Spotlight on: The Papermill Alarm

The judges have selected a shortlist of four for the 2024 ALPSP Award for Innovation in Publishing. This year's awards are sponsored by PA EDitorial.

The finalists will be showcased in a lightning session at the ALPSP Conference on 11 September. The winners will be announced at the ALPSP Conference Awards Dinner on 12 September in Manchester.

In this series, we hear from each of the finalists.

Tell us about your organization

We love working with data, but we prefer working with you. Clear Skies was founded to support publishers. We believe that a robust, healthy peer-review system is critical to the future of research integrity. Our services are designed to support the challenging work publishers do to maintain that system while limiting the risk presented by research fraud. 

This is not a "move fast and break things" startup. We believe strongly in responsible science and ethical methods. We move with care and we respect that, behind every paper (real or fake) there are real people whose careers depend on fair consideration. For that reason, we present our findings in context and use an evidence-based approach to surface actionable information. We also avoid surfacing information that might be misleading or harmful. Much like an editorial process - the value comes as much from what we don't put out as from what we do.

What is the project/product that you submitted for the Awards?

The Papermill Alarm

Tell us a little about how it works and the team behind it

The Papermill Alarm is the name we give to the alerting system that sits on top of our analytics.

That gives us an early-warning system which is available as an API through a direct agreement, or via our partners at STM, Morressier, and others (to be announced). 

Sitting underneath that simple output, we have several pipelines of advanced analytics which feed into our dashboard Web Application. The dashboard surfaces important leads for investigation. What you don't see are the 50 or so different methods for detecting problematic papers that we tested and discarded. We retain only the few methods that provide genuine predictive power. Those methods include advanced AI textual analysis and network analysis. 

The system improves perpetually as new data comes in from publishers. It is self-improving and self-correcting. At this stage, the underlying data is a completely unique resource describing the papermill problem in detail across the whole industry.

The Papermill Alarm was created, built, tested, and deployed at industry-scale by Adam Day. However, around 20 individuals have contributed to Clear Skies and we have built a specialised core team over the last couple of years. We give particular thanks to Adrian Stanley whose support has been incredible. 

In what ways do you think it demonstrates innovation?

It was the first of its kind. The Papermill Alarm came to market in 2022 before there was any automated service dedicated to papermill detection. It's easy to see that this kind of scalable method is possible now, but at the time it wasn't clear and it took considerable testing and iteration to get there. From that initial market of 1, it has inspired numerous others to create their own papermill-detection services. 

What are your plans for the future?

The future is collaboration. We want to develop our team and work with everyone throughout the research community: first, to shine a light on the problem, but secondly to help tackle it as a team with an informed perspective.

Indeed, currently, we are developing our team to reach the next level. Stay tuned!

Image caption: a semantic space showing Papermill Alarm alerts for a publisher. Each dot is a paper. Red and orange regions represent areas of concern.  

About the author

Adam Day is the CEO of Clear Skies. He has a background in physics, machine-learning, journals-editorial and data science. He writes a popular blog about research integrity.

More information

Clear Skies.

 

Spotlight on: Morressier's Integrity Manager

The judges have selected a shortlist of four for the 2024 ALPSP Award for Innovation in Publishing. This year's awards are sponsored by PA EDitorial.

The finalists will be showcased in a lightning session at the ALPSP Conference on 11 September. The winners will be announced at the ALPSP Conference Awards Dinner on 12 September in Manchester.

In this series, we hear from each of the finalists.

Tell us about your organization

Morressier provides publishers and societies with workflows for transforming scholarly communications. We empower you through the entire publication journey, from the first spark of an idea right through to journal submission and peer-review. We offer integrity-protected workflows across the following products: Proceedings Manager, Integrity Manager, and Journal Manager. Driven by the belief that technology can help create a world in which all scientific outputs are traceable and trustworthy, Morressier is headquartered in Berlin and has offices in London and Washington DC.

What is the project/product that you submitted for the Awards?

Morressier’s Integrity Manager, launched in May 2023, addresses the integrity crisis in scholarly publishing with a comprehensive platform designed for detecting research fraud and managing investigations. By integrating both proprietary technology and top third-party tools, Integrity Manager effectively identifies a wide-range of issues, including plagiarism, citation misconduct, AI-generated text, image manipulation, and institution verification. This unified approach eliminates the need for publishers and societies to negotiate with multiple vendors and upload documents to various systems.

Additionally, the platform centralizes integrity investigation management, enabling users to track and analyze all investigation activities and data in one place. Integrity Manager reduces manual workload, lowers costs, and provides actionable insights through detailed reporting. By boosting trust in the scientific record and supporting early fraud detection, the platform streamlines editorial workflows, ensures high-quality publications, and minimizes costly retractions.

Tell us a little about how it works and the team behind it

Morressier’s Integrity Manager performs a wide-range of sophisticated checks on manuscripts to ensure research integrity and streamline the editorial process. Here’s how it works:

Types of Checks

• Plagiarism Detection: Uses advanced algorithms to compare manuscripts against an extensive database of previously published works to identify potential plagiarism or paraphrasing.
• Citation Misconduct: Flags excessive self-citations or unusual citation patterns that may indicate inappropriate citation practices.
• AI-Generated Text Detection: Scans manuscripts for sections likely generated by AI, using sophisticated AI-detection tools to ensure content authenticity.
• Image Manipulation Detection: Compares images in manuscripts against a vast repository to detect potential manipulations or duplications, including zooms, flips, and cropping.
• Institution Verification: Checks for consistency and validity of institutional affiliations, helping to confirm the authenticity of authors' identities.
• Tortured Phrasing Detection: Identifies potentially problematic phrases often associated with paper mills or automated content generators.
• Flagging Cited Retracted Content: Cross-references citations with a database of retracted papers to prevent the propagation of flawed research.
• Paper Mill Alarm: Public - Scan for submissions suspiciously similar to known paper mill generated content. 

Investigation Management

Integrity Manager not only conducts these checks but also integrates them into a unified investigation management system. Here’s how the integrity management module centralizes the investigations workflow:

• Centralized Tracking: All alerts and flagged issues from the various checks are consolidated in one platform, enabling users to track and manage investigation activities.
• Streamlined Workflow: Users can access all relevant data and investigation outcomes from a single interface, reducing the complexity and administrative burden of managing multiple systems.
• Actionable Insights: The platform offers actionable insights and recommendations based on aggregated data, helping editorial teams make informed decisions and take appropriate actions.
• Historical Data Access: Maintains a record of all investigation activities and outcomes, facilitating ongoing monitoring and trend analysis to prevent future issues.

By integrating robust checks with a centralized investigation management system, Integrity Manager enhances the efficiency and effectiveness of research integrity teams.

Our team behind Integrity Manager is composed of experts in publishing, technology, data science, and research integrity, and we have over 100 years of experience in the publishing industry between us! We collaborate closely with senior leaders in the publishing industry, leveraging their insights to refine and enhance our platform continually, with new features released every 2 weeks. Our Strategic Advisory Board, established in December 2023, plays a crucial role in guiding our development efforts based on real-world needs and challenges.

In what ways do you think it demonstrates innovation?

Integrity Manager is innovative in several key ways:

• Comprehensive Integration: Integrity Manager is the only enterprise-grade solution for integrity checks on the market. 
• Integrity Investigation Management: The first independent tool on the market offering comprehensive investigation management.
• Automation and Efficiency: The platform automates many manual tasks, significantly reducing the workload for editors and reviewers while lowering costs for publishers.
• Actionable Insights: Detailed reporting and analytics provide actionable insights, enabling the development of robust research integrity policies and the identification of broader trends.
• This all-in-one approach not only streamlines the integrity management process but also enhances the effectiveness of fraud detection and investigation.

What are your plans for the future?

We are continuously expanding the capabilities of Integrity Manager to cover more aspects of research integrity and further integrate emerging technologies. We aim to provide the most sophisticated tools for detecting and preventing research fraud, including advanced verification checks for authors and institutions to enhance credibility and reduce fraud risk. We frequently refine our platform based on user feedback and industry trends. Our goal is to continue to be the leading research integrity solution in the scholarly publishing industry, setting new standards for quality and trust in academic research.

About the author

Robyn Mugridge, Sales Director, Morressier

Robyn joined Morressier as Sales Director in 2024, bringing extensive experience from several international publishers. At Morressier, Robyn plays a pivotal role in expanding partnerships and driving the adoption of innovative integrity solutions. Previously, as Head of Publishing Partnerships at Frontiers, Robyn developed a passion for collaborating with societies and modernising publishing technology. In addition, as Co-Chair of the ALPSP Education Committee, Robyn enjoys bringing publishing professionals together to tackle shared challenges in the journal publishing industry.

More information:

Morressier Research Integrity Manager. 

Institutional Market Blues (and Grays)

ALPSP Blog by Course Tutor, Michael Zeoli, Director, Publisher Partner Program, De Gruyter Publishing.

“If you drop a book into the toilet, you can fish it out, dry it off and read that book.  But if you drop your Kindle in the toilet, you’re pretty well done.”  Stephen King

To say that the advent of the internet and personal computers have disrupted the worlds of content distribution is a dull commonplace. Disruption has, in fact, become the only constant. A simplified timeline of the appearance of a few well-known disruptors looks something like this:

Three decades on, we are still just at the beginning. Is it possible to find a ‘North Star’ to help guide our distribution decisions in a turbulent institutional market? We’d like to share a few high-level observations – for context – and then offer some specific considerations for publishers.

The diagram below is a highly simplified image of the evolution of a significant portion of the institutional market distribution eco-system. More recently, Open Access and AI large language models have presented further disruption in a rapidly changing landscape.

Even as late as 2008 or 2009, when print distributors to libraries began to integrate the digital newcomers, e.g., Netlibrary, ebrary, EBL, MyiLibrary, the vision persisted that libraries would just replace the print artifact with a digital facsimile in a one-to-one transfer of both the content and the budget allocation. How naïve!  Technology that powered Amazon and eBay and Napster would eventually overtake the quaint way in which academic libraries acquired books and their patrons consumed them!  Currently, for any given new university press title, there are often 14 access options available to libraries on a single vendor platform to select from (hardcover, paperback, 1-User, 3-User, Non-Linear Lending, Unlimited-User, etc.), and each under a variety of purchase options (auto-ship approval, slip notification/library order, Demand/Patron-Driven Acquisitions-DDA/PDA, Evidence-Based Acquisitions-EBA, etc.). Multiply that by multiple vendors and by 70,000 or more English-language scholarly books published annually, and the enormous challenge of discovery in libraries is frighteningly clear.

Technology-driven content access models and purchase models have upended not just traditional book distribution, but also fundamentally forced libraries, vendors, and publishers to dramatically re-imagine book distribution, accessibility, and the methods and meaning of library collection strategies. It is also revelatory that the epithet collection development is now commonly collection strategy.

With this thumbnail sketch of the challenges in the institutional marketplace, what are some of the key questions we should be asking our vendors – the middlemen with libraries – and what are key points for the publisher in terms of understanding commercial options and deciding how to manage them?

First, what to do with vendor reports and what questions are worth seeking responses to at annual meetings?

• What are the current market trends?
• How is the competitive landscape changing?  
• Which models are effective or damaging and how can we improve our participation?  
• How is pricing helping or hurting sales?  
• What are successful peer presses doing differently?
• How does the nature of your publishing impact on the effectiveness of access and purchase models?

And lastly, caveat emptor!  The way in which vendors present their numbers and couch discussions is also part of their competitive strategy in a fraught environment.  Some numbers may be hidden within a larger number or be presented in skewed ways or may not be presented at all.

Two points to bear in mind: 

1. The market is a closed system, that is library budgets are fixed, so an increase in sales in one channel will likely reflect a loss in another channel.  This does not mean that loss in one will equal growth in another – one system will likely produce better results than another, but what is important to understand is that your partners are competing for the same customers, often using similar tools.
   
   
2. Vendor access models and purchase models must be understood and managed attentively.  ‘Letting 1000 flowers bloom’ or supporting a ‘level playing field’ are not strategies and not successful means of managing commercial success in today’s market.

What data should you have to use vendor reports for analysis?

There are five essential datapoints needed from a vendor in a sales analysis for academic library book sales:

1. Number of *new titles* the vendor received from the publisher in each time period (a 15% increase in sales is wonderful, but was it caused simply by a 15% increase in new titles or was there something else at play?)
   
   
2. Rate of simultaneous ebook availability for the new print titles handled. Were print or ebooks sales impacted simply by availability? Was there a glitch in getting eContent delivered and loaded – or perhaps a significant portion of titles were deliberately unavailable in digital format? Did this play a role in an increase or decline of ebook sales?  Did print make up for a decline (never does!).
   
   
3. Aggregator sales in *units* as well as by and revenue *by purchase model*, i.e. DDA, EBA, etc.
   
   
4. Average sales price-per-title for print, ebooks, and by aggregator
   
   
5. Five-year trend for all data points (comparison over a long period provides indispensable context – comparing just one year over another does not give you a very good idea of how a publisher is trending).
   
   
6. Usage data is increasingly important.  Vendors vary in how much they will share with publishers.

To make decisions regarding pricing for the various ebook access models, a table such as the one below helps organize your options and decisions across multiple vendors. Bear in mind too, that since vendors use different models – or prioritize different models – and that sometimes models with the same name work differently on different vendor platforms, the idea of a ‘level playing field’ may not actually be the right strategy. Kim Williams at Princeton University Press calls her alternative strategy ‘curated partnerships’.  How does your ‘current pricing’ looks across your primary vendors?  Filling in that information in a table like this one will provide clarity that everything is as it should be – or not.

In similar fashion, to make decisions regarding various ebook access models, a table such as the one below may be helpful in organizing decisions across multiple vendors.

We hope you’ll consider joining Kim Williams and I later this month in our two-part ALPSP virtual training course. The focus of this will be building institutional sales strategies in connection with publisher aspirations and specializations, and Open Access will not be a focus. The ideas suggested in this brief piece will be explored in more depth with the goal of helping you to identify tools and methods to analyze and develop your commercial strategies in the institutional market(s). 

The ALPSP training course: 'Building Strategies for Managing Partnerships and Institutional eBook Sales' takes place on 24 and 25 June 2024. ALPSP is currently offering a summer discount of 20% off this course. Find out more.

About the author

Michael Zeoli, Director, Publisher Partner Program, De Gruyter Publishing

Michael has worked in scholarly publishing and academic libraries for more than two decades. He began his career with academic libraries as a supervisor in the Acquisitions Department at the University of Chicago Regenstein Library. He occupied many roles at YBP Library Services (now GOBI Library Solutions) where, as Vice President of Publisher Relations, he was responsible for consulting with publishers on academic library digital and print book sales and the purchase models offered by vendors and aggregators. Michael is currently Director, Publisher Partner Program at De Gruyter and has provided consulting to many scholarly publishers. 

Exploring AI Copyright Policy in the UK

By Will Crook, Head of Policy and Communications, Publishers' Licensing Services – Platinum Sponsor of the University Press Redux Conference 2024.
 

On 24 July 2019, on his first day at 10 Downing Street, Dominic Cummings, the prime minister’s Chief Advisor, was pictured wearing an Open AI t-shirt. Although perhaps overlooked at the time, Dominic Cummings’ wardrobe choice reflected the UK government’s belief that AI was going to be the solution to a lot of the UK’s economic problems, such as low growth and poor productivity. With the aim of establishing the UK as an ‘AI superpower’ and an international home to AI innovation, the government published its AI strategy in 2021 and outlined what it would do to facilitate AI innovation. One area it turned to was copyright.

Copyright has always been a target when new technology is adopted that challenges its basic principles, or when those developing that technology complain it limits innovation. The problems caused by the adoption and use of the photocopier led to the creation, by publishers, of Publishers’ Licensing Services (or as it was then, the Publishers Licensing Society) in 1981 as a voluntary solution to put pressure on copyright. More recently, the 2011 Hargreaves Review into IP and innovation led to the introduction of the current copyright exception for non-commercial text and data mining (TDM). As it has done before, with AI looked upon as a crucial technology for future growth, the government looked at the copyright framework and how it could be changed to help AI developers, who complained that licensing copyright protected content was expensive, inconvenient and prohibitive to growth.

In 2022, after consulting on a range of potential options, the government announced it was to introduce a new copyright exception for TDM for any purpose with no ability for a rightsholder to opt out. The new exception would have drastically widened the current exception for TDM and would have weakened the UK’s copyright framework meaning that rightsholders would have no ability to consent to the use of their works in generative AI training or receive any renumeration. The response from the creative industries to the government’s decision was unanimous, with strong opposition across the whole sector from publishers, authors, visual artists and musicians. At the time, a creative industry colleague dryly commented that the government’s decision had done something almost unprecedented and had united the whole sector in agreement around one issue. Thankfully, the government heard that opposition and relented, scrapping the intention to introduce a new copyright exception in February 2023.

With the criticism of its previous approach in mind, the government decided to continue to look at the relationship between copyright and AI in a more balanced way. Towards the summer of 2023 the Intellectual Property Office arranged a working group comprised of rightsholder representatives and AI developers to meet for a series of roundtables to discuss the drafting of a voluntary code of practice for the use of copyright protected works in AI. However, talks were difficult with the government showing little direction on copyright and preferring to be an ‘honest broker’, and with trust damaged amongst the participants after the failed exception proposal coupled with the refusal of some AI participants to acknowledge the need to obtain a licence. These elements with the increasing amount of litigation in the US and UK by rightsholders against AI developers meant that the talks ultimately proved fruitless and work to develop the code of practice was brought to a halt by government in early 2024.

With an abandoned new copyright exception and a collapsed code of practice process, where will the government turn next? 

In February 2024, the government announced that it would pursue a ministerial-led process and that details of further engagement were to be announced in due course, which so far has failed to materialise. Meanwhile, away from the executive, MPs and committees in both houses of parliament have been strongly supportive of rightsholders and copyright, and highly critical of the government. Baroness Stowell, Chair of the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee recently wrote to the secretary of state complaining that the government’s lack of decisiveness and action to protect copyright had led to the deterioration of the framework and that time to act was running out before AI business models became ‘entrenched and normalised’. The government’s inaction is sharply reflected by progress being made in other jurisdictions on AI, such as the European Union that recently adopted its own AI Act that included provisions on transparency and adherence to copyright. Perhaps indicative of where the government find themselves on copyright and AI, in the House of Lords last week, the Minister for AI and IP, Viscount Camrose predicted that copyright would need to be modified through legislation to reach a solution but gave no details of what changes would be made. One thing, however, above all other matters, will likely intervene before anything is decided by the current administration: the next general election.

It is highly likely that the Labour Party will form the next government. Whilst it may be comforting to think that Labour may decide to take a stronger pro-creative industries copyright stance, the reality is that whoever the next IP minister is they will face the same scenario with some AI developers continuing to use content without permission and ignoring copyright. The new minister will be asked by officials to decide on a solution whilst under the same economic pressures of the current government. As focus turns to future policy, Labour has so far not given much away as to what it may choose to do. Labour’s recently published Creative Industries Sector Plan is positive about copyright but does not include detail as to how the UK’s framework would be protected or indeed strengthened in the face of pressure from AI developers. 

All the while, as the above has been playing out in Westminster, publishers have used the time to strike licensing deals with AI developers. What was a nascent market is now developing, as publishers better understand the needs of AI developers and how their content is being copied and used in large language models and generative AI. Where medium and small publishers may be commercially disadvantaged in negotiations, collective licensing solutions are also being developed that offer publishers control and the ability to earn for the use of their content. These welcome developments weaken the government’s view of copyright’s relationship with AI ingestion as difficult and complex. If anything, it shows that clear opportunities to license exist for publishers and that AI developers are willing to obtain them to use the valuable, curated content they need for their models. If AI is to continue to innovate and become a trusted everyday tool at home and work, the government would be wise to remember that it also needs an economically sustainable publishing industry to continue to provide high quality, curated content in appropriate formats to fuel that innovation, with copyright again crucially providing the balance needed for that partnership to blossom. 

About the author

Will Crook, Head of Policy and Communications, Publishers' Licensing Services Ltd.

Will joined PLS in December 2021 after working in Westminster for six years as a researcher for Andrew Bingham MP and for former Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Rt Hon John Whittingdale OBE MP. His main responsibilities are to engage with members of both houses in parliament on issues affecting copyright and licensing, to respond to relevant government consultations on behalf of PLS and ensure that PLS and mandating PLS publishers are updated on policy issues.

About Publishers’ Licensing Services

Publishers’ Licensing Services (PLS) has provided rights and licensing services to the publishing industry since 1981. A non-profit, owned and directed by the four main UK publishing trade associations, our primary role is to maximise the value of published content, enable its legitimate re-use, and protect copyright through effective secondary licensing, permissions, and rights management services. In 2023-2024 PLS collected and distributed more than £43 million to over 4,500 publishers.

Sustainability – The Challenges for the year ahead, and where to look for help

By Jonathan Huddart, Head of Sales, CPI (UK) – Silver Sponsor of the University Press Redux Conference 2024.

Over the past two years Sustainability and the Environmental impact of the printed book or journal has been a topic of discussion that every publisher wants to engage with; but also, where businesses seem the least well informed and are searching for good and trusted sources of information. 

The subject area is vast, whether it is preparing your business for your Scope 1, 2 and 3 reporting, researching the upcoming legislation on Deforestation (EUDR) or responsibilities within the supply chain to reduce waste, carbon footprint and make active supplier decisions.

At CPI we have chosen to engage with the following accreditation bodies, The Bookchain Project, Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) and Ecovardis, all of these organisations audit the supply chain on behalf of our customers and help to provide a standardised platform for our reporting. 

In addition, CPI has signed up to ClimateCalc, a measuring tool which will enable the whole group to provide accurate scope 1, 2 & 3 reporting for both our business needs and those of our customers. 

Reporting of this data remains the biggest challenge as we see it. CPI has over 500 active customers, each of which currently may have a different reporting requirement and request different information from us, depending on where they are on their Environment & Sustainability journey. During the last two years we have created dedicated roles in the business to support this requirement, which adds cost to the supply chain and new demands on the business. As we continue this critical journey, we will all need to work closely with each other to help mitigate and address these growing costs.

Moving into 2025, there are several legislative changes which impact print and production. Most noticeably the European Union Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) and Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR). EUDR is legislation that has been designed to minimise consumption of products coming from supply chains associated with deforestation or forest degradation. EUDR entered into force on 29 June 2023. From 30 December 2024 EUDR is to be applied for all commodities entering into or leaving the EU market. It covers a number of product, Cocoa, Coffee, Palm Oil and Wood (where the paper comes in) to name a few. CPI has produced a guide for this to help educate our sector.

The EPR legislation is UK law, reporting has started for the annual year 2023. From June 2025, the costs for management of packaging waste will increase significantly as household collection costs are to be covered by this new legislation. EPR is a replacement for the existing Waste packaging scheme although they run alongside each other for 18 months.  Fines will apply to non-confirming companies, there have been criminal convictions for non-compliance in the last year of the Waste Packaging scheme as companies and regulatory bodies start to focus on compliance. 

For the last few years, I think that businesses have been encouraged to engage in the Sustainability discussion, as we move into 2025 everyone is going to need to ensure that their vendors are complying with their obligations and are truly focused on their legal and ethical responsibilities. This is no doubt a challenge for printer, publishers and distributors across the supply chain, but something that we need to work together to ensure we represent our sector in the best possible way and giving all our customers the information and comfort that they need that we are all working responsibly to the same goals. 

About CPI

CPI stands at the forefront of the UK's book printing industry, offering unparalleled expertise and a global print network to publishers and self-publishers alike. With over a decade of commitment to excellence, CPI provides tailored service models to meet diverse business needs, from Zero Inventory solutions to Global Print Solutions. Leveraging cutting-edge inkjet digital printing technology and integrated supply chain solutions, CPI UK produces a staggering 160 million books annually across seven specialised sites. 

About the author

Jonathan Huddart, Head of Sales, CPI, UK.

Jonathan has previously held several sales and customer roles across the business. As Head of Sales for CPI, he works closely with customers to ensure that they are making the best use of all the supply chain solutions that are available. 

More information:

Instagram: @cpi.group
X: @CPIGroup_
Linkedin: @CPI Books UK
TikTok: @cpibooksuk

Harnessing Tech for Scholarly Impact: Five Ways Systems Empower Academic & Scholarly Publishers

By Mark Collins, Virtusales Publishing Solutions – Silver Sponsor of the University Press Redux Conference 2024.

At the London Book Fair this year, Virtusales Publishing Solutions hosted a panel at the Research & Scholarly Publishing Forum, exploring the evolving landscape of academic and scholarly publishing. The session offered a platform for sharing insights and strategies, shedding light on the latest trends and challenges shaping academic publishing today. Among the mission-critical themes discussed, technological advancement emerged as a key driver of transformation in the publishing industry. As Jim Ramage, Elsevier’s Senior Director, Software Engineering, commented during the panel, technology has the capacity to benefit stakeholders across the supply chain, including authors and readers: 

“All aspects of the publishing cycle — end-to-end — can be speeded up, enhanced, automated, and can take out costs. That benefits all stakeholders in the industry, absolutely everyone, and that's a positive thing.”  Jim Ramage, Senior Director, Software Engineering, Elsevier.

In this rapidly changing environment, more and more publishers are moving from incumbent suppliers and systems to advanced, publishing-specific software designed to drive efficiency and innovation; ultimately enabling them to stay ahead of the curve and adapt to industry demands as they emerge. But with so many systems ‘out there’, how can you tell the progressive apart from the disruptive? And what does progressive technology look like today?

Here are some pointers to consider:

1. Unification: Streamlining Workflows for Enhanced Efficiency

One of the primary advantages of advanced systems is their ability to unify workflows, providing a comprehensive solution for managing all types of products. By consolidating all their publishing processes into a single platform, publishers can streamline operations, increase visibility of data and assets, and make informed decisions across the publishing lifecycle. Unification not only enhances efficiency but fosters collaboration and innovation company wide.

2. Digital Asset Workflows: Facilitating Collaboration and Task Management

Advanced systems offer robust Digital Asset Management (DAM) capabilities, enabling publishers to effectively store, manage, transform, and share assets across departments. By combining and centralising data and assets within a single system, publishers can streamline processes, improve scheduling and task management, and ensure the secure storage and accessibility of vital resources. This integrated approach enhances productivity and accelerates the publishing process, driving better outcomes for publishers and business partners alike.

3. Full Integration: Maximising Sales Opportunities through Seamless Data Exchange

Seamless integration with various systems is another key feature of advanced publishing solutions. By facilitating the sharing, tracking, and reporting of critical information, advanced systems optimise data exchange to maximise sales opportunities. From product metadata to peer reviews and subsidiary rights, advanced systems enable publishers to share data seamlessly, and create tailored content (including AI sheets, ONIX feeds, reports and more) to meet third party requirements, strengthening relationships and ultimately driving revenue growth and market expansion. Flexible reports engines that can output a variety of industry standard formats and APIs also aid integration across your systems landscape, accelerating communication and saving time and resources.

4. Artificial Intelligence: Accelerating Operations and Enhancing Productivity

Advanced systems leverage Artificial Intelligence (AI) to accelerate operations and enhance productivity across the publishing lifecycle. From generating keywords to suggesting and editing copy text (from summarising descriptions to specific word counts and improving grammar, to facilitating translations, tagging images, and reworking copy for different markets and regions), AI acts as an assistive tool that can automate repetitive tasks, reduce manual effort, and unlock new possibilities for content dissemination. By adopting software that embraces responsible AI, publishers can ensure the security of their data and IP, save time and reduce costs, positioning themselves for success in a competitive market.

5. Continual Development: Future-Proofing Publishing Operations

Continual development is a hallmark of advanced systems, ensuring that publishers have access to the latest technology and tools. Some systems vendors offer inclusive upgrades as well as ongoing support, minimising disruption associated with the implementation of new technology, drastically reducing the need for training, and helping publishers to adapt to evolving industry trends seamlessly. This commitment to innovation empowers publishers to stay ahead of the curve, embrace the latest cutting-edge technology at the earliest opportunity, and future-proof their operations for long-term success.

Conclusion

Advanced systems play a pivotal role in empowering academic and scholarly publishing, enabling publishers to navigate industry challenges with confidence and agility, and embrace new opportunities as they emerge. By unifying workflows, centralising data and assets, ensuring full integration with internal systems, leveraging AI, and embracing continual development, publishers can transform their businesses, driving efficiency, innovation and growth in an ever-changing landscape.

About BiblioSuite

BiblioSuite is the system of choice among leading academic and scholarly publishers including Elsevier, Bloomsbury Academic, Mohr Siebeck and Sage Publishing, along with esteemed university presses such as Oxford, Harvard, Princeton, The MIT Press, and Edinburgh. If you're interested in learning more about how BiblioSuite can support your publishing endeavours, visit the Virtusales website. 

Read more about our LBF Research & Scholarly Forum panel plus customer success stories via the following the following links:

● Innovating Responsibly: AI Prototypes in Publishing

● Opportunities and Inconvenient Truths: Academic Insights from LBF’s Research & Scholarly Forum 2024 

● Revolutionise your publishing experience with BiblioSuite for Scholarly and Academic Publishers 

● The MIT Press consolidates six systems into BiblioSuite to optimise operational performance 

● Ohio State selects BiblioSuite to unify its book and journal workflows 

● Wilfrid Laurier University Press  selects BiblioSuite for enhanced funding management and reporting 

● University of Illinois Press adopts BiblioSuite to unify its publishing workflows

● Agent of Change: The Role of Technology in Publishing 

About the Author

Mark Collins, Director of Academic, Virtusales Publishing Solutions

Mark Collins has worked in the publishing industry for over 20 years with a number of global publishers, respected independents and academic and scholarly publishers implementing Virtusales' BiblioSuite publishing software. Prior to that, Mark worked at other publishers in a range of roles, including Wiley where he worked on implementing and delivering global technology solutions to the business.

Follow us on LinkedIn and X

https://www.linkedin.com/company/virtusales-publishing-solutions/

https://twitter.com/Virtusales 

About University Press Redux 2024

The 5th ALPSP University Press Redux returns as an in-person event on 15 & 16 May 2024, in partnership with Edinburgh University Press. This is part of EUP’s 75th anniversary celebrations and will be held at the John McIntyre Conference Centre, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. Book your place.

What is the future of social media in scholarly publishing?

The ALPSP Marketing Maestros Special Interest Group brings together senior marketing professionals to explore and discuss the changing landscape for scholarly publishing. On 28 February, a group of approximately 30 members gathered to discuss the future of social media.

What publishers say – results from a survey

To set the stage, group co-chair, Kin Maclachlan, presented insights from a recent SSP survey asking publishers about their use of social media. Conducted in November 2023, the survey included approximately half non-profit publishers, 12% commercial publishers, and around a fifth from industry service providers.

The changing profile of X

The survey revealed a notable disparity between organisations’ use of X, compared to individuals. Stephanie Lovegrove Hansen, one of the SIG members and report authors, shared her insights, suggesting that individuals can make decisions much faster, whereas organisations can take longer to adjust. Most meeting attendees agreed that X remains a popular channel for researchers, making it a key channel for publishers.

The expanding social landscape

The survey found increasing use of new social media channels, including BlueSky and Threads, as well as lesser-known channels like Mastadon. LinkedIn and YouTube usage also increased, while Facebook had decreased in popularity. Community-specific channels were also seen as important for marketers, for example WeChat for the Chinese market with 1.3 billion users, and ResearchGate as a way to interact with researchers globally.

Member discussion – break out conversations

Attendees then engaged in smaller group discussions. There were similar points raised in all groups, including a continued focus on established channels like X, Facebook and LinkedIn. In multiple groups, attendees commented that internal editors were pressuring marketing to move away from X. Although teams were experimenting with LinkedIn, there was a consensus it didn’t offer the same level of engagement as X. As one group aptly described it, “X is the devil that no one wants but everyone needs.” It’s important to engage with researchers where they are active. However some who remain on X were refusing to put advertising money on the platform, as it didn’t align with their values.

The proliferation of new channels was seen as a challenge, particularly in terms of resource allocation and segmentation. Many were evaluating, rather than actively developing new channels. The consensus was that existing platforms are continuing to decline, and new channels have not yet offered a viable alternative. It therefore remains uncertain where marketers will shift their efforts to fill this gap.

To make social work effectively, the group discussed the need for authenticity and passion, and ensuring a channel-specific strategy for content. Setting clear, measurable objectives and evaluating effectiveness on individual channels is key, particularly noting that channels will continue to change their algorithms.

Break out discussion summaries

1. What works and what doesn’t work on social media?

The breakout group identified several key factors as crucial for successful social media engagement.

• Authentic Voice: Posts with a human touch, such as those with humour, tend to get better engagement. The group agreed that while tone needs to be appropriate, academics are humans too, and content should reflect this. It’s important to find a sweet spot between professionalism and authenticity.
• Video needs to be authentic and not overly corporate to engage viewers. People connect more with stories than with facts and figures.
• Passion: The group noticed that marketing often posts content about topics they aren't passionate about, which can be evident. The suggestion was made to consider hiring PhD students who have a real passion for the subject, although limited resources and bandwidth were identified as potential roadblocks.
• Channel mix: Many found LinkedIn to be a better channel for lead nurturing. WhatsApp Groups were also identified as a potential new channel to try, though investment in this area has yet to be made. WeChat has significant usage in China, covering everything from parenting to academia. However, the vast amount of content on the platform makes it challenging to stand out. As for new channels, most have tried to use Bluesky and Mastodon, but haven't seen significant engagement to justify a major shift away from existing channels.
• Avoiding jargon is essential: Messages should be written in plain language, kept short, simple, and easy to understand.
• Targeting segments has been difficult: it goes against all marketing principles to customise content for specific customer segments.

2. What are the objectives/KPIs for social media – paid versus organic?

Objectives for organic and paid social:

• Visibility and awareness were the top objectives for the group. Many agreed that organic social is particularly effective in supporting visibility at the top of the marketing funnel, with common objectives including promoting readership, or recruiting researchers for journal issues and articles.
• Brand: social media was also seen as an essential part of brand building for publishers and journals with their target communities. Sentiment was identified as one potential measure for brand effectiveness, although this requires investment in tools, which can be a potential blocker.
• Paid supports conversion: The group felt that return on investment (ROI) for conversion and decision-making is low for organic social media, but conversely paid social media, particularly for journal launches, was effective at supporting conversion. Retargeting was one notable option discussed.

KPIs and measurement:

Concerns were again raised about audiences, and the level of confidence marketers had that campaigns are reaching the right people. Here, appropriate use of metrics for evaluation is key:

• The importance of a measurable call-to-action (CTA): It’s important to have a clear CTA from campaigns, such as engagement with a submission page.
• Strategies for different channels: Each channel requires its own evaluation, considering costs and reach. For example, while LinkedIn was mentioned as more expensive, it was seen as valuable for institutional targeting. Facebook was identified as having relevance for specific countries.
• Set budget goals by campaign across platforms, with an emphasis on optimising spend.
• Be mindful of regions targeted: to ensure that ads reach the right audience, it’s important to set budgets for priority regions. Cost-per-click (CPC) was identified as a valued performance indicator.

Ultimately, the group recognised that outcomes differ from organisation to organisation, highlighting the need for a customised approach.

3. How is social media use changing in light of new channels?

Publishers tend to rely on the same trusted platforms:

• As noted elsewhere, LinkedIn, Facebook, X and Instagram remain the most popular.
• Instagram was felt to be for a younger audience. However, with Facebook declining, and since Meta owns both platforms, there is still potential to reach communities moving from Facebook to Instagram.
• LinkedIn is emerging: Many are using LinkedIn more intensively than before. One member explained how LinkedIn newsletters are helping to gain a new subscriber base and more followers.
• Closed groups and their use: these were very popular during the pandemic but are less so now. However, some of these groups are still active and engagement tends to be high. There was a consensus that maintaining these or contributing to them is a lot of work and highly resource-intensive.

New platforms:

• Some have experimented with Bluesky, but the lack of resources and lack of critical mass on some of these newer platforms is preventing publishers from going full throttle.
• No one in the group reported using Mastodon or Threads. Publishers are in an observation mode to see what happens next.
• None of the representatives in the group used Tik-Tok. But all agreed that this is probably not the first place to go for academics. The conclusion was that publishers go where their audience is, based on their topics and publication format.

One challenge noted was that Algorithms are constantly changing: the changes that platforms are constantly making are not necessarily to the advantage of publishers.

4. Differences in social media usage for different demographics

There is limited segmentation: across the board, there was consensus that small teams can only afford to do so much. There is only one handle per platform. There is some specific targeting for these channels specifically, for example one member is using BlueSky to target a German-speaking audience.

Different platforms work for different kinds of content. For example, LinkedIn was valued for press releases and thought leadership. Instagram for motivational posts. In other words, it is possible to pursue different personas across channels.

Similar to other groups, existing channels continue to be important, and newer channels were mostly being used for experimentation at this stage:

• X is where scientists continue to engage. The group acknowledged we need to be where our audience is and engage where they are.
• Facebook engagement was seen as mostly non-existent, however the group discussed some evaluation was needed on the quality of the traffic.
• There was interest in WeChat and Weibo, but a crunch in available resources. Some were working with vendor partners such as Charlesworth to put out translated content.
• Mastodon had no engagement, although some were trying it out.
• Reddit was mentioned as a venue to put out “real science” as opposed to “junk science” on most platforms.

About the ALPSP Special Interest Group

Co-chairs: Zita Jeukendrup, De Gruyter, Kin Maclachlan, CUP, Mithu Lucraft, TBI Communications, Annabel Daly, OUP, Harini Calamur, Cactus Communications 

The ALPSP Marketing Maestros SIG provides a unique platform for senior leaders to connect, collaborate, and address pressing issues outside of industry events where marketing topics are often overlooked. It exists to bridge that gap and have a forum for leading marketers who have a significant influence on marketing strategies and business decisions at either a CTO, VP, director, or senior manager/head of department level. Find out more about all the ALPSP Special Interest Groups.

About the author

Mithu Lucraft is a Senior Consultant for TBI Communications based in the UK. A strategic content marketing expert with a passion for business storytelling, Mithu started her marketing career in 2004 at Oxford University Press, before setting up and leading the first PR team at SAGE. At Springer Nature she was responsible for the development and implementation of global marketing strategies for eight years, with a significant focus on open research and open access. At TBI, she provides marketing and communications support for clients across the scholarly communications industry including societies; publishers; researcher services; and technology platforms. She is a co-chair of the ALPSP Marketing Maestros Special Interest Group.