Accessibility 101: What Does "Accessibility" Mean for Publishers?

Cenveo Publisher Services is a champion of digital equality. Over the coming weeks, we'll dive into some details about what accessibility means for publishers and review how to get started (or continue) with "born accessible" publishing initiatives.

Let's begin.

 
 

Making content accessible involves a number of services depending on the content type and markets your publishing program reaches. What is consistent across all content and markets, is well structured and tagged content. 

Stay tuned as we dive into the details for

  • documents
  • EPUB
  • games
  • websites
  • elearning courses

Feel free to share your questions and thoughts in the comments box below.

 

Learn More

Champion Digital Equality

Click here to learn more


Counting the Hidden Costs of Publishing

Guest blog by John Parsons

The rise of digital STM publishing, and the ongoing discussion about open access and subscription-based models, has led some to conclude that these changes inexorably lead to lower overall publication costs. Reality is more complex.

In my last blog, I discussed the open access or OA publishing model for scholarly, STM publishing. In a nutshell, OA allows peer-reviewed articles to be accessed and read without cost to the reader. Instead of relying on subscriptions, funding for such articles comes from a variety of sources, including article processing charges or APCs.

There are many misconceptions about OA, including the mistaken notion that OA journals are not peer reviewed (false) and that authors typically pay APCs out of pocket (also false). However, a more serious problem occurs when we fail to account for all the costs of scholarly publishing—not just the obvious ones.

Digital Doesn’t Mean Free

Behind the scenes

The obvious publication costs of scholarly publishing—peer review, editing, XML transformation, metadata management, image validation, and so on—can be daunting.

Part of the problem is the Internet itself. Search engines have given us the ability (in theory) to find information we need. Many non-scholarly publishers, particularly newspapers, have published content for anyone to read—in the misbegotten hope of selling more online advertising. The more idealistic among us have given many TED Talks on the virtue of giving away content, trusting that those who receive it—or at least some of then—will reciprocate.

What may work for a rock band does not necessarily work in publishing, however. This is partly because publishing is a complex process, with many of its functions unknown to the average scholar or reader.

Behind the Screens

The obvious publication costs of scholarly publishing—peer review, editing, XML transformation, metadata management, image validation, and so on—are daunting for anyone starting a new journal. If they want to be considered seriously, publications using the “Gold” open access model have to be able to handle these production costs over the long term. They also have to invest in other ways—to enhance their brand, and provide many of the services that scholars and researchers may take for granted.

The first of these hidden costs is the handling of metadata. The OA publishing model—and digital publishing in general—resulted in an explosion of available content, including not only peer reviewed articles, but also the data on which they are based. Having consistent metadata is critical to finding any given needle in an increasing number of haystacks. Metadata is also the key that maintains updates to the research (think Crossref) and tracks errata.

The trouble is that metadata is easy to visualize but it takes work and resources to implement well. Take for example the seemingly simple task of author name fields. The field for author surname (or family name, or last name) is typically text, but how does it accommodate non-Latin characters or accents? Does it easily handle the fact that surnames in countries like China are not the “last” name? The problem is usually not with the field itself, but with how it’s used in a given platform or workflow.

Another hidden metadata cost is the emergence of standards, and how well each publishing workflow handles them. More recently, the unique author identifier (ORCID) has gained in prominence, but researchers and contributors may not automatically use them. There are many such metadata conventions—each representing a cost to the publisher, in order to let scholars focus on their work without undue publishing distractions.

Another hidden cost is presentation. From simple, easy-to-read typography to complex visual elements like math formulae, the publisher’s role (and the corresponding cost) has expanded. What was once a straightforward typesetting and design workflow for print has expanded to a complex, rules-driven process for transforming Word documents and graphic elements into backend XML, which fuels distribution.

The publishing model has drastically changed from a neatly-packaged “issue publication model” to a continuous publication approach. This new model delivers preprints, issues, articles, or abstracts to very specific channels. The systems and workflows that support the new publication model requires configuration and customization, which all have associated production costs.

Automation Is the Key

Very few publishers can maintain the production work required in house. Technology development, staffing, and innovation are costly to maintain. The solution is to rely on a trusted solutions provider, who performs such tasks for multiple journals. Typically, this involves the development of automated workflows—simplifying metadata handling and presentation issues, using a rules-based approach for all predictable scenarios. This of course relies on a robust IT presence—something a single publisher or group typically cannot afford alone. Ideally, automated workflows involve an initial setup cost, but will improve editorial quality, improve turnaround times, and speed up time to publication.

By offloading the routine, data-intensive parts of publishing workflow to a competent service provider, publishers and scholars can spend more time on actual content and less time on the mechanics of making it accessible to and useable by other researchers.


What are some of the "hidden costs" your organization finds challenging?

 

Resources for publishers

Publishing Defined: John Bond's STM Publishing Video Series

What is Crossmark?

John Bond of Riverwinds Consulting is creating a video library of useful shorts about topics and terms important to the STM publishing industry. For some people, his shorts may provide a great refresher or another take on subjects that impact our market. For those just starting their career in STM publishing, his video series should be required viewing!

The series is titled "Publishing Defined" and covers a broad range of topics from defining specific terms to strategic advice regarding RFPs. Also helpful are the playlists he’s put together. You are sure to add a little something to your own knowledgebase from this series!

The following video explains Crossmark and why it’s important for publishers and service providers:

The Crossmark playlist can be viewed here.


Crossmark and Crossref are explained in our white paper, "All Things Connected." Download your copy today by clicking on the cover in the right column.

 

Resources for Publishers

Comment

Marianne Calilhanna

Marianne is director of marketing for Cenveo Publisher Services. She started her career in editorial and production, working on STM primary and review journals. During her 28+ year career she's worked as a book editor, SGML (remember that?!) editor, and managing editor in addition to marketing-related positions. Technology, production, and people---these are just a few of her favorite things.

Publishers Keep Calm and Carry On

It was another busy year at London Book Fair last week with reports of increased registration numbers up by a double-digit percentage.

 
 

The following captured a brief quiet moment at the Cenveo Publisher Services Stand. The global team met with publishers, production managers, archivists, technology executives, and many others to discuss all things related to the creation and management of content.

 
 

Accessibility

Indeed, the hot topic for LBF17 at the Cenveo Stand was content accessibility. Long a champion of digital equality, we're helping publishers create and architect content that is "born accessible." The same technologies and guidelines that improve access to materials for people with visual or hearing impairments, limited mobility, perceptual and cognitive differences, are also tremendously useful for all publishers' customers.

No longer limited to education publishers, we see that journal publishers and others have a driving need to do more with content accessibility.

 

Google Books Decision

In an extremely packed room, America’s foremost copyright jurist and a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals Second Circuit, told attendees that Google’s program to scan tens of millions of library books to create an online index “conferred gigantic benefits to authors and the public equally,” and did not “offer a substitute or interfere with authors’ exclusive rights” to control distribution. READ MORE: Judge Pierre Leval Defends Google Books Decision, Fair Use

Scholarly Publishing and Academic Market

The Research and Scholarly Publishing Forum offered academic publishers and service providers a half-day program with lively debates from Elsevier, Wiley, and Taylor & Francis. Some of the highlights included

  • A discussion about the future of Open Access in the UK between Alicia Wise, Elsevier’s Director of Policy and Access, Liam Earney, Jisc Collections’ Head of Library Support Services, and Chris Banks, Assistant Provost (Space) & Director of Library Services, Central Library, Imperial College London
  • A panel presenting global research policy developments chaired by Wiley’s James Perham-Marchant, featuring speakers from Taylor & Francis, Berghahn Books and Research Consulting
  • A panel session on new innovations to watch, chaired by Tracey Armstrong, President and CEO of the Copyright Clearance Center, including speakers from Sparrho, Frontiers and Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press

Full Coverage via Publishers Weekly

Publishers Weekly covered a range of topics across the many markets represented at the Fair.

 

Resources for Publishers


Stay Connected

How Open Access is Changing Scholarly Publishing

Guest blog by John Parsons

After almost two decades, the Open Access publishing model is still controversial, and misunderstood. Here’s where we stand today.

The beginnings of scholarly publishing correspond roughly to the Enlightenment period of the late 17th and early 18th Centuries. The practice of publishing one’s discoveries was driven by a belief—championed the Royal Society—in the transparent, open exchange of experiment-based ideas. Over the centuries, journals embraced a rigorous peer review process, to maintain the integrity (and the subscription value) of its research content.

Transparency, openness, and integrity all come at a cost, however. For many years, that cost was met by charging journal subscription fees—usually borne by institutions who either produced the research, benefited from it, or both. So long as the publishing model was solely print-based, the subscription model worked well, especially for institutions with deep pockets. That all changed with the Internet. Not only did the scope and volume of research increase rapidly, so did the perception that all information should be easily findable via search engines.

The Internet expanded the audience for research outside traditional institutions—to literally anyone with a connected device. With this expansion, the disparity between the well-funded and those less fortunate became acute. As it did with other publishing workflows, this disruption drove a need for new economic models for scholarly publishing.

Open Access Basics

Advocacy for less fettered access to knowledge is nothing new. But the current Open Access (OA) movement began in earnest in the early 2000s, with the “Three Bs” (the Budapest Open Access Initiative, the Bethesda Statement, and the Berlin Declaration by the Max Planck Institute). Much of the impetus occurred in the Scientific, Technical, and Medical, or STM publishing arena, and from research funding and policy entities like the European Commission and the U.S. National Institutes of Health. The latter’s full-text archive of free biomedical and life sciences articles, PubMedCentral or PMC, is a leading example—backed by a mandate that the results of publicly-funded research be freely available to the public.

In a nutshell, Open Access consists of two basic types—each with its own variations and exceptions. “Green” OA is the practice of self-archiving scholarly articles in a publicly-accessible data repository, such as PMC or one of many institutional repositories maintained by academic libraries. There is often a time lag between initial publication—especially by a subscription-based journal—and the availability of the archived version.

As we will discuss in future blogs, publishers and their service providers are exploring better ways to adapt their publishing workflows to the realities of OA and hybrid journals. In some cases, such as metadata tagging, XML generation, and output to print and online versions, these workflows can be highly automated. In others, publishers must find cost-effective ways to add value—while being as transparent as possible to the authors and users of journal content.

The alternative is the “Gold” OA model. It includes a growing number of journals, such as the Public Library of Science (PLOS), that do not charge subscription fees. Instead, they fund the cost of publishing through article processing charges (APCs) and other mechanisms. Although APCs are commonly thought of as being paid by the author, the real situation is more complex. Often, in cases where OA is mandated, APCs are built into the funding proposals, or otherwise factored into institutional and research budgets. PLOS and other journals can also waive APCs, or utilize voluntary funding “pools,” for researchers who cannot afford to pay them.

The appeal of Open Access is obvious to researchers and libraries of limited means. It also has the potential to accelerate research—by letting scientists more easily access and build upon others’ work. But for prestigious institutions, publishers, and their partners, the picture is more complicated.

Publishers in particular can be hard pressed to develop and enhance their brand—or offer a multitude of services that scholars may take for granted—when constrained by the APC funding model. (Those challenges will be addressed in a future blog.)

Misconceptions, Problems—and Solutions

Even today, researchers are not always clear about what Open Access means for scholarly publishing. Research librarians have their work cut out for them. They cite the common misconception that OA journals do not have an adequate peer review process, for example. This is caused by disreputable or “predatory” journals that continually spam researchers with publication offers. Librarians counter this with a growing arsenal of blacklist and whitelist sources, such as the Directory of Open Access Journals.

Perhaps a major contributor to the uncertainty surrounding OA is the practice of openly publishing “preprint” versions of articles prior to—or during the early stages of—the peer review process. Sometimes, this is part of the researcher’s strategy to secure further funding, but it can fuel the mistaken notion that peer review is not required in OA publishing workflow. Distinguishing preprints from final OA articles must be a goal for publishers and their partners.

Another problem is scholars’ unfamiliarity with the OA-driven changes in publishing workflows. Gold OA journals—particularly those involved in STM publishing—are usually quite adept at guiding authors through the publication process, just as their subscription-based counterparts and publishing service providers have been. For example, the practice of assigning Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs), ISSNs, and other metadata to scholarly publishing works is becoming increasingly efficient for both Gold OA and subscription journals.

Green OA is a thornier problem for traditional publishing workflows. Each institutional repository is separate from the others—with its own funding sources, development path, and legacy issues. A common approach to article metadata, for example, has not happened overnight. Fortunately, organizations like Crossref are working with multiple partners and initiatives to make these workflows universal—and transparent to the researcher.

Perhaps the biggest issue posed by OA is the fate of traditional, subscription-based journals. Despite the push to “flip” journals from a subscription model to Open Access, there are cases where this is simply not feasible or even desirable. Many journals have a large subscriber base of professionals who, although they value the research, do not themselves publish peer reviewed articles. This is especially true for STM publishing. Some of these journals have adopted a “hybrid” approach, charging APCs for some articles (which are available immediately) while maintaining others for subscribers only. These are eventually made Open Access under the Green model, especially when Open Access is a funding requirement.

Scanning the Horizon

As we will discuss in future blogs, publishers and their service providers are exploring better ways to adapt their publishing workflows to the realities of OA and hybrid journals. In some cases, such as metadata tagging, XML generation, and output to print and online versions, these workflows can be highly automated. In others, publishers must find cost-effective ways to add value—while being as transparent as possible to the authors and users of journal content.

Despite these challenges, Open Access is changing the scholarly publishing landscape forever. There is a compelling need for researchers to find and build upon the research of others—each needle buried in a haystack of immense proportions—to advance the human condition. Publishers and their service partners are well positioned to make that open process accessible and fair to all.

 

Resources for Publishers


Peer Review Management Services: Ensuring the Integrity of the Scientific Publishing Process

Cenveo Publisher Services now offers peer review management as a service. Journal publishers depend on the peer review process to validate research and uphold the quality of published articles. With deep expertise in scholarly publishing, our staff is fluent in all peer review models as well as the nuances of major peer review systems.

Download Brochure

Click here to download brochure

Click here to download brochure

Our mission is to support both commercial and scholarly journal publishers with services that ensure editorial excellence while demonstrating time and cost savings. Peer review management fits well in our service portfolio because we’ve been working with the STM publishing industry for more than 135 years and peer review is most certainly the cornerstone of scholarly publishing
— McClanahan, Vice President of Publishing Services, Cenveo Publisher Services

Customized peer review management solutions are based on each publisher’s workflows and business requirements. Peer review management is offered as a stand-alone service or integrated with Cenveo’s full-service journal production model. Dedicated staff work exclusively on peer review---maintaining deadlines, communicating with reviewers, and streamlining responses to authors. The service is bundled with regular performance reports that detail submission numbers, processing times, decision rates, and more.

Click the link below to learn more about this new service offering.

 

Resources for Publishers


Comment

Marianne Calilhanna

Marianne is director of marketing for Cenveo Publisher Services. She started her career in editorial and production, working on STM primary and review journals. During her 28+ year career she's worked as a book editor, SGML (remember that?!) editor, and managing editor in addition to marketing-related positions. Technology, production, and people---these are just a few of her favorite things.

A Simple Lesson From Walt Disney

Everyone Has a Story to Tell

Videos aid learning. Videos and animation are at the top of the elearning food chain. Whether it's within a traditional elearning course or as an independent asset, animated videos help learners visualize and understand complex concepts.

Increasingly, across all the markets we serve---journal publishers, K12 educational publishers, higher ed publishers, elearning providers, magazine publishers---all are interested in transforming complex content into animated video shorts.

Editorial credit: Alex Millauer / Shutterstock.com

Animation offers a medium of story telling and visual entertainment, which can bring pleasure and information to people of all ages everywhere in the world.
— Walt Disney

Conceptualization and Production

Cenveo Publisher Services provides a blended team of creatives, editors, and technologists who transform a fuzzy vision into distinct products for use in digital publications, websites, and elearning courses. Our specialists comprise

  • instructional designers
  • subject matter experts
  • multimedia specialists
  • graphic visualizers

We work with our customers to provide the full-range of services around animation or à la carte options, including

  1. conceptualization
  2. content creation
  3. visual storyboarding
  4. art creation
  5. photo/video research and procurement
  6. permissions management
  7. audio recording
  8. animation
  9. live action shoots
  10. video editing and packaging
  11. accessibility--WCAG and Section 508 compliance

Animation Sample: SWOT Analysis

Have a look at an animated short we created to explain what a SWOT analysis is and why it's beneficial.

 
 


The Future of EPUB: Facts Regarding the IDPF and W3C Merger

future-of-epub_cenveo-publisher-services

The IDPF and W3C are working to combine the two organizations. Working together, they will strive to foster the global adoption of an open, accessible, interoperable digital publishing ecosystem that enables innovation.  The primary motivation to combine IDPF with W3C is to ensure that EPUB’s future will be well-integrated with, and in the mainstream of, the overall Open Web Platform.

The primary goal is to ensure that EPUB remains free for all to use by evolving future EPUB major version development to W3C's royalty-free patent policy.

The executive director of the IDPF, Bill McCoy, recently published a thoughtful and informative blog on Digital Book World that details why this merger is important to the book industry:

Why the IDPF-W3C Merger Will Be Great for EPUB and the Book Industry [read here]

A committee called "Save the IDPF. Save EPUB." has formed and the group is publicly stating its dissent against the merger. Bill also responded elegantly to the organization's concern on the IDPF website:

IDPF Combining With W3C: the Facts [read here]

Both of these pieces are required reading for anyone in the publishing industry and especially for book publishers. Cenveo Publisher Services is a member and supporter of the IDPF and believes that the EPUB community will be enhanced by the merger with the W3C.

What are your thoughts on the merger and the future of EPUB?

The Scholarly Publishing Process Plays a Critical Role in Combating Fake News

Time Reveals Truth by Giovanni Domenico Cerrini

Time Reveals Truth by Giovanni Domenico Cerrini

"Time reveals truth."

As 2017 quickly approaches, we're sure to read, learn, and understand more about the role scholarly publishing will play in our post-truth world. Content validation, peer review, image forensics, traditional citation databases---these are long-established and critical components of the scholarly publishing process. While the demand for increased speed to publication became a critical measurement of a journal publisher's success, editorial integrity and quality remain the gold standard by which publications are judged.

Kalev Leetaru, a contributer to Forbes, recently wrote "How Academia, Google Scholar And Predatory Publishers Help Feed Academic Fake News." In this article he shares a number of his experiences and conversations that illustrate how content validation is not at the forefront or even a consideration in some people's minds:

 
  • "Not a day goes by that an academic paper doesn’t pass through my inbox that contains at least one claim that the authors attribute to a source it did not come from."
  • "I constantly see my own academic papers cited as a source of wildly inaccurate numbers about social or mainstream media where the number cited does not even appear anywhere in my paper."
  • "...many [graduate students] I’ve spoken with have never even heard of more traditional bibliographic search engines and prefer the ease-of-use and instant access of Google Scholar for quick citation searches."
  • "The Editor-in-Chief of one of the world’s most prestigious and storied scientific journals recently casually informed me that his journal now astoundingly accepts citations to non-peer-reviewed personal web pages and blog posts as primary citations supporting key arguments in papers published in that journal."
 

Within scholarly publishing the conversation around "Open" echoes louder all the time. The first SSP Focus Group meeting on January 31, 2017 is on the topic of "Open Data, Science, and Digital Scholarship." PSP's Annual Conference (February 1 to 3) will discuss "Adding Value in the Age of Open."

The concept of "open" is not a new one. Though the term Open Access publishing started to proliferate in the early 2000s, the idea has been around for some time. Computer scientists had been self-archiving in anonymous ftp archives since the 1970s and physicists had been self-archiving in arxiv since the 1990s.  In 1994, Stevan Harnad proposed "The Subversive Proposal," calling on all authors of "esoteric" research writings to archive their articles for free for everyone online.

Leetaru's article suggests that the combination of academia, Google Scholar, and predatory publishing practices play a role in the proliferation of fake news. One could also maintain that the scholarly publishing process plays a pivotal role in combating fake news.

How is your publishing organization navigating the challenges of open in our internet-connected world? What are the consequences of our movement into a more open ecosystem in the scholarly publishing community? Can quality and peer-reviewed content override non-peer-reviewed personal web pages and blog posts?

Time will tell.

 

Peer Review Services

Comment

Marianne Calilhanna

Marianne is director of marketing for Cenveo Publisher Services. She started her career in editorial and production, working on STM primary and review journals. During her 28+ year career she's worked as a book editor, SGML (remember that?!) editor, and managing editor in addition to marketing-related positions. Technology, production, and people---these are just a few of her favorite things.

Web-First Production or Publish-Ahead-of-Print...That Which We Call a Workflow Should Publish Just as Fast

In the STM journal publishing world, it seems like every few years we have a new phrase to describe the dissemination of scholarly content. Each phrase describes a slightly different aspect of journal publishing and based on where you work in an organization, it may mean something slightly different. A collection of phrases I've encountered over the years include

  • XML-early workflow
  • XML-first workflow
  • Publish ahead of print (PAP)
  • Cloud-based publishing
  • Web-first production
  • HTML-based publishing

I'm sure there are other terms specific journals and specific publishing organizations use.

No matter the name, and without parsing every word, I believe the big takeaway is that now more than ever, it's critical to publish STM content quickly without compromising editorial quality. Speed is critical for journal content and scholarly communication. Longevity is important as well. Researchers need to go back to articles to understand corrections, errata, retractions, and updates. And no matter the name, mark-up language is the driving force behind speed, accuracy, longevity, and discoverability.

To provide our publishers with automated production at record-setting speed we use Cenveo Publisher Suite. The cloud-based ecosystem of tools is architected to ensure editorial consistency and quality.

Cenveo Publisher Suite | Features and Benefits

Tool Overview Advantages for Authors/Editors Publishing Workflow Benefits Technical Specs Support
Smart Edit Helps editors perform common tasks during the content creation process.

Automated clean-up process identifies more than 200 different actions.

Auto content identification quickly updates specific document and content types: author names, affiliations, footnotes, abstracts, keywords, etc.

Content normalization transforms styled document to publisher/journal-specific format.

References validation ensures any missing or duplicate references are identified. All references validated against CrossRef and PubMed.

Publishers-specific preferences are highlighted for copyeditor to review.

Extensibility. Inclusion of new content items, specific content types, taxonomies, quality checks, and additional output deliverables are managed through a modular customizable interface.

Authoritative sources. The Cenveo architecture makes use of industry standard authority sources such as CrossRef and PubMed Central® that provides content integrity.

Publisher-specific flexibility.
Normalizations are based on title specific style and content requirements.

Built on the latest version of Microsoft Office 2013 and Visual Studio 2012. The Smart Edit Team comprises experienced analysts and developers with deep knowledge of STM content as well as publisher-specific requirements. A dedicated team makes changes or updates to normalization style and output routines quickly with fluency and expertise in content creation and output.
Smart Compose Automated composition engine that ingests content output from the Smart Edit process and generates proofs based on publishers’ styles.

Speed to publication. Automated content transformations enable the fastest turnaround times in the industry. Based on a publisher’s requirements and the content itself, same-day turnaround is a true possibility.

Consistency. With built-in styles based on publisher specifications, consistent format is guaranteed across journal articles, multiple titles, references, and more.

Streamline workflows. Transitioning from manuscript to proof and maintaining XML structure, translates to effortless digital and print output. One straight text article can be composed every 2 to 3 minutes.

Dynamic server-based 3B2 composition with core template built using Xpath, XSLT, and Perl. Style sheets and layouts stored as separate libraries.

Dynamic server-based InDesign composition with templates built on Java and InDesign scripts is the latest addition to high-speed composition of design-intensive content.

Template engineers with 15 to 20 years on-the-job experience are available around the clock for troubleshooting and for any other technical demands.
Smart Proof Online proofing and correction tool that presents composed pages via a web browser and offers an interface to update content and format.

Intuitive. Reminiscent of Microsoft Word but accessible via any browser, authors and editors can easily make line edits and insert queries.

Behind-the-scenes-XML. Focus is on the content and not the structure. XML mark-up is captured behind the scenes, including change history metadata.

Editorial integrity. Managing author corrections, editorial styles, and journal formats consistently translates to quality published content.

Streamlines the proofing process for authors and editors in a serial correction workflow. Integration of multiple correction sources into a single PDF (no re-marking of corrections).

An XHTML-based tool.

XML input is converted to XHTML for correction cycle then transformed back to XML.

One-time authentication, troubleshooting, and customer support.

Auto alert messages to technical support team helps to resolve any technical glitches.

While publishers' business drivers support the evolving journal landscape, which includes author support, open science, and readership needs, we ensure our technology helps them along the way.


Want to see a demo of Cenveo Publisher Suite or consult with a publishing workflow specialist? Simply click the link below to get started!

 

Related White Paper


Brochure

Comment

Marianne Calilhanna

Marianne is director of marketing for Cenveo Publisher Services. She started her career in editorial and production, working on STM primary and review journals. During her 28+ year career she's worked as a book editor, SGML (remember that?!) editor, and managing editor in addition to marketing-related positions. Technology, production, and people---these are just a few of her favorite things.

Scholarly and Academic Content Collection Organized by Category

We've collected some of the most read blog posts that we've shared over the years into one collection organized by category. Enjoy!


 

Resources for Publishers


Comment

Marianne Calilhanna

Marianne is director of marketing for Cenveo Publisher Services. She started her career in editorial and production, working on STM primary and review journals. During her 28+ year career she's worked as a book editor, SGML (remember that?!) editor, and managing editor in addition to marketing-related positions. Technology, production, and people---these are just a few of her favorite things.

Feed Your Head: 14 Ways Reading Improves Your Mind and Body

Science has shown that reading has amazing health benefits, including helping with depression, cutting stress, and reducing the chances of developing Alzheimer’s later in life. Here are 14 ways that reading strengthens the brain, improves health, and increases empathy.

Used with permission from The Expert Editor.

 
Comment

Marianne Calilhanna

Marianne is director of marketing for Cenveo Publisher Services. She started her career in editorial and production, working on STM primary and review journals. During her 28+ year career she's worked as a book editor, SGML (remember that?!) editor, and managing editor in addition to marketing-related positions. Technology, production, and people---these are just a few of her favorite things.

New England Publishing Collaboration Awards 2016 - Audience Choice Award

Earlier in November Bookbuilders of Boston hosted the annual New England Publishing Collaboration Awards or NEPCo Awards. Cenveo Publisher Services and the Association of American Publishers' Professional and Scholarly Publishing Division received the audience choice award.

 

Background on the Awards

Twenty years ago, job titles and job descriptions across publishers were remarkably similar. There were key skills, and mastery of these led to respect and reward. When the landscape changed, however, many of us adapted through meaningful partnerships. We investigated new business models, expanded our core competencies, and challenged our vendors to provide new services. We learned about the technologies our customers embraced. We found new customers.

The NEPCo Awards celebrates this agile and open-minded approach to unprecedented change. To educate our members who are new to the industry, and to reward those who have achieved through meaningful relationships with partners, Bookbuilders presents this timely event.

Winners

FIRST PLACE: Globe Pequot and Active Interest Media won first place for their collaboration on Backpacker: The National Parks Coast to Coast.

SECOND PLACE: Harvard Business Publishing and Jazz at Lincoln Center won second place for their project Wynton Marsalis & Jazz at Lincoln Center.

More pictures and videos of the winners are available on the NEPCo website here. Every finalist had 3 minutes to provide background on the collaborative publishing project and share insight on their project. Check them out!

 

Resources for Publishers


Comment

Marianne Calilhanna

Marianne is director of marketing for Cenveo Publisher Services. She started her career in editorial and production, working on STM primary and review journals. During her 28+ year career she's worked as a book editor, SGML (remember that?!) editor, and managing editor in addition to marketing-related positions. Technology, production, and people---these are just a few of her favorite things.

iPROSE Selected as a Finalist for the New England Publishing Collaboration Awards (NEPCo)

The New England Publishing Collaboration (NEPCo) Awards recognizes collaborative publishing achievements and educates a new generation of publishing leaders. NEPCo recently selected iPROSE: 40 Years of Excellence in Scholarly Publishing as a finalist for its prestigious award.

The Professional and Scholarly Publishing (PSP) Division of the American Association of Publishers (AAP) worked with The Design Studio at Cenveo Publisher Service to create iPROSE: 40 Years of Excellence in Scholarly Publishing. This digital edition celebrates and showcases the best in scholarly publishing during the past 40 years. The product was created and published earlier this year in honor of The Prose Awards' 40th anniversary. The PROSE Awards, often referred to as the Oscars of scholarly publishing, were created to honor the best scholarly publications across various fields in a variety of formats.

Working collaboratively with Cenveo Publisher Services, PSP went into their vaults to gather and organize 40 years of past winners, highlights, and history. Together the content was transformed into a digital product that includes video, rich media, photo galleries, and more. Cenveo Publisher Services has supported the PROSE Awards for a number of years and in 2016 we wanted to create something special for the 40th anniversary.

iPROSE will be competing against six other finalists at The Rockwell in Somerville, MA on November 9th. For the competition, finalists will present 3-minute descriptions of their collaborative projects on stage in front of judges and the audience. Tickets are still available via NEPCo's website here. Please come and join the celebration!


iPROSE is available for free download via the Cenveo Mobile Platform app in the iTunes store. Just click the icon below!

 
 
The creative team at Cenveo Publisher Services is exceptional. They conceptualized, designed and produced the digital edition. Now we have a digital product showcasing the best in scholarly publishing during the past 40 years.
— Kate Kolendo, project manager at the Association of American Publishers

The "Miniaturization of Learning" in the Education Market

We recently spoke with Publishers Weekly about current trends in the educational publishing market. Following are some highlights from the interview:

The “miniaturization of learning” in the education market is becoming obvious as students need quick hits of concepts rather than long, unwieldy lessons, says Waseem Andrabi, senior director of global content services at Cenveo Publisher Services. The Cenveo team, in addition to building complete courses, has been partnering with publishers and contentcentric organizations to create specific digital assets—animations, games, and interactives—that aid students in learning concepts quickly. “We are able to create and structure content for adaptive engines that provide robust personalized learning paths, feedback, and performance evaluation,” explains Andrabi, who is seeing authoring and publishing platforms becoming more mature, both off-the-shelf platforms such as Habitat and Aquafa-das, and proprietary ones such as McGraw-Hill Education’s LearnSmart and Cengage Learning’s MindTap.

“We create courses and assets that are technology- and platform-agnostic. Our team of developers, subject matter experts, and instructional designers are fluent across multiple languages, disciplines, and platforms. We closely monitor market trends and situations that impact e-learning and delivery, such as the battle among Apple, Google, and Microsoft for dominance in the class-room-learning ecosystem,” adds Andrabi, whose team also helps guide publishers in the evolving landscape by paying close attention to news in the device world, such as the rise of Chromebook against tablets.

Adaptive learning, Andrabi says, is already transitioning from being a fad to becoming a fact. “We expect technologies such as virtual and augmented reality to make more frequent appearances,” he adds. “In fact, we are seeing this in a number of projects we are working on, including a pre-K-12 social studies program that offers 3 60-degree videos of historical places such as the Roman Colosseum to augment the course content.” Testing and assessment, Andrabi points out, “are ripe for disruption because formats such as multiple choice and fill in the blank have not changed significantly over the years.”

Meanwhile, security is becoming “more important than ever to publishers as e-learning becomes ubiquitous in the classroom,” says marketing director Marianne Calilhanna. “Fortunately, today’s digital learning content is hosted behind secure, access-controlled systems, and the playback of content is not easy to replicate or copy.”

“It is an exciting time to be in the digital education landscape, and we are thrilled with the relationships that we have with well-established publishers and new niche content providers,” Calilhanna says. “In the last three years, digital learning in the education market has made enormous strides. Our team has transformed static, template-driven read-and-interact lessons to sophisticated interventions such as games, simulations, virtual labs, and multimedia. As a full-service, technology-driven partner for digital content creation and transformative publishing solutions, we have logged several thousand hours of content created from scratch and successfully delivered.”

Frankfurt Update: Game Planning in the Digital Solutions Industry

The full article and more can be found in Publishers Weekly Show Daily for day 1 at the Frankfurt Book Fair (click here) or click below

Look inside >
D24D25
Game Planning in the Digital Solutions Industry

 

 

 

Resources for Publishers

SSP Fall Seminar Recap - Mentoring, RFPs, Metadata...These Were Just a Few of Our Favorite Things

This past Tuesday and Wednesday (October 4 to 5), SSP hosted its Fall Seminar at the American Geophysical Union office in DC. The event was organized around three themes with presentations from publishers', vendors', and consultants' perspectives:

  1. Develop Somebody---Even Yourself: Mentorship, Career Development, and Networking
  2. A How to Guide: Successfully Executing an RFP Process
  3. Bagged and Tagged: How the New Scholarly Infrastructure is Connecting People, Places, and Things

Unlike the large SSP Annual Meeting, the Fall Seminar is an intimate gathering of journal managers, publishers, editorial directors, content technology architects, developmental editors, graphic designers, and more. The focus throughout the 2 days was building networks, both professional and organizational, to strengthen yourself and your company. It was evident that the message was taken to heart as everyone involved was open to conversation and making new connections.

The RFP presentation was loaded with tips and best practices but also included thoughts on what NOT to include in an RFP. The participants and the audience shared many pet peeves that translated to a list of great tips related to RFP content and process.

Never miss an opportunity to hear Chuck Koscher from CrossRef speak about standards and metadata. His mission of creating a sustainable infrastructure for scholarly communication is always explained in detail and with passion.

Following is a small sample of information from the past 2 days:

 

Resources for Publishers

Seven Facts That Publishers Should Know About DOI

While some academic publishing metadata standards have yet to reach a “tipping point,” others are already well established. The Digital Object Identifier, or DOI, is one of these. 

  1. What is DOI? Administered by the nonprofit International DOI Foundation, these ISO-standard alphanumeric codes serve as “persistent identifiers” for digital content (including abstracts), related objects, and physical assets or files. 
  2. The benefit of a universal DOI: Nearly all journal articles are assigned a unique DOI, which facilitates more efficient management, tracking/searching, and automation by publishing and content management systems. It links to the object permanently, even if it is moved, modified, or updated. It also can contain associated metadata, although the data model requires only a limited set of “kernel” elements.
  3. I’m a publisher, how do I use DOI? Typically, publishers contact the agency, obtain a DOI to be used for all of the articles they publish, and work with the agency to register and use the DOIs created for individual articles. 
  4.  Who allocates the DOI? Various registration agencies manage the DOI records, maintain the metadata databases, and participate in the overall DOI community. For academic publishing, the primary agency is the nonprofit Crossref
  5. What should I know about Crossref? Crossref handles DOIs for preprints (unpublished drafts posted on preprint servers) as well as DOIs for articles accepted in the publication chain (from the initial manuscript submission through the final published article). These are in fact separate identifiers—to distinguish the state of the piece in the publishing process—but are also linked to one another. 
  6. Where will we see growth in DOI adoption? According to April Ondis, Crossref’s Strategic Marketing Manager, “The real growth in DOI adoption will be in the area of preprints and early content registration.”  Driven in part by the growth of Open Access, researchers are increasingly using preprint content to invite informal feedback before the article is formally accepted for peer review and publication. Ondis noted that the DOI for an accepted article is the primary, and permanent one, while the preprint’s DOI is separate but linked.
  7. Are there problems with DOIs? Authors, institutions, and research funders need to know about pending articles as soon as possible. “However, with a DOI there has to be a content URL. At article acceptance, the publisher often does not know where that content will be, so a DOI could not be registered,” said Crossref’s Director of Technology, Chuck Koscher.  The solution? Crossref will now host an ‘intent to publish’ landing page for these DOIs, based on an ‘intent to publish’ field in the metadata supplied by the publisher.

Read more about DOI and other metadata standards in our white paper, "All Things Connected." [click here]

 

Related White Paper

Grab your copy of "All Things Connected" to learn more about DOIs and other metadata standards [click here]


Comment

Marianne Calilhanna

Marianne is director of marketing for Cenveo Publisher Services. She started her career in editorial and production, working on STM primary and review journals. During her 28+ year career she's worked as a book editor, SGML (remember that?!) editor, and managing editor in addition to marketing-related positions. Technology, production, and people---these are just a few of her favorite things.

Pew Research Center Publishes Latest Findings for American Book Reading 2016

Reading” by Katy Tressedder

The latest report from Pew Research Center is available for download. The most interesting observation is not that print is still the preferred format but rather how our relationship with reading ebooks has changed. Following are just a few highlights from the report.

Background

Book Reading 2016 gathers data and findings from a survey conducted March 7 to April 4, 2016, among a national sample of 1,520 adults, 18 years of age or older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. Fully 381 respondents were interviewed on a landline telephone, and 1,139 were interviewed on a cellphone, including 636 who had no landline telephone. The survey was conducted by interviewers at Princeton Data Source under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates International.

Print Rules

For the most part, the percentage of Americans who have read a book in the past 12 months has not changed since 2012---73%. When we go to read a book, the majority of us reach for the printed product (65%). That's more than double the number who have read an ebook (28%) and more than four times more than those who have listened to an audio book (14%).

 

But Don't Rule Out eBooks

The survey certainly illustrates that print is the preferred format but that's not to say ebooks should be viewed as a sub par format. There has been an important shift publishers should understand about American's relationship with ebooks over the past 5 years. Multipurpose devices (smart phones, tablet computers) rather than dedicated e-reading devices, are used more often to access digital content:

 

The share of e-book readers on tablets has more than tripled since 2011 and the number of readers on phones has more than doubled over that time, while the share reading on e-book reading devices has not changed. And smartphones are playing an especially prominent role in the e-reading habits of certain demographic groups, such as non-whites and those who have not attended college.
— Pew Research Center, Book Reading 2016

Between 2011 and 2016 some interesting ways in which we read have occurred:

  • Reading on tablets: increased nearly fourfold (from 4% to 15%)
  • Reading on smartphones: more than doubled (from 5% to 13%)
  • Reading on desktop or laptop computers: a modest increase (from 7% to 11%)

College Grads Want it Both Ways

Certain demographics are likely to read more and read both formats---print and digital. College graduates, compared with those who never attended college, are more likely to read print books and more likely to consume ebooks.

 

College graduates are roughly four times as likely to read e-books ­ and about twice as likely to read print books and audio books – compared with those who have not graduated high school
— Pew Research Center, Book Reading 2016

Download the Report

The full report is available here. More metrics, findings, and graphs are available that will be interesting to all publishers.


*ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER

Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts.

Comment

Marianne Calilhanna

Marianne is director of marketing for Cenveo Publisher Services. She started her career in editorial and production, working on STM primary and review journals. During her 28+ year career she's worked as a book editor, SGML (remember that?!) editor, and managing editor in addition to marketing-related positions. Technology, production, and people---these are just a few of her favorite things.

Sprint Beyond the Book | SSP2016 and Arizona State University's Center for Science and the Imagination

Emerging technologies continue to transform the ways we collect, synthesize, disseminate, and consume information. These advances present both hazards and opportunities for the future of scholarly publication and communication.

At the 2016 Society for Scholarly Publishing Annual Meeting, the Center for Science and the Imagination at Arizona State University brought together a team of science fiction authors, scholars, digital publishers, journalists, and technologists to write a book on the fly in 72 hours.

A revolving group of participants as well as a dedicated team of writers,

  • discussed issues of increasing scholarly impact and accessibility
  • wondered whether computers can make scholarly contributions that warrant co-authorship
  • speculated about what forms scholarly books may take in the future
  • wrote and published their musings in Sprint Beyond the Book

Throughout the annual meeting at SSP2016, six miniature book sprints were conducted. During each sprint, a group of four to six writers convened to tackle one of six big questions. Each sprint began with a facilitated conversation, followed by time for the writers to reflect and compose a piece of writing inspired by the conversation.

Conferences like the SSP annual meeting and scholarly publications themselves are often undergirded by spontaneous, inspiring, thought-provoking conversations among colleagues and collaborators, but those conversations are rarely captured and shared, and are often clouded in memory, even for the participants. The book sprint process hopefully absorbs some of the kismet and energy of those initial conversations, right at the start of a big idea, and makes it part of a more durable intellectual product—and a possible springboard for additional conversations in a broader range of times and places.

Contents

Making Research Matter

Reproducing the Humanities
Unexpected Signals of Public Engagement With Science
Making Research Matter
Being an Academic—A Thank You Letter
Publishing Haikus
Agent of Science

Shaping the Public Square

Dance, Monkey, Dance: The Public Square
Public Square
From the Ivory Tower to Hyde Park
The Citizen Mathematician

Human-Machine Collaboration

Machines Who Write and Edit
Can Crediting Algorithms Save the Adjuncts?
What Would a Turing Test for an Intellectual Contribution Look Like?
Our Robot Overlords
The Authorship Rubric: Credit Where Credit’s Due

Exposing Hidden Knowledge

Hidden Knowledge
Hidden Knowledge in Information Overload
Six-word memoirs
Hidden Knowledge, as Told by Memes
The Hidden Knowledge
Undocumented Terms of Art
The Magic of Gossip

The Future of the Scholarly Book

(Untitled)
Burning Books
Stories From Our Mothers
Does the User Experience of Scholarly Books Need Reconsideration?
The Book That Lasts
How Do You Print Books on Mars?
Gutenberg 2.0—Books as Conversations
GitHub and the Future of the Scholarly Book

Expanding Access

Expanding Access
Minimal Computing: An Infographic
Teenage Information Dystopia
What is a Book?
Democratizing Research 101: No Taxation Without Representation
Summary

 

Download eBook

Click here to get your copy Sprint Beyond the Book


Comment

Marianne Calilhanna

Marianne is director of marketing for Cenveo Publisher Services. She started her career in editorial and production, working on STM primary and review journals. During her 28+ year career she's worked as a book editor, SGML (remember that?!) editor, and managing editor in addition to marketing-related positions. Technology, production, and people---these are just a few of her favorite things.

The Story Behind the Textbook: The Cost of Creating Course Materials

Behind that expensive textbook your college kids just charged, is a team of writers, editors, instructional designers, graphic designers, developers, compositors, marketers, and more.

The cost of creating high-quality learning materials is significant.

The Association of American Publishers collected real metrics based on the production of Pearson's Campbell Biology, 10th Edition and published the following infographic:

From the Association of American Publishers. Used with permission.


We work with publishers and content providers and understand that managing costs along with content is imperative.

From content creation to XML, we provide full-service editorial and production teams that include instructional designers, subject matter experts, editors, and writers. Whether it’s core textbook work or supplement creation and management, we can help.  Cenveo's Higher Education content team has experience managing textbook production and digital product creation, from setting up projects and working with authors to finalizing content. Want to discuss some of the ways we can help your production team?