Changing landscape of the publishing world - NUS Singapore 2015

Martijn Roelandse PhD
Manager Publishing Innovation
August 2015
The Changing Landscape of
the Publishing World

Changing Landscape | NUS | 2
2000 - 2003

2003 - 2008

2008 - 2010

2010
-
2014

Challenges in the publishing industry

https://innoscholcomm.silk.co/

• Pressure on Reviewers
• Open Access
• Author Focus
• The Measurement of "Quality"
• Bookmetrix
• Big Data
Outline

What doesn’t change:
Scientific research is
growing fast …
… but the
center of gravity is moving
East!

0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
Thousands
Organic growth of article output
CAGR 5%
Source: Thomson Reuters JCR; Organic growth: growth from existing journals and new journal launches
• Small annual growth in
North America and
Europe
• Double digit annual
growth in Asia

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
# Articles 156,483 165,537 176,975 191,263 201,119
Rejection rate 59% 61% 64% 66% 68%
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
# Articles and rejection rates in
Springer’s subscription journals
As the number of submissions grows even faster, the rejection rate
also increases
• Number of articles:
+6% pa
• Number of submissions:
+18% pa
→ Rejection rate:
from 59% to 68%!

400,000+

Adrian Mulligan, Research Director Elsevier: The Peer Review Landscape – What do Researchers think?, Nov 2013

Reviews and articles by country
Adrian Mulligan, Research Director Elsevier: The Peer Review Landscape – What do Researchers think?, Nov 2013

New forms of peer reviewing
• ‘Scientific soundness‘
— Manuscripts are getting accepted when they are technically sound and not
whether the editors/reviewers think they are important
• Open peer review
— Reviewers‘ names and/or their reports are published together with the article
• Interactive peer review
— Frontiers: editor checks manuscripts for scientific soundness → then editor
facilitates interactive discussion between author and reviewers
• Post publication peer review
— F1000 Research: all submitted research articles are published (after a quick
internal check for obvious inappropriateness) → peer review is conducted after
publication → after positive reviews articles get indexed

Open Peer Review vs Post Publication Peer Review

Springer currently supports three possible manuscript transfers:
• Peerage of Science submits manuscript & peer review files
• Manuscript rejected in journal X,
Transfer Desk finds next journal to transfer desk
• Transfer Desk as pre-submission enquiry
Transfers
Manuscript
Manuscript

Open Access is growing
fast …
… but subscription
journals grow, too!

Open Access Publishing, then and now…
2000 2014
And many more…

Open Access market share
Subscription
Journals
87%
"Full" OA Journals:
APC
8%
"Full" OA Journals:
Non-APC
3%
OA Articles in
Hybrid Journals
2%
Source: Web of Science; English language articles published in 2013,: N=1,346,405
# Articles in the Web of Science 2013
• OA has been
increasing by 30% pa
• Now comprising 13%
of the market

OA not the main decision criterion when selecting a journal
How important are the following factors for you when
deciding to submit a manuscript to a particular journal?
Top 1 Box (very important; in percent)
62%
58%
57%
53%
51%
50%
49%
49%
42%
40%
35%
31%
17%
11%
Journal's reputation
Quality of journal's papers
Quality of peer review
International scope
Speed of publication
Impact Factor
Electronic submission…
Coverage by major A&I…
Readership
Advanced online publication
Editors / editorial board
Prior experience
Design / layout
Open Access
Top Reasons why manuscript was submitted (authors are
asked to mention the three most important reasons)
28%
12%
8%
8%
7%
Journal scope
Journal reputation/profile
Fast peer review
Good prior experience
Open Access
Springer Author Satisfaction Survey BMC Author Satisfaction Survey

AuthorexperienceOther
Journal
appropriateness
Very Important
Quite important
Key
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Journal Reputation
Relevance to discipline
Impact Factor
Quality of Peer Review
Speed to acceptance
Rejection rate
Editor experience
Speed to publication
OA Fees
OA availability
Funder requirements
How do authors choose the journals they publish in?
Importance of factors affecting decision of author on which journal to submit research to
Source: NPG Author Tracker Survey 2013
There is belief that factors
related to author experience
will come to play a greater
role than those related to the
appropriateness of the
journal.
The move to Gold Open
Access publishing makes the
author the customer, placing
greater stress on customer
experience.
In addition, moves to
megajournals and alternative
publishing models than the
standard article may see
journals related factors
decrease in importance.
It is interesting that the
survey does not yet ask
about post-publication
factors or publication
enhancements beyond OA

So why do authors publish Gold OA?
Quality OA Journals
• Many full OA
journals with good
Impact Factors
Gold OA Mandates
• Publishers of strong
‘hybrid’ journals
benefit the most
Fast publication after
rejection
• ‘Mega journals’ with
high acceptance
rates: ‘cascading’
and ‘sound science’
‘Career-profiling‘ for
emerging markets
• Taking advantage of
huge pressure in
these countries to
publish in Impact
Factor journals
Efficient and inno-
vative peer review
• New, more efficient
forms of peer review
process appreciated
by authors
Quality Service
0 5 10 15
EMBO
Molecular…
Theranostics
PLOS Pathogens
Nucleic Acids
Research
PLOS Genetics
Particle and
Fibre Toxicology
Genome Biology
Molecular
Systems Biology
PLOS Biology
PLOS Medicine
2012 IF
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
PLOS One # Articles
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Hindawi # Articles
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Frontiers # Articles
Wellcome Trust 2013
Publisher %
Spending
Elsevier 26%
Wiley 14%
PLOS 9%
OUP 8%
Nature 6%
Springer 5%
BMC 3%
Total 100%

The Impact Factor of journals converting from subscription to OA
http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2014/11/IF_trend_transferjournals_BMC.pdf

Recent enhancements offered by born-digital publishers
Born-digital publisher developments
• Article Level metrics - open source allowing other publishers to implement
• F1000Prime recommended’ badges on articles
• Data plotting tool – allows readers and referees to analyse data published
with articles
• Unlimited submissions to PeerJ PrePrints
• Single file submission option, with embedded images/tables in a single PDF
• elife lens - Allows exploration of figures, descriptions, references and more
during reading of articles
• eLife short reports -manuscripts describing important breakthroughs in 1,500
words or fewer

Country # OA APC Articles
2013
In % of all Articles # OA APC Articles
Change 2013/12
USA 27,774 7% 22%
China 23,860 11% 57%
UK 9,665 9% 30%
Germany 8,821 10% 27%
Japan 7,483 10% 24%
France 5,380 8% 23%
Canada 5,314 9% 32%
South Korea 4,995 10% 28%
Italy 4,819 8% 33%
Australia 4,719 9% 33%
Spain 4,036 8% 21%
Netherlands 3,642 10% 23%
Taiwan 3,303 12% 38%
Brazil 3,217 10% 25%
India 3,043 6% 30%
Open Access Uptake 2012-13 (APC Journals Only)
Source: Web of Science; English language articles published in 2013 and 2012, at least one author from that country

SANDER DEKKER
State Secretary Of Education
The Netherlands
“For me, the Green Road [Open Access] is like coming fourth in
a major championship. A great achievement, without doubt,
but if you are going for gold, fourth place is the most
frustrating place you can achieve. Ultimately, it is only the
winner that everyone remembers.”
Academic Publishing in Europe Conference, Berlin 2014

2004 we offered authors a choice —
Springer Open Choice.
Set in motion ten years of Author Services
growth.
Any tool, service or communication that
supports the author and enhances the
overall author experience.
We launch, acquire or partner to deliver
these services.
Ten Years and Counting: A Timeline for Authors

Ten Years and Counting: A Timeline for Authors

Plan
Experiment
Collect &
analyse
data
Write
manuscript
Select
journal
Submit
manuscript
Checks &
verifications
Peer
review
Accept
Production
Publication
Assess
impact
Reject
(unsound
science)
Reject
(sound science)
Researcher Workflow

https://innoscholcomm.silk.co/

The need of authors
Main motivations for publishing remain unchanged: furthering the author’s career and
gaining access to additional funding for future research
Therefore, brands are still key (journals = journal brand; books = publisher brand)
But authors become more demanding:
—Are now buyers (in Open Access)
—Want fast and efficient publishing process
—Demand better author experience and services

Springer‘s Services for Journal/Book Authors
General services
At the author‘s choice: Subscription based and open access journals, OpenChoice articles
springer.com/authors – Author helpdesk, FAQ and further informational pages
academy.springer.com – Author Academy: interactive training courses
Customer service Author Helpdesk team
(Pre-)submission
Springer Journal Selector – Type in abstract/keywords and find appropriate journals
Online submission from the journal's homepage
ORCID can be included in Springer's article submissions systems
FundRef – include your funding organization when submitting your article
After acceptance
MySpringer account registration (automated)
•incl. Table-of-Contents Alert registration (opt-out service)
•incl. author discount (33.3% on Springer eBooks and print books)
Single-sign-on (for accounts on springer.com and link.springer.com)

Springer‘s Services for Journal/Book Authors
During production
Article & Book Tracking – Monitor the production progress online (plus optional email alerts)
e.Proofing – Easily edit proofs online
Online First email / Homepage for your book
incl. free eOffprint (Online First) / free access to eBook
Email alert when article assigned to issue
incl. free eOffprint (final version)
Article poster and print offprints (paid printed services)
Post-publication
Author satisfaction survey – All corresponding authors are asked for their feedback
Citation Alert – Email alert listing the citing articles; incl. a link to those articles; not restricted to
Springer journals (based on CrossRef.org)
Annual Book Performance Report – number of chapter downloads per calendar year, number of
book homepage visits, excerpts of book reviews, marketing campaigns, …

Embedded video

Semantics
.. contributed by Markus Kaindl (PDM)

Semantics ... more concrete  InfoChem, Unsilo, LOD Conference
Data

• 7 of the top 10 countries with the highest article output do not have English as
their first language
• If you don’t have English as your first language then the process of writing and
getting manuscripts accepted can be a long and arduous process
• Based on our experience working with Edanz, we know that using a language
service can improve the chances of getting the manuscript accepted
Language services

e.Proofing

Annual Book Performance Report
eBook usage
Homepage usage
Availability of MyCopy,
Kindle version, online review
copy, examination copy,…
Emailing campaigns for book
Excerpts from book reviews
News from Springer
Social media profiles and
web resources for authors

New Identifiers

ORCID
ORCID provides a persistent
digital identifier that distinguishes
an author from every other
researcher and, through
integration in key research
workflows such as manuscript
and grant submission, supports
automated linkages between
authors and their professional
activities.

FundRef and CrossMark

Tracking Impact: Citation Alerts

Tracking Impact: Alternative Metrics

The measurement
of ‘quality’

- Launched June 2006
- Biology and Medicine
- Rejection rate: 15%
- Jan 2012: Article 30.000 published
- 2010 Impact Factor: 4.351
The rise of the mega-journals
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
#Articles

The rise of multi-authored publications

Which article made a bigger impact?
 Article published in a top-tier journal with ‘0’ citations after 2 years
 Article published in a lower impact journal with tens of citations

• Article with many citations
• Article widely discussed in the social web
• Article with lots of downloads
• Article discussed on CNN
Which article made a bigger impact?

• Usage or downloads (COUNTER stats)
• Scholarly citations (CrossRef, GoogleScholar, Scopus)
• Non-scholarly citations:
Policy documents
Blogs
Wikipedia
News
Social media: Twitter, Weibo, Facebook, Google+,
Pinterest, Reddit
• Reads on Online Reference Managers:
Mendeley, CiteYouLike
•Other sources:
 YouTube, Reviews in F1000, PubPeer..
Definition of key terms
Altmetrics
Article-Level
Metrics

• Usage and citations tell story about academic performance of article
• However, the metrics do not give insight into wider societal impact:
 Are policy makers citing and acting on the research?
 Is the media discussing the research?
 Is the public/academia discussing research on social media?
 And further, what is the size, speed, and demographic nature, of this
societal response to research?
• The new altmetric data begins to answer these questions
• And therefore provides the „missing piece“ of the impact puzzle
Altmetrics = the missing piece of impact puzzle

External forces are driving change
54
Changed Research Evaluation in:
• UK
• Netherlands
• Australia

Article-level metrics (ALMs, altmetrics or alternative metrics) refer to a whole range of
measures which might provide insight into ‘impact’ or ‘reach’ of an individual article.
In contrast, the Impact Factor measures citations at a journal level. Collectively, ALMs
aim to measure research impact in a transparent and comprehensive manner beyond
citations and usage.
New metrics are needed for scholars to filter those articles most relevant for their
work. In addition, ALMs provide new benchmarks for employers and funders to better
judge scholarly performance.
Research dissemination channels are changing rapidly
Article
Usage
Scholarly
Citation
Non-scholarly
Citation
Blogs
Patents
Social
Media
News
Policy documents
“The Wellcome Trust OA Policy (…) affirms the principle
that it is the intrinsic merit of the work, and not the title of
the journal in which the author’s work is published, that
should be considered in making funding decisions.”
“There is a pressing need to improve the ways in which the
output of scientific research is evaluated by funding
agencies, academic institutions, and other parties.”
San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment

unique articles are
shared each week.
Online mentions of
scholarly articles
every day.
1 mention every 2.5 seconds! >2M articles with tracked
attention data.
Source: Altmetric internal data, 2014
338
150,029
340 17 238 122 394
5,073
3,127
17
6,448
11,385
-
3,000
6,000
9,000
12,000
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000

felt the metrics
were useful
agreed or strongly agreed
that altmetrics enhanced
the value of the journal
article
agreed they were
more likely to submit
a paper to a journal
that supports
altmetrics
Source: Web poll from Wiley’s alternative metrics pilot, 2014
http://exchanges.wiley.com/blog/2014/03/19/wiley-introduces-altmetrics-to-its-open-access-journals/
65% 77% 50%
Article authors like it

Librarians
 I want to help researchers track the
attention paid to their articles.
 I want to add value to my institutional
repository.
Research administrators
 I want to monitor & report on uptake, usage,
and impact of publications by department.
 I want to comply with funder and
governmental mandates.
Communications / PR team
 I want to share our institution’s
success stories.
 I want to maximise the reach of our
institution’s research.
Researchers
 I want to find indicators of impact for
my CV and funding applications.
 I want to make informed decisions on
future publishing choices.
As do institutional users

Article level metrics at Springer
• ‘Translating’ article level metrics data into
attractive promotional messages
• Highlighting the top shared, cited, downloaded
articles of key journals
• Highlights:
• NeuroStars
• Week of Citations

NeuroStars
Now available: Quarterly NeuroStars
 A permanent website on springer.com
presenting the top shared articles in
Neuroscience from Springer and BioMed
Central – updated on a quarterly basis
http://www.springer.com/neurostars
• The first ALM driven promotional campaign from
Springer, launched December 2012
• Campaign duration 2014: March 10-16, in time for
the Brain Awareness Week (jointly with BioMed
Central)
• Article selection: Top 15 shared, top cited, top
downloaded articles from all journals in the field

“HOW MANY CITATIONS DO YOU HAVE?”
An often heard question in the academic realm:
That depends on the platform! Let’s have a look…

chapter
journal
book
article
-level metrics
-level metrics
-level metrics
data-level metrics
person-level metrics
Going forward…
-level metrics
…-level metrics

Journal-level metrics

Person-level metrics

Bookmetrix
To provide readers, authors, institutions and publishers, who are interested in
the performance of a certain book, with information on citations, downloads,
book reviews and altmetrics for comparison.

Book & chapter level metrics
New metrics dashboard

The dashboard for books
Data Sources

Click and the metrics take you here!

Example of mentions in social media

Example of Mendeley readers and demographics
Click here to go to Mendeley for
number of readers per chapter

Social media sources (tracked since 2011)
• Mainstream media
Over 1000 outlets, see Altmetric.com for full list
• Blogs
Manual list of over 8000 academic and non-academic blogs
• Policy documents
Mainly English language but increasingly international
• Online Reference Managers
Mendeley and Cite You Like
• Post Publication: PubPeer, Publons
• Social Media:
Twitter, Facebook, Google+, Pinterest, Reddit, Sina-Weibo,
• Other Sources
Wikipedia, Reviews in F1000, YouTube, etc.

Mentions
SpringerLink – article metrics dashboard
Citations

Linkout to article details page on citations.springer.com

Social media authors
or unique sources
Linkout to article details page on Altmetric.com

• SpringerLink shows the raw data or total number of mentions, 574 mentions
• Altmetric.com shows the total number of „unique sources“, 486 sources
• Altmetric.com shows weighted score, 379 (only for articles, not for chapters!)
A note on all the numbers

• Using a scoreboard, each „mentioned by“ source is assigned points
• Blogs, Google+, Facebook sources: straightforward point conversion
• News and Twitter, Score modifiers:
 News: 1-10 points, depending one of four tiers
 Twitter: Re-tweets/re-posts = 0.85 points rather than 1 point
 Also, profile of tweeter is analyzed for reach, promiscuity, bias
• All points are added up for the final Altmetric Score
• Mendeley and CiteYouLike readers are excluded from the calculation
Altmetric scoreboard and modifiers
10

• Each day, Altmetric tracks 44 000 new mentions
• Each week, 50 000 unique articles are shared
• So far, nearly 4 million articles and DOIs have been mentioned
• Mentions range in complexity, from quick shares to reviews
The rise of altmetric data

1. Altmetric data measures attention and not quality
2. Altmetric data measures public attention and not private attention
3. There are different types of data
4. Scores are not normalized and do not reflect norms within subject areas
5. Look beyond the numbers for a story of impact
6. Correlation studies:
 low correlation between altmetric attention & citations
 moderate correlation between altmetric attention & downloads
7. Things to remember!
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
0
500
1000
1500
0 100200300400500600700800
Total…

Publisher interface - chapters

0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Total number of citations
Total number of online mentions
Total number of Mendeley readers
Total number of downloads
Correlation analysis

Bookmetrix for benchmarking
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
1901 1911 1921 1931 1941 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011
Average Mendeley readers (L)
Average citations (L)
Average online mentions (R)
Average reviews (R)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0 1 5 10 50 100 500 More
Citations
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0 10 100 1000 10000 100000 More
Downloads

What’s next?
00001100010010101010
10101001010101100101
01000101010010101010
10101010101010101010
01100101010101010101
01010111111001010101
01010101000011111111
DOI
Dataset
?

Data publishing:
The new kid on the
block.

• Funders, policy makers and journals increasingly demand data sharing
• Currently, approx. half of all researchers share data
— 67% of them as supplementary material in a journal
— Data repositories have lower adoption rates (institutional data repositories:
26%, discipline-specific: 19%, general-purpose: 6%)
• But many researchers have issues with confidentially, originality, as well as
misinterpretation and misuse
Data sharing trends

• Strong encouragement to authors
of all journals to provide underlying
datasets and required on a select
number (eg. Genome Biology,
Genome Medicine, GigaScience)
• CC0 + CC-BY 4.0 by default
In the works…
• Interactive tabular data
• DOIs for all additional files
• Searchability of additional files
• Data Citation clearly tagged in XML
to aid harvesting
e.g. Data Citation Index
Data reuse @BioMedCentral
• Availability of Data section and
Data Citation
• Encourage use of ISA-TAB
(especially GigaScience and
BMC Research Notes)

Journal, data-platform and database for large-
scale data
In conjunction with

Linking and Citation

Strong interest from potential partners

Key technologies

PartnersTechnologies
Journal
Article++

• Publishers have role in enforcement of community standards
• Public/academic databases can provide credible long term archiving for
key data with a focus on curation and metadata standards
• Academic grid computing infrastructure can provide access for researchers
to large-scale computing resource
• Commercial cloud providers universalize/democratize access to large-scale
computing. Even if you are not at an institution with its own facilities, you
can carry out high-end computations. No bureaucracy/politics – simply pay
per CPU-hour.
Complementary roles of publishers, academia, and cloud providers

• www.altmetricsconference.com
• 7-8 October 2015
• Amsterdam Science Park
• Keynote talk by Simon Singh
• Live stream!
• Supported by:

Questions? Get in touch!
Manager Publishing Innovation – Dordrecht
Tel: +31 78 6576715
Email: martijn.roelandse@springer.com
Twitter: @mathein
LinkedIn: http://nl.linkedin.com/in/martijnroelandse
Google+: http://gotoplus.me/MartijnRoelandse
Skype: martijnroelandse
About.me: http://about.me/MartijnRoelandse

Changing landscape of the publishing world - NUS Singapore 2015

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (8)

Similar to Changing landscape of the publishing world - NUS Singapore 2015

Similar to Changing landscape of the publishing world - NUS Singapore 2015 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Changing landscape of the publishing world - NUS Singapore 2015

Editor's Notes