AI and NLP for Publishers: How Artificial Intelligence & Natural Language Processing Are Transforming Scholarly Communications

A free report from Cenveo Publisher Services

You may have heard how artificial intelligence (AI) is being deployed within the information industry to combat fake news, detect plagiarism, and even recommend content to users. Until now however, AI has had minimal impact on the content creation and editorial functions of the publishing ecosystem. For scholarly publishers in particular, AI capabilities have advanced to a degree that they can actually automate significant portions of their workflows, with massive implications for their businesses, their authors and the research community.

AI is a method by which humans train machines to identify patterns and learn new patterns. It involves developing algorithms that enable machines to quickly process large swaths of data, recognize the patterns within that data, and make decisions or recommendations based on that analysis.

Natural language processing (NLP) incorporates grammar analysis into machine-learning. A computer program is trained to recognize the noun, verb, and object in a sentence, and to understand the structure of words in order to discern their meaning.

With NLP technology, publishers can automate simple editing and formatting tasks and focus their energy on adding greater value to the content. They can also manage more journal submissions or speed up tedious peer review without significantly increasing staff or production costs.

Traditionally, all articles submitted to an academic journal undergo a similar process with multiple rounds of corrections and changes before copyediting, formatting, composition and proofing. All told, this system could take several weeks before the article is published.

On the other hand, AI and NLP technology can implement pre-set grammar and formatting rules to analyze the content and score articles for quality. The technology will automatically correct minor errors like grammar and punctuation, and flag more complex issues that may need an editor’s attention. Journal submissions that are high-quality and can advance straight to the typesetting and composition stage.

AI & NLP technology can flag content that requires an editor's review

Because editing is often the most time-consuming part of the production process, fast tracking high-quality articles to the composition stage can save a significant amount of time for publishers—while also improving the author experience.

In our latest report, AI and NLP for Publishers, we explore how AI and NLP are being used today in scholarly publishing and how it may impact the evolution of research. We also explore how the technology works and how publishers like Taylor & Francis are, with the help of Cenveo Publisher Services, realizing the benefits of intelligent automation.

Download the free report.

 

Videos in Your Journal Publishing Program?

Integrating video into a journal publishing program is not new but it's also not ubiquitous across the market. Videos can be a useful component to support an individual article while also helping authors to promote their research and publications.

The New England Journal of Medicine surveyed its authors and readers on the effectiveness of its Quick Take Videos (QTs). The survey experienced a 51% response rate from 95 authors and 411 readers who were contacted to share their views.

Of those authors who responded, 75% replied that they were very satisfied with their role in helping to create QTs. While 17% responded they were very dissatisfied with their role in helping to create QTs.

98% of authors somewhat or strongly agreed that the QT accurately summarized their article and presented it in an engaging way.

Authors shared the following reasons when asked why they use QTs.

Readers shared the following reasons as relevant for why they view QTs.

When asked “Do you believe that videos represent the abstract of the future," 84% responded yes. The answer to this question is where real value can be found for journal publishers. Particularly in a time when journal publishing strives to provide greater benefits to authors, offering video shorts of articles is most certainly beneficial.


Are you currently integrating videos in your journal publishing program? Video abstracts? Training? Share your ideas in the comments section below.

 

Video Services


1 Comment

Mike Groth

Michael Groth is Director of Marketing at Cenveo Publisher Services, where he oversees all aspects of marketing strategy and implementation across digital, social, conference, advertising and PR channels. Mike has spent over 20 years in marketing for scholarly publishing, previously at Emerald, Ingenta, Publishers Communication Group, the New England Journal of Medicine and Wolters Kluwer. He has made the rounds at information industry events, organized conference sessions, presented at SSP, ALA, ER&L and Charleston, and blogged on topics ranging from market trends, library budgets and research impact, to emerging markets and online communities.. Twitter Handle: @mikegroth72

Taylor & Francis Group Awards Full-Service Production for Global Journal Content to Cenveo

Cenveo’s Technological Innovation Aligns With Taylor & Francis’ Journal Publishing Vision

Cenveo announces a major increase in full-service content production for Taylor & Francis’ global journal production program. Taylor & Francis selected Cenveo as a core content service provider to support Taylor & Francis’s continued growth.

PR-quote_T-and-F.png

As a world-leading academic and professional publisher, Taylor & Francis cultivates knowledge through its commitment to quality. Taylor & Francis identified in Cenveo a shared vision to develop production workflows designed to improve the velocity of research dissemination. This planned strategic initiative enhances customer experience for Taylor & Francis' contributor base, particularly newer generations of researchers and scientists, without alienating its traditional market.

“The critical piece that convinced us Cenveo was the right partner was their technology stack supports our publishing model and provides real-world, expedited publication turnaround times using AI and natural language processing technology,” explains Stewart Gardiner, Global Production Director of Journals at Taylor & Francis Group. “The organizational and operational innovations Cenveo proposed to support a rapid scale-up in production volumes were something we haven’t seen from other providers and were clearly based on lessons learned in previous ramp-ups.”

In February 2018, Cenveo announced a financial restructure and reorganization to strengthen its fiscal health. Mr. Gardiner remarks, “Given the company is currently reorganizing following a Chapter 11 process, our legal and financial people looked at Cenveo closely and came to the view that this is a relatively straightforward debt for equity restructure. Refinancing of this sort is not out of line with what one might expect for a company in Cenveo’s market position, scale, and acquisition history.”

Cenveo and Taylor & Francis have shared a long work history prior to this fivefold increase in volume. The transition process has already begun and onboarding the additional Taylor & Francis work is scheduled to take place in structured phases throughout the remainder of 2018.

Given the company is currently reorganizing following a Chapter 11 process, our legal and financial people looked at Cenveo closely and came to the view that this is a relatively straightforward debt for equity restructure. Refinancing of this sort is not out of line with what one might expect for a company in Cenveo’s market position, scale, and acquisition history.
— Stewart Gardiner, Global Production Director of Journals, Taylor & Francis Group

“This major win is a result of considerable work and effort that we have put into the next generation of Smart Suite combined with a focus on operational excellence,” explains Atul Goel, EVP Global Content Operations and President and COO of India Operations at Cenveo. “We are grateful for the trust placed in Cenveo by Taylor & Francis and heartened that Cenveo’s long-term vision of innovative publishing workflows aligns with a global leader in publishing.”

Cenveo is consistently rated as one of the highest performing content service providers by its customers. Cenveo’s ongoing commitment to publishers and extensive experience with volume ramp-up is further demonstrated by its significant investments in technology and staff.

Comment

Mike Groth

Michael Groth is Director of Marketing at Cenveo Publisher Services, where he oversees all aspects of marketing strategy and implementation across digital, social, conference, advertising and PR channels. Mike has spent over 20 years in marketing for scholarly publishing, previously at Emerald, Ingenta, Publishers Communication Group, the New England Journal of Medicine and Wolters Kluwer. He has made the rounds at information industry events, organized conference sessions, presented at SSP, ALA, ER&L and Charleston, and blogged on topics ranging from market trends, library budgets and research impact, to emerging markets and online communities.. Twitter Handle: @mikegroth72

The Center for Open Science | Preregistration Challenge

Some of the world's leading journals are taking steps to maximize the transparency and reproducibility of science by promoting the preregistration of research. Those journals include

  • Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
  • Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
  • Journal of Memory and Language
  • Memory & Cognition
  • Nature & Nature Research Journals
  • Ecology
  • Proceedings of the NAS
  • Brain and Behavior
  • Cognition & Emotion
  • Cortex
  • Learning & Behavior
  • PLOS Biology
  • Psychological Science
  • Science

Why Should Research be Preregistered?

When research is preregistered, there is an advanced commitment before data are gathered. Preregistration separates hypothesis-generating (exploratory) from hypothesis-testing (confirmatory) research. Both are important, but the same data cannot be used to generate and test a hypothesis, which can happen unintentionally and reduce the clarity and quality of results. Removing potential conflicts through planning improves the quality and transparency of research, helping others who may wish to build on it.

The Center for Open Science (COS) is promoting preregistration through its Preregistration Challenge. The COS is giving away $1,000 to 1,000 researchers who preregister their projects before they publish them!

Publishers can support this initiative by reaching out to authors and promoting the challenge. Following is an introductory video that explains the challenge and you can learn more by clicking here.

 
Comment

Mike Groth

Michael Groth is Director of Marketing at Cenveo Publisher Services, where he oversees all aspects of marketing strategy and implementation across digital, social, conference, advertising and PR channels. Mike has spent over 20 years in marketing for scholarly publishing, previously at Emerald, Ingenta, Publishers Communication Group, the New England Journal of Medicine and Wolters Kluwer. He has made the rounds at information industry events, organized conference sessions, presented at SSP, ALA, ER&L and Charleston, and blogged on topics ranging from market trends, library budgets and research impact, to emerging markets and online communities.. Twitter Handle: @mikegroth72

Open Practice Badges: A Primer and How to Get Started

The Center for Open Science (COS) provides tools, training, support, and advocacy that help researchers and scholars manage, share, and discover scientific research. The COS’ mission is to “increase the openness, integrity, and reproducibility of scholarly research. Acceleration of scientific progress can be a primary motivator for scholarship and a powerful driver of real solutions.

The COS develops software tools, workflows, data storage solutions, and more based on its free Open Science Framework (OSF). The OSF is an ecosystem of solutions, partnering companies, technologies, and ideas that support researchers across the entire research life cycle.  One initiative that is gaining momentum is the use of Open Practice Badges in the publishing workflow.

Openness is a core value of scientific practice.
 

The scholarly publishing community agrees on the relevance and importance of open communication for scientific research and progress. In 2009 there were approximately 4,800 OA journals publishing approximately 190,000 articles. In January 2017, the estimate is that there are around 9,500 active OA journals. At Cenveo Publisher Services, we work with a large number of society and commercial publishers who have launched or are preparing to add OA publication models to their workflows.

Awarding Open Practice Badges on published content is a way of designating and awarding authors badges that acknowledge their use of open practices during the research life cycle.

Incorporating Open Practice Badges Into Publishing Workflows

By acknowledging open practices in scientific research, journal publishers can use badges in their publications to certify that a particular research practice was followed. Badges can be awarded to the published content as part of the peer review process or they can be awarded post-publication. As long as processes and practices are transparent, any organization can issue badges. Most publishers are awarding the badges during peer review. Publishing platforms and review services are likely to use the badges post publication.

For publishers, the journal awards the badge and it is linked to the specific article. Each publisher tends to have specific methods for incorporating badges into the published article. However, it is critical that the badge is machine discoverable and readable.

Detailed information on incorporating OA badges into your publication workflow can be found at the OSF Wiki page here.

Badge Overview

There are three badges currently used:

  1. Open Data
  2. Open Materials
  3. Preregistered

Following is an overview of the three badges and corresponding criteria. Detailed information is available on the OSF Wiki page, including corresponding links.

Open Data

The Open Data badge is earned for making publicly available the digitally-shareable data necessary to reproduce the reported results.

Criteria

Digitally-shareable data are publicly available on an open-access repository. The data must have a persistent identifier and be provided in a format that is time-stamped, immutable, and permanent (e.g., university repository, a registration on the Open Science Framework, or an independent repository at www.re3data.org).

A data dictionary (e.g., a codebook or metadata describing the data) is included with sufficient description for an independent researcher to reproduce the reported analyses and results. Data from the same project that are not needed to reproduce the reported results can be kept private without losing eligibility for the Open Data Badge.

An open license allowing others to copy, distribute, and make use of the data while allowing the licensor to retain credit and copyright as applicable. Creative Commons has defined several licenses for this purpose, which are described at www.creativecommons.org/licenses. CC0 or CC-BY is strongly recommended.

Open Materials

The Open Materials badge is earned by making publicly available the components of the research methodology needed to reproduce the reported procedure and analysis.

Criteria

Digitally-shareable materials are publicly available on an open-access repository. The materials must have a persistent identifier and be provided in a format that is time-stamped, immutable, and permanent (e.g., university repository, a registration on the Open Science Framework, or an independent repository at www.re3data.org).

Infrastructure, equipment, biological materials, or other components that cannot be shared digitally are described in sufficient detail for an independent researcher to understand how to reproduce the procedure.

Sufficient explanation for an independent researcher to understand how the materials relate to the reported methodology.

Preregistered/Preregistered+Analysis Plan badges 

The Preregistered/Preregistered+Analysis Plan badges are earned for preregistering research.

Preregistered

The Preregistered badge is earned for having a preregistered design. A preregistered design includes: (1) Description of the research design and study materials including planned sample size, (2) Description of motivating research question or hypothesis, (3) Description of the outcome variable(s), and (4) Description of the predictor variables including controls, covariates, independent variables (conditions). When possible, the study materials themselves are included in the preregistration.

Criteria for earning the preregistered badge on a report of research are:

  1. A public date-time stamped registration is in an institutional registration system (e.g., ClinicalTrials.govOpen Science FrameworkAEA RegistryEGAP).
  2. Registration pre-dates the intervention.
  3. Registered design and analysis plan corresponds directly to reported design and analysis.
  4. Full disclosure of results in accordance with registered plan.

Badge eligibility does not restrict authors from reporting results of additional analyses. Results from preregistered analyses must be distinguished explicitly from additional results in the report. Notations may be added to badges. Notations qualify badge meaning: TC, or Transparent Changes, means that the design was altered but the changes and rationale for changes are provided. DE, or Data Exist, means that (2) is replaced with “registration postdates realization of the outcomes, but the authors have yet to inspect or analyze the outcomes.

Preregistered+Analysis Plan

The Preregistered+Analysis Plan badge is earned for having a preregistered research design (described above) and an analysis plan for the research and reporting results according to that plan. An analysis plan includes specification of the variables and the analyses that will be conducted. Guidance on construction of an analysis plan is below.

Criteria for earning the preregistered+analysis plan badge on a report of research are:

  1. A public date-time stamped registration is in an institutional registration system (e.g., ClinicalTrials.gov, Open Science Framework, AEA registry, EGAP).
  2. Registration pre-dates the intervention.
  3. Registered design and analysis plan corresponds directly to reported design and analysis.
  4. Full disclosure of results in accordance with the registered plan.

Notations may be added to badges. Notations qualify badge meaning: TC, or Transparent Changes, means that the design or analysis plan was altered but the changes are described and a rationale for the changes is provided. Where possible, analyses following the original specification should also be provided. DE, or Data Exist, means that (2) is replaced with “registration postdates realization of the outcomes, but the authors have yet to inspect or analyze the outcomes.”

What Journals Are Using Open Badges?

A list of journals currently using Open Practice Badges can be found here. The list continues to grow as more publishers understand the benefits of providing this acknowledgement to researchers and readers.


Cenveo Publisher Services is an advocate of Open Practice Badges. If your publishing organization would like to learn how we can support open badges in your workflow, feel free to reach out to us directly.

Are you currently using Open Practice Badges? Please share your findings or observations in the comments section below.

 

 

 

 

Comment

Mike Groth

Michael Groth is Director of Marketing at Cenveo Publisher Services, where he oversees all aspects of marketing strategy and implementation across digital, social, conference, advertising and PR channels. Mike has spent over 20 years in marketing for scholarly publishing, previously at Emerald, Ingenta, Publishers Communication Group, the New England Journal of Medicine and Wolters Kluwer. He has made the rounds at information industry events, organized conference sessions, presented at SSP, ALA, ER&L and Charleston, and blogged on topics ranging from market trends, library budgets and research impact, to emerging markets and online communities.. Twitter Handle: @mikegroth72

Choosing a Journal or Book Printer

A great primer on finding a print partner by John Bond at Riverwinds Consulting. John's YouTube channel, Publishing Defined, is a great resource for scholarly and academic publishers.

CHOOSING A JOURNAL OR BOOK PRINTER: This short video by John Bond of Riverwinds Consulting discusses choosing a printer. FIND OUT more about John Bond and his publishing consulting practice at www.RiverwindsConsulting.com MORE VIDEOS on Choosing a Printer can be found at: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLqkE49N6nq3hhpEzslKtzBHbxgWCmDvL4 JOHN'S NEW BOOK is "The Request for Proposal in Publishing: Managing the RFP Process" To find out more about the book: https://www.riverwindsconsulting.com/rfps/ Buy it at Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Request-Proposal-Publishing-Managing-Process-ebook/dp/B071W7MBLM/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1497619963&sr=1-1&keywords=john+bond+rfps/ SEND IDEAS for John to discuss on Publishing Defined.
 

Comment

Mike Groth

Michael Groth is Director of Marketing at Cenveo Publisher Services, where he oversees all aspects of marketing strategy and implementation across digital, social, conference, advertising and PR channels. Mike has spent over 20 years in marketing for scholarly publishing, previously at Emerald, Ingenta, Publishers Communication Group, the New England Journal of Medicine and Wolters Kluwer. He has made the rounds at information industry events, organized conference sessions, presented at SSP, ALA, ER&L and Charleston, and blogged on topics ranging from market trends, library budgets and research impact, to emerging markets and online communities.. Twitter Handle: @mikegroth72

Accessibility for Journal Publishers

The terms “access” and “scholarly journals” are often linked to Open Access publishing. Less often discussed—but still very important—are issues and challenges of making journal content accessible to the visually, cognitively, or otherwise impaired.

Guest blog by John Parsons


content accessibility for journal publishers

Peer-reviewed, scholarly journals are a specialized slice of the publishing universe. Worldwide, it is a $25 billion market. Unlike consumer and trade magazines, journals are not supported by advertising revenue, but rely on subscriptions, institutional funding, and/or open access funding mechanisms. Readership varies widely in size and scope, and includes students, journalists and government employees as well as researchers themselves. They are also delivered by a wide array of specialized digital platforms and websites.

What they do share with other publications is the assumption that their audience can read words and images on a page or screen. For the majority of journal readers, this poses few problems. However, for readers with visual or other impairments, content accessibility is a major concern.

Justifying Journal Content Accessibility

Some might argue, without foundation, that scholars qualified to consume peer-reviewed content are less likely to be impaired in the first place, making the number of affected users too low to justify the added costs. (If cost were the only issue, one Stephen Hawking in a journal’s potential audience would more than justify the cost of making scholarly exchange possible for disabled readers. Also, as was mentioned, scholars and researchers are not the only readers in the equation.)

In other words, one justification for accessibility is a moral argument. It’s simply the right thing to do. However, for most journals, this argument is moot. Government-funded research typically carries minimum accessibility requirements, such as those spelled out in U.S. Code Section 508.

Building content accessibility into a journal workflow need not even be a daunting financial question at all. Well-structured XML content and metadata has many benefits, of which accessibility is only one. (This will be the subject of another blog.)

Regardless of the reason, most journal publishers understand the why aspect of content accessibility. So, let’s focus on how best to do it.

Identifying the Pieces---WCAG 2.0, Section 508, and VPAT

To understand the scope of journal article accessibility, we need to know that it has two basic versions—a document (PDF or EPUB) and a webpage. These are similar in many ways, especially to a sighted person, but they have different accessibility requirements.

What each of these formats have in common are

  • accessibility metadata
  • meaningful alt text for images (including math formulas and charts)
  • a logical reading order
  • audible screen reading
  • alternative access to media content

Only two (EPUB and webpages) have potentially resizable text and a clear separation of presentation and content. (PDF’s fixed page and text size often can be problematic. But in areas where PDF is a commonly used format, notably healthcare, service providers can provide workflow mechanisms to remediate PDFs for Section 508 compliance.)

Webpages have the added requirements of color contrast, keyboard access, options to stop, pause, or hide moving content, and alternatives to audio, video, and interactive content. Most of these are covered in detail in the W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 guidelines, many of which are federally mandated. Service provider solutions in this area include a Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT) for journal content. This template applies to all “Electronic and Information Technology” products and services. It helps government contracting officials and other buyers to evaluate how accessible a particular product is, according to Section 508 or WCAG 2.0 standards.

There are several “degrees of difficulty” when it comes to making journal articles accessible. Research that is predominantly text is the easiest, but still requires careful thought and planning. With proper tagging of text elements, clearly denoting reading order and the placement of section headings and other cues, a text article can be accessibility-enhanced by several methods, including large print and audio.

More difficult by far are the complex tables, charts, math formulas, and photographic images that are prevalent in STM journals. Here, extra attention must be paid to type size and logical element order (for tables). In the case of charts, formulas, and pictures, the answer is alternative or “alt” text descriptions.

Think of it as explaining a visual scene to someone who is blindfolded. Rudimentary alt text, like “child, doll, hammer,” would probably not convey the full meaning of a photograph depicting Bandura’s famous Bobo Doll experiment. Rather, the best alt text would be a more nuanced text explanation of what the images depict—preferably by a subject matter expert.

Automation in Workflow is Key

When Braille or even large print were the only solutions, journal content accessibility was not an option for most. All that changed, for the better, with the advent of well-structured digital content. Again, publishing service providers have done much to advance this process, and in many cases, automate it.

Not every issue can be automated, however. Making content accessible may involve redesign. For example, footnotes may need to be placed at the end of an article—similar to a reference list—to ensure continuity of reading. Other steps support the logical flow of content and reading order, semantic structuring for discoverability, inclusion of alt text descriptions for images, simplifying presentation and tagging of complex tabular data, and the rendering of math equations as MathML.

Journal publishers can facilitate this in part by selecting formats that are more accessible by nature. Articles published online or available as EPUB are accessible by default, although they need to be enhanced to meet all the requirements of WCAG 2.0. The gap is small and can be easily bridged by focusing on the shortcomings and addressing it in design, content structuring, and web hosting.

Many of the basic, structural issues of making journal content accessible can be resolved, more or less automatically, if the publishing system or platform enforces standardized metadata rules. Titles, subheads, body copy, and other text elements will have a logical order, and can easily be presented in accessible ways. For elements where knowledgeable human input is required (as with alt text), a good system will facilitate such input.

Accessibility is not just the right thing to do, for the sake of science. It is also an obtainable goal—with the right service provider.

 


Recent Reports


Comment

Mike Groth

Michael Groth is Director of Marketing at Cenveo Publisher Services, where he oversees all aspects of marketing strategy and implementation across digital, social, conference, advertising and PR channels. Mike has spent over 20 years in marketing for scholarly publishing, previously at Emerald, Ingenta, Publishers Communication Group, the New England Journal of Medicine and Wolters Kluwer. He has made the rounds at information industry events, organized conference sessions, presented at SSP, ALA, ER&L and Charleston, and blogged on topics ranging from market trends, library budgets and research impact, to emerging markets and online communities.. Twitter Handle: @mikegroth72

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

Mike Groth

Michael Groth is Director of Marketing at Cenveo Publisher Services, where he oversees all aspects of marketing strategy and implementation across digital, social, conference, advertising and PR channels. Mike has spent over 20 years in marketing for scholarly publishing, previously at Emerald, Ingenta, Publishers Communication Group, the New England Journal of Medicine and Wolters Kluwer. He has made the rounds at information industry events, organized conference sessions, presented at SSP, ALA, ER&L and Charleston, and blogged on topics ranging from market trends, library budgets and research impact, to emerging markets and online communities.. Twitter Handle: @mikegroth72

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

Mike Groth

Michael Groth is Director of Marketing at Cenveo Publisher Services, where he oversees all aspects of marketing strategy and implementation across digital, social, conference, advertising and PR channels. Mike has spent over 20 years in marketing for scholarly publishing, previously at Emerald, Ingenta, Publishers Communication Group, the New England Journal of Medicine and Wolters Kluwer. He has made the rounds at information industry events, organized conference sessions, presented at SSP, ALA, ER&L and Charleston, and blogged on topics ranging from market trends, library budgets and research impact, to emerging markets and online communities.. Twitter Handle: @mikegroth72

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

Mike Groth

Michael Groth is Director of Marketing at Cenveo Publisher Services, where he oversees all aspects of marketing strategy and implementation across digital, social, conference, advertising and PR channels. Mike has spent over 20 years in marketing for scholarly publishing, previously at Emerald, Ingenta, Publishers Communication Group, the New England Journal of Medicine and Wolters Kluwer. He has made the rounds at information industry events, organized conference sessions, presented at SSP, ALA, ER&L and Charleston, and blogged on topics ranging from market trends, library budgets and research impact, to emerging markets and online communities.. Twitter Handle: @mikegroth72