Cadmore media player playing video Opening Content for COVID_July 1, 2020
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:
Opening Content for COVID_July 1, 2020
Description:
Opening Content for COVID_July 1, 2020
Thumbnail URL:
https://cadmoremediastorage.blob.core.windows.net/c1c431ca-6f2b-4f17-b150-4ebc7105b429/videoscrubberimages/Scrubber_35.jpg
Duration:
T00H57M54S
Embed URL:
https://stream.cadmore.media/player/c1c431ca-6f2b-4f17-b150-4ebc7105b429
Content URL:
https://cadmoreoriginalmedia.blob.core.windows.net/c1c431ca-6f2b-4f17-b150-4ebc7105b429/Opening Content for COVID_July 1%2c 2020.mov?sv=2019-02-02&sr=c&sig=CMZB6GCIxf5OVFRyeBhzdV2eAgQSoSA39ZDFFwVCw24%3D&st=2024-12-21T16%3A32%3A12Z&se=2024-12-21T18%3A37%3A12Z&sp=r
Upload Date:
2020-11-18T00:00:00.0000000
Transcript:
Language: EN.
Segment:0 .
WILL SCHWEITZER: I'm Will Schweitzer. I'm Silverchair's chief product officer, and welcome again to the first of our Platform Strategies Webinar Series. Joining me today are Clare Curtis, publisher at Portland Press, Emily Farrell, from the MIT Press, Vida Damijonaitis, from the American Medical Association, and Andrew Pitts, from PSI. Today we're going to discuss how these publishers have adapted their products and sales strategies in response to COVID, and whether those changes are sustainable or here to stay.
WILL SCHWEITZER: Each publisher will share a bit about how they've adapted their programs, how they've made those product and strategy decisions, and share any data or observations they've gathered so far. PSI will then share some unique insights as to how Sci-Hub has exploited free content. We'll hear first from Claire, then Emily, then Vida, and last, but not least, Andrew, before turning to Q&A. So Clare, can we pass the controls to you?
CLARE CURTIS: Yeah. So I will share my screen. OK. So thank you very much for inviting me to take part. And I am based in the UK working for the Biochemical Society and Portland Press. And just a brief, introduction Biochemical Society is the UK'S largest single discipline society covering the molecular biosciences community.
CLARE CURTIS: Portland Press is its wholly owned publishing arm, publishing seven journals and one magazine. We publish five hybrid journals, publishing approximately 20% open access and two fully open access journals. And our main business model at the moment is a sustainable transition to open access. And you can see there on the left that we have over the last few years published a lot more open access articles than we have in previous years.
CLARE CURTIS: So really, to go into the discussion around COVID, on the 31st of January, 2020, the Biochemical Society and Portland Press joined over 150 signatories to a welcome statement on sharing research data and findings relevant to the novel coronavirus outbreak. And what this actually meant was that for any content published before the 31st of January, this was made freely available if it was of direct relevance to the coronavirus outbreak.
CLARE CURTIS: And then any content that we published after the 31st of January was published fully open access with no charge to the authors. We immediately saw an increase in the usage of that content, and we had actually published around 17 articles that we thought were of direct relevance to the novel coronavirus outbreak. However, although coronavirus-related content was freely available, we had to wonder whether this would actually be enough for the community.
CLARE CURTIS: So we started looking at what other societies and publishers were also doing in the content space. We also spoke to our community and asked what were they saying? What were they wanting from us as a publisher? We have an international audience, so we needed to listen to the global community, not just the UK or the US. We wanted to listen to everybody.
CLARE CURTIS: And obviously, more and more countries were going into lockdown and institutions were closing. So how were people actually accessing our content? We knew that we had remote access options set up for our content, including institutional authentication. But we weren't really sure how this workflow fitted in with the user journey. Was it straightforward for users? And we also realized as more and more research was being done on COVID-19, it was becoming very clear that a number of areas of the molecular biosciences would be of relevance to the disease.
CLARE CURTIS: So where did we draw the line as to what research is of relevance to the coronavirus outbreak? And so we thought, should we actually be making more content freely available, not just the coronavirus-related content? So we realized that other societies did actually start to make all of their content freely available. And we were receiving emails from our communities asking us whether we were going to make our content freely available in support of the community.
CLARE CURTIS: We spoke to people who were trying to access our content-- editorial board members, researchers, institutions-- and asked them to assess the workflow, to access our paywall content via the remote authentication route. And we realized that this really wasn't a straightforward and user-friendly as we would have liked. And we assessed our user base and how the coronavirus was impacting worldwide institutions, with the institutions closing and researchers and working remotely.
CLARE CURTIS: So in April, we actually made the decision to suspend paywalls across all of our content, not just coronavirus-related content, until further notice. We deliberately did not put an end date on when we would bring paywalls back up. We just said that we would suspend until further notice. So we suspended paywalls across the portfolio on the 21st of April. And because we're quite a small, agile, society publisher, we were able to respond very quickly to the researchers needs.
CLARE CURTIS: So we got appropriate governance sign-off from our Portland Press board and council of trustees very, very quickly. And we were actually able to make an agreement with PSI Limited-- and Andrew will talk about PSI later-- so that Silverchair immediately switched on the IP-Intrusion Service from PSI, so that we could protect our content that was now going to be freely available to everybody from malicious IP addresses.
CLARE CURTIS: And just very quickly, the analysis that we've so far done, total usage in May was 180% higher than the average monthly usage during the first three months of 2020, and was 46% higher compared with May last year. And as we would expect, the largest share of the usage increase was for our hybrid journals, so for that content that had been behind a paywall. We had a lot of people coming to us saying how great this was for the community.
CLARE CURTIS: So on the left there, Professor David Carling in the UK was saying it was a very positive move for the society, and that it was very important have access to the journals during the crisis. And there, Isabelle Leclercq from Belgium was saying that was a very good initiative to help scientists and researchers during their work. Other things the society did to adapt in response to COVID-19, not surprisingly, all staff started working from home from mid-March.
CLARE CURTIS: We had to cancel all our in-person events. Scientific meetings and public engagement activities to the end of 2020 have been canceled or postponed. But we then realized we also needed to support the community in other ways. So we started a free webinar series called Biochemistry Focus, so we were delivering content in a different way. As far as policy is concerned, we carried out a researcher survey to see how the pandemic is impacting the community, and we'll be acting on some of the results of that research survey.
CLARE CURTIS: The society produced a COVID-19 resource page, where we collected together all of the information we could around COVID. And we also promoted painless publishing. So we were supporting researchers in being able to submit their work to our journals, even if they weren't within a laboratory. So if they weren't able to do extra experiments, we were sort of allowing for that during the peer review process.
CLARE CURTIS: So that's a very quick run-through of that. I'm happy to take any questions at the end.
WILL SCHWEITZER: Thank you very much, Clare. We'll turn next to Emily from MIT. Would you like to take over?
EMILY FARRELL: Ah. I think I have it once I get that one going. There we go. OK. Thank you so much, Clare, and thanks, Will, for bringing us together. I'm going to talk now a little bit about what MIT Press has done over the last few months in response to the COVID crisis. MIT Press is a university press of MIT, and we report into MIT libraries.
EMILY FARRELL: We are on the larger end of the American University press size. And we have quite a broad array of types of work that we publish. So we have a portfolio of about 40 journals, and about 11 or 12 of those now are open access, fully open access. We also publish textbooks. We have a growing tradebook list, and we also publish about, I think, around 150 academic books a year.
EMILY FARRELL: We also cover quite a wide array of subject areas. So we do publish, and we're known to publish in STEM, but we also have a big philosophy list. We publish in art and architecture, economics, and environmental studies as well. So in terms of considering how we could respond to the COVID crisis, there were a number of different considerations in terms of product types and content subject areas.
EMILY FARRELL: So there were two main areas of focus when we were considering access, at the point where there was a clear shift, and certainly an institutional shift, to online learning. We wanted to make sure that we were making any content related to COVID freely available for people to reach. But we also were concerned about the support for remote learning.
EMILY FARRELL: We shifted to working from home around March 12, and as did MIT more broadly. And so we knew that our libraries were going to need to provide more digital resources and more support for students and faculty who were looking to make sure that they could access content for the rest of the semester.
EMILY FARRELL: So one of the things we did was draw together as much relevant general content as possible, including open access articles, into one landing page for journal articles. That was to make sure it was possible-- it was more possible and easier to discover content across different areas that we publish in. So we published that March 18, and have increased or moved the access date now to August 31, as it became clear that the pandemic was worsening and that remote learning would continue.
EMILY FARRELL: Our editorial teams also brought together as much relevant book content as possible. And we've done that by not only making-- not making the content freely available, but drawing it together and putting it up onto the PubPub platform, which is an open source, open access platform that was developed by the Knowledge Futures Group, a collaboration between MIT Press and the MIT Media Lab.
EMILY FARRELL: And that content, which covers quite a selection of work on pandemics, epidemiology, and other related topics, is all now freely readable on PubPub for the foreseeable future. We also, at the beginning of 2019, with Silverchair as our platform provider, launched our own ebooks platform-- MIT Press Direct.
EMILY FARRELL: So in terms of supporting remote learning and access, we heeded the call from a number of institutional partners, consortia that we work with, who were asking directly that we support and make our content more accessible to students and faculty. So we opened up our ebooks and made an announcement March 19.
EMILY FARRELL: We let libraries know through various relevant library channels that we would be opening up access to about-- I think we have about 3,000 titles now up on our platform. We did ask libraries to sign on so that we would be requiring IP authentication for access. And initially, we offered free access through the end of May when we made the launch in mid-March.
EMILY FARRELL: As the shutdown lengthened, we also extended that for another month to June 30, so through the end of the financial year and covering most of the semester in North America. We did see a huge uptake from libraries internationally. We ended up bringing about 800 new libraries on board. The platform-- we'd had the platform for just over a year in March. And so though we had seen a steady uptick from institutions, this was a huge increase in the number of institutions using the content on the platform.
EMILY FARRELL: We also, in acknowledgment that libraries would be facing some challenging budget times, even as soon as the end of this last fiscal year, we graced access to the journals and to our cognitive sciences database, CogNet. So where we would usually cut access for subscribers who weren't renewing, we allowed flexibility in terms of renewal periods.
EMILY FARRELL: We also worked together with Project MUSE and Oxford's platform to open content on their sites where they were also making university press content available. And we also worked to make sure that our textbooks that were currently in use by instructors, that they would still be available to their students, where otherwise, the students had been using print copies from the library.
EMILY FARRELL: So we were providing access to students through the ublish platform to support coursework. So in response to all of these varied initiatives to make sure our content is open across the various types of content that we publish, you can see from some of the data that we're getting from Project MUSE that usage really has skyrocketed.
EMILY FARRELL: So from two years prior, we've seen a massive uptick in usage on the MUSE platform. We also found there to be a lot of collaboration in the crisis, a lot of appreciation and a lot of flexibility in working with libraries to make sure that we were getting access to students who needed it and faculty who needed it. So we certainly heard from a lot of institutions that this was making a difference, that making content available quickly and across the board was incredibly helpful in supporting libraries to get to students and faculty.
EMILY FARRELL: In making content available on our own platform, we also saw a huge amount of content, a huge amount of usage. And in amongst that, we really saw very few IP abuses. There weren't a large number of excessive downloads that, at least, tripped the monitoring that we have in place with Silverchair.
EMILY FARRELL: I think, again, Andrew's going to talk some more about from that perspective a little bit later. But with-- we also were able to gather a lot more data on our own platform that we haven't in the past. Until we opened up the content, we had a lot of ARL libraries and a smaller number of smaller liberal arts schools. With the 800 institutions that we brought onto the platform, we had an incredible array of institutions that were now able to access content that hadn't been in a position to purchase before, or hadn't really considered trialing it because they didn't feel they would be able to-- that they have the budget.
EMILY FARRELL: So we've had community colleges. We've also had art museums, as well as those of larger ARL libraries. It's given us a chance to look at and have some patterns of usage across all use, and it's something that we're looking at further. Who is using what sort of content? Is it the more recent content that's more valuable, and to which sorts of schools?
EMILY FARRELL: It's also opened up an amazing channel of dialogue with libraries to be able to answer questions directly, to talk to librarians that we hadn't yet reached in only having the platform available for a year for ebooks. It's also really useful to have this data as we work on developing an open access business model for monographs. And we have funding from the Arcadia Foundation, a three-year grant that we are working on to develop this model for open access monographs on our platform.
EMILY FARRELL: And having this data usage really gives us a better understanding of where value lies and how content is being used. And we've also had feedback from libraries that it's useful for the collection development. Even if libraries are not buying collections of ebooks on our platform, they are able to look at single titles that are particularly useful, and then purchase those as ebooks through our aggregator partners, for example.
EMILY FARRELL: Some of the other feedback, of course, that we've had is asking for us to extend the access to our content. At the same time, there has been an understanding that we are in a similar boat as a lot of the institutions we work for. As a university press, we certainly need to be concerned with sustainability and making sure we're still able to support the publishing program that we have.
EMILY FARRELL: We have made the decision on the basis of feedback from other publishers, and of course, from our libraries, that all of our pricing will stay flat for the next year. Another thing as a consequence of the crises is that we have pushed forward with new content creation and also new approaches. So in May, we published Economics in the Age of COVID-19, by Joshua Gans.
EMILY FARRELL: It's the first in the new series we've launched called First Reads. And the book went from proposal to publication through review in a month. It required incredible work from just about every level of the press to get the work out. But we wanted to make sure we were responding quickly to what was happening in the COVID era from a perspective that fit with the press.
EMILY FARRELL: And that's open access on the PubPub platform as well. And finally, just yesterday we announced the launch of a new journal, Rapid Reviews-- COVID-19, which is something of a response to the difficulties presented by preprints at the moment, where unreviewed works have been picked up by the media or have been circulated, and it's become a little harder to identify amongst all of this, the research that's being published, what is most reliable and trustworthy.
EMILY FARRELL: So it'll be an overlay journal that pushes forward review quickly. It's being-- we have an editor-in-chief that's based at UC Berkeley, Professor Stefano Bertozzi. And it's not just going to be from sort of a biomedical perspective, but also very much interested in an interdisciplinary perspective, taking account of public health and also approaches in the social sciences and the humanities.
EMILY FARRELL: So that covers the diversity of approaches that we have taken. It still feels like there's much to do and much to understand. And we think we'll continue along the track that we've been working on, and very much appreciate the dialogue that we've had with libraries and the work that authors have put in to keep our general publishing program on track.
WILL SCHWEITZER: Thank you so much, Emily. And I have to say, that has to be the fastest I've ever heard of a book being produced. Up next, is Vida from the AMA. Vida, would you like to take control?
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: So thank you my name's Vida Damijonaitis. I am the director of worldwide sales for the JAMA network. Before I start, I want to give a quick shout-out to Betsy Solaro, our director of marketing, who really helped put this presentation together. The JAMA network is the journal's publishing arm of the American Medical Association. We are fully owned by the AMA. However, we have complete editorial independence in what we publish.
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: JAMA is our flagship journal. We have 10 specialty hybrid titles. JAMA Network Open is our first fully open access journal. And JAMA Health Forum is our new content channel. We started receiving COVID-19 content in early February. It was pretty apparent that this was going to be a big global health issue. Although, at the time, we did not quite realize how massive the issue would really become.
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: But we made the decision to make all of the content that we publish freely available, despite the publishing licenses authors might have chosen at the time of submission. The types of articles we were receiving and publishing have been original research, viewpoints, patient information. The content has been published across several of our journals, so we created a COVID-19 Resource Center so we could have one place end users could come and really look at all of the content and find it.
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: And as much as we would love to think that all end users come to the JAMA network directly for our content, we know people search for content in many different places, and we wanted to make sure they could find our content wherever they were looking for it. We worked with several of our partners, such as ReadCube, ScienceOpen, Research4Life, EBSCO, and several others to make sure our content was available either on their sites, or that it was fully linkable back directly to our own website.
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: We began also to add relevant content that was published prior to February 2020 to our COVID-19 Resource Center. This content included information that could be valuable to researchers working on COVID-19 research, as well as information for clinicians to help them potentially make treatment decisions for patients.
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: We started creating some of our own custom content, primarily our YouTube livestreams, which were interviews with experts in the field. We did make a decision to keep PDF registration in place. All of our COVID-19 content is freely available to everybody. However, if someone does want to access and download a PDF, they do need to create a username, password, and log in to get that information.
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: We have a COVID-19 email alert that goes out weekly. And we also created a COVID-19 dashboard, so we could really analyze what information was being read, and also reallocate resources based on need. To date, out of 730 pieces of content, we've had close to 33 million engagements year-to-date. Google traffic has always been the biggest driver of traffic to our websites, and that has actually fallen off slightly.
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: Traffic is increasingly coming from social media. That has increased by 159% year over year. Access through email alerts has increased by 82%. And we're actually seeing more and more traffic coming from mobile devices instead of traditional computers and laptops. We really peaked in sessions in the month of March and April. It has leveled off a little bit, but as of today we're still approximately 60% above where we were at this time last year.
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: One of the things we've really been paying attention to is how our COVID-19 audio/visual content has been driving engagement. The audio/video content primarily consists of conversations with Dr. Bauchner. These are YouTube livestream interviews our editor-in-chief, Dr. Bauchner, does with experts in the field, such as Dr. Anthony Fauci.
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: We also have our JAMA Clinical Review podcast. And our YouTube live streams are eventually converted to podcasts, which are further enhanced with CME quizzes. We've made the decision to release all of our COVID-19 CME for free to both physicians and health care professionals. We've had 2.1 million video views on YouTube as of June 26, and our podcast downloads are 200% over last year.
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: One of the things we were really concerned about as this crisis began expanding and people were really moving into a remote work environment, was how this would affect our institutional usage. We realized that universities were going to remote learning. And we were also releasing more and more content for free online. The good news is what we've seen is institutional traffic has actually increased via Silverchair and Ovid.
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: It has not increased at the level that our overall traffic increased, but it is up a little bit. What we've been interpreting by that is institutional users are still logging in to their library accounts to access much of the data. The other good piece of information is we really have not seen any increase in access denials or any significant complaints from our customers in having access issues.
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: And right now, we're taking that as good news, both for us and for our institutional customers. I think the first six months of 2020 has been kind of months of a lot of change. I think I messed up. It's been several months of a lot of change for everybody in the world.
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: I think in the months of February and March, we saw pretty much an entire world have to convert into a work from home/remote learning environment. We've always provided remote access for our institutional customers. However, when all of this started, we did test all the remote access and document how that worked just so we could assist our customers with setting things up if they had not set that up already.
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: We also sent out a lot of communication immediately to customers to make sure they were aware of what their options could be. The American Medical Association and the JAMA network, we were really not set up as a work from home organization. In a matter of weeks, we needed to convert approximately 1,200 employees to a work from home environment. For the JAMA network, that meant all of our production and editorial processes needed to be completely revamped for our employees to be able to do them from home.
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: This was being done at the same time the amount of content that was being submitted to our journals drastically increased. Our editorial department was still going through and reviewing all of the normal content that they received. But they also had to go through all of the additional COVID-19 content. And based on the time sensitivity of that information, we had to drastically decrease the time of publication for those articles, while maintaining our levels of peer review, copy editing, and production quality.
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: I think we're still really evaluating how all of this is really going to affect us going forward. One of the things we've talked about at the JAMA network for several years is how we can really leverage our multimedia going forward. And one of the positive surprises that we've had has been the response to our audio/video content in the wake of this crisis. This is something we are certainly going to continue going forward.
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: We're already talking about how we can create new products out of this and some of the best ways to market this content. Work from home is something that I think everyone is talking about and how that's going to affect us in the future. We are really proud of the fact that our editorial and production teams have not missed a single deadline. Everyone has been able to do their day-to-day work extremely well from home.
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: That being said, we are seeing that it's taking longer to start new projects. All the new project timelines have had to be extended a little bit. We are still figuring out how we will properly test everything going forward in a remote environment. We're also slowing-- having some issues in new idea generation. When you're working in an office, it's very easy to go over to someone's desk and do some brainstorming.
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: And we're also losing out on not being able to continue a conversation with a colleague as you walk out of a meeting, or talking to someone from a different department when you're grabbing a cup of coffee in the kitchen. I think work from home is here to stay at some level. But I think it remains to be seen what the balance is between working remotely and going back into a more normal office setting.
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: I think the other issue we've talked about quite a bit at the JAMA network is conferences. We normally participate in all sorts of conferences, both attending industry conferences and exhibiting at both library and physician shows. Silverchair has done an amazing job of converting their September meetings into a series of webinars. We've been in conversations with both libraries and other societies and associations that host physician conferences on how they are converting to a much more virtual type of meeting, and providing opportunities both for their members to receive education, and opportunities for exhibitors to meet and present to customers and potential-- and new potential customers.
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: That being said, our industry-- you know, we're a global industry, and the face-to-face conversations that we've had I think is something that's really valued in our industry. I know a lot of people are really excited about the new technology that's emerging. But I also think that it'll be interesting to see how quickly people move back into face-to-face meetings when this crisis comes to some kind resolution in the future.
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: I think it'll be interesting to take a look back a year from now and see what sticks, what doesn't stick, and what's going to be developed between now and then. So I think there's still quite a few unknowns out there. So thank you very much. Like everyone else, I'm happy to answer any questions at the end of the presentation.
WILL SCHWEITZER: Well, thank you, Vida. And you're right. It's very hard to replace the conference happy hour. Andrew, you're up next. Would you mind taking control? And just a reminder to our audience, you can submit questions via the Q&A box.
WILL SCHWEITZER: And Andrew, you're still on mute.
ANDREW PITTS: Thank you, Will. It always helps when people can hear you when you give a presentation. Can everybody hear me OK now? Right. This is just our start screen, so I'm going to jump straight through that. Just a little timely reminder that we have 48 hours ago when-- I don't know if you all saw in the news, that the University of California San Francisco was hacked, and they had a huge cybercrime attack and ransomware was put on their machine.
ANDREW PITTS: And they just kind of had to admit that they paid out $1.4 million to have their access back to all of their research. So a timely reminder that cyber criminals are out there, and they're targeting academia constantly. And a lot of what I'm going to tell you right now kind of backs that up. So what have we seen over the last few months? So we took a snapshot of April.
ANDREW PITTS: So most of what I'm going to talk about now is kind of April statistics. So our friends with the black crow at the Sci-Hub, our Russian friends, have been very, very active during this period, as I think you've read in the press. All cyber criminals have been, but Sci-Hub and Russian military intelligence have gone into overdrive to attack universities and publishers during this period.
ANDREW PITTS: They knew, I think, that IT professionals were going to be working from home, and that publishers were taking some of their guard down in respect to not having IP address recognition, and the fact that they were going to be using remote access, and therefore, usernames and passwords for access to their content. And usernames and passwords are just exactly what our friends at Sci-Hub love.
ANDREW PITTS: So we have seen a huge increase in cyber attacks. We've seen new tactics that have been overwhelming some computer networks. And we've seen new attacks on much smaller organizations like hospitals, et cetera, which I'll come to later. But our data has shows that there's been an 828% increase in attacks in this April. What we were seeing before was about 800 attacks per month in the 12 months previously.
ANDREW PITTS: And in April, we had reported to us 7,424 attacks. So that's huge. Now, previously, Sci-Hub have taken maybe four or five sets of stolen credentials for universities, and they've gone into those universities, and then from those universities to US publishers to take your content. As we know, that's kind of a smokescreen, but the effect on you as publishers is that they have been downloading your content massively and taking everything.
ANDREW PITTS: We've seen a huge, huge increase in that. And what they've done now, I think because partly because a lot of publishers are getting wise, partly a lot of universities are getting wise to this huge attacking from single IP addresses and single usernames and passwords, is that they've really upped their game. And on each attack, now we're seeing that they are using up to 250 global IP addresses per attack.
ANDREW PITTS: Bath University sent the first recorded set of data for this late in March. And they told us that one attack, they got hit with over 250 IP addresses. And they sent them all to us, which we had to put up on our block list. And Sci-Hub has traditionally targeted major research universities, and they still continue to do that. But what we've also seen during the crisis is they're getting smart, and they're going after lots of small organizations as well.
ANDREW PITTS: So like I said, intrusions on labs, hospitals, research institutes-- they triggered alerts. And now, as many of you may know, some of you may not know, we have a set of canaries that are being run by universities and publishers that detect use by Sci-Hub. And we know it's Sci-Hub.
ANDREW PITTS: And what has happened is that some universities have triggered their defenses when they've been attacked, and some of the publishers have triggered their defenses and been attacked. And inadvertently, some genuine researchers on COVID-19 have been blocked from access to universities and also to publish their content. And this is really quite sad, because unfortunately, we didn't have these small organizations in the IP registry.
ANDREW PITTS: so we weren't able to put them on our white list, our allow list. And we've had to work over the period of April really hard to switch all of these small organizations back on, but also to advise them that they have had credentials stolen by Sci-Hub, and they really need to look into their networks to find out how those credentials were stolen. So yes, that would have been a big effect on COVID and something that we really don't want to see.
ANDREW PITTS: And it's a real reason that we need to do more to stop Sci-Hub's damage. So that's part of that. Now, what we ask everybody to do when we've looked at this, the hits that we had from people checking on our sites have gone up thousands of percent. We do every check for every EZproxy account, and the usage statistics on that have gone up by thousands.
ANDREW PITTS: We've had a lot of reports from publishers that see these huge spikes. I think, as Emily showed you, massive spikes in usage. Some of our customers don't have such huge spikes. And that may be because some of those uses aren't actually proper usage. What we've seen when we've looked to open access publishers in the period of March is between 12% and 17% of their usage.
ANDREW PITTS: And for some big publishers, that's thousands and thousands of downloads have happened from Sci-Hub. Because what Sci-Hub are trying to do is trying this scattergun effect of pretending to be going in and pretending to be looking at proper research, when what they're really trying to do is they're trying to steal the intellectual property from the universities and corporations that are doing this very sensitive research with those universities.
ANDREW PITTS: So what we've seen is open access publishers hit so much that they're taking the same open access article sometimes over 400 times in the period of April. So anybody that is trying to tell you that Sci-Hub, really, all they're trying to do is remove paywall content to make it open to the world, well, that's absolute nonsense, as we can tell you, because they are hammering open access content. They're hammering the free content that publishers have up on their websites.
ANDREW PITTS: And this is all the free content that people have put up in order to try and help this global collaboration. And it's just being hammered by Sci-Hub. So anybody that tells you that it's anything apart from what we've always been saying it is, which is to try and steal proper intellectual property from universities, is wrong, I'm afraid. So what you can do, and there's a couple of publishers on our panel today that have done this, and they have the Silverchair PSI block list protecting their content.
ANDREW PITTS: You should do that. Because what you don't want is showing spikes of usage and thinking that you've got lots of access that's not real access, that really is just your content being scraped as part of this cybercrime effort. The other thing you can do is help us reach out to the academic networks and try and persuade them to download this block list. The block list is free.
ANDREW PITTS: It's freely available to universities on our IP registry website. It works. It's safe. I think both Clare and Vida said that they hadn't had any recorded misuses or anybody was complaining about problems with access. So the block list works. The block list really works.
ANDREW PITTS: And what we've got to do is really encourage the academic community to take this seriously and help us stop this. So that's really bringing you up to speed. The cyber criminals are very active. They're out there. And they're taking all of your content, and they're really hammering your systems as a smokescreen. So I look forward to any questions.
ANDREW PITTS: Thank you very much.
WILL SCHWEITZER: So, remarkable statistics, Andrew, and a great word of caution. We've had a few questions come in via the Q&A box and some others via the chat. And I'll just kind of share those in order. So Emily, the first question is actually for you. And it's from our friend, Phillip DiVietro at ASME. And he's asked whether you can share MIT's plans to become fully OA at some point. And perhaps-- I guess he offers a comment-- perhaps that is how everything is transitioning.
EMILY FARRELL: Well, I think that it-- we're certainly at a point where the push to open is-- there's clear value in it, and that all publishers and societies are examining ways that we can make more content open. Also, particularly as a university press that has a mission alignment with the university, the dissemination of research is central to what we do. MIT Press has experimented with all sorts of open access models for quite a long time now, Even early on, in terms of making digital books and expanded ebooks available in the mid-'90s.
EMILY FARRELL: In terms of slowly transitioning, we're doing that in different ways. Our journals program, as I mentioned, we have I think now about 12 journals that are fully open access. But it has required us to sort of consider what model is most suitable for each journal, in part as a consequence of the wide array of subject areas that we cover.
EMILY FARRELL: And some disciplines really just-- the available funding for open access isn't there. We also have to take into consideration the fact that a number of our journals are society-owned. So we have to work together with that society to make the content open. But we're working on it. I think the most recent two general launches, the Harvard Data Science Review and Qualitative Social-- Qualitative-- QSS-- anyway.
EMILY FARRELL: Sorry. Both of those journals are fully open access, one with very low APCs, and the other is fully institutionally supported on the Harvard site. In terms of books, we've also worked with different models from different sorts of funds. But as I mentioned, we're really looking at a way to more comprehensively support a model across all our academic books, and that's been funded by the Arcadia Foundation.
EMILY FARRELL: We're working on that over the next couple of years as a library-driven, collective model to make all of our academic books open. So stay tuned, I suppose, for more of that. So we're edging towards it. And hopefully, that's a good enough answer.
WILL SCHWEITZER: Thank you. The next question is from my colleague, Anne [? Heckner, ?] at Silverchair, and she writes that the crisis seems to have created a climate of quick decision-making concerning all the moving parts and our processes and multiple stakeholders, including vendors, business, editorial, and so on. Are there lessons to be learned from that-- making those quick decisions that we all should take forward?
WILL SCHWEITZER: Does anyone want to go first?
CLARE CURTIS: I'm happy to go first. Obviously, as a society, we have quite a strict governance process that we normally would have to go through. But I agree. I think the coronavirus has made us realize how quickly we can make some of these decisions, and that we've had to make the decisions quite quickly. So the decision to sign up to the welcome statement was done within 12 hours. And I think it's great to know that we can make these decisions quickly when we need to.
CLARE CURTIS: And so I think, yes, there are-- we know it can be done. And I think it is a lesson that we should be learning that we can do it, and we should be doing it quickly.
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: I think I'll add to that. I agree. I think that a lot of decisions have been made really fast. I think it's also led to some really accelerated workflows. And it's really good to know that we can do it when it's necessary. Some of it is not sustainable indefinitely. I think there is fatigue. I think the level of content that our editorial department has had to review has meant that certain people have been working 12- to 14-hour days, 7 days a week, weeks on end.
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: They can do it. It's great. But it's not something that's sustainable forever without having some kind of negative repercussions down the road. So I think there is a balance of both sides. We can do it. But we also need to be careful because some things do lead to fatigue.
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: And with information that could affect someone's health, you do want to be really careful. Just to add and to agree, I mean, I think that in having put out a book in a month, it was an incredible thing to see that that was possible. And it's something sort of we are going to take-- we're taking on board. But doing that for every book is an impossibility. I think the entire staff would implode.
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: And also, I think we're still in the midst of all of it. And we don't entirely know-- we're already seeing sort of unequal implications for people in terms of if you're caring for people, if you're caring for children, if you're caring for a family, the sorts of additional burdens that people have to take on. And the ways that COVID has affected different communities more heavily is something that also then we need to take into account in terms of sustainability.
WILL SCHWEITZER: Great. Thank you. This next question is a bit more tactical, and I think it goes to our library or subscribing customers. And it is, what are your plans regarding informing librarians as well as general site visitors that subscription access controls have been reenabled? Will this be targeted messaging, an announcement on the website, or something else?
WILL SCHWEITZER:
CLARE CURTIS: I guess because we've lifted the whole of our paywall, we've probably got to tell more people than most. And so we will be having targeted messaging to our institutional subscribers. There will be general messaging as well to our members and our users. It's quite-- we have to do that quite carefully. Because obviously, we wanted to say that we were doing this for the community and how we were supporting the community.
CLARE CURTIS: And as Vida said, we are also supporting our society. So we can't leave our paywalls down forever. We have to obviously have something where we're sustainable and able to give back what we're making in our subscriptions to our society. So the messaging will be obviously very carefully done, but we will be doing targeted and general messaging.
ANDREW PITTS: Can I just add one thing, Will? We've been working with several of the Silverchair publishers to have a look at the log files during the period where everybody's got their access controls down, to make sure that when you are about to put your access controls up, you know which organizations who are not customers who have been using your content a lot, you can actually advise them, and you can talk to them about options for accessing your content when the paywalls go back up.
ANDREW PITTS: And I think it's just a really useful service that we can provide through Silverchair.
WILL SCHWEITZER: Vida or Emily, any other thoughts?
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: We actually never dropped the paywalls on our regular content. It's only the COVID-19 content that was made freely available. And we can't-- that content is not all open access. But at this point, there's no plans on putting it behind a paywall. I think we're so far from this crisis being over that the COVID-19 crisis content will remain free, at least for the foreseeable future.
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: But we are one publisher that did not drop all paywalls.
EMILY FARRELL: And neither did we. Broadly, for our journals content, we didn't. It was really for the very specifically COVID-related work. And that's a different amount of research, of course, than, say, JAMA has or Portland Press. And then so really it was more communication, similar to what Clare said, about ending access to the ebook content. And we've done that mostly.
EMILY FARRELL: I mean, we made our libraries aware through use of more public messaging and direct messaging, when that date-- that we extended the date by a month, but also when that date was coming nearer. But also, making sure that to send information about sort of top 10 titles that were most used. So as I said before, if libraries wanted to purchase a single ebook through, say, EBSCO or ProQuest, they could go ahead and do that, rather than necessarily needing to purchase the collections in the way that we sell them on our platform.
EMILY FARRELL: And just for them to also to flag what we are seeing in terms of the content that was most valued during this period.
ANDREW PITTS: And I think what we did with Portland is really important. If you are going to drop your paywalls, make sure that you have protection in place. Make sure that it's not Sci-Hub that's getting in and just taking every single one of your articles from Issue 1, Volume 1, to date, so that when you put your paywalls up, you realize that the whole of your content has just been placed up on Sci-Hub and other copycat cyber criminals like that.
ANDREW PITTS: So it's really important that you do protect your content if you are going to do that. Same for any of the COVID-19 stuff. It's the same. We only block Sci-Hub and cyber criminals. We don't block proper researchers.
WILL SCHWEITZER: And Andrew, while you're unmuted, there's a related question to you about whether you have any info or intelligence that Sci-Hub is going after service provider networks, say, those that do production work or create XML for publishers?
ANDREW PITTS: We haven't seen that as yet. We've seen them attack many, many other kind of sites. And we've had reports of other kind of business types being attacked by the same people. But no, I haven't seen that as yet. We're trying to talk to Crossref about the fact that it's very easy for Sci-Hub to get all the DOIs for all of the brand new content from them, and try and get them to do something about maybe not making it so easy for them to take all of your new content.
ANDREW PITTS: But apart from that, no, we haven't seen that yet, Will.
WILL SCHWEITZER: Thank you. So unfortunately we're at time. There's a few questions that we haven't gotten to, but our panelists have been nice enough to say that they will answer those questions via email. So we'll follow up directly where we can. So first, thanks to all of you in the audience for joining us for this discussion. And of course, many thanks to Clare, Emily, Vida, and Andrew. As Stephanie mentioned earlier, this was our first Platform Strategy Series webinar for the year.
WILL SCHWEITZER: I'm very excited to share that for our second webinar we'll be joined by Ha-Hoa Hamano, the senior product manager for emerging platforms at National Public Radio, to discuss what scholarly publishers can learn from public radio about finding new audiences and delivery channels, as many of us aren't listening to morning edition on our commutes. That webinar will be September 23, and more details to come. So thanks to everyone, again.
WILL SCHWEITZER: And I hope everyone has a good day.
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: Thank you.
WILL SCHWEITZER: Bye-bye.
ANDREW PITTS: Thank you, everyone. Thank you for inviting us. Thank you.
WILL SCHWEITZER: Of course.
Segment:0 .
WILL SCHWEITZER: I'm Will Schweitzer. I'm Silverchair's chief product officer, and welcome again to the first of our Platform Strategies Webinar Series. Joining me today are Clare Curtis, publisher at Portland Press, Emily Farrell, from the MIT Press, Vida Damijonaitis, from the American Medical Association, and Andrew Pitts, from PSI. Today we're going to discuss how these publishers have adapted their products and sales strategies in response to COVID, and whether those changes are sustainable or here to stay.
WILL SCHWEITZER: Each publisher will share a bit about how they've adapted their programs, how they've made those product and strategy decisions, and share any data or observations they've gathered so far. PSI will then share some unique insights as to how Sci-Hub has exploited free content. We'll hear first from Claire, then Emily, then Vida, and last, but not least, Andrew, before turning to Q&A. So Clare, can we pass the controls to you?
CLARE CURTIS: Yeah. So I will share my screen. OK. So thank you very much for inviting me to take part. And I am based in the UK working for the Biochemical Society and Portland Press. And just a brief, introduction Biochemical Society is the UK'S largest single discipline society covering the molecular biosciences community.
CLARE CURTIS: Portland Press is its wholly owned publishing arm, publishing seven journals and one magazine. We publish five hybrid journals, publishing approximately 20% open access and two fully open access journals. And our main business model at the moment is a sustainable transition to open access. And you can see there on the left that we have over the last few years published a lot more open access articles than we have in previous years.
CLARE CURTIS: So really, to go into the discussion around COVID, on the 31st of January, 2020, the Biochemical Society and Portland Press joined over 150 signatories to a welcome statement on sharing research data and findings relevant to the novel coronavirus outbreak. And what this actually meant was that for any content published before the 31st of January, this was made freely available if it was of direct relevance to the coronavirus outbreak.
CLARE CURTIS: And then any content that we published after the 31st of January was published fully open access with no charge to the authors. We immediately saw an increase in the usage of that content, and we had actually published around 17 articles that we thought were of direct relevance to the novel coronavirus outbreak. However, although coronavirus-related content was freely available, we had to wonder whether this would actually be enough for the community.
CLARE CURTIS: So we started looking at what other societies and publishers were also doing in the content space. We also spoke to our community and asked what were they saying? What were they wanting from us as a publisher? We have an international audience, so we needed to listen to the global community, not just the UK or the US. We wanted to listen to everybody.
CLARE CURTIS: And obviously, more and more countries were going into lockdown and institutions were closing. So how were people actually accessing our content? We knew that we had remote access options set up for our content, including institutional authentication. But we weren't really sure how this workflow fitted in with the user journey. Was it straightforward for users? And we also realized as more and more research was being done on COVID-19, it was becoming very clear that a number of areas of the molecular biosciences would be of relevance to the disease.
CLARE CURTIS: So where did we draw the line as to what research is of relevance to the coronavirus outbreak? And so we thought, should we actually be making more content freely available, not just the coronavirus-related content? So we realized that other societies did actually start to make all of their content freely available. And we were receiving emails from our communities asking us whether we were going to make our content freely available in support of the community.
CLARE CURTIS: We spoke to people who were trying to access our content-- editorial board members, researchers, institutions-- and asked them to assess the workflow, to access our paywall content via the remote authentication route. And we realized that this really wasn't a straightforward and user-friendly as we would have liked. And we assessed our user base and how the coronavirus was impacting worldwide institutions, with the institutions closing and researchers and working remotely.
CLARE CURTIS: So in April, we actually made the decision to suspend paywalls across all of our content, not just coronavirus-related content, until further notice. We deliberately did not put an end date on when we would bring paywalls back up. We just said that we would suspend until further notice. So we suspended paywalls across the portfolio on the 21st of April. And because we're quite a small, agile, society publisher, we were able to respond very quickly to the researchers needs.
CLARE CURTIS: So we got appropriate governance sign-off from our Portland Press board and council of trustees very, very quickly. And we were actually able to make an agreement with PSI Limited-- and Andrew will talk about PSI later-- so that Silverchair immediately switched on the IP-Intrusion Service from PSI, so that we could protect our content that was now going to be freely available to everybody from malicious IP addresses.
CLARE CURTIS: And just very quickly, the analysis that we've so far done, total usage in May was 180% higher than the average monthly usage during the first three months of 2020, and was 46% higher compared with May last year. And as we would expect, the largest share of the usage increase was for our hybrid journals, so for that content that had been behind a paywall. We had a lot of people coming to us saying how great this was for the community.
CLARE CURTIS: So on the left there, Professor David Carling in the UK was saying it was a very positive move for the society, and that it was very important have access to the journals during the crisis. And there, Isabelle Leclercq from Belgium was saying that was a very good initiative to help scientists and researchers during their work. Other things the society did to adapt in response to COVID-19, not surprisingly, all staff started working from home from mid-March.
CLARE CURTIS: We had to cancel all our in-person events. Scientific meetings and public engagement activities to the end of 2020 have been canceled or postponed. But we then realized we also needed to support the community in other ways. So we started a free webinar series called Biochemistry Focus, so we were delivering content in a different way. As far as policy is concerned, we carried out a researcher survey to see how the pandemic is impacting the community, and we'll be acting on some of the results of that research survey.
CLARE CURTIS: The society produced a COVID-19 resource page, where we collected together all of the information we could around COVID. And we also promoted painless publishing. So we were supporting researchers in being able to submit their work to our journals, even if they weren't within a laboratory. So if they weren't able to do extra experiments, we were sort of allowing for that during the peer review process.
CLARE CURTIS: So that's a very quick run-through of that. I'm happy to take any questions at the end.
WILL SCHWEITZER: Thank you very much, Clare. We'll turn next to Emily from MIT. Would you like to take over?
EMILY FARRELL: Ah. I think I have it once I get that one going. There we go. OK. Thank you so much, Clare, and thanks, Will, for bringing us together. I'm going to talk now a little bit about what MIT Press has done over the last few months in response to the COVID crisis. MIT Press is a university press of MIT, and we report into MIT libraries.
EMILY FARRELL: We are on the larger end of the American University press size. And we have quite a broad array of types of work that we publish. So we have a portfolio of about 40 journals, and about 11 or 12 of those now are open access, fully open access. We also publish textbooks. We have a growing tradebook list, and we also publish about, I think, around 150 academic books a year.
EMILY FARRELL: We also cover quite a wide array of subject areas. So we do publish, and we're known to publish in STEM, but we also have a big philosophy list. We publish in art and architecture, economics, and environmental studies as well. So in terms of considering how we could respond to the COVID crisis, there were a number of different considerations in terms of product types and content subject areas.
EMILY FARRELL: So there were two main areas of focus when we were considering access, at the point where there was a clear shift, and certainly an institutional shift, to online learning. We wanted to make sure that we were making any content related to COVID freely available for people to reach. But we also were concerned about the support for remote learning.
EMILY FARRELL: We shifted to working from home around March 12, and as did MIT more broadly. And so we knew that our libraries were going to need to provide more digital resources and more support for students and faculty who were looking to make sure that they could access content for the rest of the semester.
EMILY FARRELL: So one of the things we did was draw together as much relevant general content as possible, including open access articles, into one landing page for journal articles. That was to make sure it was possible-- it was more possible and easier to discover content across different areas that we publish in. So we published that March 18, and have increased or moved the access date now to August 31, as it became clear that the pandemic was worsening and that remote learning would continue.
EMILY FARRELL: Our editorial teams also brought together as much relevant book content as possible. And we've done that by not only making-- not making the content freely available, but drawing it together and putting it up onto the PubPub platform, which is an open source, open access platform that was developed by the Knowledge Futures Group, a collaboration between MIT Press and the MIT Media Lab.
EMILY FARRELL: And that content, which covers quite a selection of work on pandemics, epidemiology, and other related topics, is all now freely readable on PubPub for the foreseeable future. We also, at the beginning of 2019, with Silverchair as our platform provider, launched our own ebooks platform-- MIT Press Direct.
EMILY FARRELL: So in terms of supporting remote learning and access, we heeded the call from a number of institutional partners, consortia that we work with, who were asking directly that we support and make our content more accessible to students and faculty. So we opened up our ebooks and made an announcement March 19.
EMILY FARRELL: We let libraries know through various relevant library channels that we would be opening up access to about-- I think we have about 3,000 titles now up on our platform. We did ask libraries to sign on so that we would be requiring IP authentication for access. And initially, we offered free access through the end of May when we made the launch in mid-March.
EMILY FARRELL: As the shutdown lengthened, we also extended that for another month to June 30, so through the end of the financial year and covering most of the semester in North America. We did see a huge uptake from libraries internationally. We ended up bringing about 800 new libraries on board. The platform-- we'd had the platform for just over a year in March. And so though we had seen a steady uptick from institutions, this was a huge increase in the number of institutions using the content on the platform.
EMILY FARRELL: We also, in acknowledgment that libraries would be facing some challenging budget times, even as soon as the end of this last fiscal year, we graced access to the journals and to our cognitive sciences database, CogNet. So where we would usually cut access for subscribers who weren't renewing, we allowed flexibility in terms of renewal periods.
EMILY FARRELL: We also worked together with Project MUSE and Oxford's platform to open content on their sites where they were also making university press content available. And we also worked to make sure that our textbooks that were currently in use by instructors, that they would still be available to their students, where otherwise, the students had been using print copies from the library.
EMILY FARRELL: So we were providing access to students through the ublish platform to support coursework. So in response to all of these varied initiatives to make sure our content is open across the various types of content that we publish, you can see from some of the data that we're getting from Project MUSE that usage really has skyrocketed.
EMILY FARRELL: So from two years prior, we've seen a massive uptick in usage on the MUSE platform. We also found there to be a lot of collaboration in the crisis, a lot of appreciation and a lot of flexibility in working with libraries to make sure that we were getting access to students who needed it and faculty who needed it. So we certainly heard from a lot of institutions that this was making a difference, that making content available quickly and across the board was incredibly helpful in supporting libraries to get to students and faculty.
EMILY FARRELL: In making content available on our own platform, we also saw a huge amount of content, a huge amount of usage. And in amongst that, we really saw very few IP abuses. There weren't a large number of excessive downloads that, at least, tripped the monitoring that we have in place with Silverchair.
EMILY FARRELL: I think, again, Andrew's going to talk some more about from that perspective a little bit later. But with-- we also were able to gather a lot more data on our own platform that we haven't in the past. Until we opened up the content, we had a lot of ARL libraries and a smaller number of smaller liberal arts schools. With the 800 institutions that we brought onto the platform, we had an incredible array of institutions that were now able to access content that hadn't been in a position to purchase before, or hadn't really considered trialing it because they didn't feel they would be able to-- that they have the budget.
EMILY FARRELL: So we've had community colleges. We've also had art museums, as well as those of larger ARL libraries. It's given us a chance to look at and have some patterns of usage across all use, and it's something that we're looking at further. Who is using what sort of content? Is it the more recent content that's more valuable, and to which sorts of schools?
EMILY FARRELL: It's also opened up an amazing channel of dialogue with libraries to be able to answer questions directly, to talk to librarians that we hadn't yet reached in only having the platform available for a year for ebooks. It's also really useful to have this data as we work on developing an open access business model for monographs. And we have funding from the Arcadia Foundation, a three-year grant that we are working on to develop this model for open access monographs on our platform.
EMILY FARRELL: And having this data usage really gives us a better understanding of where value lies and how content is being used. And we've also had feedback from libraries that it's useful for the collection development. Even if libraries are not buying collections of ebooks on our platform, they are able to look at single titles that are particularly useful, and then purchase those as ebooks through our aggregator partners, for example.
EMILY FARRELL: Some of the other feedback, of course, that we've had is asking for us to extend the access to our content. At the same time, there has been an understanding that we are in a similar boat as a lot of the institutions we work for. As a university press, we certainly need to be concerned with sustainability and making sure we're still able to support the publishing program that we have.
EMILY FARRELL: We have made the decision on the basis of feedback from other publishers, and of course, from our libraries, that all of our pricing will stay flat for the next year. Another thing as a consequence of the crises is that we have pushed forward with new content creation and also new approaches. So in May, we published Economics in the Age of COVID-19, by Joshua Gans.
EMILY FARRELL: It's the first in the new series we've launched called First Reads. And the book went from proposal to publication through review in a month. It required incredible work from just about every level of the press to get the work out. But we wanted to make sure we were responding quickly to what was happening in the COVID era from a perspective that fit with the press.
EMILY FARRELL: And that's open access on the PubPub platform as well. And finally, just yesterday we announced the launch of a new journal, Rapid Reviews-- COVID-19, which is something of a response to the difficulties presented by preprints at the moment, where unreviewed works have been picked up by the media or have been circulated, and it's become a little harder to identify amongst all of this, the research that's being published, what is most reliable and trustworthy.
EMILY FARRELL: So it'll be an overlay journal that pushes forward review quickly. It's being-- we have an editor-in-chief that's based at UC Berkeley, Professor Stefano Bertozzi. And it's not just going to be from sort of a biomedical perspective, but also very much interested in an interdisciplinary perspective, taking account of public health and also approaches in the social sciences and the humanities.
EMILY FARRELL: So that covers the diversity of approaches that we have taken. It still feels like there's much to do and much to understand. And we think we'll continue along the track that we've been working on, and very much appreciate the dialogue that we've had with libraries and the work that authors have put in to keep our general publishing program on track.
WILL SCHWEITZER: Thank you so much, Emily. And I have to say, that has to be the fastest I've ever heard of a book being produced. Up next, is Vida from the AMA. Vida, would you like to take control?
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: So thank you my name's Vida Damijonaitis. I am the director of worldwide sales for the JAMA network. Before I start, I want to give a quick shout-out to Betsy Solaro, our director of marketing, who really helped put this presentation together. The JAMA network is the journal's publishing arm of the American Medical Association. We are fully owned by the AMA. However, we have complete editorial independence in what we publish.
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: JAMA is our flagship journal. We have 10 specialty hybrid titles. JAMA Network Open is our first fully open access journal. And JAMA Health Forum is our new content channel. We started receiving COVID-19 content in early February. It was pretty apparent that this was going to be a big global health issue. Although, at the time, we did not quite realize how massive the issue would really become.
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: But we made the decision to make all of the content that we publish freely available, despite the publishing licenses authors might have chosen at the time of submission. The types of articles we were receiving and publishing have been original research, viewpoints, patient information. The content has been published across several of our journals, so we created a COVID-19 Resource Center so we could have one place end users could come and really look at all of the content and find it.
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: And as much as we would love to think that all end users come to the JAMA network directly for our content, we know people search for content in many different places, and we wanted to make sure they could find our content wherever they were looking for it. We worked with several of our partners, such as ReadCube, ScienceOpen, Research4Life, EBSCO, and several others to make sure our content was available either on their sites, or that it was fully linkable back directly to our own website.
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: We began also to add relevant content that was published prior to February 2020 to our COVID-19 Resource Center. This content included information that could be valuable to researchers working on COVID-19 research, as well as information for clinicians to help them potentially make treatment decisions for patients.
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: We started creating some of our own custom content, primarily our YouTube livestreams, which were interviews with experts in the field. We did make a decision to keep PDF registration in place. All of our COVID-19 content is freely available to everybody. However, if someone does want to access and download a PDF, they do need to create a username, password, and log in to get that information.
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: We have a COVID-19 email alert that goes out weekly. And we also created a COVID-19 dashboard, so we could really analyze what information was being read, and also reallocate resources based on need. To date, out of 730 pieces of content, we've had close to 33 million engagements year-to-date. Google traffic has always been the biggest driver of traffic to our websites, and that has actually fallen off slightly.
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: Traffic is increasingly coming from social media. That has increased by 159% year over year. Access through email alerts has increased by 82%. And we're actually seeing more and more traffic coming from mobile devices instead of traditional computers and laptops. We really peaked in sessions in the month of March and April. It has leveled off a little bit, but as of today we're still approximately 60% above where we were at this time last year.
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: One of the things we've really been paying attention to is how our COVID-19 audio/visual content has been driving engagement. The audio/video content primarily consists of conversations with Dr. Bauchner. These are YouTube livestream interviews our editor-in-chief, Dr. Bauchner, does with experts in the field, such as Dr. Anthony Fauci.
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: We also have our JAMA Clinical Review podcast. And our YouTube live streams are eventually converted to podcasts, which are further enhanced with CME quizzes. We've made the decision to release all of our COVID-19 CME for free to both physicians and health care professionals. We've had 2.1 million video views on YouTube as of June 26, and our podcast downloads are 200% over last year.
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: One of the things we were really concerned about as this crisis began expanding and people were really moving into a remote work environment, was how this would affect our institutional usage. We realized that universities were going to remote learning. And we were also releasing more and more content for free online. The good news is what we've seen is institutional traffic has actually increased via Silverchair and Ovid.
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: It has not increased at the level that our overall traffic increased, but it is up a little bit. What we've been interpreting by that is institutional users are still logging in to their library accounts to access much of the data. The other good piece of information is we really have not seen any increase in access denials or any significant complaints from our customers in having access issues.
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: And right now, we're taking that as good news, both for us and for our institutional customers. I think the first six months of 2020 has been kind of months of a lot of change. I think I messed up. It's been several months of a lot of change for everybody in the world.
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: I think in the months of February and March, we saw pretty much an entire world have to convert into a work from home/remote learning environment. We've always provided remote access for our institutional customers. However, when all of this started, we did test all the remote access and document how that worked just so we could assist our customers with setting things up if they had not set that up already.
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: We also sent out a lot of communication immediately to customers to make sure they were aware of what their options could be. The American Medical Association and the JAMA network, we were really not set up as a work from home organization. In a matter of weeks, we needed to convert approximately 1,200 employees to a work from home environment. For the JAMA network, that meant all of our production and editorial processes needed to be completely revamped for our employees to be able to do them from home.
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: This was being done at the same time the amount of content that was being submitted to our journals drastically increased. Our editorial department was still going through and reviewing all of the normal content that they received. But they also had to go through all of the additional COVID-19 content. And based on the time sensitivity of that information, we had to drastically decrease the time of publication for those articles, while maintaining our levels of peer review, copy editing, and production quality.
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: I think we're still really evaluating how all of this is really going to affect us going forward. One of the things we've talked about at the JAMA network for several years is how we can really leverage our multimedia going forward. And one of the positive surprises that we've had has been the response to our audio/video content in the wake of this crisis. This is something we are certainly going to continue going forward.
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: We're already talking about how we can create new products out of this and some of the best ways to market this content. Work from home is something that I think everyone is talking about and how that's going to affect us in the future. We are really proud of the fact that our editorial and production teams have not missed a single deadline. Everyone has been able to do their day-to-day work extremely well from home.
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: That being said, we are seeing that it's taking longer to start new projects. All the new project timelines have had to be extended a little bit. We are still figuring out how we will properly test everything going forward in a remote environment. We're also slowing-- having some issues in new idea generation. When you're working in an office, it's very easy to go over to someone's desk and do some brainstorming.
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: And we're also losing out on not being able to continue a conversation with a colleague as you walk out of a meeting, or talking to someone from a different department when you're grabbing a cup of coffee in the kitchen. I think work from home is here to stay at some level. But I think it remains to be seen what the balance is between working remotely and going back into a more normal office setting.
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: I think the other issue we've talked about quite a bit at the JAMA network is conferences. We normally participate in all sorts of conferences, both attending industry conferences and exhibiting at both library and physician shows. Silverchair has done an amazing job of converting their September meetings into a series of webinars. We've been in conversations with both libraries and other societies and associations that host physician conferences on how they are converting to a much more virtual type of meeting, and providing opportunities both for their members to receive education, and opportunities for exhibitors to meet and present to customers and potential-- and new potential customers.
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: That being said, our industry-- you know, we're a global industry, and the face-to-face conversations that we've had I think is something that's really valued in our industry. I know a lot of people are really excited about the new technology that's emerging. But I also think that it'll be interesting to see how quickly people move back into face-to-face meetings when this crisis comes to some kind resolution in the future.
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: I think it'll be interesting to take a look back a year from now and see what sticks, what doesn't stick, and what's going to be developed between now and then. So I think there's still quite a few unknowns out there. So thank you very much. Like everyone else, I'm happy to answer any questions at the end of the presentation.
WILL SCHWEITZER: Well, thank you, Vida. And you're right. It's very hard to replace the conference happy hour. Andrew, you're up next. Would you mind taking control? And just a reminder to our audience, you can submit questions via the Q&A box.
WILL SCHWEITZER: And Andrew, you're still on mute.
ANDREW PITTS: Thank you, Will. It always helps when people can hear you when you give a presentation. Can everybody hear me OK now? Right. This is just our start screen, so I'm going to jump straight through that. Just a little timely reminder that we have 48 hours ago when-- I don't know if you all saw in the news, that the University of California San Francisco was hacked, and they had a huge cybercrime attack and ransomware was put on their machine.
ANDREW PITTS: And they just kind of had to admit that they paid out $1.4 million to have their access back to all of their research. So a timely reminder that cyber criminals are out there, and they're targeting academia constantly. And a lot of what I'm going to tell you right now kind of backs that up. So what have we seen over the last few months? So we took a snapshot of April.
ANDREW PITTS: So most of what I'm going to talk about now is kind of April statistics. So our friends with the black crow at the Sci-Hub, our Russian friends, have been very, very active during this period, as I think you've read in the press. All cyber criminals have been, but Sci-Hub and Russian military intelligence have gone into overdrive to attack universities and publishers during this period.
ANDREW PITTS: They knew, I think, that IT professionals were going to be working from home, and that publishers were taking some of their guard down in respect to not having IP address recognition, and the fact that they were going to be using remote access, and therefore, usernames and passwords for access to their content. And usernames and passwords are just exactly what our friends at Sci-Hub love.
ANDREW PITTS: So we have seen a huge increase in cyber attacks. We've seen new tactics that have been overwhelming some computer networks. And we've seen new attacks on much smaller organizations like hospitals, et cetera, which I'll come to later. But our data has shows that there's been an 828% increase in attacks in this April. What we were seeing before was about 800 attacks per month in the 12 months previously.
ANDREW PITTS: And in April, we had reported to us 7,424 attacks. So that's huge. Now, previously, Sci-Hub have taken maybe four or five sets of stolen credentials for universities, and they've gone into those universities, and then from those universities to US publishers to take your content. As we know, that's kind of a smokescreen, but the effect on you as publishers is that they have been downloading your content massively and taking everything.
ANDREW PITTS: We've seen a huge, huge increase in that. And what they've done now, I think because partly because a lot of publishers are getting wise, partly a lot of universities are getting wise to this huge attacking from single IP addresses and single usernames and passwords, is that they've really upped their game. And on each attack, now we're seeing that they are using up to 250 global IP addresses per attack.
ANDREW PITTS: Bath University sent the first recorded set of data for this late in March. And they told us that one attack, they got hit with over 250 IP addresses. And they sent them all to us, which we had to put up on our block list. And Sci-Hub has traditionally targeted major research universities, and they still continue to do that. But what we've also seen during the crisis is they're getting smart, and they're going after lots of small organizations as well.
ANDREW PITTS: So like I said, intrusions on labs, hospitals, research institutes-- they triggered alerts. And now, as many of you may know, some of you may not know, we have a set of canaries that are being run by universities and publishers that detect use by Sci-Hub. And we know it's Sci-Hub.
ANDREW PITTS: And what has happened is that some universities have triggered their defenses when they've been attacked, and some of the publishers have triggered their defenses and been attacked. And inadvertently, some genuine researchers on COVID-19 have been blocked from access to universities and also to publish their content. And this is really quite sad, because unfortunately, we didn't have these small organizations in the IP registry.
ANDREW PITTS: so we weren't able to put them on our white list, our allow list. And we've had to work over the period of April really hard to switch all of these small organizations back on, but also to advise them that they have had credentials stolen by Sci-Hub, and they really need to look into their networks to find out how those credentials were stolen. So yes, that would have been a big effect on COVID and something that we really don't want to see.
ANDREW PITTS: And it's a real reason that we need to do more to stop Sci-Hub's damage. So that's part of that. Now, what we ask everybody to do when we've looked at this, the hits that we had from people checking on our sites have gone up thousands of percent. We do every check for every EZproxy account, and the usage statistics on that have gone up by thousands.
ANDREW PITTS: We've had a lot of reports from publishers that see these huge spikes. I think, as Emily showed you, massive spikes in usage. Some of our customers don't have such huge spikes. And that may be because some of those uses aren't actually proper usage. What we've seen when we've looked to open access publishers in the period of March is between 12% and 17% of their usage.
ANDREW PITTS: And for some big publishers, that's thousands and thousands of downloads have happened from Sci-Hub. Because what Sci-Hub are trying to do is trying this scattergun effect of pretending to be going in and pretending to be looking at proper research, when what they're really trying to do is they're trying to steal the intellectual property from the universities and corporations that are doing this very sensitive research with those universities.
ANDREW PITTS: So what we've seen is open access publishers hit so much that they're taking the same open access article sometimes over 400 times in the period of April. So anybody that is trying to tell you that Sci-Hub, really, all they're trying to do is remove paywall content to make it open to the world, well, that's absolute nonsense, as we can tell you, because they are hammering open access content. They're hammering the free content that publishers have up on their websites.
ANDREW PITTS: And this is all the free content that people have put up in order to try and help this global collaboration. And it's just being hammered by Sci-Hub. So anybody that tells you that it's anything apart from what we've always been saying it is, which is to try and steal proper intellectual property from universities, is wrong, I'm afraid. So what you can do, and there's a couple of publishers on our panel today that have done this, and they have the Silverchair PSI block list protecting their content.
ANDREW PITTS: You should do that. Because what you don't want is showing spikes of usage and thinking that you've got lots of access that's not real access, that really is just your content being scraped as part of this cybercrime effort. The other thing you can do is help us reach out to the academic networks and try and persuade them to download this block list. The block list is free.
ANDREW PITTS: It's freely available to universities on our IP registry website. It works. It's safe. I think both Clare and Vida said that they hadn't had any recorded misuses or anybody was complaining about problems with access. So the block list works. The block list really works.
ANDREW PITTS: And what we've got to do is really encourage the academic community to take this seriously and help us stop this. So that's really bringing you up to speed. The cyber criminals are very active. They're out there. And they're taking all of your content, and they're really hammering your systems as a smokescreen. So I look forward to any questions.
ANDREW PITTS: Thank you very much.
WILL SCHWEITZER: So, remarkable statistics, Andrew, and a great word of caution. We've had a few questions come in via the Q&A box and some others via the chat. And I'll just kind of share those in order. So Emily, the first question is actually for you. And it's from our friend, Phillip DiVietro at ASME. And he's asked whether you can share MIT's plans to become fully OA at some point. And perhaps-- I guess he offers a comment-- perhaps that is how everything is transitioning.
EMILY FARRELL: Well, I think that it-- we're certainly at a point where the push to open is-- there's clear value in it, and that all publishers and societies are examining ways that we can make more content open. Also, particularly as a university press that has a mission alignment with the university, the dissemination of research is central to what we do. MIT Press has experimented with all sorts of open access models for quite a long time now, Even early on, in terms of making digital books and expanded ebooks available in the mid-'90s.
EMILY FARRELL: In terms of slowly transitioning, we're doing that in different ways. Our journals program, as I mentioned, we have I think now about 12 journals that are fully open access. But it has required us to sort of consider what model is most suitable for each journal, in part as a consequence of the wide array of subject areas that we cover.
EMILY FARRELL: And some disciplines really just-- the available funding for open access isn't there. We also have to take into consideration the fact that a number of our journals are society-owned. So we have to work together with that society to make the content open. But we're working on it. I think the most recent two general launches, the Harvard Data Science Review and Qualitative Social-- Qualitative-- QSS-- anyway.
EMILY FARRELL: Sorry. Both of those journals are fully open access, one with very low APCs, and the other is fully institutionally supported on the Harvard site. In terms of books, we've also worked with different models from different sorts of funds. But as I mentioned, we're really looking at a way to more comprehensively support a model across all our academic books, and that's been funded by the Arcadia Foundation.
EMILY FARRELL: We're working on that over the next couple of years as a library-driven, collective model to make all of our academic books open. So stay tuned, I suppose, for more of that. So we're edging towards it. And hopefully, that's a good enough answer.
WILL SCHWEITZER: Thank you. The next question is from my colleague, Anne [? Heckner, ?] at Silverchair, and she writes that the crisis seems to have created a climate of quick decision-making concerning all the moving parts and our processes and multiple stakeholders, including vendors, business, editorial, and so on. Are there lessons to be learned from that-- making those quick decisions that we all should take forward?
WILL SCHWEITZER: Does anyone want to go first?
CLARE CURTIS: I'm happy to go first. Obviously, as a society, we have quite a strict governance process that we normally would have to go through. But I agree. I think the coronavirus has made us realize how quickly we can make some of these decisions, and that we've had to make the decisions quite quickly. So the decision to sign up to the welcome statement was done within 12 hours. And I think it's great to know that we can make these decisions quickly when we need to.
CLARE CURTIS: And so I think, yes, there are-- we know it can be done. And I think it is a lesson that we should be learning that we can do it, and we should be doing it quickly.
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: I think I'll add to that. I agree. I think that a lot of decisions have been made really fast. I think it's also led to some really accelerated workflows. And it's really good to know that we can do it when it's necessary. Some of it is not sustainable indefinitely. I think there is fatigue. I think the level of content that our editorial department has had to review has meant that certain people have been working 12- to 14-hour days, 7 days a week, weeks on end.
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: They can do it. It's great. But it's not something that's sustainable forever without having some kind of negative repercussions down the road. So I think there is a balance of both sides. We can do it. But we also need to be careful because some things do lead to fatigue.
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: And with information that could affect someone's health, you do want to be really careful. Just to add and to agree, I mean, I think that in having put out a book in a month, it was an incredible thing to see that that was possible. And it's something sort of we are going to take-- we're taking on board. But doing that for every book is an impossibility. I think the entire staff would implode.
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: And also, I think we're still in the midst of all of it. And we don't entirely know-- we're already seeing sort of unequal implications for people in terms of if you're caring for people, if you're caring for children, if you're caring for a family, the sorts of additional burdens that people have to take on. And the ways that COVID has affected different communities more heavily is something that also then we need to take into account in terms of sustainability.
WILL SCHWEITZER: Great. Thank you. This next question is a bit more tactical, and I think it goes to our library or subscribing customers. And it is, what are your plans regarding informing librarians as well as general site visitors that subscription access controls have been reenabled? Will this be targeted messaging, an announcement on the website, or something else?
WILL SCHWEITZER:
CLARE CURTIS: I guess because we've lifted the whole of our paywall, we've probably got to tell more people than most. And so we will be having targeted messaging to our institutional subscribers. There will be general messaging as well to our members and our users. It's quite-- we have to do that quite carefully. Because obviously, we wanted to say that we were doing this for the community and how we were supporting the community.
CLARE CURTIS: And as Vida said, we are also supporting our society. So we can't leave our paywalls down forever. We have to obviously have something where we're sustainable and able to give back what we're making in our subscriptions to our society. So the messaging will be obviously very carefully done, but we will be doing targeted and general messaging.
ANDREW PITTS: Can I just add one thing, Will? We've been working with several of the Silverchair publishers to have a look at the log files during the period where everybody's got their access controls down, to make sure that when you are about to put your access controls up, you know which organizations who are not customers who have been using your content a lot, you can actually advise them, and you can talk to them about options for accessing your content when the paywalls go back up.
ANDREW PITTS: And I think it's just a really useful service that we can provide through Silverchair.
WILL SCHWEITZER: Vida or Emily, any other thoughts?
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: We actually never dropped the paywalls on our regular content. It's only the COVID-19 content that was made freely available. And we can't-- that content is not all open access. But at this point, there's no plans on putting it behind a paywall. I think we're so far from this crisis being over that the COVID-19 crisis content will remain free, at least for the foreseeable future.
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: But we are one publisher that did not drop all paywalls.
EMILY FARRELL: And neither did we. Broadly, for our journals content, we didn't. It was really for the very specifically COVID-related work. And that's a different amount of research, of course, than, say, JAMA has or Portland Press. And then so really it was more communication, similar to what Clare said, about ending access to the ebook content. And we've done that mostly.
EMILY FARRELL: I mean, we made our libraries aware through use of more public messaging and direct messaging, when that date-- that we extended the date by a month, but also when that date was coming nearer. But also, making sure that to send information about sort of top 10 titles that were most used. So as I said before, if libraries wanted to purchase a single ebook through, say, EBSCO or ProQuest, they could go ahead and do that, rather than necessarily needing to purchase the collections in the way that we sell them on our platform.
EMILY FARRELL: And just for them to also to flag what we are seeing in terms of the content that was most valued during this period.
ANDREW PITTS: And I think what we did with Portland is really important. If you are going to drop your paywalls, make sure that you have protection in place. Make sure that it's not Sci-Hub that's getting in and just taking every single one of your articles from Issue 1, Volume 1, to date, so that when you put your paywalls up, you realize that the whole of your content has just been placed up on Sci-Hub and other copycat cyber criminals like that.
ANDREW PITTS: So it's really important that you do protect your content if you are going to do that. Same for any of the COVID-19 stuff. It's the same. We only block Sci-Hub and cyber criminals. We don't block proper researchers.
WILL SCHWEITZER: And Andrew, while you're unmuted, there's a related question to you about whether you have any info or intelligence that Sci-Hub is going after service provider networks, say, those that do production work or create XML for publishers?
ANDREW PITTS: We haven't seen that as yet. We've seen them attack many, many other kind of sites. And we've had reports of other kind of business types being attacked by the same people. But no, I haven't seen that as yet. We're trying to talk to Crossref about the fact that it's very easy for Sci-Hub to get all the DOIs for all of the brand new content from them, and try and get them to do something about maybe not making it so easy for them to take all of your new content.
ANDREW PITTS: But apart from that, no, we haven't seen that yet, Will.
WILL SCHWEITZER: Thank you. So unfortunately we're at time. There's a few questions that we haven't gotten to, but our panelists have been nice enough to say that they will answer those questions via email. So we'll follow up directly where we can. So first, thanks to all of you in the audience for joining us for this discussion. And of course, many thanks to Clare, Emily, Vida, and Andrew. As Stephanie mentioned earlier, this was our first Platform Strategy Series webinar for the year.
WILL SCHWEITZER: I'm very excited to share that for our second webinar we'll be joined by Ha-Hoa Hamano, the senior product manager for emerging platforms at National Public Radio, to discuss what scholarly publishers can learn from public radio about finding new audiences and delivery channels, as many of us aren't listening to morning edition on our commutes. That webinar will be September 23, and more details to come. So thanks to everyone, again.
WILL SCHWEITZER: And I hope everyone has a good day.
VIDA DAMIJONAITIS: Thank you.
WILL SCHWEITZER: Bye-bye.
ANDREW PITTS: Thank you, everyone. Thank you for inviting us. Thank you.
WILL SCHWEITZER: Of course.
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