Cadmore media player playing video Rethinking the Current: Swimming Upstream with XML to Transform Submission, Peer Review, and Production
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:
Rethinking the Current: Swimming Upstream with XML to Transform Submission, Peer Review, and Production
Description:
Rethinking the Current: Swimming Upstream with XML to Transform Submission, Peer Review, and Production
Thumbnail URL:
https://cadmoremediastorage.blob.core.windows.net/f34ec48b-70a4-4b9e-8189-aa3c842ba7ae/videoscrubberimages/Scrubber_1.jpg
Duration:
T00H23M05S
Embed URL:
https://stream.cadmore.media/player/f34ec48b-70a4-4b9e-8189-aa3c842ba7ae
Content URL:
https://cadmoreoriginalmedia.blob.core.windows.net/f34ec48b-70a4-4b9e-8189-aa3c842ba7ae/SSP2025 5-28 1245 - Industry Breakout - Kriyadocs.mp4?sv=2019-02-02&sr=c&sig=BWsVzewZoq%2By3x%2BnOcVXWP1Jd1vh2VJ2lh2w%2FKD6Pyk%3D&st=2025-06-15T20%3A43%3A36Z&se=2025-06-15T22%3A48%3A36Z&sp=r
Upload Date:
2025-06-05T00:00:00.0000000
Transcript:
Language: EN.
Segment:0 .
Well, good afternoon, everyone. Thank you so much for being here. Welcome to chilly Baltimore. I feel like I've been coming to SSP now for over 10 years, and SSB moves around the country, and sometimes in Canada, and I don't believe it's ever been as chilly as it is today. I keep putting my hands in my pockets, but hopefully it'll warm up as we go forward.
Tomorrow is looking to be very nice. So on that note, just to tell you a little bit about our business, we started off in 2004, so it was over 20 years ago. We started off as a pre-press service provider, and over the years we built our own software platform first to automate typesetting and production and then moving forward to bring in a lot of workflow and collaboration features.
And quite recently we introduced peer review as well in terms of building an end to end journal workflow and also supporting bilingual scenarios. So just a little bit about how we got where we are. But in terms of why we exist, I think we exist for two communities. The first community is the researchers. We want to make sure that they have a fabulous experience as they work with systems like ours.
And in here, I think the goal is to make sure that it's not just the author, it's the editor, it's the reviewer. How are they having an enjoyable experience. Because it's not something it's not their day job. It's something that they're coming to do on the side. So how do we make sure that works really well. And in doing so, can we make our publishers, who are our partners, make them more agile.
How can they scale and grow. How can they take care of their customers' needs and how this is now an ecosystem that works well together in terms of being able to build on a improved author experience, getting more authors to come in, having mutual growth and thereby having agility. And I think this is our core mission and this is what we make happen. So in terms of why we're here at SSP, I think SSP has been around and been conducting this meeting for over 47 years, and it's an ecosystem where ideas are shared freely and debated.
And also sometimes actions are taken forward and its strength lies in the range of people who come in here. We have publishers, you have librarians, you have technologists, you have editors, and you have people from all aspects, from the commercial side as well as the nonprofit side. And the reason we really appreciate and admire SSP is because of their core values.
They talk about community and creating a space for people to collaborate, inclusivity in welcoming voices from all over the world. Adaptability adaptability. In terms of being able to learn what's going on, especially in our industry, I think it's so important. And finally, integrity in building trust through transparency. And I think that's a very key aspect is trust is to be earned.
Trust is not something to be taken for granted. We all talk about trust in publishing and we ask for trust from our authors. I think that's something. It's a two way street. So inspired by organizations like SSP and alpsp, we realized a scenario where in these conferences, we talk about these great issues, we talk about challenges that we're facing.
But we stopped there and we felt like there was a need for us to get together. Take this conversation a bit further. So we decided to sponsor this event called publisher speak. In fact, we just conducted our fourth edition in the UK last week, and publisher speak is about getting people from editorial from production, coming together, talking about challenges, but then going a step further and saying, OK, given that we have these challenges, can we actually put our heads together and come up with solutions.
Can we discuss this from our different perspectives, identify some common challenges, identify some solutions that we can put together, and now put out white papers to suggest, hey, this is what we should be doing. I think this industry actually needs that. We all. We don't need to look outside. In fact, as much as I'm a vendor here, I think all of you guys know what you need to do.
You need to get together to discuss. Hey, these are my problems. This is what I would like to do agree on some standards and then agree on a way forward. And I think us working together, we can do a wonderful job in solving the challenges that we have. So in terms of some of the areas that we have explored over the last couple of years, we've talked about diversity, innovation, metadata, AI, which is, of course, something that's on top of everybody's mind.
The author experience, and so on. And I think what I would like to do today is to talk a little bit about what we heard last week, and this is so relevant, because what are we all thinking about. What are those challenges we're all facing and what do we want to do about that. So one of the sessions we talked about was about the AI reckoning. And in terms of is, first of all, how is AI being used by publishers.
How do we view it from an author's perspective. What is OK. What is not OK. What are the policies that we should have in place. What is I mean from attribution. So there was lots of questions that were being raised, and some of the specific questions were about what is the community's responsibility in ensuring that it's used ethically and transparently.
So I think we've gone away from hey, should we use AI or not. I think we all agree that AI is a very essential tool. It's like your calculator or computer. It's going to get to that point where everybody uses it. But is it being used ethically and transparently? Who is responsible for setting the guardrails. So obviously there's a lot you can do with it. You can make up information. So there should be guardrails in terms of how we operate it.
And make sure that's very clear for everybody to look at. How can we make sure there's trust equity and neutrality in this environment. And what that means is obviously trust needs to be there in terms of how we use the tools, but also making sure that these tools are democratized. Larger publishers may have access to better content, better tools which may not be available to everybody.
So I think there's a need for democratization. I think that will in general benefit the entire ecosystem. And finally, can it improve access. Can we actually go beyond biases that exist. Can we make sure this research is visible for everybody who needs to get access to it. So I think the summary was that we publishers saw this as both a risk and an opportunity. And they also recognized the need for collaboration on an AI policy, and that the collaboration on policy and on use is so important.
And that's an urgent conversation that needs to happen. There needs to be transparency on the use of AI and the democratization, like I said, on the tools that are available, preventing bias while leveraging its ability to strengthen the review process. So yes, I can be involved in the review process and somehow, obviously it cannot take the place of a reviewer, but can it provide some information to the reviewers that will help in improving the review process.
And finally, I think this question really came up about attribution. We look at altmetrics. We look at h-index. What does it mean when your content is indexed by I. How do we make sure we still get attributed for that content. I think this is a very relevant question. I don't know if we still have the answer for that just yet, but it's something I think we all need to work together to make sure that it is addressed in the days forward.
The second topic we talked about was about metadata and about how can metadata help improve the research, visibility and discoverability at scale. How can we make it more intuitive and less burdensome, especially for the researchers. Can we make it such that it is intuitive tools available. So that researchers can capture this information, and especially involving them in capturing accurate metadata. So it's not just the contributing author, the submitting author, it's all of their co-authors.
Or can we make sure this information is readily accessible. We establish identity, I think, in terms of these days of identity fraud, this is a very key aspect. I know there's a session at the conference that talks about that, and what incentives or support structures will encourage authors to complete their metadata. So in terms of submitting this, what does it mean for them.
What does it mean for the institutions that they are part of. Why is this an important thing. I think this is all education that we would need to do as a community. So very clearly, I think the consensus was good. Metadata starts with the author and success depends on making it easy. So yes, you do need to start up front.
You do need to start at the beginning, but you need to make it easy for them to do it so that you capture the metadata. The importance of identifiers. The importance of IDs. I think this was a very key aspect that came out. And finally, the importance of capturing data and making sure that this research is reproducible. So what can we capture upstream to make sure that this becomes part of the process.
The third aspect we talked about was interoperability. There are several systems that we're all using, be it from a hosting platform, be it your peer review platform, be it I don't know. Rights management and so on is I think we need to look past these platforms and say, how can I create future ready workflows. Can we start to establish some sort of standards for these various systems.
I think it helps both parties for publishers to agree on, hey, this is what's important. This is what needs to be captured. And from a vendor perspective to understand what that need is and start build according to some standards. I think something that happened in our industry with XML and jats creating that standard allowed us all to rally around a standard which we could all support. Back in the day, we all used to have our own XML standard and we had to update that and maintain it.
Now this has become an easy aspect. How can we look at other areas where standards could be created. What will it take for us to build systems that can talk to each other and actually work together. I think anytime you adopt a new system, it's about how can I integrate with my other systems, how can these systems talk together when these systems upgrade.
How do we keep them in touch. And then once we talked about all that, we said, hey, what prevents us from adopting shared standards. I think what prevents us is we don't talk to each other. I think we all come in. We come to these conferences, we sit next to each other, but then we get up and then go back to what it is we were doing. I think this is an opportunity for us to talk to each other, understand what specific challenges we have, how can we collaborate, how can we create some working groups.
I know SSP gives these opportunities to us to do that. I think we should take advantage of it. And finally, what role do researchers and vendors have in making this shift happen. This shift happening in terms of us coming together. I think what was very apparent is collaboration is going to be the key driver for building, for interoperability. And if you look at other industries like you take the financial industry, I think they've done a really good job of coming up with standards.
They've come up with a way by which different institutions can talk to each other. There's ways in which they collaborate. It's very clear and open and transparent publishing to start to look at those sorts of industries and learn from that. And finally, I think rather than wait for guidelines to be imposed on us, we can come together and say, hey, these are the guidelines of how we should operate with this is how vendors should work.
This is how these different systems should collaborate with each other and establish that, start that conversation. People will then come together and we can build this together going forward. The final aspect actually came about for the early career researchers. Now, why are these people important. Obviously, there's a lot of very capable people who have had great careers, who have gone forward publishing great things.
But this is the new generation of people coming in. This new generation of people must recognize the value of publishing, must understand why we are relevant. I think these questions are being posed today is a publisher relevant. Can I just write an article, post it on a preprint server, have it reviewed by some of my colleagues, and move on. Why does a publisher need it for. I think we need to start thinking about this is how can we start to empower these early career researchers, educate them on the importance of what it is that we do, and better communicate that infrastructure and expertise.
What exists. Why is this important. Why, as publishers, what value do we bring to the table. And in doing so, how can we make sure it's equitable access to guidance. Because now the community is no longer just in a few countries. It's across the world. How can we make sure there's equitable access to this guidance that we have.
And at the end is what do we need to do to create a more transparent and collaborative relationship between researchers and publishers. So it can't be an us against them. Publishing doesn't exist without the authors. It doesn't exist without these researchers. So I think in terms of the challenges we're facing, better yet, for us to collaborate with these individuals, these researchers, this community and do it with them rather than them.
Take a stand and say, hey, we don't need publishing. I think we are sitting here. We all exist because of this publishing industry, but it doesn't happen without the researcher. So I think we need to have these active conversations with researchers. So I think yeah. So the insight was let's focus on value. We need better author experiences and clearer demonstration of the value we bring to the table.
We need to reiterate why publishing is relevant and what value we bring to the table. How can we reach out to authors and involve them in a discussion and the design of the way forward. And finally, how can we build systems that improves the research process and also does the difficult job of making this process enjoyable. We lay down lots of rules.
We lay down lots of different hoops that authors have to go through. How can we make this interesting and enjoyable so that they participate willingly. So in summary, I think it was very interesting to see the theme of this year's conference was about aligning values with the value we provide. And I think that's really the answer is how can we look at the value that we provide the author, which is clarity, simplicity and guidance, and coupled that with the value that we are trying to uphold in terms of the integrity, efficiency and the trust.
And I think involving ourselves in collaboration, but really talking about how can we invest upstream, how can we do capture metadata upstream, help in disseminating information, education. And by doing so, how can we then shift the conversation to saying, OK, we're going to take care of it. At the end, we have research integrity issues. So let's put in a big team that's going to go check all these particular scenarios.
How can we start to educate. And if we shifted left and we had this infrastructure, it meant it means that we have shared value at the point of creation. Every one of us will benefit rather than the publishers who have all these big teams taking care of things and then trying to catch something. Meanwhile, there are a bunch of papers that slip through. If we start upstream, it means that every publisher, the whole community, benefits.
And when we align the author needs with the publisher priorities, we don't just improve publisher workflows, we're elevating the entire system. So I think the need is very clear. The opportunity is tremendous for us to come together as a community and make a big difference, and really stand for what publishing really means to the community. So in terms of where credence comes in.
So we realized early on that I think in order to make some of these upstream challenges work, XML, getting into XML as soon as possible is important. XML allows us to get effective desk and peer review right at the beginning. Because you have more data, you're able to compare that against the published resources, find better reviewers, and also be able to uphold research integrity at scale because you just have more data at this point.
What the signals are what the patterns are, and you're able to now do this at scale and not just for a select group of papers, you're able to enhance metadata and transparency. So by this it's about capturing information that you want, but also being transparent in terms of supplying your open data and making sure that this is all available through the review process. Of course, going to XML now allows you to look at alternate avenues for your content, because it may not just be the journal that they submitted to.
It could be a sister's journal. It could be not even an article, it could be parts of the article. And by getting into XML, you provide yourself a great latitude in terms of how you view this content and how you process this content. So the Craddock's unified publishing ecosystem right now goes all the way from submission to delivery. And we've added this new module called pre-submit, which is about checking the manuscript prior to submission.
And the goal here is, again two aspects. One is to educate in terms of what is necessary for you to have a valid submission, but also to be able to check against any kind of scenarios which would be, say, retracted publications due to citing or something that's possibly wrong with your affiliation information or something that's wrong with your images. Anything that you're looking from an integrity scenario. But rather than going and telling them, hey, you made a mistake.
Can we educate. And again, this is something that you could do upstream. This education will benefit us maybe a few years from now, but the entire community is going to benefit. And coupled with that is to build a way of integrating with our different systems. Can we come up with a common language by which we talk to other systems. Can we agree on an API standard that says, hey, this is how systems talk to this is what I need.
This is what I'll give you. Let's have a open standard on that. So the advantage of going upstream means that now you can involve not only the authors, but all of their co-authors, and bring in the set of checks that you're bringing in right at the beginning. And have them check from a structure perspective, from a language perspective, from an integrity perspective. Of course, you choose which ones you're going to leave out, but I think there's many of these tools are already available to our authors.
So rather than have them do their own thing and come through. Can you actually involve them in the process. And a big advantage, of course, is XML and submission. Now, once this data has been submitted, it just means that now you have all the metadata you need from an extraction perspective. You can produce very, very nice forms. You can have intuitive forms from other things that you need besides what is there in the article.
You can involve the author in being able to identify, hey, I am, I am this author. I do want to be a part of this publication, have a license to publish workflows, and really on and on from here, because here's where we're not just capturing for this particular article scenario. It's about depositing data sets. It's about connecting with your external systems.
So there's a lot that can be done. Once you go into this particular scenario. Now with the data that we have, we can do integrity checks at every revision without at scale and not have to worry about the cost that's coming in. You can do this for a large volume of data quickly and efficiently. And finally, you can have configurable workflows and clear audit trails for full control and visibility.
In terms of once you've gotten past this, you've said, hey, this manuscript is now good enough for peer review. Now you have the opportunity to with an XML interface, to go online, have the review done inline, have contextual comments, not just refer to it as page numbers and line numbers. Have the authors collaborate on this with the reviewers. Understand what's coming through from a comment perspective.
Support diverse anonymization models so you can have either a fully anonymized model, or you can also have open peer review. So there's an opportunity here to mimic what's happening in the preprint world. And finally, we have having very simplified reviewer management in terms of who's working on it. Can we expose invite a whole bunch of other reviewers to have educated a lot of people on what the publishing process is.
Can I have a lot more reviewers collaborate with us. In fact, with a customer of ours called Med wave in Chile, we built a bilingual peer review workflow, and the bilingual peer review workflow allows authors to submit in Spanish, allows review to happen in Spanish, and upon acceptance is when they translate into English as well, and they publish in both English and Spanish at the same time. The big advantage is for their community.
English is no longer a deterrent. It allows people to submit in that language. They don't have to spend the cost of polishing that language upstream before they even get accepted. Second is it brings in a lot more reviewers into the fold, and there's a lot of reviewers in the world who, maybe because of English, aren't being welcomed into this process. I know we all have challenges in finding reviewers.
Can this be a way. And we could look at other languages. It's not just Spanish, it could be German, it could be Dutch, it could be Chinese, it could be Japanese. So really, I think it exposes you to a whole bunch of other resources that are available, but just not included in the process. Finally, once all that's done, it just means that your post acceptance workflow is simplified.
You can quickly generate proofs you can improve the author experience for to know exactly what has changed and finally be able to deliver to a whole range of third parties. And hosting platforms. So getting into XML upstream just means that you have all the pieces in place, you have all the metadata you need have dotted I's, you cross your T's. You've done this early in the process, and in all what you've done is you've also improved speed because you're involving the people at the right time.
And doing it upstream just means that you spend less time waiting, spend less time chasing. These are the big opportunities that we have. So in summary, in terms of shaping our future, I believe that the future of scholarly publishing is going to be based on trust. Trust is going to come from openness, from integrity and accountability across the ecosystem.
It's going to be about putting the researchers at the Center of this, designing workflows that are intuitive, supportive, and reducing the friction between science and it's communication. And I say science, but it also applies to the humanities. The third aspect is to look beyond the article. I think the article is just one piece twomorrows publishing and I think tomorrow's already become today also includes methods, includes data, includes code.
It includes negative results and all those components that help in making sure that research is truly reproducible and impactful. Finally, none of this work can happen in silos. I think we need to build future ready infrastructure that is connected, standards driven, and finally enabled for discoverability at scale. We are trying to make sure that this amazing research our researchers do is available for people to read, process and then act on and take it to the next level.
I think our job will not be done unless we make sure that their content is discoverable. So at creador, we're not just imagining this future. I think we're very actively building this. We're building this with many of our customers. And this is a challenge, I think, done better when we all work together. If anything resonated with you today, I think we ask that if there's a goal that you're looking at, please come and talk to us.
We're at booth 307. We'd love to show you what's possible and invite you to collaborate with us. Thank you. Just any questions. I can take that, but I think I'm slightly over my. OK I'll be on time. Yeah are there any questions I could help answer.
Just to note that we have our next edition of publishers peak happening again. It's not a plug, but I think you'll find that publishers speak for those of us who've attended the conference. It's a way for you to take your ideas, find collaborative groups, and find a way to make your ideas possible.
So we're having our next conference in DC in September. I'll be happy to give you more information once you guys stop by. Thank you all for your time. Appreciate it.
Segment:0 .
Well, good afternoon, everyone. Thank you so much for being here. Welcome to chilly Baltimore. I feel like I've been coming to SSP now for over 10 years, and SSB moves around the country, and sometimes in Canada, and I don't believe it's ever been as chilly as it is today. I keep putting my hands in my pockets, but hopefully it'll warm up as we go forward.
Tomorrow is looking to be very nice. So on that note, just to tell you a little bit about our business, we started off in 2004, so it was over 20 years ago. We started off as a pre-press service provider, and over the years we built our own software platform first to automate typesetting and production and then moving forward to bring in a lot of workflow and collaboration features.
And quite recently we introduced peer review as well in terms of building an end to end journal workflow and also supporting bilingual scenarios. So just a little bit about how we got where we are. But in terms of why we exist, I think we exist for two communities. The first community is the researchers. We want to make sure that they have a fabulous experience as they work with systems like ours.
And in here, I think the goal is to make sure that it's not just the author, it's the editor, it's the reviewer. How are they having an enjoyable experience. Because it's not something it's not their day job. It's something that they're coming to do on the side. So how do we make sure that works really well. And in doing so, can we make our publishers, who are our partners, make them more agile.
How can they scale and grow. How can they take care of their customers' needs and how this is now an ecosystem that works well together in terms of being able to build on a improved author experience, getting more authors to come in, having mutual growth and thereby having agility. And I think this is our core mission and this is what we make happen. So in terms of why we're here at SSP, I think SSP has been around and been conducting this meeting for over 47 years, and it's an ecosystem where ideas are shared freely and debated.
And also sometimes actions are taken forward and its strength lies in the range of people who come in here. We have publishers, you have librarians, you have technologists, you have editors, and you have people from all aspects, from the commercial side as well as the nonprofit side. And the reason we really appreciate and admire SSP is because of their core values.
They talk about community and creating a space for people to collaborate, inclusivity in welcoming voices from all over the world. Adaptability adaptability. In terms of being able to learn what's going on, especially in our industry, I think it's so important. And finally, integrity in building trust through transparency. And I think that's a very key aspect is trust is to be earned.
Trust is not something to be taken for granted. We all talk about trust in publishing and we ask for trust from our authors. I think that's something. It's a two way street. So inspired by organizations like SSP and alpsp, we realized a scenario where in these conferences, we talk about these great issues, we talk about challenges that we're facing.
But we stopped there and we felt like there was a need for us to get together. Take this conversation a bit further. So we decided to sponsor this event called publisher speak. In fact, we just conducted our fourth edition in the UK last week, and publisher speak is about getting people from editorial from production, coming together, talking about challenges, but then going a step further and saying, OK, given that we have these challenges, can we actually put our heads together and come up with solutions.
Can we discuss this from our different perspectives, identify some common challenges, identify some solutions that we can put together, and now put out white papers to suggest, hey, this is what we should be doing. I think this industry actually needs that. We all. We don't need to look outside. In fact, as much as I'm a vendor here, I think all of you guys know what you need to do.
You need to get together to discuss. Hey, these are my problems. This is what I would like to do agree on some standards and then agree on a way forward. And I think us working together, we can do a wonderful job in solving the challenges that we have. So in terms of some of the areas that we have explored over the last couple of years, we've talked about diversity, innovation, metadata, AI, which is, of course, something that's on top of everybody's mind.
The author experience, and so on. And I think what I would like to do today is to talk a little bit about what we heard last week, and this is so relevant, because what are we all thinking about. What are those challenges we're all facing and what do we want to do about that. So one of the sessions we talked about was about the AI reckoning. And in terms of is, first of all, how is AI being used by publishers.
How do we view it from an author's perspective. What is OK. What is not OK. What are the policies that we should have in place. What is I mean from attribution. So there was lots of questions that were being raised, and some of the specific questions were about what is the community's responsibility in ensuring that it's used ethically and transparently.
So I think we've gone away from hey, should we use AI or not. I think we all agree that AI is a very essential tool. It's like your calculator or computer. It's going to get to that point where everybody uses it. But is it being used ethically and transparently? Who is responsible for setting the guardrails. So obviously there's a lot you can do with it. You can make up information. So there should be guardrails in terms of how we operate it.
And make sure that's very clear for everybody to look at. How can we make sure there's trust equity and neutrality in this environment. And what that means is obviously trust needs to be there in terms of how we use the tools, but also making sure that these tools are democratized. Larger publishers may have access to better content, better tools which may not be available to everybody.
So I think there's a need for democratization. I think that will in general benefit the entire ecosystem. And finally, can it improve access. Can we actually go beyond biases that exist. Can we make sure this research is visible for everybody who needs to get access to it. So I think the summary was that we publishers saw this as both a risk and an opportunity. And they also recognized the need for collaboration on an AI policy, and that the collaboration on policy and on use is so important.
And that's an urgent conversation that needs to happen. There needs to be transparency on the use of AI and the democratization, like I said, on the tools that are available, preventing bias while leveraging its ability to strengthen the review process. So yes, I can be involved in the review process and somehow, obviously it cannot take the place of a reviewer, but can it provide some information to the reviewers that will help in improving the review process.
And finally, I think this question really came up about attribution. We look at altmetrics. We look at h-index. What does it mean when your content is indexed by I. How do we make sure we still get attributed for that content. I think this is a very relevant question. I don't know if we still have the answer for that just yet, but it's something I think we all need to work together to make sure that it is addressed in the days forward.
The second topic we talked about was about metadata and about how can metadata help improve the research, visibility and discoverability at scale. How can we make it more intuitive and less burdensome, especially for the researchers. Can we make it such that it is intuitive tools available. So that researchers can capture this information, and especially involving them in capturing accurate metadata. So it's not just the contributing author, the submitting author, it's all of their co-authors.
Or can we make sure this information is readily accessible. We establish identity, I think, in terms of these days of identity fraud, this is a very key aspect. I know there's a session at the conference that talks about that, and what incentives or support structures will encourage authors to complete their metadata. So in terms of submitting this, what does it mean for them.
What does it mean for the institutions that they are part of. Why is this an important thing. I think this is all education that we would need to do as a community. So very clearly, I think the consensus was good. Metadata starts with the author and success depends on making it easy. So yes, you do need to start up front.
You do need to start at the beginning, but you need to make it easy for them to do it so that you capture the metadata. The importance of identifiers. The importance of IDs. I think this was a very key aspect that came out. And finally, the importance of capturing data and making sure that this research is reproducible. So what can we capture upstream to make sure that this becomes part of the process.
The third aspect we talked about was interoperability. There are several systems that we're all using, be it from a hosting platform, be it your peer review platform, be it I don't know. Rights management and so on is I think we need to look past these platforms and say, how can I create future ready workflows. Can we start to establish some sort of standards for these various systems.
I think it helps both parties for publishers to agree on, hey, this is what's important. This is what needs to be captured. And from a vendor perspective to understand what that need is and start build according to some standards. I think something that happened in our industry with XML and jats creating that standard allowed us all to rally around a standard which we could all support. Back in the day, we all used to have our own XML standard and we had to update that and maintain it.
Now this has become an easy aspect. How can we look at other areas where standards could be created. What will it take for us to build systems that can talk to each other and actually work together. I think anytime you adopt a new system, it's about how can I integrate with my other systems, how can these systems talk together when these systems upgrade.
How do we keep them in touch. And then once we talked about all that, we said, hey, what prevents us from adopting shared standards. I think what prevents us is we don't talk to each other. I think we all come in. We come to these conferences, we sit next to each other, but then we get up and then go back to what it is we were doing. I think this is an opportunity for us to talk to each other, understand what specific challenges we have, how can we collaborate, how can we create some working groups.
I know SSP gives these opportunities to us to do that. I think we should take advantage of it. And finally, what role do researchers and vendors have in making this shift happen. This shift happening in terms of us coming together. I think what was very apparent is collaboration is going to be the key driver for building, for interoperability. And if you look at other industries like you take the financial industry, I think they've done a really good job of coming up with standards.
They've come up with a way by which different institutions can talk to each other. There's ways in which they collaborate. It's very clear and open and transparent publishing to start to look at those sorts of industries and learn from that. And finally, I think rather than wait for guidelines to be imposed on us, we can come together and say, hey, these are the guidelines of how we should operate with this is how vendors should work.
This is how these different systems should collaborate with each other and establish that, start that conversation. People will then come together and we can build this together going forward. The final aspect actually came about for the early career researchers. Now, why are these people important. Obviously, there's a lot of very capable people who have had great careers, who have gone forward publishing great things.
But this is the new generation of people coming in. This new generation of people must recognize the value of publishing, must understand why we are relevant. I think these questions are being posed today is a publisher relevant. Can I just write an article, post it on a preprint server, have it reviewed by some of my colleagues, and move on. Why does a publisher need it for. I think we need to start thinking about this is how can we start to empower these early career researchers, educate them on the importance of what it is that we do, and better communicate that infrastructure and expertise.
What exists. Why is this important. Why, as publishers, what value do we bring to the table. And in doing so, how can we make sure it's equitable access to guidance. Because now the community is no longer just in a few countries. It's across the world. How can we make sure there's equitable access to this guidance that we have.
And at the end is what do we need to do to create a more transparent and collaborative relationship between researchers and publishers. So it can't be an us against them. Publishing doesn't exist without the authors. It doesn't exist without these researchers. So I think in terms of the challenges we're facing, better yet, for us to collaborate with these individuals, these researchers, this community and do it with them rather than them.
Take a stand and say, hey, we don't need publishing. I think we are sitting here. We all exist because of this publishing industry, but it doesn't happen without the researcher. So I think we need to have these active conversations with researchers. So I think yeah. So the insight was let's focus on value. We need better author experiences and clearer demonstration of the value we bring to the table.
We need to reiterate why publishing is relevant and what value we bring to the table. How can we reach out to authors and involve them in a discussion and the design of the way forward. And finally, how can we build systems that improves the research process and also does the difficult job of making this process enjoyable. We lay down lots of rules.
We lay down lots of different hoops that authors have to go through. How can we make this interesting and enjoyable so that they participate willingly. So in summary, I think it was very interesting to see the theme of this year's conference was about aligning values with the value we provide. And I think that's really the answer is how can we look at the value that we provide the author, which is clarity, simplicity and guidance, and coupled that with the value that we are trying to uphold in terms of the integrity, efficiency and the trust.
And I think involving ourselves in collaboration, but really talking about how can we invest upstream, how can we do capture metadata upstream, help in disseminating information, education. And by doing so, how can we then shift the conversation to saying, OK, we're going to take care of it. At the end, we have research integrity issues. So let's put in a big team that's going to go check all these particular scenarios.
How can we start to educate. And if we shifted left and we had this infrastructure, it meant it means that we have shared value at the point of creation. Every one of us will benefit rather than the publishers who have all these big teams taking care of things and then trying to catch something. Meanwhile, there are a bunch of papers that slip through. If we start upstream, it means that every publisher, the whole community, benefits.
And when we align the author needs with the publisher priorities, we don't just improve publisher workflows, we're elevating the entire system. So I think the need is very clear. The opportunity is tremendous for us to come together as a community and make a big difference, and really stand for what publishing really means to the community. So in terms of where credence comes in.
So we realized early on that I think in order to make some of these upstream challenges work, XML, getting into XML as soon as possible is important. XML allows us to get effective desk and peer review right at the beginning. Because you have more data, you're able to compare that against the published resources, find better reviewers, and also be able to uphold research integrity at scale because you just have more data at this point.
What the signals are what the patterns are, and you're able to now do this at scale and not just for a select group of papers, you're able to enhance metadata and transparency. So by this it's about capturing information that you want, but also being transparent in terms of supplying your open data and making sure that this is all available through the review process. Of course, going to XML now allows you to look at alternate avenues for your content, because it may not just be the journal that they submitted to.
It could be a sister's journal. It could be not even an article, it could be parts of the article. And by getting into XML, you provide yourself a great latitude in terms of how you view this content and how you process this content. So the Craddock's unified publishing ecosystem right now goes all the way from submission to delivery. And we've added this new module called pre-submit, which is about checking the manuscript prior to submission.
And the goal here is, again two aspects. One is to educate in terms of what is necessary for you to have a valid submission, but also to be able to check against any kind of scenarios which would be, say, retracted publications due to citing or something that's possibly wrong with your affiliation information or something that's wrong with your images. Anything that you're looking from an integrity scenario. But rather than going and telling them, hey, you made a mistake.
Can we educate. And again, this is something that you could do upstream. This education will benefit us maybe a few years from now, but the entire community is going to benefit. And coupled with that is to build a way of integrating with our different systems. Can we come up with a common language by which we talk to other systems. Can we agree on an API standard that says, hey, this is how systems talk to this is what I need.
This is what I'll give you. Let's have a open standard on that. So the advantage of going upstream means that now you can involve not only the authors, but all of their co-authors, and bring in the set of checks that you're bringing in right at the beginning. And have them check from a structure perspective, from a language perspective, from an integrity perspective. Of course, you choose which ones you're going to leave out, but I think there's many of these tools are already available to our authors.
So rather than have them do their own thing and come through. Can you actually involve them in the process. And a big advantage, of course, is XML and submission. Now, once this data has been submitted, it just means that now you have all the metadata you need from an extraction perspective. You can produce very, very nice forms. You can have intuitive forms from other things that you need besides what is there in the article.
You can involve the author in being able to identify, hey, I am, I am this author. I do want to be a part of this publication, have a license to publish workflows, and really on and on from here, because here's where we're not just capturing for this particular article scenario. It's about depositing data sets. It's about connecting with your external systems.
So there's a lot that can be done. Once you go into this particular scenario. Now with the data that we have, we can do integrity checks at every revision without at scale and not have to worry about the cost that's coming in. You can do this for a large volume of data quickly and efficiently. And finally, you can have configurable workflows and clear audit trails for full control and visibility.
In terms of once you've gotten past this, you've said, hey, this manuscript is now good enough for peer review. Now you have the opportunity to with an XML interface, to go online, have the review done inline, have contextual comments, not just refer to it as page numbers and line numbers. Have the authors collaborate on this with the reviewers. Understand what's coming through from a comment perspective.
Support diverse anonymization models so you can have either a fully anonymized model, or you can also have open peer review. So there's an opportunity here to mimic what's happening in the preprint world. And finally, we have having very simplified reviewer management in terms of who's working on it. Can we expose invite a whole bunch of other reviewers to have educated a lot of people on what the publishing process is.
Can I have a lot more reviewers collaborate with us. In fact, with a customer of ours called Med wave in Chile, we built a bilingual peer review workflow, and the bilingual peer review workflow allows authors to submit in Spanish, allows review to happen in Spanish, and upon acceptance is when they translate into English as well, and they publish in both English and Spanish at the same time. The big advantage is for their community.
English is no longer a deterrent. It allows people to submit in that language. They don't have to spend the cost of polishing that language upstream before they even get accepted. Second is it brings in a lot more reviewers into the fold, and there's a lot of reviewers in the world who, maybe because of English, aren't being welcomed into this process. I know we all have challenges in finding reviewers.
Can this be a way. And we could look at other languages. It's not just Spanish, it could be German, it could be Dutch, it could be Chinese, it could be Japanese. So really, I think it exposes you to a whole bunch of other resources that are available, but just not included in the process. Finally, once all that's done, it just means that your post acceptance workflow is simplified.
You can quickly generate proofs you can improve the author experience for to know exactly what has changed and finally be able to deliver to a whole range of third parties. And hosting platforms. So getting into XML upstream just means that you have all the pieces in place, you have all the metadata you need have dotted I's, you cross your T's. You've done this early in the process, and in all what you've done is you've also improved speed because you're involving the people at the right time.
And doing it upstream just means that you spend less time waiting, spend less time chasing. These are the big opportunities that we have. So in summary, in terms of shaping our future, I believe that the future of scholarly publishing is going to be based on trust. Trust is going to come from openness, from integrity and accountability across the ecosystem.
It's going to be about putting the researchers at the Center of this, designing workflows that are intuitive, supportive, and reducing the friction between science and it's communication. And I say science, but it also applies to the humanities. The third aspect is to look beyond the article. I think the article is just one piece twomorrows publishing and I think tomorrow's already become today also includes methods, includes data, includes code.
It includes negative results and all those components that help in making sure that research is truly reproducible and impactful. Finally, none of this work can happen in silos. I think we need to build future ready infrastructure that is connected, standards driven, and finally enabled for discoverability at scale. We are trying to make sure that this amazing research our researchers do is available for people to read, process and then act on and take it to the next level.
I think our job will not be done unless we make sure that their content is discoverable. So at creador, we're not just imagining this future. I think we're very actively building this. We're building this with many of our customers. And this is a challenge, I think, done better when we all work together. If anything resonated with you today, I think we ask that if there's a goal that you're looking at, please come and talk to us.
We're at booth 307. We'd love to show you what's possible and invite you to collaborate with us. Thank you. Just any questions. I can take that, but I think I'm slightly over my. OK I'll be on time. Yeah are there any questions I could help answer.
Just to note that we have our next edition of publishers peak happening again. It's not a plug, but I think you'll find that publishers speak for those of us who've attended the conference. It's a way for you to take your ideas, find collaborative groups, and find a way to make your ideas possible.
So we're having our next conference in DC in September. I'll be happy to give you more information once you guys stop by. Thank you all for your time. Appreciate it.
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