Monday, 17 August 2015

ALPSP Awards Spotlight on… Bookmetrix from Altmetric and Springer

Martijn Roelandse
In the fifth of the ALPSP Awards for Innovation in Publishing finalists' posts Martijn Roelandse Springer's Manager for Publishing Innovation and Euan Adie, Founder of Altmetric and fellow co-developer of Bookmetrix, talk about how they worked to launch the product.

Tell us a bit about both companies and how this collaboration came about.

As a large publisher of STM content, with a current catalogue of over 194,000 books, Springer is always keen to offer further services for our authors and editors - in particular in relation to the insight into the attention, use and impact of their titles.

Altmetric are a data science company based in London. Founded in 2011, Altmetric made it their mission to track and analyse the online activity around scholarly literature, and today supply data via their distinctive ‘donut’ badges and platforms to many of the world’s leading publishers, funders and institutions.

Euan Adie
The idea for this project was originally conceived at Springer, who wanted to find new ways to offer added value and additional feedback to the authors and readers of their extensive book content.

In addition, Springer also wanted to offer their editorial and marketing teams an easier way of tracking the reach and impact of their publishing portfolio, and were keen to offer further insight than download and citation counts alone would be able to provide.

Having first established a relationship Altmetric in 2011 with the adoption of the Altmetric API for all of their journal articles, Springer were familiar with the Altmetric team and felt there would be a shared approach and understanding of what the project was trying to achieve.


What is the project that you submitted for the Awards?

We submitted Bookmetrix - the first platform of its kind to help authors, editors, publishers and readers to track the broader impacts of a book or chapter once it’s published. The project encompassed two parts; public-facing details pages, which are now accessible via the metrics displayed on every SpringerLink book page, and the Bookmetrix search interface - a database which Springer staff can use to browse and filter the metrics across their book portfolio.


Tell us more about how it works and the team behind it.

Bookmetrix was built as a partnership between Altmetric and Springer - regular meetings between the two groups (comprising project leaders, product managers, and developers) ensured that we agreed goals and concept early on. The aim was to offer authors and readers a totally new way to see and understand the impact of their work and to help set a new standard for monitoring and reporting the activity surrounding a book post publication. To achieve this, we worked to pull in mentions and other online activity relating to each book or chapter from a variety of different sources - including downloads, citations, book reviews, public policy, mainstream media coverage and social media shares.

The data was then surfaced via the details pages - where users can see a summary of the mentions of the whole book, and dig down to view the mentions for each chapter and the original comments from each source. The details pages can be accessed via the SpringerLink platform and via the search interface (by Springer staff).

Why do you think it demonstrates publishing innovation?

Bookmetrix is the first platform of it’s kind to bring together such a valuable mixture of traditional and non-traditional indicators of broader impact and influence for books and individual chapters. Such measures are increasingly important for authors who are asked by funders or institutional management to demonstrate the influence of their work - and are particularly valuable for those who do not chose to publish journal articles (which often bring the most credit) as their main form of research output.

As well as offering this additional insight, Bookmetrix has demonstrated the value that can be found in publishers combining their objectives with the technical and domain expertise of an external partner.

What are your plans for the future?

The scope of Bookmetrix is wider than existing initiatives in the market: it covers substantially more books and goes beyond pure citation data. Bookmetrix fits in Springer’s ambition to drive more industry-wide initiatives to support the work of authors and researchers.


The winner of the ALPSP Awards for Innovation in Publishing, sponsored by Publishing Technology, will be announced at the ALPSP Conference. Book now to secure your place.

Thursday, 13 August 2015

ALPSP Awards Spotlight on… Overleaf, the collaborative writing and publishing platform

John Hammersley, Founder and CEO at Overleaf (Writelatex Limited), in the fourth of ALPSP Awards for Innovation in Publishing finalists' posts, explains what the collaborative writing and publishing platform is about and how it works.

Tell us a bit about your company

Founded in 2012, by me, John Hammersley and my friend and colleague, John Lees-Miller, Overleaf is an academic authorship tool that, in essence, allows researchers to spend more time saving the world by making it much easier for them to write and publish their work.

How do we help? Overleaf is an easy-to-use, intuitive editor that enables efficient collaboration and effortless manuscript submission on all types of research articles. So you spend less time worrying about formatting and versions, and more time doing your research.

We've seen amazing growth since we started, with over 250,000 registered users in just over 2 years – and this is something we originally built simply for our research group. We have been growing rapidly since our launch, mainly through the grassroots movement that has formed around the platform – Overleaf users are incredible.  We always say we have the best users on the planet, especially given our recent milestone!

What is the project that you submitted for the Awards?

Overleaf submitted our cloud-based, academic authorship platform for the ALPSP awards.

By providing an intuitive online collaborative writing and publishing platform, Overleaf is making the process of writing, editing and publishing scientific documents quicker and easier. Researchers and academics can now write, collaborate, and publish with a single click, directly from the Overleaf web-app. Publishers and Institutions are partnering with Overleaf to provide customized writing templates, simple reference tool linking, and one-click publishing submission links.
Overleaf brings the scientific documentation process into a Google-docs like environment, developed to seamlessly connect the academic and publishing workflows from writing-to-review-to-publication.

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

Overleaf’s free service allows the entire scientific documentation process to move into the cloud – from idea to writing to review to publication.
Users can collaboratively view and edit documents in either a simple word processing interface or as native LaTeX source code – from anywhere. Users can choose from multiple template options, including customized book or journal templates, which can be publisher specific. All the required components – such as chapters, sections, title pages, glossaries, references and acknowledgements – are pre-defined and ready to be populated. Authors simply open the template and start writing, safe in the knowledge that the output conforms to the editorial guidelines of their target journal or publisher. Automatic formatting significantly reduces editorial costs and reduces time to publication.
As a user types or makes changes, the environment provides an automatic preview of the fully typeset document – allowing everyone to see exactly what the finished document will look like.  Authors can link their preferred reference management tool directly to their Overleaf account – allowing fast, simple and correct in-document referencing and citation without worrying about editorial guidelines. Once the document or project is complete, there are multiple output options. Authors can submit directly to a publisher, journal or repository from within the Overleaf platform, through a simple one-click submission button, or output the file in cross-platform LaTeX or PDF formats.
Overleaf greatly reduces editorial and review turnaround times with powerful change tracking, commenting and project lifecycle management features. Publishers can quickly and easily make notes or edit a document, share those changes with other editors, peer reviewers or authors and move through the editorial and peer review process quickly and easily. No more emailing papers back and forth and manually marking up changes. 
Overleaf has also been a beneficial service for publishers and societies who are looking to simplify the LaTeX writing and submission process for their users, or to provide a powerful, value-add tool for their authors. Overleaf makes the scientific writing, review and publishing process simple – for everyone.

The new word-processing environment, allows non-LaTeX users and journals to experience the same advantages of seamless collaboration, easy templating and one-click submission.

As for the team behind it… Overleaf is really the brainchild of my colleague, John Lees-Miller –  who, while we were doing research on driverless cars and publishing papers with the Bristol University Engineering Mathematics group, saw a need for a collaborative scientific writing tool, and he built one! In the past, LaTeX, the scientific writing language required for many hard sciences, was only available as a single-user desktop writing application. As an open source application with a number of commercial distributions, LaTeX suffered from fragmentation, resulting in a lack of interoperability, undermining its cross-platform origins. In other words, the hundreds of LaTeX desktop writing application options only added to the difficulties in collaborative scientific research and writing. Researchers would usually find that collaborators used a slightly different distribution - meaning that their documents could not be read. With no good way to collaborate on individual files – authors would compile and output large typeset files, and email or FTP the read-only output back and forth. Obviously, the process was far from ideal. Thus, the idea for Overleaf was born!
Our answer was to build a cloud-based scientific writing and collaboration tool for LaTeX documents which we called ‘WriteLaTeX’.  As a cloud-based web app, WriteLaTeX did not require authors to download or install any software and allowed co-authors to collaborate in LaTeX in real time for the first time. Think Google Docs – but for complex scientific papers and formulas! As colleagues learned of this new, easy-to-use tool, word spread and WriteLaTeX grew. Soon we found ourselves dedicating more and more time to developing and growing this popular new scientific service – leading to what is now our London-based start up: Overleaf.

Why do you think it demonstrates publishing innovation?

Overleaf has had a phenomenal first two years, with close to 250,000 registered users from 180 countries worldwide who have created in excess of three million documents from over 2,000 publishers, institutions and universities across the globe.

Researchers love the innovative and easy-to-use writing and collaboration web app, and publishers love the cost savings from receiving perfectly formatted submissions first time, the groundbreaking online editing tools, automated typesetting and pagination, and clean outputs. 

This is a new tool for the scientific community that was previously unavailable – something needed and wanted by researchers across the globe and a clear win-win for authors and publishers.  It is a great fit for the ALPSP Award as it provides a crucial digital tool for scientists - advancing the scientific writing and publishing process. Overleaf supports scientific writing, editing and collaboration in the cloud better than anything available today.

What are your plans for the future?

Overleaf has been focused on growing in the Publishing and Institutional space since 2015 and has already signed with more than 10 institutions – including Stanford University – and more than 10 publishing partners – including Nature Scientific Reports and PeerJ. These publishing and institutional partnerships will be fundamental in the growth of Overleaf.

Overleaf is also partnering with organizations who help the researcher and academic writing and publishing workflows. Overleaf believes that these integrations are also crucial for expansion of the service. Providing users with a winning platform includes seamlessly integrating the tools and services that are needed by researchers, academics, publishers and institutions. Partnerships and integrations have been established with multiple organizations, such as: Mendeley (reference management), Aries Systems (peer review system), Figshare (data repository), Editage (Editing service), and more. Additional partnerships and integrations are being established monthly.

Check us out at www.Overleaf.com and sign up for a free account.

Tuesday, 11 August 2015

ALPSP Awards Spotlight on… eLife Lens: a new way to read research online

In this, the third of ALPSP Awards for Innovation in Publishing finalists' posts, Ian Mulvany from eLife, talks about their submission eLife Lens: a new way to read research online.

Tell us a bit about your company

eLife is the unique, non-profit collaboration between funders and practitioners of research to improve the way important results in life sciences and biomedicine are selected, presented, and shared. eLife was established in 2011 by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Max Planck Society, and the Wellcome Trust.

Our mission is to help researchers accelerate discovery. For us, realising that mission is about looking to innovate across all areas of the publishing process -- from peer review and the experience of publishing with us, right through to the final look and feel of the published content. We want our innovations to have broad impact, and are very happy when we see our efforts being adopted by others in the industry.

What is the project that you submitted for the Awards?

We submitted our eLife Lens: a new way to read research online.

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

The project is a pretty cool one. It uses modern browser technologies to take the XML of a research article and convert it to a novel two-pane view that allows readers to look at article figures while at the same time reading what the article says about those figures.

It doesn't sound like much, but this is the first time that a reader can nicely replicate the experience of flipping through a manuscript, while still reading that manuscript online. The tool also supports cross-linking references, equations, and it can be extended by publishers to make their content work really well on the web.

The original idea for the project came from Ivan Grubsic, who was a PhD student at Berkeley at the time. At eLife we immediately saw its potential and we worked with Ivan and the developers at Substance to go from an early prototype to a launch of version one in just fourteen weeks.

Ivan was working on San Francisco time, and the Substance guys were working on Austrian time. Once Ivan was finished with an iteration of the data model, at the end of his day, the Substance developers would just be waking up and could do the corresponding UI and integration iteration. So they worked really well together. Often projects where teams are globally distributed can take a lot longer to complete, but in this case it really worked in our favour. I think that's because the vision of what we wanted to achieve was so clear.

eLife carried out a lot of user testing, and contributed some development to the project, and we were so happy with the outcome that we incorporated it into our journal very quickly.

Why do you think it demonstrates publishing innovation?

eLife Lens demonstrates innovation on a number of levels. From a pure product development perspective we used a very lean agile approach, and did a lot of user testing along the way, both with people inside of eLife and with academics in their offices. You don't need to test a feature with a huge number of people before you find if there are any usability issues. After all, you get infinitely more feedback by testing with one person than by testing with no one. Of course user testing can only tell you if what you have built is usable; it can't tell you what to build.

On another level, with Lens we are using HTML5 and javascript, really close to the limits of what those technologies will allow. The conversion from XML to the front end is done in the user’s browser; the whole project is only possible because of the advances in the power of web browsers that have happened over the last couple of years -- in particular the improvement in the power of javascript engines.

This does mean that eLife Lens won't work on old browsers, but that's part of the process of innovation: asking what does technology allow us to do now, and exploring where that can take us over the next few years.

There is huge potential in the browser as an application platform, especially for document-oriented industries that require tools that support structure and collaboration. eLife Lens is an experiment that points us firmly in that direction.

What are your plans for the future?

We want to use Lens as a platform for learning about what is possible to build in this space. We have already created Lens Browser, which could allow you to host an entire journal, once you have your article XML. We are currently looking at how a Lens-like view can be used in the author proofing state for submissions, and whether it can be a platform for editing manuscripts, too.

We are delighted to see that eLife Lens has been adopted by a number of other publishers, and are about to release an even more modular and easier to develop on version of eLife Lens.


Ian Mulvany is Head of Technology at eLife Sciences Publications Ltd.

The winner of the ALPSP Awards for Innovation in Publishing, sponsored by Publishing Technology, will be announced at the ALPSP Conference. Book now to secure your place.

Wednesday, 5 August 2015

ALPSP Awards Spotlight on… RightFind™ XML for Mining from Copyright Clearance Center

In this second of the ALPSP Awards for Innovation in Publishing finalists' posts,
Jake Kelleher, Senior Director, Licensing and Business Development at Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) talks about RightFind™ XML for Mining, a solution which facilitates copyright-compliant access to full-text article content for text and data mining.

ALPSP: Tell us a bit about your company

CCC was founded over 35 years ago at the suggestion of the United States Congress to provide an efficient market for the clearing of photocopy rights. Today, CCC is a global leader in content and licensing solutions for publishers, businesses and academic institutions. Located near Boston, we have more than 380 employees dedicated to serving the needs of over 12,000 publishers and providing innovative content and rights-licensing technology solutions for more than 35,000 customers around the globe.

In the mid-90s, when publishers were struggling with how to best protect copyrighted material in a new online world, they worked closely with CCC to create RightsLink®, which made it easy for visitors to a publisher’s website to purchase permissions and other services. Years later, we collaborated with our publisher customers again to use RightsLink’s advanced ecommerce capabilities to manage article processing charges (APCs) and other author fees for journal articles. As a result, we launched our RightsLink for Open Access platform with a range of new capabilities developed with input from customers and partners. This summer, we introduced our new RightFind XML for Mining Service in partnership with six major publishers.

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

We submitted our latest advance, RightFind XML for Mining, a great example of CCC’s culture of innovation offering new revenue opportunities for life science publishers.


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

XML for Mining is built on the RightFind platform, CCC’s unique suite of cloud-based corporate workflow solutions that offer immediate access to a full range of STM peer-reviewed journal content.

XML for Mining launches from this platform and contains normalized, full-text articles from multiple rightsholders, allowing researchers to create a corpus of articles relevant to their research. Once the corpus has been created, researchers download these articles into their text mining solutions. XML for Mining almost eliminates the weeks, or even months, of work it takes to prepare scientific content for use in text mining solutions, thus accelerating research and discovery.

In fact, we recently received some very positive feedback from a leading international pharmaceutical company that they love the full-text search and can’t get it anywhere else. As always with CCC, feedback and ideas from our customers guide everything we do.   We developed RightFind XML for Mining with input from text mining researchers and publishers looking for a voluntary, market-based licensing solution.  And we will continue to listen to the market, add new publisher content and develop new features, and explore ways to collaborate with technology partners.

ALPSP: Why do you think it demonstrates publishing innovation?

RightFind XML for Mining represents a huge step forward for publishers navigating text and data mining waters. For these publishers, the solution has several key advantages. It enables end users to have access to aggregated article content from multiple rightsholders in a single service with normalized metadata, and that has never been done before. It offers a web-based, user-friendly interface, as well as a RESTful Application Programming Interface (API), so that researchers can easily identify and download, in full-text XML format, relevant articles for mining within their workflow.



It also reduces the necessity for time-consuming one-off licensing negotiations with publishers, along with the associated costs to administer, format and deliver custom content feeds to individual customers.  Moreover, our robust API enables integration with leading text and data mining software platforms.  Thus, publishers gain a new channel for their content along with valuable usage data, while users can reduce the number of operational steps involved with finding a needle in the haystack.

ALPSP: What are your plans for the future?

We create content workflow and licensing solutions that make copyright work for everyone. That means identifying and reducing pain points for publishers and their customers. RightFind XML for Mining reaffirms CCC’s role as an independent intermediary between content providers and users that can identify inefficiencies and create bridges between the two groups.  As publisher and market needs evolve, we will evolve our services, as well.

Jake Kelleher is Senior Director, Licensing and Business Development at Copyright Clearance Center. RightFind™ XML for Mining – Copyright Clearance Center’s text mining solution lets life sciences researchers move to a deeper level of discovery– beyond abstracts to direct access to full-text articles in XML format. XML for Mining saves time usually spent acquiring, licensing, and converting articles from individual publishers. Now, researchers can identify and download article collections from multiple publishers through a single, normalized source that is copyright-compliant.

The winner of the ALPSP Awards for Innovation in Publishing, sponsored by Publishing Technology, will be announced at the ALPSP Conference. Book now to secure your place.

Wednesday, 29 July 2015

Spotlight on ALPSP Awards 2015 finalist Kudos

The annual ALPSP conference will soon be upon us (so make sure you book your ticket before the late fee kicks in). One of the highlights is the announcement of the ALPSP Awards for Innovation in Publishing, sponsored by Publishing Technology, at the conference dinner.

This year's short list demonstrates yet again constant innovation in the search for new and improved ways to disseminate scholarly communication. But don't take my word for it. Here's the first in a series of spotlights on the finalists where they get to tell you, in their own words, what they are doing and why it is innovative.

In this first of the finalist posts, Melinda Kenneway, co-founder of Kudos, tells us about their platform helping researchers spread the word about their work.

ALPSP: Tell us a bit about your company

Kudos is a web-based platform to help more research get found, read and cited. Kudos came from an idea I've thought about, and talked about, for over a decade. When I was at OUP, I managed the marketing for a large program of journals, and we expended huge amounts of effort and expense looking to build readership for research articles. Campaigns that were most effective were those that the editor or author initiated. Not a surprise, as an email from a colleague or other prestigious member of a community, was always going to be more likely to be read than one from the publisher’s marketing department! The problem was, how to do this at scale … we couldn't manage this article-level promotion for everything we published – it was literally thousands and thousands of articles every year.

Since that original idea, much in the world has changed. The rise of article level metrics, broader assessment of impact and the increasing uptake by the research community of social media is creating a new opportunity for authors to take more direct control of the post-publication performance of their work. Coming from an industry background, the founders of Kudos saw an opportunity to provide tools to individual researchers to assist with this; but rather than do this in isolation to the rest of the scholarly communications industry, to work to aggregate the efforts of authors, publishers, universities, societies and funders – using existing infrastructure, tools and services to help drive impact.

That is the vision for Kudos. We’re currently still in the early days of our development, having launched in May last year initially with a toolset for authors to explain, enrich and share links to their publications. Kudos is free to authors, funded primarily by revenue from a publisher service that provides visibility on their authors’ activities within Kudos, and opportunities to support and amplify their outreach efforts.

What is the project that you submitted for the Awards?

We've submitted the Kudos researcher and publisher service, which we launched in May 2014. In just over a year we've grown to over 55,000 registered users with the support of some 40 publishers, including our founding partners: Taylor & Francis and the Royal Society of Chemistry.

Our users are drawn from all over the world, representing a range of career stages. Over a third are well established in their careers, so clearly, interest in publication performance by the research community is universal. Authors registered in Kudos are linked to over 2 million articles. Authors have created over three million views of their article profile pages on the Kudos site, and driven over 30,000 referrals to publisher sites since we launched.

Tell us more about how it works and the team behind it.

'Kudos was founded in 2013 by Melinda Kenneway, Charlie Rapple and David Sommer. We are three industry consultants with over half a century’s experience between us. This holistic overview has been instrumental in our approach to creating a solution that works with, rather than against, the current system. Not that we’re saying things can’t be improved – far from it; but we’re not trying to create a revolution so much as facilitate an accelerated evolution.

Kudos works by providing three simple tools to authors – they can create a profile page for each of their publications (an article, book or book chapter), drawing metadata from CrossRef (title, authors, publisher etc.) as a foundation for that page. They then add a short title, and brief explanations of what the work is about and why it’s important.. All this valuable, browseable new data is then made available to search engines, publishers, and other sites and services to help broaden reach. Authors can also add individual perspectives, so co-authors can tell the story of that publication from their viewpoint – this new feature, recently launched, has been particularly popular. Authors can also enrich their publications, linking up related resources such as images, datasets, videos and news coverage. We then provide a simple way for authors to share a link to their publication page via email, their blog, or social media sites, this is then trackable so they can assess subsequent impact on their personal dashboard against a range of metrics.

Publishers and universities can gain visibility on this activity through a Kudos dashboard that shows them which of their authors are registering, using the tools, and who is getting traction – for example, those articles whose altmeric scores are changing most rapidly indicating ‘of the moment’ media attention and those authors who are being most successful at sharing, with click-through access to information on who else is influential in driving impact within their networks (retweets etc.). The publisher dashboard provides opportunities for one-to-one engagement with authors to help increase the impact of their efforts, and identify influential advocates within communities. Publishers also benefit from access to the lay metadata and links that the authors add, which can be provided back in the form of a widget, to redisplay on the publication page on the publisher site. All publication profile pages on Kudos link prominently to the publisher’s authoritative version of the article or book chapter, on their site.

Why do you think it demonstrates publishing innovation?

Kudos is unique in being the first service to give authors tools to increase the impact of their research across all publishers, and the first to combine metrics from many sources in one place for authors – then map these against outreach activities. We’re also for the first time giving publishers visibility on the outreach activities of their authors and its effectiveness.

Beyond this, is the potential for even more significant innovation - through creating a service that is open and integrated into the existing and evolving scholarly communications infrastructure. We believe the consumer model for creating controlled communities, with the aim of keeping people within them to create monetizing opportunities, doesn't work for research. The community is too large and diverse, and the role of publishers, universities, funders and societies is too important to simply bypass. The real innovation for us will come in the future as we work to forge partnerships with the multiple existing and emerging organisations, tools, systems, resources and services that individually, or together in any combination, can help drive research performance.

What are you plans for the future?

Our roadmap is substantial. Our challenge is fulfilling this as fast as we would like! Because the founders are all drawn from within the industry, this has helped Kudos have a high profile at this early stage in our life. We've been keen to talk about our ideas at conferences and in workshops, and excited to have had so much support from publishers, so early on. However, we remain a very young company, with the challenges of working in a lean way to an ambitious vision. We've successfully generated some initial revenues, won grants, and attracted early funding – this has helped accelerate some of our roadmap pans – we’re particularly pleased to have been able to develop additional features for authors, or example - to start helping them manage their personal digital visibility more broadly via profile sites; and we will shortly be releasing a significantly enhanced publisher dashboard. We’re also currently in pilot phase with a service for universities, which includes almost a dozen major institutions such as the London School of Economics and Political Science, Stockholm University and Carnegie Mellon University.

But there’s a lot more to be done – all our existing products have many ongoing enhancements planned, and we’re also currently looking at developing a society service to help societies engage more deeply with their members and showcase high performance. 

Our longer term vision to embrace a future where researchers will have multiple ways of talking about their work, legitimately sharing information on publications, finding collaborators, reaching out to peers and connecting new audiences with their work. As the landscape grows in complexity, so will the need for a central tool-set, deeply integrated with these emerging services. Kudos will provide this – embedding ourselves where researchers want to access our tools, then providing them – and the organisations that support them – with insight on which of these drives performance, based on the measures that matter to them. By doing this, we aim to make research more discoverable, more useful, and maximise the effectiveness of outreach activities.'  

Melinda Kenneway is Executive Director at Kudos. After completing a degree in Experimental Psychology at the University of Oxford, Melinda began her career in academic publishing working at Oxford University Press for 13 years, where she gained the position of Global Marketing Director for the Journals Division. In 2004 she founded TBI Communications, a specialist marketing agency serving academic publishers, societies and libraries. In 2013 she co-founded Kudos – a web-based platform that supports the research community in increasing the impact of research output. 

Thursday, 25 June 2015

Anthony Watkinson reflects on Personalised Learning and Publishing Partnerships

"This is a personalised view of the recent (16 June) ALPSP seminar with this title. It was a memorable occasion if only for the really excellent and highly provocative introduction from Lorraine Estelle (alas now leaving Jisc Collections, but welcome to COUNTER which she will head up). She began with a description of the early days of Cambridge University Press where their attempt to provide a grammar for their students clashed with the monopoly of the Stationers’ Company. Part of the arguments against this suppression of a work needed was an attack on the high prices charged by the livery company. CUP won in the end, but it took fifty years.

Do textbooks now really give what the students actually want?


She instanced a medical student who spoke at a recent meeting and explained his need for a “textbook” that took advantage of the functionalities provided by the web. He wanted a “study buddy”. Textbooks are not this personal friend and they are anyhow too expensive. Do they talk to the students? This was a nicely crafted circle. Of course such functionality costs, as Lorraine accepted, but it is (is it not?) what we aim for that counts.

In her presentation Lorraine cited Coventry University as trying to provide core textbooks in a “no hidden extras” approach. This has done good things for them in the teaching rankings, but these are printed books – not really what her student was thinking of. She was pleased to see that the renewed UCL Press welcomed textbook proposals.

The best examples came from the next session. There were excellent presentations starting with the truly visionary Dr Phil Gee at Plymouth. His programme was a partnership with established textbook publishers and established texts offering access online to all the textbooks the psychology students needed for the first year – twelve in all. The project started in 2011 and he has successfully expanded in subsequent years with backing from the administration – and amazingly from the faculty - 90% satisfaction from your academic colleagues is something to write home about!

There are now 600 titles involved across a range of departments, but it is becoming harder to keep the project going. I am not surprised.

The second speaker from a university was Andrew Barker from Liverpool University Library working with the director of the university press Anthony Cond – the recent recipient of a number of awards. Their plans exemplified the concept of collaboration. Andrew pointed out that Anthony and he both saw the relationship of librarian and publisher as analogous to that of a dog and a lamppost. He suspected that each of them saw the other as the lamppost. They both put in for “the institution as e-book creator” RFP from Jisc and won two slots. Andrew was excited by the project and one of the books (history resources) was clearly something that had to be locally produced because it was the resources of the Liverpool library that were being incorporated. However a publisher might wonder (as a CUP staff member did) whether it was in fact cheaper to create a new book than do a deal over an old one. The jury is still out on that point.

For decades Jisc has been trying to find a sustainable model which envisages educational resources produced in one university being of any interest at all in other universities. Heron gradually led to Jorum and there was still the same hype and little take-up.

Commercial publishers had been invited to discuss more collaborative publishing initiatives. However, Springer offering e-books to be incorporated into MOOCs and Sage developing an interesting video series seemed to be niche products. Pearson, meanwhile, fielded a speaker from their Personalised Learning team. It did became clear from the discussion as much as from the presentations that after years of experimenting the big players are actually listening to the medical student and his friends and producing all singing and all dancing services, but at a cost. It was not obvious either whether what is available so far is always appropriate for the UK educational system that is so different from the US.

The two final presentations provided context and perhaps should have come earlier in the programme. Professor David Nicholas (who headed up the Jisc e-textbook experiment of some time ago) argued that librarians and publishers alike are not really engaging with the Google generation who are in bed with their smartphones. He thinks it is a step change in the learning process.

University teaching and learning are decoupled from real life. The students come to college trusting what they find through their mobile links to the world and have no thought for the library.

But are we in the business of converting the students with this background to real learning which needs concentration and thinking? Dr Frances Pinter, whose Knowledge Unlatched programme for e-books has been such a success, had clearly thought a lot about knowledge infrastructure. I would like to read her presentation. Some of the most important presentations need to be read and this was one of them. In particular she made some wise remarks about how the provision of teaching objects in higher education should be costed out properly.

Reading my notes I realise what a lot was provided for us in this seminar but it did end with a lot of questions. Is that a good thing? It is good that there are lots of models and a lot of those not really mentioned come from and are operating in the States."

Anthony Watkinson is principal consultant to CIBER which he helped to found in 2002 and is author of a number of publications in information science, He is a consultant to the Publishers Association, organises seminars for the STM, teaches at UCL and is a Director and Plenary Chair of the Charleston conference.

Tuesday, 16 June 2015

The goals of expanding and improved learning

Frances Pinter on knowledge infrastructures
Changes in the knowledge infrastructures taking place in the academic ecosystem itself will have a profound effect on how learning objects for personalised learning develop in the future. How are publishers, large and small, coming to grips with this.

Frances Pinter, from Manchester University Press and Knowledge Unlatched, provided a concluding overview of aspects of the changing environment and what it means for publishing at the Personalised Learning and Publishing Partnerships seminar.

Knowledge infrastructures are an ecology of people, places and spaces in a discipline. The first iteration was in silos: humanities, social sciences and STEM operating in isolation. The second knowledge infrastructure phase is a Venn diagram of overlapping disciplines.

What are the changing features of these knowledge infrastructures? The borders of tacit knowledge and common ground are shifting. We used to use a lot of face to face contact, but now, that has changed. The complexities of sharing data across disciplines and domains are challenging, but increasingly interesting. There are new norms of what 'knowledge' is. The speed of change of is speeding up.

Selecting and analysing data has changed. In the humanities especially. Think about archaeology. You used to have go and dig to experience it. Now it is catalogued and experienced digitally. We're having to develop different methodologies to deal with the vast datasets that social media provides.

The control of dissemination is changing. Libraries have a much more central yet threatened role in helping with this. What about perpetual preservation, data protection, etc. There are still plenty of issues we haven't come to term with.

How can we reflect on all of this to enable personalised learning? What are the tools that passive recipients we have talked about will engage with and how can we get them to co-create? It's about a change in scholars and scholarship.

Pinter's colleague attended a recent conference in the US. They reported there's a lot of anxiety about careers, but actually a lot of recruitment in the field of digital scholarship. There's also the rise of the 'Alt-Ac' those who just want to research and aren't interested in tenure. Collaboration and interdisciplinarity are encouraged.

What do academics think is needed? A workshop at the Sloan Foundation found that they want to create and nourish mechanisms for large-scale, longer-term research with interdisciplinary collaborations across disciplines. They also want to develop analysis techniques.

What can publishers do? Be clear about the value of your brand. Co-create new forms, collaborate and take models from elsewhere for inspiration. Pinter cites the example of the Natural History Museum. they needed extra space for all their exhibits. their solution? Move the famous 'Dippy' dinosaur in the main hall and take him on tour, hang a whale from the ceiling for added interest and add in the additional exhibits below.

Publishers need to experiment with new business models and bring people with different skills into publishing (a work in progress). They also need to improve discoverability and interoperability as well as foster open access for books. Publishers need to sharpen how they see the future. Open access may be part of the solution.

The new business models that are emerging out of the push for open access do hold promise, particularly for books. Pinter's recommended reading is the Crossick Report. You can't hinder the development of one part of academia simply because academics prefer to work with long form content. The writing of the monograph has an important role to play in the development of knowledge.

Pinter's conclusions from the seminar are:

  • Although the Ebook Observatory report showed no impact on sales, does that still hold true today?
  • Technical changes are there, but the business models aren't
  • The idea of dropping prices to gain market share doesn't take into account the cost of development
  • The Jisc e-textbook projects are fascinating, but not yet costed. They are about seeing if it can work, not if it has a sustainable model (yet, we're in transition...)
  • Many of the big projects large publishers are developing are likely to be funded from the profits of the existing products so they are unlikely to disband the old model when the new ones are still so experimental
  • Digital is making some very fundamental changes to how students learn.