Innovation versus 'very good' journals

JZUS: a 'very good' journal

We all know that the world of journals publishing is changing rapidly, and there are constant pressures for innovation and new models to be developed. The recent shortlist for the ALPSP Awards for Innovation in Publishing (winner to be announced at the conference) highlights some truly inspiring developments being introduced by publishers around the world. 

But in the race to evolve, adapt and develop, are we losing sight of what constitutes a good journal? What about the unsung heroes of the international publishing world that toil behind the scenes to improve what they do and how they do it? They may not be doing things that the industry recognises as innovative or receive the plaudits that accrue to the innovators, but their contribution to excellence in research dissemination is no less significant.

One example that recently came to my attention (and I'm sure there are many others out there, so please add them to the comments field) is the Chinese Journal of Zhejiang University-Science (JZUS). It was one of the first Chinese-based journals to introduce truly international peer reviewing systems (not something that is commonplace in many regions of the world). It was the first Chinese journal to use CrossCheck, and it makes extensive use of this to improve quality and avoid plagiarism. 

JZUS uses automated alerts to reach out to authors after publication if their articles are in the top 10 downloaded papers. It publishes articles in-press to avoid publishing delays, and identifies the ‘hot topic’ or most downloaded articles to help readers identify trends and the best articles published. It allows post-publication comments, and has added Power Point summaries of each article to help readers use its content in their own presentations (and ensure correct citation!).

Rather than aim for anonymous ‘international’ status, it is conscious of its roots, and celebrates the cultural heritage of China. Chinese cultural tokens are used to reward its reviewers, wherever in the world they are, in addition to the recent addition of Chinese language abstracts to increase usability to Chinese researchers. 

So what makes this a good journal? Partly, I believe, because it is focusing its activities on authors and readers. While it may not be developing truly innovative services, it is thinking about what they need and developing new ways of providing them.

There is nothing wrong with large European and US publishers looking for the ‘new’ and the ‘innovative’. We need experimentation to push us forward. But at the same time, we need to remember and celebrate journals that are striving to provide services to authors and readers that they want and need. This is particularly important for those publishing outside the large publishing hubs in the UK and the USA, and within organisations and cultures that don’t have access to the resources of large companies (who also form part of ALPSP’s membership). 

So let’s take a moment to hail a world (and those journals) where the development of high quality, useful, publication tools (aka journals) is taking place. All kudos to the ‘very good’ journal! And to the others that are also providing researchers with easier, more sophisticated, and more reliable access to information.

Further information on the Chinese Journal of Zhejiang University-Science publishing programme is available online. 

The ALPSP Awards for Innovation in Publishing will be announced at the International Conference, 10-12 September, 2014. Registration is still open, book online at www.alpspconference.org.

David Birkett reflects on outsourcing print journals production

David Birkett: does not read when cycling

Outsourcing is an issue that many learned societies grapple with. When we surveyed members earlier this year, well over three quarters of respondents said they outsource certain areas of their operation with the most common areas being production, technical and distribution.

What are the factors that drive the decision to outsource and what should you bear in mind when it comes to journals production? Here, in a guest post, David Birkett from Printondemand-worldwide reflects on the business reasons that drive this and suggests a way forward for print.

"For several consecutive years there appears to have been an increasing move away from in-house production to outsourcing. There are good reasons for this. Learned societies may not regard publishing as a core activity: it may simply be one among a range of services they provide for their members, often via a very small publishing team whose main role is to commission, arrange for peer review and edit journals articles. Larger publishers may also have reached the conclusion that outsourced production makes more sense: it ties up fewer staff, allows economies of scale that can’t be achieved by a single company, and enables them to take advantage of the outsourced partner’s expertise. Some publishers argue that with the advent of digital printing, production has become a ‘commodity’ activity and is therefore better outsourced, freeing up the in-house publishing team to devote its time to less tangible ‘value-adds’.

While publishers have long made arrangements with traditional printers either to hold spare journal print stock on their behalf, or to supply them with extra copies to store against future demand, this is a costly and potentially wasteful process.  It involves tying up cash long before such spare copies are sold (if indeed they ever are) and means committing further funds to storage.  An even worse problem than being stuck with stock that never sells out occurs when a request for a print journal is received after stocks are exhausted.

It is true that most publishers now offer their journals in digital format and are encouraging their customers to move away from print; and a minority of journals are now ‘born digital’.  However, even in the developed world some faculty members still demand that libraries hold journals in print format; and in parts of the developing world digital access is not always possible.  Journals that are supplied as part of membership benefits are usually distributed in print; and new members often request back copies.  Paradoxically, now that journals publication entails working with the ‘mixed economy’ of print and digital, the print part of the equation has become more difficult to manage, because it is harder to predict how many print copies will be required.

This is where digital printing comes into its own.  By working in partnership with a digital printer, it is possible for a publisher to print journals on a copy-by-copy basis as they are ordered.  The process is steady-state: once the files are placed with the printer, as many copies as required can be supplied and delivered to the end-customer three months, three years or a decade after the original publication date.  No money is tied up in stock or storage costs.  There’s no risk and no downside: just positive benefits.

As with all changes and challenges inspired by technological development, new solutions are emerging to tackle these issues.  Printondemand-worldwide, for example, has developed Journal Vault, a web-based system which - drawing on that company’s two decades of experience in digital printing, storage and distribution - allows journals publishers and learned societies to digitally store, print and distribute their journals and to handle their subscriber functions. It will be interesting to see how this and other solutions are embraced, and how they will develop, in partnership with journal producers, to a rapidly-changing environment."

David Birkett has run the gamut of book-trade jobs.  Beginning as a bookseller, he progressed to bookshop management, sales representation and sales and marketing management roles to his present position as Business Development Manager at Printondemand-worldwide, where he is enjoying using the knowledge and contacts he has gained to communicate with new and existing customers.  David’s chief passions are reading and cycling, although he seldom indulges them simultaneously.

ALPSP Awards Spotlight on... Edifix, a cloud based bibliographic references service

This is the latest in a series of posts profiling the finalists of the ALPSP Awards for Innovation in Publishing, sponsored by Publishing Technology. We asked Bruce Rosenblum, CEO of Inera, to tell us more about Edifix,  a cloud-based service for bibliographic references.

ALPSP: Tell us a bit about your company

BR: Inera was founded in 1992 as a consulting company specializing in applications of SGML and XML. Over the past twenty years, we've built a seasoned team of publishing and software professionals who provide a wide range of innovative and practical solutions for the publishing industry.

We developed and license eXtyles, a suite of Word-based editorial and XML tools, and now we’ve launched Edifix, our new online bibliographic reference solution. eXtyles and Edifix allow their users to automate the most time-consuming aspects of document publication, and customers around the world rely on these software solutions to drive modern electronic and print publication workflows.

Beyond our software development activities, we actively engage in standards development. I was a founding member of the NLM/JATS/BITS DTD working groups and continue to be involved in the development of those DTDs. We also participate in cross-publisher initiatives (CrossRef) and board membership in key organizations (NISO).

ALPSP: What is the project that you submitted for the Awards?

BR: Edifix, the first product of its kind to make automated parsing and correction of bibliographic references available as a cloud-based service, is under consideration for the Innovation in Publishing Award.

ALPSP: Tell us more about how it works and the team behind it

BR: The Edifix interface is a simple web form into which users can paste plain-text bibliographic references from Word or other programs. Depending on the settings chosen by the user, Edifix quickly returns the same reference list copyedited to a preferred style (such as AMA, APA, Chicago, or MLA) and linked to PubMed and CrossRef. In addition to providing these links, which enable the user to quickly access the cited material, Edifix can correct missing or erroneous reference data. The quality improvement is therefore twofold: both the style and the accuracy of each reference is addressed. After Edifix processing, the user can move the corrected references back into Word or save them to RIS format for easy import into reference management systems. For publishers and other organizations that require granular and accurate reference XML, Edifix also offers the option to save the references to JATS (NLM) or PubMed XML, and for such applications it can be called directly via a programmable API.

Edifix shows the Inera team at its best. The project idea arose from a company retreat in 2012, proposed by members of the Inera staff who had previously worked as editors. The proposal, wholeheartedly backed by the management team, was quickly put into action by our small but nimble development team. Over the past 20 months, every member of Inera has been involved in this project, whether in design, development, testing, or sales and marketing, and additional improvements were suggested by beta testers. However, long before we started on Edifix as a cloud product, Inera had already invested more than 30 person-years in the development of the bibliographic reference-processing engine, which is a key feature of eXtyles.

ALPSP: Why do you think it demonstrates publishing innovation?

BR: There are a number of tools on the market for managing bibliographic references; these tools are used primarily by researchers for maintaining reference databases and creating reference lists. Edifix, however, is not a reference manager. Reference managers require structured or fielded reference elements, which for plain-text references – the kind you find in a typical manuscript – involves a lot of cutting, pasting, and re-keying of reference data. 

The critical innovation Edifix brings to the bibliographic reference problem is its parsing engine – that is, its sophisticated ability to automatically identify the elements of plain-text references. This ability to accurately burst a reference into its parts and then put it back together enables all of the advanced Edifix services, from copyediting to data correction to structured output (including an output format that will let you import into a reference manager like EndNote without all of that manual labor).

In particular, our unique parsing engine enables us to successfully address the challenge of linking and correcting references with data from online sources. When the original reference contains errors (not an uncommon occurrence), you need to ensure that further steps correct rather than exacerbate those errors. To do so, Inera invented special fuzzy-matching and data-scrubbing technologies to link references without false-positive errors and then intelligently merge the data from PubMed and CrossRef with the original reference. 

These technologies enable Edifix to link and correct references that otherwise may not link at all. By moving Inera’s groundbreaking reference parsing, editing, and validation technology into the cloud, Edifix makes extremely high levels of accuracy affordable to anyone who works with bibliographic references, from individual researchers and editors to publishers and service providers. 

ALPSP: What are you plans for the future?

BR: We constantly work to improve the user experience of Edifix. Some of the near-term improvements include:

• The integration of additional editorial styles via Citation Style Language
• Addition of advanced features such as duplicate reference checking, alphabetical reference list sorting, and URL validation
• The ability for a group administrator to manage a team of users in a single organization.

Beyond improvements to our software products, our future plans include long-term strategic developments to ensure that our solutions remain ahead of the curve in the rapidly changing world of publishing. It’s an extremely exciting time to be working in this industry, and we’re thrilled to be able to provide products that genuinely improve the quality of, and people’s access to, the scholarly record.

The winners will be announced at the ALPSP International Conference. Book by Friday 8 August to avoid the late registration fee.

Learned societies more confident about future – and a ‘new pragmatism’ on Open Access

Rod Cookson, Editorial Director at Taylor & Francis reflects on the findings of the Open Access Learned Society survey produced in conjunction with ALPSP.

"Attitudes to Open Access are changing, with learned societies beginning to see Open Access as a business opportunity as well as a means of increasing outreach.

ALPSP and Taylor & Francis conducted a survey of learned society officers in April 2014, following up a similar survey from 2013. The sample size (139 responses, a 7% response rate) means this is a snapshot rather than a comprehensive poll, but it provides intriguing insight into the priorities of senior society officers today.

Societies finally seem to be shaking off recession and looking at the world with greater confidence. More than twice as many societies report rising member numbers rather than falling (42% up, 16% down), where last year nearly three out of ten were experiencing decline. Likewise more than a third of societies (35%) say that income from journal publishing is up, and half (51%) have flat financial performance.

Priorities have also changed. Two-thirds of societies (68%) strongly value a predictable financial return, rating this above a ‘healthy’ or ‘growing’ return. In 2013, ‘healthy’ scored highest. In uncertain times, societies desire an absence of financial surprises above all else.

Perhaps the most striking manifestation of greater self-assurance comes in the field of Open Access. A large majority of respondents (68%) believe that research published by their society should be free to read for all – intriguingly, identical to last year. Similar if less emphatic positivity has been reported in other surveys, including those by Wiley and EDP Sciences.

Many fewer of our respondents, however, are prepared to lose money making Open Access happen. Only 18% of societies say that they are willing to earn less money in an Open Access world, against 46% who are not. This is a 10% swing away from the ‘earn less’ position compared to our 2013 survey.

Anxiety remains that Open Access reduces the appeal of society membership. Close to half our respondents (45%) agree that OA gives members less reason to belong to societies, versus 30% who disagree. The gap is smaller than last year (a 20 percentage point differential has dropped to 15 points), but this issue clearly troubles many societies.

The biggest change of all comes in whether Open Access is opportunity or threat. Almost a third of respondents (30%) now see OA as an opportunity, compared to 41% who view is as a threat. Whilst ‘threat’ is still the larger number, the difference between these two camps has halved since 2013.

Is this the start of a ‘new pragmatism’ for societies about Open Access? Certainly fear seems to be giving way to a sense of practical opportunity. Looking ahead, nearly half of respondents (47%) say they are planning new Open Access journals. If OA is the new rock‘n’roll, societies are looking for a little less conversation, and a little more action…"

Rod Cookson is Editorial Director at Taylor & Francis. View the full survey on their website.

ALPSP Awards spotlight on... bioRxiv, the preprint sharing service for the life sciences from Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

Nice place you've got there, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

With only a few weeks to go before our annual September conference, thoughts turn to the finalists of the ALPSP Awards for Innovation in Publishing, sponsored by Publishing Technology. The winners will be announced at the conference, but if you can't wait until then, here's the first in a series of spotlights on the finalists.

We asked John Inglis, Executive Director of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, to tell us more about finalist project bioRxiv, the preprint sharing service for the life sciences that the Laboratory initiated in November 2013.

ALPSP: Tell us a bit about your company

JI: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (www.cshl.edu) is located 35 miles east of New York, on the north shore of Long Island.  It was founded in 1890 and was historically important in the development of genetics and molecular biology last century.

Today it has first-class research programs in cancer, neuroscience, genomics, plant science, and quantitative biology.  But the Laboratory also makes a huge contribution to scholarship and the professional education of scientists through highly regarded conferences on its main campus and its center in Suzhou, China, laboratory and lecture courses, an innovative graduate school, a center and archive for the history of molecular biology, and the outstanding journals, books, and electronic media produced by its Press (www.cshlpress.org).  

So the Laboratory's long-established culture combines both doing science and sharing science with many thousands of investigators who visit our campuses and an even larger number worldwide who benefit from its publications.

bioRxiv metrics

ALPSP: You have submitted the bioRxiv project for the Awards. Tell us more about how it works and the team behind it.

JI: A preprint is the manuscript of a research paper that has not yet been accepted for publication by a journal. bioRxiv is a service for the open online distribution of preprints. It's free for both authors and readers. Authors categorize their manuscript in one of 25 life science subject categories and identify their findings as "new", "confirmatory", or "contradictory". The manuscript is submitted through an automated system that creates a pdf, attaches a DOI, and displays the abstract in the bioRxiv site. The pdf can be previewed and downloaded. Manuscripts are posted usually within hours of submission, with only minimal screening and no peer review. They can be revised any time and prior versions are retained on the bioRxiv site. Usage metrics and altmetrics for each posted manuscript are publicly available. When a version of a manuscript is published by a journal, a link is posted from the preprint to the paper.

bioRxiv is a service of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory managed by a small team within CSHL Press that includes co-founder Richard Sever, production manager Linda Sussman, lead technical developer Ted Roeder, and administrator Inez Sialiano.  bioRxiv is hosted by HighWire Press, where it gets great support from Bert Carelli and the drupal development team and Kevin-John Black and the Bench>Press crew.  We also rely very much on a group of about 50 bioRxiv Affiliates, young principal investigators who screen submitted manuscripts and assure us that the content is indeed science.

ALPSP: Why do you think it demonstrates publishing innovation?

JI: There is technical innovation in the automated system that ingests and posts manuscripts with minimal human intervention. But much more importantly, we see evidence that bioRxiv is beginning to change information practices within the broad sweep of life science. The long established online preprint server arXiv covers physics, computer science,  mathematics, and since 2003, areas of biology with a quantitative component, such as population genetics. In only 8 months, bioRxiv has received more than 550 manuscripts and every one of the life sciences categories is represented. As expected, the largest categories are the more quantitative, such as evolutionary biology and bioinformatics, in which preprints are familiar but a substantial number of manuscripts are in cancer, genetics, cell and developmental biology, neuroscience, immunology, ecology  -  areas of science in which sharing preprints is a new behavior among authors.

Publication link

There are changes, too, among journals.  Since bioRxiv began, many journals and publishers have either changed or clarified their policies to state openly that they will accept for publication manuscripts that have been shared as preprints. 20% of the manuscripts currently on bioRiv have been published in final form in a long list of journals that include the leading general journals and prominent titles in more specific areas. 

These journals understand and support the distinction between the sharing of information that bioRxiv makes possible and the validation of knowledge through peer review, a function that still resides with journals.

Another area of innovation is the enabling of prepublication critical scrutiny and discussion of findings that bioRxiv makes possible. There is a commenting function on the site which so far has been used only for a small number of papers. But when it happens, there can be useful dialogue between authors and readers.  There is a lot of social media activity around bioRxiv posts, including twitter discussion and blogging. And authors tell us they get a great deal of direct, private comment on manuscripts through email. It's our impression, therefore, even at this early stage in the life of the service, that posting a manuscript to bioRiv offers the author an opportunity for community feedback that could improve the manuscript before it's submitted to a journal for publication. And perhaps, therefore, speed its acceptance, although of course we have no evidence for that.

In summary, bioRxiv is changing the way information in the life sciences is shared.  It's helping quicken the pace of research.  It's empowering early career scientists, who can share their results and gain visibility before they have built a publication record.  And it's enabling investigators to create and share a citable, discoverable record of work accomplished that can be evaluated by grants and hiring committees, even though it has not yet been formally published.

The Laboratory's mission

ALPSP: And finally, what are your plans for the future?

JI: The Laboratory is committed to bioRxiv for the long term but we're impatient to spread the word about the availability of the service as rapidly as possible. We still have much to do to make scientists worldwide aware of the service and its benefits. We are still adding features and functions to the site and next up will be some general data about the relative distribution of preprints among subject categories and the journals that have published final versions. We are talking to publishers about their preprint policies and where appropriate, advocating for change. We may well develop a list of preprint-friendly journals on the bioRxiv site.  Several publishers are interested in offering authors the possibility of posting their manuscript to bioRxiv at the same time it's submitted to a journal. We have tested this functionality in the Bench>Press submission system with one of the CSHL Press research journals Genome Research and many authors liked it, so we're working now with other journals that use B>P and would like to offer the opportunity via other submission systems. Other things we are considering include a rating system that readers can attach to posted manuscripts.

We are excited about the rising rate of submission, increasing usage, extraordinarily interesting and important science being posted, and growing awareness and discussion of the information being shared through bioRxiv.  Its future will be driven in a major way by what the community tell us they want the service to be.

The ALPSP Awards for Innovation in Publishing will be made at the ALPSP International Conference. Book now to reserve your place.

ALPSP Awards for Innovation in Publishing 2014: recognising blood, sweat and tears in scholarly publishing

There's nothing quite like winning a prize, is there? And when it comes to gaining recognition from your peers with an industry award, it must make the long hours, hard work, inspiration and perspiration worthwhile.

That's certainly what it felt like for ALPSP's Best New Journal winners Faculty Dental Journal, Innovation in Publishing winners PeerJ, highly commended Drama Online and Contribution to Scholarly Publishing recipient Anthony Watkinson when they were interviewed after the ceremony at last year's conference (skip to 1:30 in the video).



We can't believe another year has almost passed and the ALPSP Awards for Innovation in Publishing 2014 are almost upon us. The judging has commenced and the tension is mounting for our finalists. Congratulations to them all for reaching the short list.

bioRxiv from Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
Edifix from Inera Inc.
Frontiers open science platform
IOP ebooks from IOP Publishing
JournalGuide from Research Square
ReadCube Connect from Labtiva Inc
RightsLink for Open Access from the Copyright Clearance Center

Keep checking back as we profile each of them over the next seven weeks. If you want to be there on the night, make sure you register for the Annual Conference and Awards Dinner. Book before 8 August to avoid the late registration fee.

Beyond text, reading and subscription: in conversation with Alison Jones

Alison Jones knows content. Her career spans over 20 years in trade and academic publishing where she has shaped strategy in senior digital innovation roles at companies such as Palgrave Macmillan, and now as a business coach, consultant and independent publisher.

We caught up with Alison in advance of the ALPSP seminar Beyond the basics - the next steps for scholarly content and wrappers seminar to find out what lessons she has learnt about developing content beyond traditional wrappers.

How would you define scholarly content and wrappers?

'It used to be very easy to define scholarly content and its wrappers: there were journal articles and books (monographs, edited collections), and at a stretch theses and conference proceedings. In other words, the wrappers pretty much defined the content in the print paradigm. Everything outside this definition was considered ‘grey literature’.'

We first ran this topic as a seminar three years ago. What do you see as the main changes in customers’ reading preferences since then?

'There’s a growing recognition that this ‘grey literature’ is actually where the conversation is happening: scholars continue to care passionately about the quality and reputation of their traditionally published content, but they’re increasingly engaged in the pre-publication conversation too. I'm delighted that Sierra Williams from the LSE Impact of Social Sciences blog will be joining us to explore how this is shaping the academic landscape.

Another huge change has been around data and other non-text elements: when you’re accessing a scholarly text on screen rather than on the printed page you can have access to the ‘back story’, the detail of the research findings, recordings of interviews, software code and so on. Data is a whole seminar in itself - how it can be optimised for sharing and reuse, negative data, metadata, analytics - and indeed this is an emerging specialism within academia itself for which there aren't as yet well-defined career paths and evaluation metrics. Two organisations doing particularly interesting things with data are OECD and PLoS, and I'm looking forward to hearing about the latest development from both of them at the seminar.

Mobile has traditionally been seen as something that’s impacted on trade publishing rather than academic, where the PDF has clung on tenaciously, but as the population at large becomes more accustomed to reading on mobile phones and tablets, and the devices themselves have become ubiquitous, the impact of mobile technology and reading on scholarly material is really starting to be felt. Libraries are responding to the growing demand from students for access to content and services on their mobiles: Liz Waller from York Library will be talking about the challenges and opportunities associated with this.

Finally, we’re seeing a growing number of tools and services that are based on or enabled by content, the love-child of content and code, if you like. The RSC’s LearnChemistry is a good example of this and David Leeming, their Strategic Innovations Group Solutions Manager, will talk us through how they optimised 170 years’ worth of content for flexible digital delivery.'

What approaches to evolving and developing content for a changing market have you used? What worked and what lessons did you learn?

'One of the most successful launches at Palgrave Macmillan during my time there was Palgrave Pivot, a format midway between the journal article and the monograph. This was a direct result of in-depth market research, which allowed us to make the investment with confidence since we knew there was a strong market interest. We effectively reassessed the traditional outputs, which were based on print constraints: a book needed to be bulky enough to have a spine readable on a library shelf, an article slim enough to fit in an edition with several others. Online of course these constraints simply don’t exist: the Palgrave Pivot format allows scholars to publish their research at its ‘natural length’, rather than having to chop it down into an article or pad it out into a book, with a 12-week maximum production schedule. For me, it was a great lesson in innovating organically, and ensuring the benefit can be clearly stated and clearly understood.

Another interesting example from the Macmillan group is Digital Science’s FigShare, which emerged from founder Mark Hahnel’s own frustration with the limitation of data storing and publishing, particularly negative data, which had value to the community but no official route for dissemination.  As with Palgrave Pivot, its starting point was a frustration with the current situation, which is always an opportunity for innovation.

Of course there’s a limit to what any one publisher can do on its own: much of the most interesting work today is being done through partnerships and collaborations across the community, including sourcing content from non-traditional players. Tim Devenport of EDItEUR will be speaking more about this, and our final session of the day will be a panel drawing together different perspectives to explore ways in which we can work together even more productively.'

What do you recommend to your clients now?

'My clients these days are mostly business owners (although I do still work with some scholarly presses). My focus is first on the organisation’s strategy: once this is clear, well articulated and understood, I work with clients to plan the content that will support this strategy. Together we create multi-channel plans that begin long before publication, engaging the community in the process of writing, which not only improves the book but also builds awareness and interest in it.

The book is only one part of a content plan: social media, particularly blogs, and off-line activity such a speaking have a vital role to play in building and disseminating the message. Once published, the book then becomes a springboard for ongoing conversation and can generate new forms of delivery in its turn, such as training materials. The days when you could lock yourself in a room until the manuscript was complete then send it to a publisher and wait for the launch party are dead: long live the content revolution!'

Alison Jones is a business coach, content marketing consultant and independent publisher. 

She is chairing our 'Beyond the basics - the next steps for scholarly content and wrappers' seminar on Tuesday 24 June 2014 in London. Book now.