With so many changes affecting scholarly publishing, how can new and experienced authors ensure their research is captured by quality journals in a highly discoverable and accessible way? The publishing team at SGM organised the Future of Publishing session at SGM’s 2014 conference in order to explore these questions. To share some of the knowledge that was imparted and the debates that arose from the session, we have outlined the structure of the event below and have created a Storify board, including the Twitter activity which can be found here: storify.com/PublishingSGM/future-of-publishing-2014 The current Chair of SGM’s Publishing Committee, Colin Harwood, chaired the session and opened by introducing the panel. Aharon Oheren kicked off the presentations with an introduction to current practices in journal publishing. He described the role of the editor and what happens to your paper after it is submitted, suggested what authors should consider before submitting their paper and discussed different models of peer review, both old and new. He also advised authors on how to handle rejection and the best way to deal with negative reviews. Paul Hoskisson then explored some of the new methods for communicating research, including social media, as well as new journal models including open access and mega journals. He also considered how altmetrics could be used to measure the impact of science over current methods. He finished by encouraging the audience to take opportunities to influence change in academic publishing. Leighton Chipperfield then rounded off the presentations by providing a brief summary of innovation in publishing at SGM, including the recent addition of ORCID IDs (have you got yours?). He also explored how semantics are making material more dicoverable and how, as publishers, we’re moving away from traditional publishing models to truly managing knowledge. The discussion was followed by a Q&A with the whole panel. Session Co-ordinators: Parita Patel, Product Manager (p.patel@sgm.ac.uk) and Sally Hawkins, Digital Projects Administrator (s.hawkins@sgm.ac.uk) Session hashtag: #SGMFoP

1. FUTURE OF PUBLISHING
ACC Liverpool, Room 12, Tuesday 15 April, 17.35–18.30
Panel:
Aharon Oren, Editor-in-Chief of International Journal of Systematic and
Evolutionary Microbiology
Paul Hoskisson, Chair of the SGM Communications Committee
Jodi Lindsay, Editor for Microbiology
Gavin Thomas, member of SGM Communications Committee and Editor for
Microbiology
Leighton Chipperfield, Head of Publishing at SGM
Event Chair: Colin Harwood, Chair of the SGM Publishing Committee
Follow live tweets from the session and join the discussion using the hashtag
#SGMFoP

2. THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS
Aharon Oren
Editor-in-Chief, International Journal of
Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology
Professor of Microbial Ecology, Department
of Plant and Environmental Sciences, The
Institute of Life Sciences, the Hebrew
University of Jerusalem, Israel

3. The two goals of any editor:
1. To help the authors to get their work published
2. To maintain (an if possible, improve) the quality of
the journal

4. • Why should you publish?
(there can be little doubt here !)
• Where should you publish?
Not an easy question – some important points for
consideration:
- Impact factor
- Readership
- General – specialized journal
- Open access

5. Author
prepares
manuscript
(Read the instructions!!)
Editorial office
– first check;
selects editor
Editor checks
the paper
Paper is checked
by two or more
reviewers
Acceptance
Revision
To production
staff

6. • Single-blind : Reviewers’ names are hidden from
the authors (the traditional method, by far the
most common type).
• Double blind : The identities of the authors are
concealed from the reviewers and vice versa.
• Open : The author and reviewer are made known
to each other. This model promotes open, honest
reviewing; however, open review may leads to
reviewers withholding criticism for fear of
damaging their reputation within the community.
Peer review models

7. An example of ‘open peer review’:

8. • Post-publication peer review: Papers are reviewed after
online publication, reviewers’ comments and decisions and
revised manuscripts are published alongside the article.
E.g. F1000Research papers are submitted, go through an in-
house pre-publication check for ‘suitability, quality, readability,
and for any ethical concerns’, then published online within days
of being submitted. Papers are then open to being reviewed by
anyone - anonymous or not.
• Portable peer review: A model allowing the transfer of reviews
from one journal to another when a paper is rejected in the first
– usually to a related journal or journals within the same
publisher.
New models of peer review

9. Author
prepares
manuscript
(Read the instructions!!)
Editorial office
– first check;
selects editor
Editor checks
the paper
Paper is checked
by two or more
reviewers
Acceptance
Revision
To production
staff
Editor makes
decision
Rejection

11. Author
prepares
manuscript
(Read the instructions!!)
Editorial office
– first check;
selects editor
Editor checks
the paper
Paper is checked
by two or more
reviewers
Acceptance
Revision
To production
staff
Editor makes
decision
Rejection
Revision

12. How NOT to deal with editors
From an e-mail exchange with the authors of a rejected paper – March 2013:
…
…

13. Author
prepares
manuscript
(Read the instructions!!)
Editorial office
– first check;
selects editor
Editor checks
the paper
Paper is checked
by two or more
reviewers
Acceptance
Editor makes
decision
Rejection
Revision
Acceptance
To production
staff

14. THE EVOLUTION OF ACADEMIC
PUBLISHING
http://phylonetworks.blogspot.co.uk
Paul A. Hoskisson
Strathclyde Institute of Pharmacy
and Biomedical Sciences, University
of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
Email: paul.hoskisson@strath.ac.uk
Twitter: @Paulhoskisson

15. Is your finger on the pulse?
Traditional ‘hard copy’
journal article

16. Is your finger on the pulse?
Traditional ‘hard copy’
journal article

17. The conversation is everywhere…
• Traditional journals have been around for a long time – Phil.
Trans. Royal Soc. 1664
• Late 1990s – Online availability
• Early 2000s – Online submission & Publication
– Online only journals, Open Access..
• Subscription & Author pays, Author pays
• Late 2000s – Smart phones, Tablets and Apps
• Rise of Twitter, Facebook, blogs etc
• 2014 and beyond - ???
– Post-REF 2014

18. Multi-platforms – same content
• People read papers in different ways

19. Multi-platforms – same content
• People read papers in different ways

20. Multi-platforms – same content
• People read papers in different ways

21. Mega-Journals

22. Flexible formats…
• People no longer only ‘talk’ about science in the coffee
room or at conferences….
• Pre-prints – arxiv.org, BioRxiv, Nature Precedings, PeerJ
• Post-publication review
– Formal – PLoS, PeerJ
– Informal – Trial by Twitter - #Arseniclife
– Twitter Journal Clubs
• Blog about your research, or if you’re lucky somebody else
might

23. Measuring research outputs –
publication driven!
• Citations
• What else?

24. Measuring research outputs
• Citations
• What else?

25. Measuring research outputs
• Citations
• What else?

26. Where next?
• Predicting the future is difficult

27. Where next?
• Predicting the future is difficult
• Funders need to accept new metrics over IF and
traditional citations
• A good paper is a good paper…
– Article level metrics will become more important
– Web 2.0, Semantic Web
– Open Access, Open Data – JMM Case Reports, PLoS,
PeerJ, Nature Scientific Data, Figshare

28. • We as scientists have the chance to drive the
evolution of publishing and make it work for
us!
• We need to be brave!
• Impact can be more than citations – JMM
Case Reports

29. Final thought…
“I know you have published over 100
articles, but my question was ‘Have
you ever made a contribution to the
literature?’”

30. A PUBLISHER PERSPECTIVE
Leighton Chipperfield
Head of Publishing, SGM
@leightonc
l.chipperfield@sgm.ac.uk

31. Where are we today?
• Digital processes
• Open Access options
• Online and print publication
• Impact Factors as key metric
• Truly global community of
authors & readers
Source: http://onebigphoto.com

32. Where are we going?
Source: universetoday.com
Source:
http://www.business2community.com/trend
s-news/attend-the-web-3-0-conference-
042658

33. Data
• ORCID IDs – have
you got yours?
• Data repositories
• DOIs for data
Source: blogs.bmj.com

34. Semantic publishing: what’s in it for me?
• Deeper search as a reader
• Increased discoverability as an author
Source: http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pcbi.1000361

35. Access
• SGM supports sustainable open access
• All papers freely available 12 months after
publication (24 months for IJSEM)
• – free access for UK taxpayers
• – access for developing countries
• – Preprint server policy in
development

36. Communicating research, measuring
impact
• Linking with social media tools to promote &
share your work
• Linking with reference management tools
• AltMetrics
Source: altmetric.com
Source: colwiz.com

37. Impact: a new view?
Source: altmetric.com

38. We are moving from publishing to
truly managing knowledge.

39. Q & A