Cadmore media player playing video The Scholarly Kitchen: The Future of Research as a Global Enterprise
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:
The Scholarly Kitchen: The Future of Research as a Global Enterprise
Description:
The Scholarly Kitchen: The Future of Research as a Global Enterprise
Thumbnail URL:
https://cadmoremediastorage.blob.core.windows.net/a7ef5283-1a71-4608-b62f-1063631d0f25/thumbnails/a7ef5283-1a71-4608-b62f-1063631d0f25.jpg
Duration:
T00H57M30S
Embed URL:
https://stream.cadmore.media/player/a7ef5283-1a71-4608-b62f-1063631d0f25
Content URL:
https://cadmoreoriginalmedia.blob.core.windows.net/a7ef5283-1a71-4608-b62f-1063631d0f25/The Future of Research as a Global Enterprise-gallery.mp4?sv=2019-02-02&sr=c&sig=mzE1nhYCJLO6qiv4eRphXNlp%2BS%2BSRl2nWsGUVvTAYIU%3D&st=2024-12-22T01%3A28%3A34Z&se=2024-12-22T03%3A33%3A34Z&sp=r
Upload Date:
2024-02-23T00:00:00.0000000
Transcript:
Language: EN.
Segment:0 .
JASON POINTE: Hello. Thank you for joining us for today's discussion on the future of research as a global enterprise presented by Chefs of the Scholarly Kitchen and other guests. It is the third event in SSP's 2022 webinar series. I'm Jason Pointe, lead of the SSP Education Committee's Webinars Working Group. Before we get started, I want to thank our 2022 education programs sponsors-- ARPHA, J&J Editorial, OpenAthens, and Silverchair.
JASON POINTE: We're grateful for your support. I also have a few housekeeping items to review. Your headsets have been muted automatically. Please use the Q&A feature in Zoom to enter questions for the moderator and panelists. You can also use the chat feature to communicate directly with speakers and other participants. This one-hour session will be recorded and available to registrants following today's event.
JASON POINTE: A quick note also on SSP's code of conduct in today's meeting. We are committed to diversity, equity, and providing an inclusive meeting environment that fosters open dialogue and the free expression of ideas free of harassment, discrimination, and hostile conduct. We ask all participants, whether speaking or in chat, to consider and debate relevant viewpoints in an orderly, respectful, and fair manner. At the conclusion of today's discussion.
JASON POINTE: You will receive a post-event evaluation via email. We encourage you to provide feedback and to help shape future SSP programming. Now, it's my pleasure to introduce the moderator for today's discussion, current SSP President and Scholarly Kitchen Chef, Alice Meadows.
ALICE MEADOWS: Thank you so much, Jason, and hello, everyone. I'm really delighted you're able to join us for this, what I know is going to be a very interesting and useful conversation about a topic that's especially-- it's never not timely, but it feels especially timely at the moment, the future of research as a global enterprise. As Jason said, I'm Alice Meadows. I'm the current president of SSP.
ALICE MEADOWS: It's a huge honor. I also work at NISO, the National Information Standards Organization as their Director of Community Engagement. I consult one day a week for an organization called MoreBrains Co-operative, and I'm very active in and passionate about, in particular, issues around diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility in scholarly publishing and also in research infrastructure. And I'm also a chef, as Jason said.
ALICE MEADOWS: And I'm very delighted to be joined here by two fellow Chefs, Haseeb Irfanullah, and Roger Schonfeld, by a recent guest chef, Ana Heredia, and by Jennifer Kemp, who I've said to her that we hope that she will be a future guest chef. They're all going to bring very different perspectives. And I'm going to let them introduce themselves and give a little bit of context for the perspectives they're going to provide to you.
ALICE MEADOWS: Before I do that, I also wanted to say that we're very much hoping, in the spirit of the Scholarly Kitchen, that this will be somewhat interactive. This is going to be a discussion rather than presentations, although a couple of the panelists are going to share a couple of slides when the time comes. But we're not going to have formal presentations. It's going to be more of a discussion, initially, between the speakers.
ALICE MEADOWS: But we would really love your participation as well. So I do encourage you to add comments and questions in the chat. And I'm hoping to leave about 15 minutes at the end where we really want to actively encourage you to share your thoughts on some of what we've been talking about as well as asking any questions you may have for the speakers. So without further ado, I'm going to hand over, Jennifer, to you, please.
ALICE MEADOWS: And the opening question is, in addition to introducing yourself, please can you tell us what you think research as a global enterprise should look like?
JENNIFER KEMP: Well, thank you. Thank you to Alice and fellow panelists and to SSP for organizing this. I'm Jennifer Kemp. I'm Head of Partnerships at Crossref. So I work with a couple of different community groups. Some of our publisher members are funder members and users of the metadata. And I do have a few slides so bear with me while I share my screen.
JENNIFER KEMP: More than answering the vision question, I want to set up the discussion a little bit more and provide some overview. So hopefully, you see my slides at the moment. So I think this audience is probably familiar with Crossref, but in case not, we are the largest of a handful of DOI registration agencies. And for a long time, we had only publisher members.
JENNIFER KEMP: It is in the last few years that we've had funder members as well who can register their grants. And the profile of our members has changed pretty dramatically in the past few years. So what you see here are new members who've joined by region just in the last couple of years. And there are just a few things I want to point out. I'm not going to go through the slides in any great detail. So the reasons that the membership has increased so much now to 16,000 members around the world, so we have about 100 members or more joining every single month.
JENNIFER KEMP: That has leveled off a little bit, but it's been really quite dramatic growth in the past few years. And the reasons vary. So in Indonesia, for example, there is a requirement by the government that government-funded research outputs are registered with a DOI. The other thing I want to point out about this trend is that a lot of these organizations don't consider themselves publishers.
JENNIFER KEMP: They publish, but publishing is often a secondary or tertiary activity for these organizations. So you can see near the top that the numbers in sub-Saharan Africa are still fairly small, and it may be a little surprising to see that numbers in places like North America, where it might be expected to be saturated, are still growing pretty significantly.
JENNIFER KEMP: The other thing I want to point out is what is being registered at Crossref. And this is the first point I want to make about a vision is that I hope that we get to a point where journals and STM are not the default-- that when we talk about outputs and when we talk about scholarship in general, that we consider all of the outputs and all of the disciplines.
JENNIFER KEMP: So this has held fairly stable for a while. Journals are still the vast majority of what gets registered with us, but preprints, which are the yellow slices you see at the noon position, that's our fastest growing content type, as we call it. And books are our second fastest growing content type. So I like the vision of global research to be more inclusive of newer and emerging content types.
JENNIFER KEMP: And then, I'm having trouble advancing my slides. There we go. So I also want to touch on multilingualism for just a moment. I know this will come up later in the discussion as well. So what you see here is a snippet of record from SciELO. So you can see the text in pink on the right is in Spanish. So we do have metadata records in languages other than English, but the majority is still in English.
JENNIFER KEMP: The language of the metadata doesn't always necessarily reflect the language of the content. And you can see on the left in blue that the fields, the elements labeled, are labeled in English. So this is something that we're looking at as well. We have a research project with the folks at PKP to look into some of that. And I can share a link to that if it's useful.
JENNIFER KEMP: So the one other point I want to make about vision before I turn it back over to Alice and the other panelists is just to say that I hope we also get to a point where global research addresses issues of accessibility, which I think are very important and certainly something that's very global. So I hope that helps set up the rest of the discussion. I'm going to stop sharing and turn it back over to Alice. Thank you.
ALICE MEADOWS: Thanks, Jennifer. That's really helpful, and I think it's really encouraging that these sorts of issues around different format types and multilingualism are increasingly, by no means dominant, but increasingly being discussed in our community in ways that they haven't been until now. And that's the good segue way Ana-- over to you, Ana-- is going to provide a Latin American perspective on the question of what research as a global endeavor should look like.
ANA HEREDIA: Thank you, Alice. And thank you for the invitation of being part of this panel with very nice panelists. We had the opportunity to share a little bit of perspectives before in preparation. So it's a pleasure being with you today. So just to present a little bit myself, I am a biologist by training and by my heart, by passion. So I am a former researcher turned scholarly communications specialist after some years studying ants, in my precise case.
ANA HEREDIA: So I joined the publishing world, the STM publishing world, where I developed some expertise in research information infrastructure at ORCID, research information analytics and publishing at Elsevier. So I think this year's in the research field and also with my professional experience make me have some interesting points of views, I think. So that I try to share with you today.
ANA HEREDIA: So to answer the first question or to bring my perspective of what a research global enterprise would be, I don't know if Mary Beth has my slides? Thank you. This is the last one.
SPEAKER: Just a second. On it. I'll cue those up, OK.
ANA HEREDIA: No problem. So I will start by mentioning a very recent document that there is being a lot talked about, which is the UNESCO Open Science Recommendations. This is important for everyone, but it has major implications in our region. So first of all, my ideal world, I thought about an ideal world right, not necessarily easy or feasible in any way, but it's my ideal world.
ANA HEREDIA: So an ideal world would be the one where the UNESCO Open Science Recommendations are in place, where science is a truly inclusive enterprise, and multilingualism and bibliodiversity-- to add one more concept to the discussion-- are not issues anymore. They are embedded in our way of doing science, where there is no bias in peer review, and where the only criteria for publishing in certain journals is scientific merit.
ANA HEREDIA: So my ideal world is also a world where the diamond open access is the rule because research funding and all the stakeholders will find a way to make it possible, to make it truly sustainable. It's also a world where there is a good research information infrastructure, where, citing Jennifer and Alice, all data and metadata are in several languages, all types of knowledge production are considered and identified with [INAUDIBLE],, with persistent identifiers, and also where [INAUDIBLE] systems, current research information systems, are used and can play a major role in the collection of information from different sources, from different types, and makes a responsible use of metrics as well.
ANA HEREDIA: This would be an ideal world. So also another point is that national scientific policies are aligned with the needs of society they serve. So this is a little bit of an ideal world. And they leave it to the next panelist.
ALICE MEADOWS: Are you done with your slides Ana? Sorry.
ANA HEREDIA: Yeah. I think Mary Beth has the control of them.
ALICE MEADOWS: Can I hand over to Haseeb, or have you more to say.
ANA HEREDIA: No, no. I am done. Thank you.
ALICE MEADOWS: OK. Thank you. Sorry.
SPEAKER: Thanks, Ana.
ALICE MEADOWS: Thanks. So Haseeb, over to you with the same question. And like Ana, you're a researcher. You're also a journal publisher, and you're based in Bangladesh so you have another very interesting perspective to bring to this question of what research as a global endeavor should look like.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: Thank you. Thank you, Alice. Good evening from Dhaka [INAUDIBLE].. I'm Haseeb Irfanullah. I'm basically an independent consultant working in the environment, climate change, and research system. In addition to being a chef of this Scholarly Kitchen, I'm also an associate editor of Learned Publishing. The way I see research as a global enterprise I would like to pose three issues or three perspectives before you.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: The first one is we have been talking about the global North and global South divide a lot when we talk about this [INAUDIBLE] leadership. And there has been so many different efforts over the last couple of decades. I'd like to focus on one particular one, that is, building the research communication capacity of the global South. A lot has been investing a lot of effort, money, to do that under different projects.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: Sometimes, I wonder whether these investments are actually working. Are they sustainable? The reason I am raising this question because I have been associated with quite a few MOOCS, which are being organized for the [INAUDIBLE] early career researcher. It seems like that the demand hasn't been changing much. It means there is an increasing demand from the global South to learn from the global North, which are fundamentals of research competition.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: Then the question is, what happened to the investment over the last couple of years? Why does southern senior researchers, they are not taking the leadership of training their own generations of new researchers? So that makes me wonder whether the investment is working or if the investment is sustained or creating the impacts it was supposed to create. Similarly, we often, in the name of inclusion and including [INAUDIBLE] from the South and we bring them on the editorial board of the journals published from the North.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: Have we ever asked the question that how these individuals changing their own country's publishing system? Because they are associated with the global system, they learn new things, new opportunities, new innovation. Are they really making a difference in their own country in terms of quality because in many cases, those countries are lagging behind when we talk about [INAUDIBLE] publishing system.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: The second point is if the research wants to be a global enterprise, we need to think of whether the research is creating impact. When I say creating research impact, I'm not talking about impact factor indices and the scores. I'm talking about the real impact on the ground, making changes on the practice, on the policies. Definitely since 2015, the sustainable development goal has created a fantastic opportunity to measure that.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: Are we taking that opportunity? Let me share a quick story that has been actually [INAUDIBLE] that has been evolving lately. Given the fact that many of the Southern universities, they are quite small. They can't publish thousands of papers every year. They can't. So they can't find themselves in the globally reputed university ranking.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: But things have changed since 2013 when impact rankings was introduced by Times Higher Education. What they are doing, they're giving the Southern universities opportunity to rank themselves by measuring how much they actually contribute to 17 SDGs, Sustainable Development Goals. And that's a brilliant opportunity for the Southern universities.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: And the latest edition of that ranking will be out in the last week of this month. But I see a different thing. [AUDIO OUT] be part of the rank so that their paper can be extracted from the Scopus probably there is a notion that the researchers from the South, they are trying to articulate their research in such a way so that they can get the ranking points. Instead of thinking of research impact on the ground, we are now thinking how my research will be contributing to my small university's ranking status.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: So when we talk research as a global enterprise, are we creating a new division or are we diverting somewhere else? Third point, the big one, which matches Jennifer's point, we talk about scholarly communication and we talk about peer reviewed journals in a big way as we have seen [INAUDIBLE] assured us. But can we really have research as a global enterprise if we exclude [INAUDIBLE] literature.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: By [INAUDIBLE] literature, I'm talking about non-peer reviewed articles. What I did, I will give you a very quick example. I did it actually today. [INAUDIBLE] Very recently, IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which actually won the Nobel Peace Prize back in 2007 because this institution, every seven years, they analyzed peer reviewed journal science how climate is changing, and [INAUDIBLE] fantastic things to do.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: But this year, I was just checking up some of the chapters, and I found that in many of the chapters, they actually were written by the experts, and they contained 25% non-peer reviewed documents, although, initially, their focus was only on peer reviewed articles. So how can we appreciate the contribution of these non-peer reviewed section of a scholarly communication, advance the science, and make it a global enterprise?
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: By posing these questions, I'll stop there. Thank you.
ALICE MEADOWS: Thanks, Haseeb. It's interesting, there's some themes already emerging, I think, from what you're all saying so. Roger, last but very definitely not least, on this question, what are your views of what a truly global research enterprise should look like.
ROGER SCHONFELD: Thanks, Alice. And thanks to my fellow panelists. What a great panel you've assembled here for us. And I'm, in addition to being a chef, I work at Ithaka S+R on, among other things, on science policy issues and the academic research enterprise and some of the scholarly communications issues that connect to that. And I've been working specifically on issues, as a researcher and an advisory capacity, issues around globalization and global scholarly communications issues for several years now.
ROGER SCHONFELD: So my perspective coming into this is that certainly science has globalized substantially in the past several decades. I think that's clear by any number of metrics. And my fellow panelists have spoken to some of those dynamics pretty clearly. We have-- I laugh to call it a lingua franca since I'm referring to the English Language, but we do have a lingua franca for quite a bit of scientific scholarly communication.
ROGER SCHONFELD: Growth of international scientific collaboration, globalized flows of manuscripts from countries around the world into appropriate scholarly publications, increasingly, though imperfectly, international forms of assessment, as has been discussed, and efforts as well at what I would call global scientific prioritization, for example, through the UN Sustainable Development Goals.
ROGER SCHONFELD: So efforts to really say, here's how we should pursue science together. So to my mind, a truly globalized science would be not just that and incrementally building on that, but ultimately, would be about human betterment, would be about societal betterment. And I think that's, in a way, what we're all kind of getting at in different ways. I think that's what our sort of north star of globalized science would look like.
ROGER SCHONFELD: And I'll say that I share that dream. I would love to see us achieve that, but I'm also a pragmatist. And I don't really believe that science can actually be a global enterprise. A truly global enterprise would require that science not be beholden to diverging national and regional block interests. And by regional block I'm referring to something like the EU, for example.
ROGER SCHONFELD: And those nation states and regional blocs, they ultimately, they're the paymasters and the policymakers of science. And as I like to say, she who pays the piper, calls the tune. So I tend to think about global science not in-- if I can say this sort of positively-- not in utopian terms, but rather, in this dynamic where there are diverging interests and diverging policies-- and I think we'll talk about this further-- increasingly diverging interests and increasingly diverging policies, I tend to think about global science not utopian terms, but really more about how do we advance what I think, certainly those of us on this panel I think could agree are shared values, but within the system as it actually exists and is likely to exist, not as we would wish it to be.
ROGER SCHONFELD: So that's a little bit of the perspective that I take.
ALICE MEADOWS: Thank you. We've had four very different perspectives, but as I say, I think there are already some interesting and common themes emerging, which I think we'll build on in the next couple of questions. And Roger, that was a great segue into the next question for you all, which is about what are the barriers? If this is your vision, what's stopping us from getting there? And you've already alluded to the geopolitical issues, Roger.
ALICE MEADOWS: So I'm going to ask you to come back on that in a minute. But first of all, Haseeb, would you like to take a shot at answering that?
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: Yeah. We've heard so many different challenges, isn't it. But I'd like to focus on only one thing. Since I have been looking into or have been following how we can reduce the gap between the North and the South, and definitely the South has been leading for more than 350 years, all the innovation, all the conceptualization, technological advancement, the policies, systemic innovation in the scholarly publishing.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: We have to admit that. But you can't actually use everything, all the notions of the concepts of policies [INAUDIBLE] in the South because we have different culture. The diversity, that context is different. The way we see research, the relationship between research and policy-- there are so many things you need to consider. But we need to appreciate those contexts when we want to bring North and South divide, not remove, but lessen that divide between the North and the South.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: I often say it is not that North is calling the South, please join us. No. We have to meet in the middle. To meet in the middle, you need to understand the context of the South. So we have to contextualize all the issues, all the policies, the standards and practices. And that is very true for many countries in the global South because lower developed countries are rapidly becoming [INAUDIBLE] countries, or the least developed countries are becoming developing countries.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: But the faster their economy is growing, their research culture is not changing that fast. So we need to appreciate that-- that it will take time. So what can be done? My suggestion would be, or my proposition is the obvious one-- that North and South, the entities who wants to work together, they need to work together using the international, regional, and national networks which already exist.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: We need to go beyond our comfort zone, and we need to use those regional expertise so that we can overcome the challenges South has been facing and helping them to align their activities, their rules and regulations, so that they can comply with or be aligned with global publishing standard and practice. So this is the way I want to see that area of contextualization and [INAUDIBLE].
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: Thank you.
ALICE MEADOWS: Thank you, Haseeb. Yes, I think that's a really important point. I think true equity, it's like accessibility-- it benefits everyone. It's not just for the people who are currently disadvantaged, it's actually for everyone's benefit that we are more truly globally equitable. Roger, what are your thoughts on what the barriers or a key barrier, at least, is to achieving this? Or at least, a pragmatic version of this vision?
ROGER SCHONFELD: Yeah, yeah. No, I think there's a few different types of barriers. And certainly, I think Haseeb has covered some important ones that I won't try to recapitulate as well. I think we have some very simple policy differences between some of the most productive world regions in terms of science. So I do think that at least up until this point, there have been meaningful policy differences between Europe, between the EU and the UK on the one hand, and the US, certainly, on the other hand in terms of structures for funding science, some of the associated policymaking where we're much more diffuse approach to policy in the US, at least in this area, comparatively more centralized and coordinated approach in the EU and the UK.
ROGER SCHONFELD: And fairly differing views on mandates and open access just to take a few specific examples. But there are others as well at the level of science policy coordination beyond scholarly communications. But I actually think the more significant barriers are actually geopolitical concerns. For example, one of the issues that I've been tracking for a number of years now is the competition between a variety of countries.
ROGER SCHONFELD: Certainly, that includes the liberal democracies-- competition between them and China on a variety of different fronts that's played itself out in terms of some meaningful efforts to, you might say, decouple some aspects of academic science in terms of publishing systems, in terms of ranking systems, in terms of collaboration dynamics, scientific collaboration et cetera.
ROGER SCHONFELD: And without getting into all the specifics, some of them we may not feel good about. We may actually think are problematic in a variety of ways, but that is part of the reality that competition and some of the dynamics there is a real part of the real barrier. We've seen all sorts of disinformation from nation states, what I'll call hostile nation states from a US perspective, that have yielded threats to the trust in science that we've seen.
ROGER SCHONFELD: So I think there are all sorts of different barriers like that. And of course, I don't have to tell anyone here-- more pressing recently is Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the war crimes that it's committed there and the very immediate split that has caused between Russian academia, which is completely united at a leadership level in its support for Putin and the invasion through public statements that directors have made, and a variety of other countries that are trying to figure out how do we continue to engage and collaborate with scientists without supporting a regime that's doing things that we find problematic.
ROGER SCHONFELD: So I think these barriers are real, and they're, unfortunately, in my view, they're growing.
ALICE MEADOWS: Thank you. And of course, we're not without our own misinformation here in the US or the UK or everywhere. So yes, but definitely big challenges. Thank you Roger. And Ana, you painted this beautiful vision of your idea of what a global research enterprise would look like. What do you see as the main barriers to that?
ANA HEREDIA: Yeah. I'm smiling because I know I was going to sound naive. It's not at all that. I knew my colleagues were going to be more incisive in the introduction, so it was an exercise of desire, if we may--
ALICE MEADOWS: It was wonderful. Don't apologize. It's good to be visionary.
ANA HEREDIA: So here at the slide, you can see just an example of the tensions that I would like to address a little bit in this part. So thank you, Haseeb and Roger, for mentioning some of the barriers of the obstacles for a global science view. I may also would like to cite, from my perspective, some of the ones that I think they are important in every country, but mainly I think that may have some bad implications here in my region.
ANA HEREDIA: For example, the geographical disadvantage when we submit an article to international journals, the names there are among the coauthors make it clear where it comes from with the affiliations. And sometimes, there are some issues around this. The bias in peer review is something that we are discussing a lot at the moment-- how to cope with this or how to make this not exist anymore.
ANA HEREDIA: I would also mention one barrier for a global view of research is also the extremely expensive APCs. Some journals are charging compared, for example, to a researcher's salary or research budgets in some countries. But I would like to focus on two of them that are specifically important in my region and being discussed a lot in the last few years. One of them is the evaluation processes and the role of national journals in this process.
ANA HEREDIA: So here in the region, we have a perverse system where the national evaluation exercise is considered to make a ranking of journals, if you wish, and this has a lot of impact in the journals but also in the agendas of research as well. And also raises a question about how these local journals that have an impact, that have an importance, that have been described in many articles, how these journals can survive, can remain sustainable.
ANA HEREDIA: And so this is one question that, in the region, has been discussed a lot because these systems rely in the journals [INAUDIBLE] but based on international scientific databases like Scopus and Web of Science where the local journals are not present in their majority. So all the research is not being expressed in this database, but they are being used for these countries to do their research assessments.
ANA HEREDIA: So this is something that is a hard obstacle for a truly global view of the world because what we are seeing in terms of research output is mainly what is visible in these international databases. And everything that is not there is not being seen or read or cited. And the other main obstacle I would say is the research information infrastructure.
ANA HEREDIA: So this has been cited by the UNESCO Open Science Recommendation. And one of the main obstacles to open science is the lack of integration between existing databases-- that includes public libraries and government data sets, university archives-- that were built at several different moments and they are not linked to each other. So this interoperability and this unified system, if you want, is still a dream.
ANA HEREDIA: But we have some examples here in the region, in Peru and in Brazil, that are showing that these national [INAUDIBLE] systems are promoting a true integration in the scientific platforms that are already existing in the region. And these databases can be used for research evaluation, thus giving a more precise view of what is being done in our region so as they have a complete register of people, institutions, productions, and projects.
ANA HEREDIA: So this approach, I think, is paving the road for an increasingly inclusive and socially relevant sciences, which is something that Roger mentioned. And also, while being participating at the open science conversation with the rest of the world, which is also important that all the regions and we are included in these conversations.
ALICE MEADOWS: Ana, that's a lovely segue into talking about the research infrastructure which very much supports those kinds of systems that can be national, well, organizational level, national or global. So Jennifer, over to you, please, to tell us what you think the main barriers are from a research infrastructure perspective.
JENNIFER KEMP: Well, I think my fellow panelists have covered many of the broad issues so well. So I'll try to be brief about it. I guess I think research is inherently very detail-oriented. You have these folks or have this very deep expertise who are really involved in all the particulars of their research. And all of that is done to address these very vast, high-level issues that affect all of us.
JENNIFER KEMP: And then, there's all of this middle ground in between. And some of that, which is not necessarily research infrastructure, but is just-- I think research is often very disconnected from our everyday lives for those of us who aren't directly involved in it. And the misinformation and disinformation that's been raised here, I think that's definitely one thing that's really exacerbating existing pressures of cost and access and prestige and all of these other things, just the general situation where expertise in general is under siege.
JENNIFER KEMP: So I think these large looming questions are definitely serious barriers at the moment. But I do think that research infrastructure has a role in bridging minutia of their everyday work that is done with some of these larger goals by making things easier, by making information more open and available for analysis and things like that. And I would hope that we get to a point where that sort of thing-- there was a question earlier about just analyzing outputs by subject area.
JENNIFER KEMP: That's the sort of thing that should be easier to do. And when it is, I think that that will help address some of those larger issues of things that we've seen in the pandemic. And I know everybody's sick of it, as am I, but I think that it's been a really global, good example, for better and worse, of all of the things that research can do well, all of the things that the community can do globally, and at the same time, of course, highlighted all of these issues and barriers that we've been discussing.
JENNIFER KEMP: So definitely more work to be done.
ALICE MEADOWS: Yeah. That's such a good point about the pandemic. I think what all of you have said about barriers, the response to the pandemic, both good and bad, is very analogous with what you've all spoken about to some extent, I think. So I'm going to ask you our final question, but at this point in the interest of time, I also want to ask attendees-- this is the point at which we would love your input as well.
ALICE MEADOWS: So my final question for the speakers is, what one thing would you change if you had a magic wand? And so this can be a really big fantasy thing or it could be a small, low-hanging fruit. What could be a quick win that's actually achievable? So I'm to ask all the panelists for their thoughts on this, but we would really love your thoughts as well. And we'll try to wrap them into this discussion as well as leaving a little bit of time if you have any specific questions that you want to ask the speakers.
ALICE MEADOWS: So I'm going to start off, Haseeb, with you again, please, what you think there might be that's either achievable now, quick win type thing, or a big picture, my ideal world, this is the one thing that would change that would really make a difference?
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: Thank you. Thank you, Alice, and thank you to all the panelists for this [INAUDIBLE] discussion. Yeah, that's a very interesting question to put forward. Since I wear another hat, which is as a development practitioner working in environment and climate change sectors. [AUDIO OUT] it's really amazing how scholarly publishers have come together and joined their hands for sustainable development.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: I'm talking about [INAUDIBLE] publishers, in fact. They're making a promise, making a commitment to do something [INAUDIBLE] sustainable development. I also appreciate how they stand [INAUDIBLE] a strong stand on anti-racism, and the way they are tirelessly trying to make their system, their business, more diverse, inclusive, equitable, and obviously, accessible.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: But I want to go a bit further. I want to see scholarly publishers really live the life they are publishing about. Let me give two examples. Since, as a publisher, you publish journals where articles are published on transparency, accountability, of numerous government systems, isn't it. But can we be open enough that we show how we calculate our APCs?
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: How much is discovering our expenses, the actual expenses, including research and development, how much is the standard profit margins that they're making? And, most importantly, how much is actually our bandwidth? After all, it is the purpose of the research entities are paying for it. The second question the second example I would like to share, once again, climate change because it is so important not for [INAUDIBLE] to come.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: It is an existential challenge the whole world is facing, a transition in terms of generational challenge. And most important thing is we know it from research, from science, and the published, peer reviewed articles which are being published by us. But can't we, as publishers, take a stand against all elements that are fueling misinformation against climate change and this reality and delaying the actions we are supposed to take to halt carbon emissions.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: So that kind of stance is so important. But I wonder, what is stopping us from taking that kind of stance. Thank you.
ALICE MEADOWS: Thanks, Haseeb. I think it's such an important point that we, as publishers or as research infrastructure providers, we're not always leading by example, are we? We publish and we support all this wonderful research and best practices, but we don't necessarily, I suspect, very often don't put it into practice ourselves. So I think that's a really, really good point. We do have a question so I want to make sure we leave time to answer that, but first of all, Roger, can you share your one, either small, medium, or large sized wish for the universe to make the research endeavor more global?
ROGER SCHONFELD: Yeah, I-- given that, as the pragmatist who isn't sure that more global is actually the direction that we're moving in, I'm going to reflect a little bit more on a larger observation about a change that may need to happen, which is that if you consider the major publishing houses, the major international or, if you like, global publishing houses, their business models, and those of many smaller publishing houses as well, have at least, until two months ago, have assumed that we would continue to move in this direction of more and more globalized science.
ROGER SCHONFELD: They've assumed that APC revenue from China would continue to grow. They've assumed that they'd be able to source manuscripts globally, sell access or sell APCs globally, et cetera. And I think we can all now see that there are, at least I think, there are major geopolitical impediments to that fundamental business model. As I think everyone knows, many publishers have already cut off Russia, and in some cases Belorussia as well at least in terms of new sales.
ROGER SCHONFELD: Maybe not in terms of access, but in terms of new sales. But the bigger question, actually, is about the direction that the relationship with China will take, in my view. So I think the observation that I want to raise or the question I'd like to ask is, will we begin to recognize that even science is subject to geopolitics? And if so, what will that recognition mean to growth strategies and business models for scholarly publishers and, of course, their products, which is science, which is scholarship?
ALICE MEADOWS: Thank you. Answering a question with a question. Always a good strategy. Ana and Jennifer, I want to turn to the two of you in that order now to answer the question. And then, we do have-- oh, thank you, Jennifer. I've just seen you've answered the question in the chat. Thank you very much. So I do still want to try and allow five minutes or so for questions.
ALICE MEADOWS: So Ana, if you could tell us what your one thing is and then, Jennifer, last but definitely not least, it will be your turn.
ANA HEREDIA: Thank you, Alice. I think I will answer this by answering Donald's question in the chat. I think having worked at Elsevier and with Scopus for a long time, I've seen these databases increasing the global South content and trying to understand the dynamics of the publishing here in our region.
ANA HEREDIA: But I think there is maybe a misconception that is, globally, expanding that is, that global South journals may not be necessarily professional. And I've been reading a lot about this. And I think that we have to make the difference between predatory journals and unethical publications and what is not mainstream, right, as Roger was describing before.
ANA HEREDIA: So I think that there are many things to discuss in this, but mainly, I think that the step that Web of Science and Scopus did on including global South content, and for example, in the case of Web of Science, there is even a [INAUDIBLE] collection. This is very, very good, and this is part of the solution. But I think that we need to try to understand in a little bit more detail what, for example, important initiatives like SciELO that is internationally recognized, but also readily, which is another indexing database in the region are also [INAUDIBLE]..
ANA HEREDIA: So we have at least three regional databases, indexing databases, that have their own criteria for inclusion and to remain in the collection. And these organizations have been doing a lot on implementing best practices in publishing and also in helping editors to adopt the best practices that are used in the global community.
ANA HEREDIA: But yeah, I think that we need to discuss this as another topic, Donald, and I'll be happy to discuss it with you. But thank you for touching this. This is an important point.
ALICE MEADOWS: Thanks, Ana. And of course, it also goes to the issue of bibliodiversity that you and Jennifer raised earlier, and indeed, Haseeb, around different types of content as well, not just publications. So Jennifer, you get to go last and share your words of wisdom or desires about what one thing you would like to see change if you had a magic wand and could do, or a call to action if it's something that can be actually done.
JENNIFER KEMP: Maybe I can combine those two things. I have a laundry list, and I can talk fast but I won't try to go through all those things. I guess if I could wave a magic wand, I would say that we would take the lessons we've learned from the pandemic and the COVID research and apply those to the UN Sustainable Development Goals. That would be my dream, I guess. But the other part of that is just to recognize that ultimately, there are policies and technologies and workflows and all those things-- ultimately, those things really come down to people.
JENNIFER KEMP: People who develop them, people who decide on them and how they're implemented and things like that. And any change initiative is really going to come down to the people that are involved in it. And so investing in people, having a diverse group of people involved, not hiring jerks, all of those things that are so important to these really critical efforts just often come down to people and that we recognize that improve the situation for everybody that's involved in it.
ALICE MEADOWS: That is such a fantastic way of looking at it, Jennifer, because it makes this achievable in a way that it can and should be for everyone. You're so right that it's all about the people. So thank you. That's definitely wise words. We do have one outstanding question, I think. Jennifer, thank you very much for answering [INAUDIBLE] in the chat. But George, you asked, where do you see the future of research going at this crucial geopolitical crisis, and what would be a potential comeback solution?
ALICE MEADOWS: So I'm going to throw this open and see whether anybody would like to take a stab at answering that. Slightly looking at you, Roger. Not so not to put any pressure on, but--
ROGER SCHONFELD: I guess I think that how we come back from it has probably several possibilities. I think the how we come back from it framing assumes that we are moving linearly towards a globalized future. And as I said earlier, although I share that dream as a vision, I don't actually think it's realistic. I actually think that one of the things that needs to temper the discussion that we're having broadly on the panel is a question about what happens if the world splits into two or three or four blocs?
ROGER SCHONFELD: Not like a Cold War, exactly. I don't mean to invoke quite that specter. It may be less intense in some ways and more in others. But in an environment where one of the ways that nation states and groups of them compete against another is through technology and science and innovation, it doesn't make sense that they'll just want to give it all away to their competitors. And that doesn't mean it will all get cut off and walled in either.
ROGER SCHONFELD: But it's just thinking about something other than this global utopia of access. And I think that how we come back from it, I think we're likely to see substantial movement of scientists over the course of time from countries that deny them their freedom to express themselves. I think in the same way that World War II and the Soviet era produced large-scale immigration of scientists out of evil regimes and towards those that were welcoming, we're likely to see patterns like that.
ROGER SCHONFELD: And we should set policy in ways that can embrace those flows and actually encourage them because that's how we weaken those bad actors states. So I think there are large-scale ways that we come out of that over the long run. But in the near-term, I suspect we need to temper our expectations.
ALICE MEADOWS: Thanks, Roger. If anybody else has anything quick to add, you're welcome to, but otherwise, we should probably start wrapping up because we're nearly at the top of the hour. And Don, to your point in the chat, yes, climate change is going to be a very-- we've touched on climate change. That would be a year's worth of webinars in its own right, I think. But you're absolutely right to flag it to us as a very big issue.
ALICE MEADOWS: So I'm going to stop us here. I want to thank the speakers so very much. I knew when we were doing the preparation for this webinar that this was going to be a really interesting and valuable conversation. And it has definitely exceeded even my higher expectations. So thank you Jennifer, Ana, Haseeb, and Roger for sharing your thoughts on this topic. I've really enjoyed it, and I hope attendees have as well.
ALICE MEADOWS: And thank you to SSP for organizing this, to Jason and to Mary Beth, and to all of you for attending.
SPEAKER: And we do have some closing remarks.
JASON POINTE: Yes, thank you everyone for attending today's webinar, and thank you, also, to our panelists for an engaging discussion. And of course, thanks to our 2022 education sponsors. ARPHA, J and J editorial, OpenAthens, and Silverchair. Attendees will receive a post evaluation via email. We encourage you to provide feedback to help us pick topics for future events. And also, please check the SSP website for information on upcoming events such as those shown here, including our April 21 Ask the Experts webinar.
JASON POINTE: And please register for the 44th Annual Meeting in Chicago. Today's discussion was recorded and all registrants will receive a link to the recording when it is posted on the SSP website. This concludes our session today.
ALICE MEADOWS: Thanks. Bye everyone.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: Bye everyone. Take care.
Segment:0 .
JASON POINTE: Hello. Thank you for joining us for today's discussion on the future of research as a global enterprise presented by Chefs of the Scholarly Kitchen and other guests. It is the third event in SSP's 2022 webinar series. I'm Jason Pointe, lead of the SSP Education Committee's Webinars Working Group. Before we get started, I want to thank our 2022 education programs sponsors-- ARPHA, J&J Editorial, OpenAthens, and Silverchair.
JASON POINTE: We're grateful for your support. I also have a few housekeeping items to review. Your headsets have been muted automatically. Please use the Q&A feature in Zoom to enter questions for the moderator and panelists. You can also use the chat feature to communicate directly with speakers and other participants. This one-hour session will be recorded and available to registrants following today's event.
JASON POINTE: A quick note also on SSP's code of conduct in today's meeting. We are committed to diversity, equity, and providing an inclusive meeting environment that fosters open dialogue and the free expression of ideas free of harassment, discrimination, and hostile conduct. We ask all participants, whether speaking or in chat, to consider and debate relevant viewpoints in an orderly, respectful, and fair manner. At the conclusion of today's discussion.
JASON POINTE: You will receive a post-event evaluation via email. We encourage you to provide feedback and to help shape future SSP programming. Now, it's my pleasure to introduce the moderator for today's discussion, current SSP President and Scholarly Kitchen Chef, Alice Meadows.
ALICE MEADOWS: Thank you so much, Jason, and hello, everyone. I'm really delighted you're able to join us for this, what I know is going to be a very interesting and useful conversation about a topic that's especially-- it's never not timely, but it feels especially timely at the moment, the future of research as a global enterprise. As Jason said, I'm Alice Meadows. I'm the current president of SSP.
ALICE MEADOWS: It's a huge honor. I also work at NISO, the National Information Standards Organization as their Director of Community Engagement. I consult one day a week for an organization called MoreBrains Co-operative, and I'm very active in and passionate about, in particular, issues around diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility in scholarly publishing and also in research infrastructure. And I'm also a chef, as Jason said.
ALICE MEADOWS: And I'm very delighted to be joined here by two fellow Chefs, Haseeb Irfanullah, and Roger Schonfeld, by a recent guest chef, Ana Heredia, and by Jennifer Kemp, who I've said to her that we hope that she will be a future guest chef. They're all going to bring very different perspectives. And I'm going to let them introduce themselves and give a little bit of context for the perspectives they're going to provide to you.
ALICE MEADOWS: Before I do that, I also wanted to say that we're very much hoping, in the spirit of the Scholarly Kitchen, that this will be somewhat interactive. This is going to be a discussion rather than presentations, although a couple of the panelists are going to share a couple of slides when the time comes. But we're not going to have formal presentations. It's going to be more of a discussion, initially, between the speakers.
ALICE MEADOWS: But we would really love your participation as well. So I do encourage you to add comments and questions in the chat. And I'm hoping to leave about 15 minutes at the end where we really want to actively encourage you to share your thoughts on some of what we've been talking about as well as asking any questions you may have for the speakers. So without further ado, I'm going to hand over, Jennifer, to you, please.
ALICE MEADOWS: And the opening question is, in addition to introducing yourself, please can you tell us what you think research as a global enterprise should look like?
JENNIFER KEMP: Well, thank you. Thank you to Alice and fellow panelists and to SSP for organizing this. I'm Jennifer Kemp. I'm Head of Partnerships at Crossref. So I work with a couple of different community groups. Some of our publisher members are funder members and users of the metadata. And I do have a few slides so bear with me while I share my screen.
JENNIFER KEMP: More than answering the vision question, I want to set up the discussion a little bit more and provide some overview. So hopefully, you see my slides at the moment. So I think this audience is probably familiar with Crossref, but in case not, we are the largest of a handful of DOI registration agencies. And for a long time, we had only publisher members.
JENNIFER KEMP: It is in the last few years that we've had funder members as well who can register their grants. And the profile of our members has changed pretty dramatically in the past few years. So what you see here are new members who've joined by region just in the last couple of years. And there are just a few things I want to point out. I'm not going to go through the slides in any great detail. So the reasons that the membership has increased so much now to 16,000 members around the world, so we have about 100 members or more joining every single month.
JENNIFER KEMP: That has leveled off a little bit, but it's been really quite dramatic growth in the past few years. And the reasons vary. So in Indonesia, for example, there is a requirement by the government that government-funded research outputs are registered with a DOI. The other thing I want to point out about this trend is that a lot of these organizations don't consider themselves publishers.
JENNIFER KEMP: They publish, but publishing is often a secondary or tertiary activity for these organizations. So you can see near the top that the numbers in sub-Saharan Africa are still fairly small, and it may be a little surprising to see that numbers in places like North America, where it might be expected to be saturated, are still growing pretty significantly.
JENNIFER KEMP: The other thing I want to point out is what is being registered at Crossref. And this is the first point I want to make about a vision is that I hope that we get to a point where journals and STM are not the default-- that when we talk about outputs and when we talk about scholarship in general, that we consider all of the outputs and all of the disciplines.
JENNIFER KEMP: So this has held fairly stable for a while. Journals are still the vast majority of what gets registered with us, but preprints, which are the yellow slices you see at the noon position, that's our fastest growing content type, as we call it. And books are our second fastest growing content type. So I like the vision of global research to be more inclusive of newer and emerging content types.
JENNIFER KEMP: And then, I'm having trouble advancing my slides. There we go. So I also want to touch on multilingualism for just a moment. I know this will come up later in the discussion as well. So what you see here is a snippet of record from SciELO. So you can see the text in pink on the right is in Spanish. So we do have metadata records in languages other than English, but the majority is still in English.
JENNIFER KEMP: The language of the metadata doesn't always necessarily reflect the language of the content. And you can see on the left in blue that the fields, the elements labeled, are labeled in English. So this is something that we're looking at as well. We have a research project with the folks at PKP to look into some of that. And I can share a link to that if it's useful.
JENNIFER KEMP: So the one other point I want to make about vision before I turn it back over to Alice and the other panelists is just to say that I hope we also get to a point where global research addresses issues of accessibility, which I think are very important and certainly something that's very global. So I hope that helps set up the rest of the discussion. I'm going to stop sharing and turn it back over to Alice. Thank you.
ALICE MEADOWS: Thanks, Jennifer. That's really helpful, and I think it's really encouraging that these sorts of issues around different format types and multilingualism are increasingly, by no means dominant, but increasingly being discussed in our community in ways that they haven't been until now. And that's the good segue way Ana-- over to you, Ana-- is going to provide a Latin American perspective on the question of what research as a global endeavor should look like.
ANA HEREDIA: Thank you, Alice. And thank you for the invitation of being part of this panel with very nice panelists. We had the opportunity to share a little bit of perspectives before in preparation. So it's a pleasure being with you today. So just to present a little bit myself, I am a biologist by training and by my heart, by passion. So I am a former researcher turned scholarly communications specialist after some years studying ants, in my precise case.
ANA HEREDIA: So I joined the publishing world, the STM publishing world, where I developed some expertise in research information infrastructure at ORCID, research information analytics and publishing at Elsevier. So I think this year's in the research field and also with my professional experience make me have some interesting points of views, I think. So that I try to share with you today.
ANA HEREDIA: So to answer the first question or to bring my perspective of what a research global enterprise would be, I don't know if Mary Beth has my slides? Thank you. This is the last one.
SPEAKER: Just a second. On it. I'll cue those up, OK.
ANA HEREDIA: No problem. So I will start by mentioning a very recent document that there is being a lot talked about, which is the UNESCO Open Science Recommendations. This is important for everyone, but it has major implications in our region. So first of all, my ideal world, I thought about an ideal world right, not necessarily easy or feasible in any way, but it's my ideal world.
ANA HEREDIA: So an ideal world would be the one where the UNESCO Open Science Recommendations are in place, where science is a truly inclusive enterprise, and multilingualism and bibliodiversity-- to add one more concept to the discussion-- are not issues anymore. They are embedded in our way of doing science, where there is no bias in peer review, and where the only criteria for publishing in certain journals is scientific merit.
ANA HEREDIA: So my ideal world is also a world where the diamond open access is the rule because research funding and all the stakeholders will find a way to make it possible, to make it truly sustainable. It's also a world where there is a good research information infrastructure, where, citing Jennifer and Alice, all data and metadata are in several languages, all types of knowledge production are considered and identified with [INAUDIBLE],, with persistent identifiers, and also where [INAUDIBLE] systems, current research information systems, are used and can play a major role in the collection of information from different sources, from different types, and makes a responsible use of metrics as well.
ANA HEREDIA: This would be an ideal world. So also another point is that national scientific policies are aligned with the needs of society they serve. So this is a little bit of an ideal world. And they leave it to the next panelist.
ALICE MEADOWS: Are you done with your slides Ana? Sorry.
ANA HEREDIA: Yeah. I think Mary Beth has the control of them.
ALICE MEADOWS: Can I hand over to Haseeb, or have you more to say.
ANA HEREDIA: No, no. I am done. Thank you.
ALICE MEADOWS: OK. Thank you. Sorry.
SPEAKER: Thanks, Ana.
ALICE MEADOWS: Thanks. So Haseeb, over to you with the same question. And like Ana, you're a researcher. You're also a journal publisher, and you're based in Bangladesh so you have another very interesting perspective to bring to this question of what research as a global endeavor should look like.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: Thank you. Thank you, Alice. Good evening from Dhaka [INAUDIBLE].. I'm Haseeb Irfanullah. I'm basically an independent consultant working in the environment, climate change, and research system. In addition to being a chef of this Scholarly Kitchen, I'm also an associate editor of Learned Publishing. The way I see research as a global enterprise I would like to pose three issues or three perspectives before you.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: The first one is we have been talking about the global North and global South divide a lot when we talk about this [INAUDIBLE] leadership. And there has been so many different efforts over the last couple of decades. I'd like to focus on one particular one, that is, building the research communication capacity of the global South. A lot has been investing a lot of effort, money, to do that under different projects.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: Sometimes, I wonder whether these investments are actually working. Are they sustainable? The reason I am raising this question because I have been associated with quite a few MOOCS, which are being organized for the [INAUDIBLE] early career researcher. It seems like that the demand hasn't been changing much. It means there is an increasing demand from the global South to learn from the global North, which are fundamentals of research competition.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: Then the question is, what happened to the investment over the last couple of years? Why does southern senior researchers, they are not taking the leadership of training their own generations of new researchers? So that makes me wonder whether the investment is working or if the investment is sustained or creating the impacts it was supposed to create. Similarly, we often, in the name of inclusion and including [INAUDIBLE] from the South and we bring them on the editorial board of the journals published from the North.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: Have we ever asked the question that how these individuals changing their own country's publishing system? Because they are associated with the global system, they learn new things, new opportunities, new innovation. Are they really making a difference in their own country in terms of quality because in many cases, those countries are lagging behind when we talk about [INAUDIBLE] publishing system.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: The second point is if the research wants to be a global enterprise, we need to think of whether the research is creating impact. When I say creating research impact, I'm not talking about impact factor indices and the scores. I'm talking about the real impact on the ground, making changes on the practice, on the policies. Definitely since 2015, the sustainable development goal has created a fantastic opportunity to measure that.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: Are we taking that opportunity? Let me share a quick story that has been actually [INAUDIBLE] that has been evolving lately. Given the fact that many of the Southern universities, they are quite small. They can't publish thousands of papers every year. They can't. So they can't find themselves in the globally reputed university ranking.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: But things have changed since 2013 when impact rankings was introduced by Times Higher Education. What they are doing, they're giving the Southern universities opportunity to rank themselves by measuring how much they actually contribute to 17 SDGs, Sustainable Development Goals. And that's a brilliant opportunity for the Southern universities.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: And the latest edition of that ranking will be out in the last week of this month. But I see a different thing. [AUDIO OUT] be part of the rank so that their paper can be extracted from the Scopus probably there is a notion that the researchers from the South, they are trying to articulate their research in such a way so that they can get the ranking points. Instead of thinking of research impact on the ground, we are now thinking how my research will be contributing to my small university's ranking status.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: So when we talk research as a global enterprise, are we creating a new division or are we diverting somewhere else? Third point, the big one, which matches Jennifer's point, we talk about scholarly communication and we talk about peer reviewed journals in a big way as we have seen [INAUDIBLE] assured us. But can we really have research as a global enterprise if we exclude [INAUDIBLE] literature.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: By [INAUDIBLE] literature, I'm talking about non-peer reviewed articles. What I did, I will give you a very quick example. I did it actually today. [INAUDIBLE] Very recently, IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which actually won the Nobel Peace Prize back in 2007 because this institution, every seven years, they analyzed peer reviewed journal science how climate is changing, and [INAUDIBLE] fantastic things to do.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: But this year, I was just checking up some of the chapters, and I found that in many of the chapters, they actually were written by the experts, and they contained 25% non-peer reviewed documents, although, initially, their focus was only on peer reviewed articles. So how can we appreciate the contribution of these non-peer reviewed section of a scholarly communication, advance the science, and make it a global enterprise?
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: By posing these questions, I'll stop there. Thank you.
ALICE MEADOWS: Thanks, Haseeb. It's interesting, there's some themes already emerging, I think, from what you're all saying so. Roger, last but very definitely not least, on this question, what are your views of what a truly global research enterprise should look like.
ROGER SCHONFELD: Thanks, Alice. And thanks to my fellow panelists. What a great panel you've assembled here for us. And I'm, in addition to being a chef, I work at Ithaka S+R on, among other things, on science policy issues and the academic research enterprise and some of the scholarly communications issues that connect to that. And I've been working specifically on issues, as a researcher and an advisory capacity, issues around globalization and global scholarly communications issues for several years now.
ROGER SCHONFELD: So my perspective coming into this is that certainly science has globalized substantially in the past several decades. I think that's clear by any number of metrics. And my fellow panelists have spoken to some of those dynamics pretty clearly. We have-- I laugh to call it a lingua franca since I'm referring to the English Language, but we do have a lingua franca for quite a bit of scientific scholarly communication.
ROGER SCHONFELD: Growth of international scientific collaboration, globalized flows of manuscripts from countries around the world into appropriate scholarly publications, increasingly, though imperfectly, international forms of assessment, as has been discussed, and efforts as well at what I would call global scientific prioritization, for example, through the UN Sustainable Development Goals.
ROGER SCHONFELD: So efforts to really say, here's how we should pursue science together. So to my mind, a truly globalized science would be not just that and incrementally building on that, but ultimately, would be about human betterment, would be about societal betterment. And I think that's, in a way, what we're all kind of getting at in different ways. I think that's what our sort of north star of globalized science would look like.
ROGER SCHONFELD: And I'll say that I share that dream. I would love to see us achieve that, but I'm also a pragmatist. And I don't really believe that science can actually be a global enterprise. A truly global enterprise would require that science not be beholden to diverging national and regional block interests. And by regional block I'm referring to something like the EU, for example.
ROGER SCHONFELD: And those nation states and regional blocs, they ultimately, they're the paymasters and the policymakers of science. And as I like to say, she who pays the piper, calls the tune. So I tend to think about global science not in-- if I can say this sort of positively-- not in utopian terms, but rather, in this dynamic where there are diverging interests and diverging policies-- and I think we'll talk about this further-- increasingly diverging interests and increasingly diverging policies, I tend to think about global science not utopian terms, but really more about how do we advance what I think, certainly those of us on this panel I think could agree are shared values, but within the system as it actually exists and is likely to exist, not as we would wish it to be.
ROGER SCHONFELD: So that's a little bit of the perspective that I take.
ALICE MEADOWS: Thank you. We've had four very different perspectives, but as I say, I think there are already some interesting and common themes emerging, which I think we'll build on in the next couple of questions. And Roger, that was a great segue into the next question for you all, which is about what are the barriers? If this is your vision, what's stopping us from getting there? And you've already alluded to the geopolitical issues, Roger.
ALICE MEADOWS: So I'm going to ask you to come back on that in a minute. But first of all, Haseeb, would you like to take a shot at answering that?
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: Yeah. We've heard so many different challenges, isn't it. But I'd like to focus on only one thing. Since I have been looking into or have been following how we can reduce the gap between the North and the South, and definitely the South has been leading for more than 350 years, all the innovation, all the conceptualization, technological advancement, the policies, systemic innovation in the scholarly publishing.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: We have to admit that. But you can't actually use everything, all the notions of the concepts of policies [INAUDIBLE] in the South because we have different culture. The diversity, that context is different. The way we see research, the relationship between research and policy-- there are so many things you need to consider. But we need to appreciate those contexts when we want to bring North and South divide, not remove, but lessen that divide between the North and the South.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: I often say it is not that North is calling the South, please join us. No. We have to meet in the middle. To meet in the middle, you need to understand the context of the South. So we have to contextualize all the issues, all the policies, the standards and practices. And that is very true for many countries in the global South because lower developed countries are rapidly becoming [INAUDIBLE] countries, or the least developed countries are becoming developing countries.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: But the faster their economy is growing, their research culture is not changing that fast. So we need to appreciate that-- that it will take time. So what can be done? My suggestion would be, or my proposition is the obvious one-- that North and South, the entities who wants to work together, they need to work together using the international, regional, and national networks which already exist.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: We need to go beyond our comfort zone, and we need to use those regional expertise so that we can overcome the challenges South has been facing and helping them to align their activities, their rules and regulations, so that they can comply with or be aligned with global publishing standard and practice. So this is the way I want to see that area of contextualization and [INAUDIBLE].
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: Thank you.
ALICE MEADOWS: Thank you, Haseeb. Yes, I think that's a really important point. I think true equity, it's like accessibility-- it benefits everyone. It's not just for the people who are currently disadvantaged, it's actually for everyone's benefit that we are more truly globally equitable. Roger, what are your thoughts on what the barriers or a key barrier, at least, is to achieving this? Or at least, a pragmatic version of this vision?
ROGER SCHONFELD: Yeah, yeah. No, I think there's a few different types of barriers. And certainly, I think Haseeb has covered some important ones that I won't try to recapitulate as well. I think we have some very simple policy differences between some of the most productive world regions in terms of science. So I do think that at least up until this point, there have been meaningful policy differences between Europe, between the EU and the UK on the one hand, and the US, certainly, on the other hand in terms of structures for funding science, some of the associated policymaking where we're much more diffuse approach to policy in the US, at least in this area, comparatively more centralized and coordinated approach in the EU and the UK.
ROGER SCHONFELD: And fairly differing views on mandates and open access just to take a few specific examples. But there are others as well at the level of science policy coordination beyond scholarly communications. But I actually think the more significant barriers are actually geopolitical concerns. For example, one of the issues that I've been tracking for a number of years now is the competition between a variety of countries.
ROGER SCHONFELD: Certainly, that includes the liberal democracies-- competition between them and China on a variety of different fronts that's played itself out in terms of some meaningful efforts to, you might say, decouple some aspects of academic science in terms of publishing systems, in terms of ranking systems, in terms of collaboration dynamics, scientific collaboration et cetera.
ROGER SCHONFELD: And without getting into all the specifics, some of them we may not feel good about. We may actually think are problematic in a variety of ways, but that is part of the reality that competition and some of the dynamics there is a real part of the real barrier. We've seen all sorts of disinformation from nation states, what I'll call hostile nation states from a US perspective, that have yielded threats to the trust in science that we've seen.
ROGER SCHONFELD: So I think there are all sorts of different barriers like that. And of course, I don't have to tell anyone here-- more pressing recently is Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the war crimes that it's committed there and the very immediate split that has caused between Russian academia, which is completely united at a leadership level in its support for Putin and the invasion through public statements that directors have made, and a variety of other countries that are trying to figure out how do we continue to engage and collaborate with scientists without supporting a regime that's doing things that we find problematic.
ROGER SCHONFELD: So I think these barriers are real, and they're, unfortunately, in my view, they're growing.
ALICE MEADOWS: Thank you. And of course, we're not without our own misinformation here in the US or the UK or everywhere. So yes, but definitely big challenges. Thank you Roger. And Ana, you painted this beautiful vision of your idea of what a global research enterprise would look like. What do you see as the main barriers to that?
ANA HEREDIA: Yeah. I'm smiling because I know I was going to sound naive. It's not at all that. I knew my colleagues were going to be more incisive in the introduction, so it was an exercise of desire, if we may--
ALICE MEADOWS: It was wonderful. Don't apologize. It's good to be visionary.
ANA HEREDIA: So here at the slide, you can see just an example of the tensions that I would like to address a little bit in this part. So thank you, Haseeb and Roger, for mentioning some of the barriers of the obstacles for a global science view. I may also would like to cite, from my perspective, some of the ones that I think they are important in every country, but mainly I think that may have some bad implications here in my region.
ANA HEREDIA: For example, the geographical disadvantage when we submit an article to international journals, the names there are among the coauthors make it clear where it comes from with the affiliations. And sometimes, there are some issues around this. The bias in peer review is something that we are discussing a lot at the moment-- how to cope with this or how to make this not exist anymore.
ANA HEREDIA: I would also mention one barrier for a global view of research is also the extremely expensive APCs. Some journals are charging compared, for example, to a researcher's salary or research budgets in some countries. But I would like to focus on two of them that are specifically important in my region and being discussed a lot in the last few years. One of them is the evaluation processes and the role of national journals in this process.
ANA HEREDIA: So here in the region, we have a perverse system where the national evaluation exercise is considered to make a ranking of journals, if you wish, and this has a lot of impact in the journals but also in the agendas of research as well. And also raises a question about how these local journals that have an impact, that have an importance, that have been described in many articles, how these journals can survive, can remain sustainable.
ANA HEREDIA: And so this is one question that, in the region, has been discussed a lot because these systems rely in the journals [INAUDIBLE] but based on international scientific databases like Scopus and Web of Science where the local journals are not present in their majority. So all the research is not being expressed in this database, but they are being used for these countries to do their research assessments.
ANA HEREDIA: So this is something that is a hard obstacle for a truly global view of the world because what we are seeing in terms of research output is mainly what is visible in these international databases. And everything that is not there is not being seen or read or cited. And the other main obstacle I would say is the research information infrastructure.
ANA HEREDIA: So this has been cited by the UNESCO Open Science Recommendation. And one of the main obstacles to open science is the lack of integration between existing databases-- that includes public libraries and government data sets, university archives-- that were built at several different moments and they are not linked to each other. So this interoperability and this unified system, if you want, is still a dream.
ANA HEREDIA: But we have some examples here in the region, in Peru and in Brazil, that are showing that these national [INAUDIBLE] systems are promoting a true integration in the scientific platforms that are already existing in the region. And these databases can be used for research evaluation, thus giving a more precise view of what is being done in our region so as they have a complete register of people, institutions, productions, and projects.
ANA HEREDIA: So this approach, I think, is paving the road for an increasingly inclusive and socially relevant sciences, which is something that Roger mentioned. And also, while being participating at the open science conversation with the rest of the world, which is also important that all the regions and we are included in these conversations.
ALICE MEADOWS: Ana, that's a lovely segue into talking about the research infrastructure which very much supports those kinds of systems that can be national, well, organizational level, national or global. So Jennifer, over to you, please, to tell us what you think the main barriers are from a research infrastructure perspective.
JENNIFER KEMP: Well, I think my fellow panelists have covered many of the broad issues so well. So I'll try to be brief about it. I guess I think research is inherently very detail-oriented. You have these folks or have this very deep expertise who are really involved in all the particulars of their research. And all of that is done to address these very vast, high-level issues that affect all of us.
JENNIFER KEMP: And then, there's all of this middle ground in between. And some of that, which is not necessarily research infrastructure, but is just-- I think research is often very disconnected from our everyday lives for those of us who aren't directly involved in it. And the misinformation and disinformation that's been raised here, I think that's definitely one thing that's really exacerbating existing pressures of cost and access and prestige and all of these other things, just the general situation where expertise in general is under siege.
JENNIFER KEMP: So I think these large looming questions are definitely serious barriers at the moment. But I do think that research infrastructure has a role in bridging minutia of their everyday work that is done with some of these larger goals by making things easier, by making information more open and available for analysis and things like that. And I would hope that we get to a point where that sort of thing-- there was a question earlier about just analyzing outputs by subject area.
JENNIFER KEMP: That's the sort of thing that should be easier to do. And when it is, I think that that will help address some of those larger issues of things that we've seen in the pandemic. And I know everybody's sick of it, as am I, but I think that it's been a really global, good example, for better and worse, of all of the things that research can do well, all of the things that the community can do globally, and at the same time, of course, highlighted all of these issues and barriers that we've been discussing.
JENNIFER KEMP: So definitely more work to be done.
ALICE MEADOWS: Yeah. That's such a good point about the pandemic. I think what all of you have said about barriers, the response to the pandemic, both good and bad, is very analogous with what you've all spoken about to some extent, I think. So I'm going to ask you our final question, but at this point in the interest of time, I also want to ask attendees-- this is the point at which we would love your input as well.
ALICE MEADOWS: So my final question for the speakers is, what one thing would you change if you had a magic wand? And so this can be a really big fantasy thing or it could be a small, low-hanging fruit. What could be a quick win that's actually achievable? So I'm to ask all the panelists for their thoughts on this, but we would really love your thoughts as well. And we'll try to wrap them into this discussion as well as leaving a little bit of time if you have any specific questions that you want to ask the speakers.
ALICE MEADOWS: So I'm going to start off, Haseeb, with you again, please, what you think there might be that's either achievable now, quick win type thing, or a big picture, my ideal world, this is the one thing that would change that would really make a difference?
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: Thank you. Thank you, Alice, and thank you to all the panelists for this [INAUDIBLE] discussion. Yeah, that's a very interesting question to put forward. Since I wear another hat, which is as a development practitioner working in environment and climate change sectors. [AUDIO OUT] it's really amazing how scholarly publishers have come together and joined their hands for sustainable development.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: I'm talking about [INAUDIBLE] publishers, in fact. They're making a promise, making a commitment to do something [INAUDIBLE] sustainable development. I also appreciate how they stand [INAUDIBLE] a strong stand on anti-racism, and the way they are tirelessly trying to make their system, their business, more diverse, inclusive, equitable, and obviously, accessible.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: But I want to go a bit further. I want to see scholarly publishers really live the life they are publishing about. Let me give two examples. Since, as a publisher, you publish journals where articles are published on transparency, accountability, of numerous government systems, isn't it. But can we be open enough that we show how we calculate our APCs?
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: How much is discovering our expenses, the actual expenses, including research and development, how much is the standard profit margins that they're making? And, most importantly, how much is actually our bandwidth? After all, it is the purpose of the research entities are paying for it. The second question the second example I would like to share, once again, climate change because it is so important not for [INAUDIBLE] to come.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: It is an existential challenge the whole world is facing, a transition in terms of generational challenge. And most important thing is we know it from research, from science, and the published, peer reviewed articles which are being published by us. But can't we, as publishers, take a stand against all elements that are fueling misinformation against climate change and this reality and delaying the actions we are supposed to take to halt carbon emissions.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: So that kind of stance is so important. But I wonder, what is stopping us from taking that kind of stance. Thank you.
ALICE MEADOWS: Thanks, Haseeb. I think it's such an important point that we, as publishers or as research infrastructure providers, we're not always leading by example, are we? We publish and we support all this wonderful research and best practices, but we don't necessarily, I suspect, very often don't put it into practice ourselves. So I think that's a really, really good point. We do have a question so I want to make sure we leave time to answer that, but first of all, Roger, can you share your one, either small, medium, or large sized wish for the universe to make the research endeavor more global?
ROGER SCHONFELD: Yeah, I-- given that, as the pragmatist who isn't sure that more global is actually the direction that we're moving in, I'm going to reflect a little bit more on a larger observation about a change that may need to happen, which is that if you consider the major publishing houses, the major international or, if you like, global publishing houses, their business models, and those of many smaller publishing houses as well, have at least, until two months ago, have assumed that we would continue to move in this direction of more and more globalized science.
ROGER SCHONFELD: They've assumed that APC revenue from China would continue to grow. They've assumed that they'd be able to source manuscripts globally, sell access or sell APCs globally, et cetera. And I think we can all now see that there are, at least I think, there are major geopolitical impediments to that fundamental business model. As I think everyone knows, many publishers have already cut off Russia, and in some cases Belorussia as well at least in terms of new sales.
ROGER SCHONFELD: Maybe not in terms of access, but in terms of new sales. But the bigger question, actually, is about the direction that the relationship with China will take, in my view. So I think the observation that I want to raise or the question I'd like to ask is, will we begin to recognize that even science is subject to geopolitics? And if so, what will that recognition mean to growth strategies and business models for scholarly publishers and, of course, their products, which is science, which is scholarship?
ALICE MEADOWS: Thank you. Answering a question with a question. Always a good strategy. Ana and Jennifer, I want to turn to the two of you in that order now to answer the question. And then, we do have-- oh, thank you, Jennifer. I've just seen you've answered the question in the chat. Thank you very much. So I do still want to try and allow five minutes or so for questions.
ALICE MEADOWS: So Ana, if you could tell us what your one thing is and then, Jennifer, last but definitely not least, it will be your turn.
ANA HEREDIA: Thank you, Alice. I think I will answer this by answering Donald's question in the chat. I think having worked at Elsevier and with Scopus for a long time, I've seen these databases increasing the global South content and trying to understand the dynamics of the publishing here in our region.
ANA HEREDIA: But I think there is maybe a misconception that is, globally, expanding that is, that global South journals may not be necessarily professional. And I've been reading a lot about this. And I think that we have to make the difference between predatory journals and unethical publications and what is not mainstream, right, as Roger was describing before.
ANA HEREDIA: So I think that there are many things to discuss in this, but mainly, I think that the step that Web of Science and Scopus did on including global South content, and for example, in the case of Web of Science, there is even a [INAUDIBLE] collection. This is very, very good, and this is part of the solution. But I think that we need to try to understand in a little bit more detail what, for example, important initiatives like SciELO that is internationally recognized, but also readily, which is another indexing database in the region are also [INAUDIBLE]..
ANA HEREDIA: So we have at least three regional databases, indexing databases, that have their own criteria for inclusion and to remain in the collection. And these organizations have been doing a lot on implementing best practices in publishing and also in helping editors to adopt the best practices that are used in the global community.
ANA HEREDIA: But yeah, I think that we need to discuss this as another topic, Donald, and I'll be happy to discuss it with you. But thank you for touching this. This is an important point.
ALICE MEADOWS: Thanks, Ana. And of course, it also goes to the issue of bibliodiversity that you and Jennifer raised earlier, and indeed, Haseeb, around different types of content as well, not just publications. So Jennifer, you get to go last and share your words of wisdom or desires about what one thing you would like to see change if you had a magic wand and could do, or a call to action if it's something that can be actually done.
JENNIFER KEMP: Maybe I can combine those two things. I have a laundry list, and I can talk fast but I won't try to go through all those things. I guess if I could wave a magic wand, I would say that we would take the lessons we've learned from the pandemic and the COVID research and apply those to the UN Sustainable Development Goals. That would be my dream, I guess. But the other part of that is just to recognize that ultimately, there are policies and technologies and workflows and all those things-- ultimately, those things really come down to people.
JENNIFER KEMP: People who develop them, people who decide on them and how they're implemented and things like that. And any change initiative is really going to come down to the people that are involved in it. And so investing in people, having a diverse group of people involved, not hiring jerks, all of those things that are so important to these really critical efforts just often come down to people and that we recognize that improve the situation for everybody that's involved in it.
ALICE MEADOWS: That is such a fantastic way of looking at it, Jennifer, because it makes this achievable in a way that it can and should be for everyone. You're so right that it's all about the people. So thank you. That's definitely wise words. We do have one outstanding question, I think. Jennifer, thank you very much for answering [INAUDIBLE] in the chat. But George, you asked, where do you see the future of research going at this crucial geopolitical crisis, and what would be a potential comeback solution?
ALICE MEADOWS: So I'm going to throw this open and see whether anybody would like to take a stab at answering that. Slightly looking at you, Roger. Not so not to put any pressure on, but--
ROGER SCHONFELD: I guess I think that how we come back from it has probably several possibilities. I think the how we come back from it framing assumes that we are moving linearly towards a globalized future. And as I said earlier, although I share that dream as a vision, I don't actually think it's realistic. I actually think that one of the things that needs to temper the discussion that we're having broadly on the panel is a question about what happens if the world splits into two or three or four blocs?
ROGER SCHONFELD: Not like a Cold War, exactly. I don't mean to invoke quite that specter. It may be less intense in some ways and more in others. But in an environment where one of the ways that nation states and groups of them compete against another is through technology and science and innovation, it doesn't make sense that they'll just want to give it all away to their competitors. And that doesn't mean it will all get cut off and walled in either.
ROGER SCHONFELD: But it's just thinking about something other than this global utopia of access. And I think that how we come back from it, I think we're likely to see substantial movement of scientists over the course of time from countries that deny them their freedom to express themselves. I think in the same way that World War II and the Soviet era produced large-scale immigration of scientists out of evil regimes and towards those that were welcoming, we're likely to see patterns like that.
ROGER SCHONFELD: And we should set policy in ways that can embrace those flows and actually encourage them because that's how we weaken those bad actors states. So I think there are large-scale ways that we come out of that over the long run. But in the near-term, I suspect we need to temper our expectations.
ALICE MEADOWS: Thanks, Roger. If anybody else has anything quick to add, you're welcome to, but otherwise, we should probably start wrapping up because we're nearly at the top of the hour. And Don, to your point in the chat, yes, climate change is going to be a very-- we've touched on climate change. That would be a year's worth of webinars in its own right, I think. But you're absolutely right to flag it to us as a very big issue.
ALICE MEADOWS: So I'm going to stop us here. I want to thank the speakers so very much. I knew when we were doing the preparation for this webinar that this was going to be a really interesting and valuable conversation. And it has definitely exceeded even my higher expectations. So thank you Jennifer, Ana, Haseeb, and Roger for sharing your thoughts on this topic. I've really enjoyed it, and I hope attendees have as well.
ALICE MEADOWS: And thank you to SSP for organizing this, to Jason and to Mary Beth, and to all of you for attending.
SPEAKER: And we do have some closing remarks.
JASON POINTE: Yes, thank you everyone for attending today's webinar, and thank you, also, to our panelists for an engaging discussion. And of course, thanks to our 2022 education sponsors. ARPHA, J and J editorial, OpenAthens, and Silverchair. Attendees will receive a post evaluation via email. We encourage you to provide feedback to help us pick topics for future events. And also, please check the SSP website for information on upcoming events such as those shown here, including our April 21 Ask the Experts webinar.
JASON POINTE: And please register for the 44th Annual Meeting in Chicago. Today's discussion was recorded and all registrants will receive a link to the recording when it is posted on the SSP website. This concludes our session today.
ALICE MEADOWS: Thanks. Bye everyone.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: Bye everyone. Take care.
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