has really developed-- can invite expert reviewers. And after at least two open reviews have been posted-- and these are integrated with ORCID and with Crossref-- then the editor makes a decision, either requests revisions or accepts the manuscript for publication.
STEPHANIE DAWSON: It can go through multiple rounds of revision and review until it's finally ready. And at that point, it's professionally typeset in XML and published to the website. The journal has a relatively low APC. That's covered for all UCL authors. It's really embedded in the library, and really part of their mission to create new and more open outlets for the UCL community.
STEPHANIE DAWSON: So in this way, really early research results can be made available during the review process. For example, in an article published in the Journal about the environmental impact of single use masks in the UK was actually even mentioned in The Guardian during the peer review process, and has now been reviewed. So getting that information out there quicker, at least to start a discussion around it, was very important in April and May.
STEPHANIE DAWSON: So ScienceOpen is now working on a related preprint project with open review for the University of South Africa. We're also hosting Africa archive preprints, and making all of those-- all of those can take advantage of an interactive overlay that allows open peer review on all of those documents. So I really-- I think that preprints are here to stay.
STEPHANIE DAWSON: I think last year has really shown the benefit of getting that research out there faster. But I think they do need to be paired with an open expert review infrastructure. Beyond what ScienceOpen is doing, there are some really interesting projects out there by Review Commons, preLights is fantastic, Peerage of Science, Peer Community In, F1000, and the new eLife preprint review.
STEPHANIE DAWSON: So there are a bunch of us working on ways to actually review preprints and sort of bring those two needs together-- sort of the review and the speed of getting the early results out there. So I think we already heard that peer review will be something we'll probably come back to in the discussion, and happy to talk about that further.
ROBERT BOISSY: OK, very good. Yeah, we seem to have everything-- different emphasis in publishing. We have kind of different kinds of publishing objects in here. We have different approaches to review threading through. Would any of you like to comment on the others' projects before we go on to the next question? Or should we just keep going? All right, let's try to keep going then. So I'm going to ask that the order change up this time.
ROBERT BOISSY: We'll start with Sara, and then Stephanie, and then Kath. The question to you is, the publishing environment and scholarly processes in general seem to be moving towards openness. Can you take up that theme of openness in terms of its effects for readers, and librarians, and authors-- maybe some mixture of those if you can? So again, we'll start with Sara.
SARA COHEN: Sure, thank you. So when we talk about open access at Michigan, two issues about audience come up. The first is accessibility, which I spoke a little bit about in my response to the first question. Second is diversity, equity, and inclusion. At Michigan, we have a really strong commitment to accessibility across our publishing program. In order to ensure that our ebooks are accessible to folks with visual and auditory disabilities, we require that all of our authors create alt text for the illustrations in their books, and captions for any audio or visual materials that are going to go up on Fulcrum, our digital publishing platform.
SARA COHEN: And we talk about open access as another way to demonstrate our commitment to accessibility, because it makes our publications available to anyone, anywhere in the world who has an internet connection. Like many other publishers, we're also strongly committed to diversity, equity, and inclusion. And publishing open access is a way to ensure that we're being inclusive and that we're reaching a diverse audience with our publications, again, because the only barrier to the content is internet access.
SARA COHEN: So that's sort of the audience thing. In terms of how this impacts authors, I think that the more readers we can reach, the better it is for our authors. And I find that the majority of my authors are really open to the idea of open access publishing, seeing it as both a way to reach a wider audience, and in some cases, as a political imperative that makes their work available to the people that they write about.
SARA COHEN: And as Kath was talking about RavenSpace, I was thinking a lot about that, making sure that there's this open conversation between scholars and Indigenous communities who are writing about indigeneity. I think that's such an awesome project. Based on my conversations with colleagues at the Press, this isn't true across all disciplines. So not authors in all disciplines are as excited about OA as the authors that I work with.
SARA COHEN: And I think that's partially because I do media studies, I do music, I do American studies. These are all fields that-- where I think that people are particularly concerned about reaching a wider audience-- in some cases, a crossover audience with the work that they're doing. And then, of course, there's the big challenge of finding funding to make work available OA, right? Somebody's got to pay for it.
SARA COHEN: And so scholars, often, who are coming from smaller universities, or scholars who are adjuncts or other contingent faculty, have more trouble coming up with the funds to make stuff OA. That's one of the big challenges that we encounter at the Press. I'm happy to talk about that more in the Q&A. And those are sort of my thoughts there. I didn't talk much about librarians, but I'm hoping my sister panelists will do that.
ROBERT BOISSY: [LAUGHS] OK, we're going to switch to Stephanie then.
STEPHANIE DAWSON: OK, so what-- we're realizing that "open," once applied really at the article level, is now being applied to the whole process. At an early stage, hypotheses are being shared openly as registered reports. Data collection is being done collaboratively in the open, and stored in fair data repositories. Preliminary results are being published as preprints.
STEPHANIE DAWSON: Open review reports are posted with a CC-BY license, and so on. So I really think it will be impossible to put that genie back into the bottle. And I don't think we want to. I think real collaboration requires sharing, and not just-- and we're seeing that that sharing can be spread out throughout the entire process.
STEPHANIE DAWSON: And this definitely increases the opportunities for authors to make part or all of the process open. And I think that's one thing that we're also seeing, that authors maybe feel more comfortable with some pieces of the process and less with others. There are authors who love the collaborative data work, but in the end, still want to publish that paper in a prestigious journal.
STEPHANIE DAWSON: And vise versa, authors who would, of course, publish open access, but open data is something they don't even want to start discussing. So I also think that this-- spreading this across processes is increasing the challenges of curation for librarians. And as more and more of the library budget is spent to fund open projects, and fund also everything from open data all the way to paying for APCs, I think libraries need more and more to think of new and attractive ways to showcase the open access projects of their faculty and students.
STEPHANIE DAWSON: This is-- we're doing some interesting work with the UCL library on highlighting the outputs around the sustainable development goals, highlighting the outputs around COVID-19. And I think there can be some really interesting ways that the libraries can rethink, when as a certain larger amount of their budget goes towards paying for open, how can they present that in different ways.
STEPHANIE DAWSON: So less thinking about curating for their own communities, and really thinking about, OK, we're curating-- we're creating open for the world. How does that change our mission? And I think that's something that I'm starting to pick up more and more in different discussions.
ROBERT BOISSY: OK, Kath, you get the last word on openness here.
KATH BURTON: Thank you, Bob. I appreciate both Sara and Stephanie's comments before. And I think some of the things that I'm going to talk about echo some of the things that have already gone before, not least around some of that evolutionary practice in terms of opening up parts of the research cycle, and exposing that to a broader range of audiences, but also perhaps just opening up the evolution of the diverse elements of the research ecosystem.
KATH BURTON: It kind of makes me think about those things really lending themselves to more openness in publication generally, rather than so specifically around issues of open access and accessibility, and obviously an underlying cost, and business models that are associated those structures. So it's kind of that spirit of sharing, and collaborating, and preserving that I think is echoed in some of the engaged humanities research practices that I've previously been describing.
KATH BURTON: For instance, working with public partners requires a different set of skills in partnership building and collaboration, and can often be really valuable but messy process that's worth sharing around. And that process, simultaneously, isn't always codified in traditional publications or traditional ways. So we're starting to see how opening up the underexposed research processes can boost the impact of scholarly communications, something akin to what, I think, Stephanie was getting at with some of the STG processes, and some of those other parts of the process that don't typically get talked about much, which in turn, I think, maybe provides authors, librarians, and readers alike with opportunities to gain insights into new forms of knowledge and tackle those grand challenges in everyday life.
KATH BURTON: But I do recognize there are some tensions here. And that's perhaps to be expected when new ways of doing come about. But I guess I'd just like to zoom in on one dimension of this move towards openness that might be worth touching on collectively. And that's sort of focusing-- I'm not sure this is entirely the right word-- but guidance, or perhaps training.
KATH BURTON: Sometimes we find that that practical support and guidance for open scholarship practices in support of engaged research in the humanities feels like an area that isn't necessarily invoked in everyday conversation about openness, but is definitely an area where those involved in both scholarly and publishing processes can support readers, librarians, and authors to embed more of openly engaged practices across the research and publishing lifecycle.
KATH BURTON: So if we could maybe find ways to navigate an increasingly digital complex publishing workflow, which can be a challenge for all, we could also present a neat opportunity to those involved in scholarly communications to support new scholarly practices now emerging. Not only adapt the workflows and processes to accommodate more openly the work being done, but to work alongside scholars to create tools and resources that support this evolution.
KATH BURTON: There is that obvious cost element here. And obviously, resources are scarce. But if we want our system to truly evolve in line with the changing research ecosystem, perhaps training and guidance seems like a solid investment in an area where we need to put our focus.
ROBERT BOISSY: Hmm, OK. All right, very good. We're doing well on time. Our last question-- kind of the capstone here-- maybe is a little briefer. But we're going to ask you each to tell us something about the structure of publishing itself. Specifically, what I'd like each of you to consider is, what really deserves to endure in scholarly publishing, and what kinds of walls can just come right down?
ROBERT BOISSY: And to answer this, I'm going to start with Stephanie, and then Kath and Sara. So Stephanie, what's coming down and what's staying with us?
STEPHANIE DAWSON: So being in Berlin, we always like to talk about walls coming down. So [LAUGHS] good intro. I believe that an essential part of the work that academic publishers do is to verify and validate research by organizing expert peer review. And this can and really must endure. I think this is one of-- at the heart of what academic publishers do.
STEPHANIE DAWSON: But I also believe that this review should be as open as possible. So for me, the walls of that black box of peer review can come down. But peer review is often used not just to confirm academic rigor, but also to identify and reward excellence. And those rewards of excellence have been traditionally tied to financial incentives for publishers and authors.
STEPHANIE DAWSON: And open access, I think, has really started to change that equation. And I think we need to see more innovation in the area of business models that can support both open, and reward excellence in novel ways. And I don't think we are there yet. I think there's a lot of work still to do. I see us making really novel open products.
STEPHANIE DAWSON: But I think we still need to come up with some good ways to finance and reward those.
ROBERT BOISSY: OK, got it-- I just-- if you see me pause anywhere in here, it's because I'm taking notes. We're going to switch over to Kath.
KATH BURTON: I think I probably just have one word. And I don't mean to sound trite, but it is humans. And so not to be too simplistic, but that's what I think, or that's what, or rather who must endure in our scholarly communications endeavor. We're going to be embracing a more digitally diverse research and publishing ecosystem. We're going to require more brains. Yes, we can take it-- I apologize for the tinkle in the background if you heard it.
KATH BURTON: Yes, we can take advantage of the technologies. But we also need the people to work out what that means for us individually and collectively, and to provide support for our scholarly communities. So I think somewhat connectedly to that point, barriers to cross-sector collaboration can come down. We found this in our working group, that we share a lot of similarities regardless of backgrounds.
KATH BURTON: That the diverse perspectives of publishers and scholars alike combined to shape openly, effectively, what matters in terms of the evolving scholarly communications landscape.
ROBERT BOISSY: OK, so Niso recommended practice-- keep the people. Very good! Sara, what have you got to say on the topic?
SARA COHEN: Well, that's a tough act to follow, to keep the humans. And I'm going to actually go back and kind of echo what Stephanie said, which I think is also very much about the humans, because I am extremely conservative about peer review. And I think that that's part of the human touch is the humans who vet projects at the early stage, like me as an acquisitions editor, and then the people who vet it beyond that in the form of peer review, and then the people who vet it even beyond that in the form of book reviewers, and bloggers, and things like that.
SARA COHEN: So I really think that the curation and the vetting that we do is what makes our work as scholarly publishers unique, and what adds value to our publishing program. I think that there's lots of room to think about what peer review looks like. I'm fascinated by the open peer review model that Stephanie has been talking about. I know a little bit about it. I don't know how it would work in humanities monograph publishing, but it's something I'd love to keep thinking about.
SARA COHEN: And I think that one of the big things we can rethink in peer review is who counts as an expert-- getting beyond this model that it has to be a tenured faculty member somewhere. I also think there's always room to make the peer review process kinder and more generous. And that's something that I'm always trying to think about. I think it can be a really mean, rotten process, and I don't think it has to be.
SARA COHEN: In terms of what walls can still come down, I love the answers that my sister panelists have given. And I really struggled answering this question. Not because I think that everything's perfect, but just because I think sometimes it's hard to think of what the walls are that need to come down until you hit those walls. But one of the things that I wanted to mention is that I'd like to see-- perhaps unsurprisingly, based on the other things I've talked about on this panel, I'd like to see more scholarship that moves away from text as the primary medium.
SARA COHEN: So in addition to the mixtape essay that I talked about, we've also published a project that's a series of podcasts-- pardon me-- accompanied by an introductory essay. [CLEARS THROAT] We have another series of podcasts coming out by the same author. And I think this is a really cool model for scholars to work in, especially people who work in sound studies or who are thinking critically about sound. And in April, we're publishing a project on screen composing that the author describes as a video monograph.
SARA COHEN: And here, each chapter has a video accompanied by a short essay. And each video is made by the author to kind of demonstrate how to do this practice of screen composing that he's writing about. So I'm going to definitely keep thinking about ways that we can publish stuff that doesn't look like a monograph. And again, I appreciate the suggestions that Kath and Stephanie had here.
SARA COHEN: I think they had really great responses.
ROBERT BOISSY: Oh, that's great. I am going to ask is if anybody has any final comments that they need to get in before we switch to the next phase of our discussion session. Any last things? OK, well, we're going to leave it to that then. And I want to say it's been a great privilege to work with this group. I'm really thrilled with it.
ROBERT BOISSY: And I know there will be a lively discussion with the full Niso Plus complement coming up. I'd like everybody to be thinking along the lines of, is there a role, perhaps, for Niso to be involved in some area of recommended practice? I wasn't just making fun of that. I want people to think about that. If there's something that needs to be kind of organized in any of what we talked about, I'd like the audience to think about that.
ROBERT BOISSY: But with that, I am going to say let's move on to our next section of the discussion. [MUSIC PLAYING]
Form Title Download
Video
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:
Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
Email
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