7Th Annual North American Conference

7th Annual North American Conference

August 14-15, 2014 Hyatt Regency Philadelphia at Penn’s Landing www.ISMTE.org Table of Contents

Program Agenda ...... 4 Sponsor Information ...... 7 ISMTE Leadership ...... 9 Speakers ...... 14 Poster Abstracts ...... 20 Keynote: State of the Art and Profession: An Editorial Office Update ...... 25 Breakout Session A: Handling Appeals: Challenges and Best Practices ...... 30 Breakout Session B: For All the Tea in China: A primer of the publication landscape in China - 34 the good, the bad, and the ugly ...... Breakout Session C: Large or Small: EIC Transition is a Big Deal for Journals of Any Size...... 45 Panel Discussion: Journals in Transition: Making Informed Decisions ...... 52 General Session: Reporting on Science in The Media: An Interactive Q&A with Robert Bazell ...... 73 Breakout Session A: How to Conduct Research for Editorial Office Professionals ...... 74 Breakout Session B: Working with the Production Office: What they need and how this affects 115 the editorial office ...... Breakout Session C: Navigating Policy: Mandates and new initiatives ...... 124 Poster Session: ...... 125 Speed Networking: ...... 126 Breakout Session A: Excel Workshop: Preparing annual editorial reports ...... 127 Breakout Session B: Becoming a freelance editorial office professional ...... 128 Breakout Session C: Publishing 101: What we wish we’d known, and how to find out more ...... 136 Breakout Session B: ScholarOne Manuscripts (Vendor Session) ...... 137 Breakout Session C: Editorial Manager (Vendor Session) ...... 148 More Than Just Metrics: PRE-val and Social Cite ...... 154

ISMTE Members Are:  connected to a network of peers, publishers, vendors, potential clients and employers  learning from the experience of other members  training and mentoring others  involved at the ground level of a growing organization

Our Mission The mission of ISMTE is to connect the community of professionals committed to the peer review and publication of academic and professional journals. ISMTE provides peer-to-peer networking, education and training, research, and resources for best practices and development of journal policy.

About Us ISMTE launched in 2008, and has since experienced a rapid growth in membership. ISMTE fills an underserved niche: the editorial office, within the academic, scientific, medical, technical and professional publishing industry.

ISMTE was established to enhance the professionalism of editorial office staff by providing networking and training, studying and reporting on editorial office functions, and establishing best practices. ISMTE intends to become an advocate on all issues relating to editorial office operations.

The Best Reason to Join The monthly ISMTE newsletter, Editorial Office News (EON), will come directly to your e-mail with an update from the ISMTE office. You'll also have immediate access to the fully searchable EON archive, Get Connected! featuring informative articles and columns on editorial roles and best practices. Search Facebook for Members-Only Training & Resources ISMTE Immediate access to members-only content, including comprehensive, multimedia training modules providing practical information for immediate application. Search LinkedIn Groups Exclusive Discounts for ISMTE  Discounted member registration for ISMTE conferences and webinars.  ScholarOne: 25% registration discount applied to ScholarOne Manuscripts User Conferences and ScholarOne University. Follow us on Twitter  Aries Systems: $50 registration discount @ISMTE applied to Editorial Manager User Group Meetings.  Wiley: 20% discount on the wide range of titles available at Wiley.com.

Join today! Please visit www.ismte.org to learn more.

Thursday, August 14, 2014 8:00am - 9:00am Registration and Breakfast Columbus Foyer

8:30am - 8:45am Opening Remarks Columbus Ballroom

8:45am - 9:00am ISMTE Update Columbus Ballroom

9:00am - 10:30am Keynote: State of the Art and Profession: An Editorial Office Update Kent R. Anderson, CEO/Publisher, STRIATUS/JBJS, Inc. Matt Giampoala, Executive Journals Editor, Wiley Jason Roberts, PhD, Senior Partner, Origin Editorial Columbus Ballroom

10:30am - 11:00am Coffee Break Columbus Foyer

11:00am - 12:00pm Breakouts Session A: Handling Appeals: Challenges and Best Practices George Woodward, Publisher, Elsevier Columbus Ballroom A Session B: For All the Tea in China: A primer of the publication landscape in China - the good, the bad, and the ugly Jing Duan, PhD, Managing Editor, Ecosystem Health and Sustainability, Acta Ecologica Sinica (International Journal), Ecological Society of China Donald Samulack, PhD, President, US Operations, Editage / Cactus Communications Sue Silver, PhD, Editor-in-Chief, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, Ecological Society of America Columbus Ballroom B Session C: Large or Small: EIC Transition is a Big Deal for Journals of Any Size Sarah Bidgood, Peer Review Manager, Applied Physics Letters Glenn Collins, Director of Business Development/Managing Editor, Origin Editorial Erin Dubnansky, Vice President of Publications, American Gastroenterological Association Columbus Ballroom C

12:00pm - 1:00pm Lunch Keating’s Restaurant

1:00pm - 2:30pm Panel Discussion: Journals in Transition: Making Informed Decisions Shawn H. Morton, US Journals Publishing Director, Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons Kerry O’Rourke, Senior Managing Editor, KWF Editorial Services Margot Puerta, MBA, Executive Editor, Molecular Medicine and Bioelectronic Medicine Columbus Ballroom 2:30pm - 3:00pm Coffee Break Columbus Ballroom

3:00pm - 4:00pm Breakouts Session A: How to Conduct Research for Editorial Office Professionals Larissa Shamseer, MSc (Clin Epi), PhD Candidate, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute/University of Ottawa Columbus Ballroom A Session B: Working with the Production Office: What they need and how this affects the editorial office Nancy Devaux, Process Improvement Manager, Dartmouth Journal Services, Sheridan Columbus Ballroom B Session C: Navigating Policy: Mandates and new initiatives Kent R. Anderson, CEO/Publisher, STRIATUS/JBS, Inc. Columbus Ballroom C

4:00pm - 4:15pm Poster Session Columbus Ballroom

4:15pm - 5:15pm Speed Networking Columbus Ballroom

5:30pm - 7:30pm Wine and Cheese Reception Keating’s Restaurant Friday, August 15, 2014

8:00am - 9:00am Registration and Breakfast Columbus Foyer

8:15am - 9:00am Breakfast with ISMTE Past Presidents Columbus Ballroom

9:00am - 10:15am Breakouts Session A: Excel Workshop: Preparing annual editorial reports Tom McClung, MIS Analyst, ACE Private Risk Services Columbus Ballroom A Session B: Becoming a freelance editorial office professional Arlene Furman, Managing Director & Co-Founder, Technica Editorial Services Jack Nestor, Senior Editor & Co-Founder, Technica Editorial Services Columbus Ballroom B Session C: Publishing 101: What we wish we’d known, and how to find out more Julie Nash, Senior Partner, J&J Editorial, LLC Columbus Ballroom C 10:15am - 10:45am Coffee Break Columbus Foyer

10:45am - 12:00pm Breakouts Session A: eJournalPress (Vendor Session) Anna Jester, Director of Sales & Marketing, eJournalPress Columbus Ballroom A Session B: ScholarOne Manuscripts (Vendor Session) Suzanne Hopkins, Thomson Reuters Columbus Ballroom B Session C: Editorial Manager (Vendor Session) Tony Alves, Aries Systems Corporation Columbus Ballroom C Session D: More Than Just Metrics: PRE-val and Social Cite Adam Etkin, Managing Director, PRE (Peer Review Evaluation) USS New Jersey

12:00pm - 1:00pm Lunch Keating’s Restaurant

1:00pm - 2:15pm General Session: Reporting on Science in The Media: An Interactive Q&A with Robert Bazell Robert Bazell, Adjunct professor, Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental biology, Yale University, Former Chief Science Correspondent, NBC News Columbus Ballroom

2:15pm - 2:45pm Coffee Break Columbus Foyer

2:45pm - 3:45pm Exchange Forum Columbus Ballroom

3:45pm - 4:00pm Wrap Up and Closing Remarks Columbus Ballroom Thank You To Our Corporate Members Platinum Supporter

Silver Supporters

Bronze Supporters Thank You to our Conference Sponsors Board of Directors

President Kristen Overstreet Leander, Texas USA Senior Partner, Origin Editorial, LLC Email: [email protected] Kristen Overstreet earned her undergraduate degree in English and Journalism from Metropolitan State University of Denver in 1997. She began working with the Journal for the Society of Pediatric Nurses (now Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing) as the editorial assistant in 1998 and became the managing editor in 2006. In 2007, Ms. Overstreet became a managing editor full time, handling five titles, and joined the board of directors for ISMTE, becoming the founding editor of the society’s newsletter, EON. She is now a senior partner with Origin Editorial, LLC.

Immediate Past President Glenn Collins San Diego, California, USA, Director of Business Development/Managing Editor, Origin Editorial American College of Cardiology E-mail: [email protected] Born and raised in New York, Glenn Collins graduated from Cornell University in 1991 and entered the world of STM publishing a few years later. He started at John Wiley & Sons working his way up to Acquisitions Editor in the Reference Works division before heading west to San Diego. After a brief stint with the journal Brain Research he has been the Executive Managing Editor of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC) and associated journals since 2001. He is a Past President of the ISMTE.

President-Elect Michael Willis Oxford, United Kingdom Editorial Services Manager, Wiley Email: [email protected]

Michael Willis is Senior Manager, Peer Review, at Wiley, based in Oxford, UK, responsible for overseeing Wiley’s peer review operations within the UK. He has nine years’ experience of managing editorial offices and in-house editorial office resource within Blackwell’s and then Wiley’s UK Health Sciences portfolio. After a spell of teaching and research in Greek and Latin, he started his publishing career with CatchWord (later Ingenta) in processing and developing online journal content for STM publishers. He has been a member of the ISMTE Board since 2010 and chaired the annual European Conference committee in 2011 and 2012. He is President-Elect for 2014 and 2015.

Vice President Julie Nash Apex, North Carolina, USA Senior Partner, J & J Editorial, LLC Email: [email protected]

Julie Nash has a Bachelor of Arts degree in Journalism from the Pennsylvania State University and a Master of Arts in Liberal Studies degree from Duke University. She was an award-winning journalist in Washington, D.C., Pennsylvania and North Carolina before becoming an assistant editor with Arthritis & Rheumatism (A&R) in May 2000. After working on A&R and other titles for several years, she founded J&J Editorial with partner Jennifer Deyton. Julie is the vice president for the International Society of Managing and Technical Editors and serves on the program committee for the Council of Science Editors and the membership committee for the Society for Scholarly Publishing. Julie works on journal projects with many publishers and societies, including the American Chemical Society, Wiley, Elsevier, LWW and the BMJ Group. She also acts as a consultant to journal editorial offices and publishers. When not working, Julie enjoys traveling, eating at interesting restaurants, listening to music, reading and spending time with her husband and two children. Treasurer Sally Gainsbury, PhD Sydney, NSW Australia Associate Editor, International Gambling Studies Email: [email protected] Dr. Sally Gainsbury (PhD, DCP, B.Psych) is a clinical psychologist with over ten years’ experience in research to inform responsible gambling policies and strategies. She has led and worked on several large studies examining the impact of Internet gambling and effectiveness of various harm minimisation strategies based on new technologies. Dr. Gainsbury has authored two books on the topic of Internet gambling and numerous book chapters and peer review articles on this topic as well as responsible gambling strategies for Internet gambling and electronic gaming machines, youth gambling, and Internet-based treatment options. She has been invited to contribute to policy discussions by policy makers, treatment providers and industry operators in Australia, Canada and the UK and given keynote addresses, workshops, presentations and panel discussions at numerous international conferences. Dr. Gainsbury is the Editor of the academic journal International Gambling Studies. She is a member of the International Editorial Board for the journals Psychology of Addictive Behaviors and International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction. She served on the board of the International Society of Addiction Journal Editors from 2010-2014.

Secretary Deborah Bowman, MFA Wentzville, Missouri, USA Managing Editor, GIE: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Email: [email protected] Deborah Bowman has been the Managing Editor for GIE: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy for nine years. Before that, she worked as a manager in the journals department of Elsevier. Deborah has an MFA in writing from the University of Missouri and a BA in English Education from Purdue University. She was a founding member of Loosely Identified, a women’s writing group in St. Louis, and has been a member of The Project, a poetry-writing group, for 15 years. She is currently the Secretary and Membership Chair of the ISMTE and was formerly the Editor-in-Chief of EON from 2011 through 2012; she now serves as EON’s senior advisor. She gave a presentation entitled “The Philosophy of Editing” at the ISMTE North American Conference in 2009. Deborah owns her own company, ImagineInk Publishing Company, which helps “indie” authors to self publish, in print or as eBooks. She is very active in her community as Vice President of the Historical Society, Secretary of the Community Club, member of the Downtown Business Association, and member of a City Committee, The Downtown Economic Development and Historic Preservation Committee. She also writes a monthly column for the local newspaper about her city’s history and earned the Wentzville, Missouri, Community Servant of the Year Award for 2009. Deborah is currently writing a book about the history of Wentzville. She has a houseful of books, dreams about books, and likes to quote Jorge Luis Borges: “I have always imagined that heaven will be a kind of library.” Board Members

Sarah Bidgood, MA Lancaster, PA Peer Review Manager, Applied Physics Letters Email: [email protected]

Sarah Bidgood, MA, hails from Lancaster, Pennsylvania. She holds an undergraduate degree in Russian and a master’s in Russian, East European and Eurasian Studies. She served as Managing Editor of the Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography from 2011-2013, and she is currently the Peer Review Manager of Applied Physics Letters. Sarah has been an active member of ISMTE since 2011 and has been a member of the board since 2013. She is the 2014 North American meeting committee chair. Alice Ellingham Hampshire, UK Director, Editorial Office Ltd Email: [email protected] Alice graduated from Nottingham University with a 1st class honours degree in Molecular Plant Biology. She then joined Macmillan Press (now NPG) where she managed a list of STM titles. After a career break, she founded Editorial Office Ltd with co-director Gill Smith. Over ten years later, Editorial Office have managed over 80 journals and currently provide over 2,000 hours per week of journal management to their customers. Alice was a founding board member of ISMTE and a member of the Conference Organising Committee for Blankenberg 2013 and London 2014.

Jan Higgins, PhD Raleigh, North Carolina, USA Managing Editor, Genetics in Medicine Email: [email protected] Jan Higgins started out as a research scientist before transitioning to her current position as managing editor for Genetics in Medicine. She has been in this role since 2006 but has continued as a freelancer in editing and writing scientific manuscripts. She also teaches graduate students how to write a scientific manuscript at the University of Chapel Hill, North Carolina. A member of ISMTE since it first began she is currently chair of the sponsorship committee and regional organizer for local groups.

Meghan McDevitt Downers Grove, Illinois, USA Editorial Assistant, GIE: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Email: [email protected] Meghan McDevitt is the Editorial Assistant for GIE: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and Editor of EON, ISMTE’s monthly publication. She has been involved with ISMTE since 2011, previously serving as an Associate Editor for EON and participating in the poster sessions at the North American conferences. Meghan attended the University of Dayton, graduating in 2010 with degrees in English and French.

Sherryl Sundell Heidelberg, Germany Managing Editor, International Journal of Cancer Email: [email protected] Born in the United States and educated at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Sherryl settled in Germany and has worked in publishing for over twenty years. As a copy editor for medical books and journals at Springer-Verlag in Heidelberg, Germany, Sherryl was privileged to be a member of the department closely involved in developing various tools for computer editing from the start. Over this period it became clear that at least for science editing and publishing, online was the future. Since 2002, Sherryl has been Managing Editor of the International Journal of Cancer, a large cancer research journal receiving over 3000 submissions per year and publishing 24 print issues per year. IJC is owned by the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC, Geneva, Switzerland), and published by Wiley.

Meg Weist Las Vegas, Nevada, USA Managing Editor, American Journal of Medical Genetics and the AJMG Seminars in Medical Genetics Email: [email protected] Meg Weist is the Managing Editor for the American Journal of Medical Genetics and the AJMG Seminars in Medical Genetics. She has been with the Journal for over 10 years and came from the world of textbook publishing prior to that. Her editorial focus has been shaped by her background in the sciences and a longstanding interest in words. Meg is part of today’s offsite work force supporting her Editors worldwide, primarily from her home office in Las Vegas and sometimes a more formal one in Salt Lake City, UT. She continues to be intrigued by the advances of digital technology and is always looking for effective ways to share ideas within the editorial community. Past Presidents

Elizabeth Blalock Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA Managing Editor, Journal of Investigative Dermatology E-mail: [email protected]

Elizabeth Blalock has been Managing Editor of the Journal of Investigative Dermatology since 2002. Previously, she managed the Journal Endocrinology. Elizabeth is a founding member of the International Society for Managing and Technical Editors, and she served as its President from 2010-2011. She has been a member of the Council of Science Editors since 1998 and currently serves as co-chair for its Short Course on Publication Ethics. Elizabeth has spoken on peer review management and reporting as well as managing change and publication ethics for these and other international organizations. Her undergraduate degree is from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, and she earned a Master’s degree in English from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Founding President Jason Roberts, PhD Plymouth, Massachusetts, USA Executive Editor, Headache; Journal of Sexual Medicine E-mail: [email protected]

After earning a doctorate in Geography from Loughborough University in the United Kingdom, Dr. Roberts began work in the subscription services department at Blackwell Science in Oxford, UK. Following a move to Blackwell’s US office, he joined that company’s editorial team and eventually rose to Publishing Manager and, subsequently, Senior Editor of US-based medical journals; in the latter position he developed and managed budgets and business plans and oversaw society/editor relations with the publisher. In 2004 he left Blackwell to become a Managing Editor. After receiving several requests to help out struggling editorial offices, along with Kristen Overstreet, he now runs Origin Editorial, providing peer review operational support and consultancies on peer review management best practice. Dr. Roberts is a past-president of the International Society of Managing and Technical Editors, the pre-eminent group seeking to advance professionalism within editorial offices. Dr. Roberts frequently serves as an invited speaker on such topics as publication ethics, peer review management and editorial office best practices. He is also an active supporter of using guidelines such as CONSORT for Randomized Controlled Trials to strengthen reporting standards in biomedical journals, believing that a smartly-run editorial office can deliver improvements to the quality of peer review and not just perform a purely operational role. Committee Chairs

Professional Development Committee Membership Committee Meg Weist Deborah Bowman Salt Lake City, Utah, USA Wentzville, Missouri, USA E-mail: [email protected] Managing Editor, GIE: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Email: [email protected]

Discussion Forum Moderator 2014 North American Meeting Planning Committee Katy Ladbrook Sarah Bidgood, MA Bristol, United Kingdom Lancaster, PA Managing Editor, Age and Aging Peer Review Manager, Applied Physics Letters

2014 European Meeting Planning Committee Sherryl Sundell Heidelberg, Germany Managing Editor, International Journal of Cancer Email: [email protected] Industry Advisory Board Tony Alves Philippa J. Benson, Ph.D. Director of Product Management, PJB Consulting Aries Systems Corporation Bethesda, MD, USA North Andover, MA, USA

Peter Binfield, Ph.D. Morna Conway, Ph.D. Co-Founder and Publisher, PeerJ Morna Conway, Inc. San Francisco, CA, USA Shelbyville, TN, USA

Irene Hames, Ph.D. Theresa Monturano Editorial Consultant Publisher, Elsevier Inc York, UK Philadelphia, PA, USA

Charles Trowbridge Edward Wates Assistant Director, Peer Review Operations Global Journal Content Management Director, Publications Division, American Chemical Society Wiley Washington, DC, USA Oxford, UK

Chicago Collaborative Liaison Maggie Haworth Associate Director, Publishing Operations, Endocrine Society Washington, DC, USA Email: [email protected]

Executive Director Kimberly LaBounty Apex Management & Special Events, Inc. Elmhurst, IL USA Email: [email protected] Speaker Information

Tony Alves Director of Product Management Tony has worked in STM publishing since 1989 and has focused on electronic publishing for the past eighteen years, designing online learning products and workflow management software. Tony joined Aries Systems in 2001 to manage the development and rollout of the Editorial Manager system and is responsible for designing new features and functions for the EM/PM system, as well as assisting in defining the strategic direction of the company including new product ideas and new market opportunities. Before that he served as Publisher at HealthStream, Inc., a leading provider of online educational tools for healthcare organizations; and at SilverPlatter Education, an early developer of multimedia products for physicians on CD-ROM and the Internet. Tony also worked at Harvard University, where he was an Assistant Editor for the journal Circulation Research; and CV Mosby, assisting an Acquisitions Editor in the textbook department.

Kent R. Anderson CEO / Publisher, STRIATUS / JBJS, Inc.

Kent R. Anderson is the CEO/Publisher for the Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery and its parent company, STRIATUS. He is the immediate past-President of the Society for Scholarly Publishing, the founder of the Scholarly Kitchen, and a member of the Journal Oversight Committee for the Journal of the American Medical Association. He has been an executive in the Massachusetts Medical Society’s Publishing Division, Publishing Director for the New England Journal of Medicine., and Director of Medical Journals at the American Academy of Pediatrics. He writes and speaks occasionally. Kent has degrees in business and English.

Robert Bazell Adjunct professor, molecular, cellular, and developmental biology Yale Former chief science correspondent, NBC News

Robert Bazell began his journalism career in 1971 as a writer for the News and Comment section of Science Magazine. A year later, he moved to The New York Post as a reporter. In 1976, before he joined NBC News, he was briefly a reporter with WNBC-TV, the NBC Television Station in New York. During his career with NBC News, which spanned more than three decades, Bazell has reported on a wide range of subjects in the areas of science, technology and medicine throughout the United States and around the world. Bazell has received hundreds of awards for his reports, including five Emmys, the Alfred I. DuPont Columbia Award, the Edward R. Murrow Award and a Gracie Award. He has also received a George Foster Peabody Award, for which he was recognized for exemplifying “the best reporting on science and medicine. From transmission of the AIDS virus to innovations in cancer treatment, from the perceived dangers of cellular phones to alternative modes of health care, Mr. Bazell brings intelligence, understanding and reportorial excellence to the task. In 2013 Mr. Bazell left NBC after 38 years and joined the faculty at Yale University.

Sarah Bidgood, MA Lancaster, PA Peer Review Manager, Applied Physics Letters

Sarah Bidgood, MA, hails from Lancaster, Pennsylvania. She holds an undergraduate degree in Russian and a master’s in Russian, East European and Eurasian Studies. She served as Managing Editor of the Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography from 2011-2013, and she is currently the Peer Review Manager of Applied Physics Letters. Sarah has been an active member of ISMTE since 2011 and has been a member of the board since 2013. She is the 2014 North American meeting committee chair. Glenn Collins Director of Business Development/Managing Editor, Origin Editorial American College of Cardiology Born and raised in New York, Glenn Collins graduated from Cornell University in 1991 and entered the world of STM publishing a few years later. He started at John Wiley & Sons working his way up to Acquisitions Editor in the Reference Works division before heading west to San Diego. After a brief stint with the journal Brain Research he has been the Executive Managing Editor of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC) and associated journals since 2001. He is a Past President of the ISMTE.

Nancy Devaux Process Improvement Manager at Dartmouth Journal Services In this role, she works closely with the Publishing Services and Technology departments to ensure that best practices are used throughout production, to effectively implement new tools and systems, and to successfully transition new accounts. She is one of two Publishing Services Managers at DJS, sharing the oversight of a department of >100 Production Editors, Assistants, Coordinators and Group Leaders, who handle the editorial, composition, and journal production management for over 260 titles. She started in this industry in 1996 as a copyeditor and proofreader. She worked her way up the leadership ranks – Composition Group Leader, Offshore Services Manager, Editorial Department Manager, and Production Services Manager – in which she had increasing responsibilities for production results, personnel, and the development of workflows and systems to accommodate significant increases in volume and ever-changing customer demands. Prior to this work, Nancy taught high school science, worked as an environmental consultant, and managed the Civil Engineering Laboratory at her alma mater, the University of Vermont. She has received state-wide athletic accolades in several venues, but her most valuable time is spent with her daughter in Richmond, Vermont.

Jing Duan, PhD Managing Editor, Ecosystem Health and Sustainability, Acta Ecologica Sinica (International Journal), Ecological Society of China Jing Duan obtained her PhD in 2009 from the Chinese Academy of Sciences after completing an MS in Environmental Studies at the University of Adelaide, Australia. She joined Acta Ecologica Sinica (International Journal) in 2009, first as Editor and then as Managing Editor. Since 2011, she has represented the Ecological Society of China in the development of a joint publication project with the Ecological Society of America and will be the Managing Editor of the new journal, Ecosystem Health and Sustainability.

Erin Dubnansky Vice President of Publications American Gastroenterological Association

Erin received her BA in psychology from The College of William & Mary in Williamsburg, VA, and began her career at the AGA in 2000. Erin oversees the strategic, editorial, and financial operations of Gastroenterology, Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology, and GI & Hepatology News. In partnership with the editors, she ensures that the publications maintain and advance their standing in the GI community and align with the AGA strategic plan. She also develops publication policies, oversees the development and implementation of new initiatives, and manages the periodicals’ marketing activities. Additionally, she serves as the staff liaison to the AGA Publications Committee. Erin is a member of ISMTE and serves as the chair of their poster committee, and is a member of the Society for Scholarly Publishing, Council of Science Editors, and Committee on Publication Ethics. Adam Etkin Founder and Managing Director, PRE (Peer Review Evaluation)

In 1994 Adam founded OakTek Web Architects, providing technology solutions for several retail companies. Over the past sixteen years he has established himself as a leader in the scholarly publishing industry and is highly experienced with the peer-review process and integrated systems. He is also well-versed in scholarly metrics, and all aspects of the scholarly publishing environment and related technology, having received his Masters of Publishing from Pace University. Adam founded PRE to assist members of the scholarly publishing community who are committed to preserving an ethical, rigorous peer review process.

Arlene Furman Managing Director & Co-Founder, Technica Editorial Services Arlene Furman is Managing Director and Co-Founder of Technica Editorial Services in Carrboro, North Carolina. After earning a degree in Environmental Resources from the University of Rhode Island, Arlene worked as a Research Assistant at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine. In 1983 she transitioned into scientific and medical publishing at Raven Press/Raven Health Care Communications and later at Springer-Verlag’s New York City offices. She moved to North Carolina in 1989, founding Technica Editorial Services along with Jack Nestor.

Matt Giampoalo Executive Journals Editor, Wiley

Matt Giampoala is Executive Editor for Life Science Journals at Wiley. He holds a Pd.D. in neuroscience from the University of Pennsylvania. Since transitioning into the field of publishing he has worked both as an acquistions editor for books and a publishing manager for peer-reviewed journals covering fields uncluding neuroscience, physiology, endocrinology, osychiatry, and drug development.

Suzanne Hopkins Thomson Reuters Suzanne Hopkins has been with ScholarOne and Thomson Reuters since May 2001 and has been a Product Manager since 2006. She has worked primarily on ScholarOne Manuscripts. Prior to working as a Product Manager, she was an Account Manager for 4 years working with IEEE, ACM and others. When not working, she enjoys traveling with her family and keeping up with her two very active sons.

Anna Jester Director of Sales & Marketing, eJournalPress

Anna Jester began her career in publishing at Allen Press, where she started as a member of the Online Publishing division in 2000. She later moved to the Online Manuscript Submission and Peer Review division and in time became the Product Manager for Online Publishing and Online Manuscript Submission and Peer Review products. She also served as the Editor of FrontMatter, a newsletter devoted to issues that affect society and association publishers with a particular focus on technology. In 2010 she moved to Maryland, joining eJournalPress as the Director of Sales & Marketing. Anna currently serves as a member of the Society for Scholarly Publishing (SSP) Membership Committee, a member of the Council of Science Editors (CSE) Program Committee, Technology/E-Publishing Section Editor for Science Editor, and as a member of the International Society of Managing and Technical Editors (ISMTE) Poster Committee. Anna enjoys meaningful change, travel, excellent food and mysteries. She and her husband try, with limited success, not to spoil their Italian Greyhound. Tom Mcclung MIS Analyst, ACE Private Risk Services Tom McClung is a Management Information Systems Analyst for ACE Private Risk Services, part of the ACE Group of Insurance Companies. He formerly worked for ScholarOne as a report developer, where he gained an appreciation for the key metrics important to journals. Tom currently develops reports using Microsoft SQL Server Reporting Services and routinely uses Excel to manipulate and analyze the results of data extractions. He has over 14 years’ experience with Excel.

Shawn Morton US Publishing Director, Health Science Journals, Wiley Shawn holds general management responsibility for Wiley’s US-based journal publishing programs in dentistry, medicine, nursing, and veterinary science. Shawn joined Wiley in 1994, having begun his career in 1990 with Springer-Verlag New York, and has extensive experience acquiring and developing content in multiple formats for a broad range of health science markets and specialties. Shawn holds a B.A. from Union College and an M.A. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Julie Nash Senior Partner, J & J Editorial, LLC

Jack Nestor Senior Editor and Co-Founder, Technica Editorial Services Jack Nestor is Senior Editor and Co-Founder of Technica Editorial Services in Carrboro, North Carolina. Near the end of the Jurassic period, Jack entered the New York publishing industry at Plenum Press in its Journals Department. Since that time, he has directed or contributed to the publication of more than a thousand books and periodicals for a wide variety of prominent publishers, societies, and businesses. He moved to North Carolina in 1989, founding Technica Editorial Services along with Arlene Furman.

Kerry O’Rourke Senior Managing Editor, KWF Editorial Services Kerry O’Rourke is senior managing editor at Kaufman Wills Fusting & Co. – Editorial Services. She started her career as a newspaper reporter before transitioning into medical publishing. Most recently, she was director of publishing at the American College of Sports Medicine where she managed the scholarly book and journal program. She also was senior managing editor at the American Academy of Pediatrics, where she managed the publishing business activities for Pediatrics, the association’s flagship journal. Previously she worked for seven years at Lippincott Williams & Wilkins as well as six years at The Baltimore Sun. She is a past president of Chicago Women in Publishing and currently is finishing a Master’s of Public Health degree at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Margot Puerta, MBA Executive Editor, Molecular Medicine and Bioelectronic Medicine

Margot Puerta plans, organizes and manages the staff and activities of the journal and is responsible for strategically guiding the development of Molecular Medicine, including web and multimedia content. Margot created and produces Mollie Medcast, a journal podcast available in iTunes. Previously, Margot held the position of Director of Scientific Affairs at the Feinstein Institute for Medical Research in New York. In this role, she worked with cross-functional internal teams to oversee biomedical research planning and operations of over 200,000 square feet of research space. She provided day-to-day management assistance to more than 20 laboratories and 400 employees. Prior to assuming these roles, Margot worked as the manager for the Laboratory of Biomedical Science at the Feinstein Institute co-authoring 14 neuroimmunology papers. Margot holds a B.S. in Biology from Fairfield University, an M.S. in Biology from Hofstra University and an M.B.A. in Finance from the Frank G. Zarb School of Business, Hofstra University.

Jason Roberts, PhD Executive Editor, Headache; Journal of Sexual Medicine

Jason Roberts is the founding President of ISMTE. He is the Executive Editor of the journal Headache: the journal of head and face pain. He is also the Senior Partner at Origin Editorial, based in Plymouth, MA. He has published and presented on the topics of publication ethics and improving reporting standards in scientific and medical journals.

Donald Samulack, PhD President, US Operations, Editage

Donald Samulack, PhD is the President of U.S. Operations for Editage. He has a first-hand understanding of scholarly editing, writing, and translation needs and services, and is a major player in shaping perceptions, developing global logistics, and delivering quality. He works tirelessly to bring publishers closer to their authors and to help authors get published. He has travelled extensively around the world, with a focus on Asia and Latin America, to raise awareness of good publication practices and ethical conduct in the scholarly community. Dr. Samulack leverages the global presence of Editage on behalf of publishers, journals, and societies, to help them internationalize their brands.

Larissa Shamseer, MSc (Clin Epi), PhD Candidate Ottawa Hospital Research Institute , University of Ottawa

Larissa Shamseer is a PhD candidate at the Ottawa Hopitsal Research Institute and University of Ottawa, She coordinates Dr. David Moher’s Reporting Guidelines research portfolio within the Knowledge Synthesis Group. In her current role, she is involved with research activities relating to the CONSORT and PRISMA as well as the international reporting guideline network – the EQUATOR network. Ms. Shamseer completed a Masters in Science in Clinical Epidemiology at the University of Alberta’s School of Public Health in 2009. She worked as a research coordinator and research assistant in the University’s Department of Pediatrics for five years prior to her moving over to OHRI. Ms. Shamseer has been involved in the development of and a consultant in the development of a number of reporting guidelines, most notably the upcoming PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analyses Protocols) and CENT (CONSORT Extension for N-of-1 Trials) guidelines. Sue Silver, PhD Editor-in-Chief, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, Ecological Society of America

Sue Silver obtained her PhD from the University of London. Following two postdoctoral fellowships, she switched to scientific publishing, and worked on a wide variety of journals, before being appointed Editor of Biologist, published by the UK’s Institute of Biology. She went on to launch and edit The Lancet Oncology, the first in a series of specialty review journals for the well-known medical publication, The Lancet, before moving to the US in 2002 to launch and edit a new journal for the Ecological Society of America, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.

George Woodward Publisher, Elsevier

George Woodward is a Health & Medical Sciences journals publisher at Elsevier, working on a portfolio that consists of nutrition and dermatology journals. He previously worked as a Managing Editor for the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, where he was responsible for the society’s two journals, the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and JACI: In Practice.

Save the Date

October 13-14, 2014 Charles Darwin House, London, UK COPE to have a half-day meeting on October 13

ISMTE Member: $255 USD Early Registration/$295 USD after 26 September 2014 Members of EASE and COPE may register for the Conference at the ISMTE member rate EASE Members should contact Tina at [email protected] for the code COPE Members should contact Linda at [email protected] for the code

Non-member: $350 USD Early Registration/$390 USD after 26 September 2014 (this includes a trial membership from October 1 to December 31)

Monday Dinner: $70 USD (space is limited)

Registration includes lunch, and breaks. REGISTER TODAY! POSTER ABSTRACTS

Reformatting Submission Questions Increases the Accuracy of Author-Supplied Information: A Case Study **1st Place Award Winner**

Heather Blasco and Sara Welliver J&J Editorial

Background: In evaluating our submission process for ASTM International journals, we realized we were spending a large amount of time contacting authors regarding their response to a copyright permissions submission question. In most instances, follow-up with the authors about their answer indicated that they had answered incorrectly. Methods: We determined that the wording and order of the 3 answers may be influencing authors, causing them to more often select the first response instead of the correct response. We implemented a single change, reordering the responses so that the option for “No permissions needed” was listed first. We believed that authors had previously chosen “Have Permissions” because it was the first option and didn’t consider the others. Results: In the three months prior to the configuration change, the percentage of permissions errors across all four journals was 22%. The percentage of errors in the three months after was 9.6%, for a total reduction of 12.4%. Conclusion: Changing the order of permission question responses reduced the errors by more than half. Small changes in the way submission questions are presented can have a big impact on the way authors answer them. This in turn reduced turnaround time and caused less work for authors and the editorial office.

Sowing the Seeds of ORCID® **2nd Place Award Winner**

Deborah Bowman, MFA, and Meghan McDevitt American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

ORCID® is a system that will help researchers by distinguishing them from every other researcher and by making it easy to compile and access their body of work. However, the ORCID® system is new enough that many researchers are not yet aware of it, so we wanted to raise awareness. We began by conducting background research on ORCID® so we could promote it and answer questions; we also looked into what we could do through EES, our submission system, to encourage registration. Furthermore, we attended the ORCID® Outreach Meeting in Chicago in May to expand our education. We brainstormed ways to educate editors, authors, and reviewers about ORCID® to encourage them to register. Our doctors were encouraged to register through batch emails, articles in other society publications, adding information to automatic letters to authors, and through social media (Facebook posts, Twitter, and blog articles). With help from our publisher, we will soon begin publishing available ORCID® numbers on published articles. These efforts have paid off; the number of GIE authors who have registered for their ORCID® rose quickly and continues to climb.

Author Education Strategies Beyond Cultural Boundaries

Roohi Ghosh and Clarinda Cerejo Editage

Education on topics such as manuscript preparation, the publication process, good publication practices, and new developments in the publishing industry can play a critical role in helping English-as-a-second-language authors stay ahead in the race to publish in reputable international journals. Drawing on our long-standing experience with author education in Japan, South Korea, and China, we will share insights on a successful author education strategy that traverses cultural boundaries. We will discuss different training platforms that can be used, such as webinars, workshops, lectures, and written resources. The poster will use success and failure stories to talk about the acceptability and reach of such platforms, learner and faculty profiles, participant interaction, topic preferences, feedback collection methods, and language of training delivery. We hope that other professionals involved in author education can use these insights to develop a successful training plan.

Disclosure: While the training initiatives discussed in the abstract/ poster were funded by Editage, Cactus Communications, where the authors are currently employed, the authors are directly involved in driving these initiatives and the recommendations provided are their own and devoid of any commercial interest.

Anonymous Whistleblowers: A Blessing or a Curse for the Editorial Office?

Mariel Radlwimmer , Yvonne Ohl, Sherryl Sundell, International Journal of Cancer

For several years now, our journal has been receiving emails from anonymous whistleblowers with allegations of various types of irregularities in published articles, many of which were quite old. It seemed apparent from these emails that these whistleblowers had not actually read the article(s), but rather were using computer software to scan the literature and also to target the work of individual scientists. Clearly, journals need to investigate all allegations of scientific misconduct in published and submitted articles and a journal depends on vigilant readers and reviewers to detect true cases of scientific misconduct. However, our investigations found most often that nothing of real concern came from the computer-generated scans. Furthermore, the language used by certain whistleblowers has been quite offensive and accusative. Owing to the increasing numbers of reports of scientific misconduct in general, we developed a procedure for dealing with such cases at our journal, which involves following the COPE guidelines. We also established a policy about responding to whistleblowers. This poster will report on the allegations our journal has received and the outcome of our investigations. We will also reevaluate our policy.

Developing a Metric to Monitor Editorial Office Workload

Jennifer Mahar and Kristen Overstreet Origin Editorial, LLC

Background: Origin Editorial, LLC, provides editorial office management for academic journals. For most, responsibilities include peer review management through an online system, managing communication and providing customer service, and reporting on office efficiency and peer review statistics. As workload increases for an editorial office through increased submissions and responsibilities (e.g., ethics, conflict of interest) staff may become overburdened. Purpose: We will develop a metric that will allow us to monitor workload and alert us to an impending situation of work overload and when to determine a tipping point. Method: We aim to analyze one small (1-person), one medium (3-person) and one large (8- person) editorial office and benchmark current editorial office responsibilities in detail. We will create a metric that will calculate workload based on responsibilities, time required, and number of submissions so that staffing needs can be determined ahead of implementing new responsibilities in workflow or in anticipation of increasing submissions. Conclusion: Having a metric will help editorial office managers to monitor workload and identify changing resource needs quickly, including what is required for an office of one or many to take on additional responsibilities.

Making Color Brightfield Images from Microscopes both Traceable and Publication-Ready

Jerry Sedgewick Imaging and Analysis, Inc

Issues with image integrity have been on the rise since the beginning of this century when digital imaging was widely adopted. Concurrent with that, the responsibility for correct color reproduction has shifted from printers at the printing press to authors and publishers. Little has been done to address both issues, even when frustration at the process is voiced both in private and public conversations. However, in February of 2014, a microscope camera calibration slide with accompanying software was introduced by a company with over 40 years in the color calibration industry (Datacolor, New Jersey, USA). This slide provides a set of colors to which cameras can be calibrated, resulting in truer, more consistent, white-balanced and brightness-matched images. Additionally, duplicate images are created (so that originals are not saved over), images are stamped with dates and "calibrated by" information, and metadata are added to the image file. Monitor calibration with a colorimeter, which comes with the system, assures that viewing is also under controlled conditions. Thus, for the first time, both traceability and publication-ready images can be achieved

Disclosure: J. Sedgewick is a consultant for Datacolor.

Plagiarism in Submitted Manuscripts: Incidence and Characteristics

Jan R. Higgins, PhD1, Feng-Chang Lin, PhD2, James P. Evans MD, PhD1,2 1 American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics 2 University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

We investigated the incidence and characteristics of plagiarism in submissions to our STM journal. 400 articles were screened using the plagiarism-detection software, iThenticate©. The abstract, introduction, results and discussion were then assessed manually. If 80% of a sentence or 80% of a paragraph was copied, this was deemed plagiarism. We excluded plagiarism based on published guidelines such as: “Few other ways to say that,” standard terms, or previously published methodologies. We collected the primary author’s country and whether English is an official language (EOL). Plagiarism was found in 67/400 articles (17%) and 55 (82%) of these manuscripts were from countries without EOL (p<0.001 Fisher’s exact test); 167 (42%) manuscripts in total were submitted from countries without EOL. 23 (34%) plagiarized articles came from China. Introduction and discussion were more likely to have plagiarism than the abstract or results (p<0.0001). iThenticate scores correlated well with detected plagiarism with 98% sensitivity if the score was higher than 9, but the score was not sufficient to detect plagiarism alone. Our journal has no known problems with data copying but plagiarism is clearly a concern. To educate authors we will post instructions online in Chinese and return plagiarized articles with resources on publication ethics.

Revisiting Our Reviewer Project: Results and Perspective

Yvonne Ohl and Sherryl Sundell International Journal of Cancer

Last year we started our reviewer project with the purpose to find highly motivated and highly qualified reviewers amongst young scientists for developing our database. We found out that the participating referees sent their reviews back faster to the journal than the average reviewer. Furthermore, the quality of the reviews that were rated compared well with the scores for non-project reviewers in that same time period. We realized soon in the process that our keywords were too general and thus not always suitable and that not all of our manuscript categories were adequately represented. Also, not every editor consistently rated the project reviewers’ comments. Thus, we did not always receive keyword selections or ratings for incoming reports. In order to continue this project we need to rework our standard keywords. As part of this project phase, we will also develop a strategy to quickly locate the well performing reviewers again by using different combinations of account flags and to encourage our editors to reuse those individuals.

Setting Up Cross-journal Collaborations to Improve Reporting Standards

Diane D. Drexler1 and Jason Roberts, PhD2 1Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2Origin Editorial, LLC

Background: Reporting standards across biomedical journals are typically poor. Studies are frequently reported incompletely, rendering it impossible for journals and their readers to validate (and consequently to cite) results. Reporting guidelines, such as CONSORT, have been instituted to guide authors to include pertinent information. Evidence suggests such guidelines work, but uptake beyond major journals has been low or ineffectually implemented. One of the biggest challenges for editorial offices devising and implementing a reporting standards policy, educating authors on reporting issues (and their importance), and monitoring for compliance. Purpose: Editorial Offices can contribute to the movement to improve standards by focusing on implementation strategies including ensuring authors return documentation such as reporting guideline checklists that can be utilized to detect the completeness of reporting. Many journals express fears that authors find reporting guidelines bothersome and may choose to publish elsewhere. Collaborating with other journals in a field mitigates such behavior and collectively improves standards. Method: We report the steps undertaken to ensure a unified reporting standards policy was applied across 28 rehabilitation medicine and physical therapy journals. Conclusion: Compliance with reporting standards may be more likely if journals can work together to unify reporting standards policies.

Trackit: Building Emerald's Production Tracking System (PTS)

Jo Alexander Emerald Group Publishing Limited

In order to improve both the management of Emerald’s growing content offerings and our services to authors, we identified a need for a new tracking system for our books and journals. On selection of a leading industry vendor, key stakeholders were brought together under the leadership of the Business Change Management team, to map our requirements against our current and future content management (CM) needs. As a result of this meticulous planning, not only did we improve our internal CM systems, but also delivered an improvement in services to authors, as we were able to reduce and regulate the turnaround times for each step of the process, thereby increasing speed to publication. Whilst this was a period of intense data gathering and process mapping, the decision to build a bespoke system using a vendor’s existing functionality has paid overwhelming dividends. We now have a PTS that matches our current requirements extremely well and we are able to continually evolve the system to meet our changing needs. We learned some valuable lessons during the process and will be happy to answer questions on changing/implementing a PTS.

Poster printing and shipping sponsored by: www.origineditorial.com

Keynote Address State of the Art and Profession: An Editorial Office Update Kent R. Anderson, CEO/Publisher, STRIATUS/JBJS, Inc. Matt Giampoala, Executive Journals Editor, Wiley Jason Roberts, PhD, Senior Partner, Origin Editorial

Jason Roberts: The first part of this presentation examines the adaptive nature of peer review management. It explores the changes and challenges editorial offices face and speculates on future endeavors they may embrace. The presentation will initially look at evolving practices followed by disruptive events, responsibilities and technologies that have swiftly, and dramatically, altered operations. The presentation then moves on to explore challenges both in the sense of increased burdens and as a summons to peer review practitioners to rethink practice and improve performance. The presentation closes by suggesting possible revolutions in the future of peer review operations. The presentation will appeal to all stakeholders in the peer review process.

www.ismte.org

The Legal Hot Zone Evolving Liabilities and Legal Challenges for Publishers and Editorial Offices Legal Matters for Publishers • Trademark • Copyright • Defamation • Publication or Research Ethics • Plagiarism • Fraud • Brand Trademarks

• Increased complexity in establishing – More global markets – More global awareness = more competitive marks – More intricate laws • Increased complexity in protecting – More global usages – More venues, channels (print, online, social) – More requirements to defend each instance Copyright • Increased complexity in obtaining • Trends toward licensing • Authors are poor copyright holders – Registration, protection, monitoring • More global markets • Technology has made every user a potential infringer • Copyright laws still in flux Defamation • An unusual problem in scholarly publishing, but often used as a counter-accusation – “I’m being attacked!” • UK once a “soft target” country for this, but laws have shifted – Presumption of guilt going away • Not a huge problem in scholarly publishing • Commenting a potential side-door to trouble The Five Major Areas of Concern • Publication ethics • Research ethics • Plagiarism • Fraud • Brand More Journals More Papers More Papers per Journal Retractions: On the Rise

Retractions: On the Rise

Liability Increasing • More papers, more readers, more errors caught, more allegations = increased liability • The price of liability seems to be increasing, as well – Social media increases awareness – Punitive aspects increasing – More of a sense of conscious actions

Publication Ethics • Editors can do unethical things • Authors can do unethical things • Publishers can do unethical things Publishers Gone Wild Editors Gone Wild Authors Gone Wild Companies Gone Wild

• Facebook study equated acceptance of Terms of Use and Privacy Policies with Informed Consent

• Clearly a lack of Informed Consent for a study • However, Facebook’s status as a private company changes its level of obligation • PNAS issued an “Editorial Expression of Concern” in the aftermath Editorial Expression of Concern “Questions have been raised about the principles of informed consent and opportunity to opt out in connection with the research in this paper. The authors noted in their paper, “[The work] was consistent with Facebook’s Data Use Policy, to which all users agree prior to creating an account on Facebook, constituting informed consent for this research.” . . . . allowing participants to opt out are best practices in most instances under the US Department of Health and Human Services Policy for the Protection of Human Research Subjects (the “Common Rule”). . . . as a private company Facebook was under no obligation to conform to [this] when it collected the data used by the authors . . . . It is nevertheless a matter of concern . . .” The Five Major Areas of Concern

• Publication ethics • Research ethics • Plagiarism • Fraud • Brand

Legal Matters for Publishers

• Trademark • Copyright • Defamation • Publication or Research Ethics • Plagiarism • Fraud • Brand Implications • Increase budgeting for legal matters • Become more proactive about trademarks • Brace for unexpected events – Have contingency plans and funding • Implement plagiarism detection tools and policies • Educate editors, share stories about fraud • Build your brand • Join ORCID and PRE-val Handling Appeals: Challenges and Best Practices George Woodward, Publisher, Elsevier

www.ismte.org Handling Appeals | Handling Appeals | 2

Learning Objectives

• Review sample policies regarding how to appeal editor decisions. • Discuss potential motivations for appealing editor decisions. • Identify best practices for both authors and editorial offices.

Handling Appeals

Challenges and Best Practices

George Woodward, Publisher

International Society for Managing & Technical Editors Annual Meeting

August 14, 2014

Handling Appeals | 3 Handling Appeals | 4

How Frequent Are Appeals, and How Often Are They Successful?

• The Lancet: In 2001, 4.8% of all rejections were appealed; in 2002, 5.3% were appealed (Source: T Sperschneider et al. Appealing to editors? The Lancet 2003;361:1926) • 13% (in 2001) and 10% (in 2002) of those articles were ultimately accepted Editor for publication • Angewandte Chemie International Edition: In 2000, 12.0% of all rejections The reviewer is always right. were appealed (Source: L Bornmann and H‐D Daniel. The manuscript reviewing process: Empirical research on review requests, review sequences, and decision rules in peer review. Library & Information Science Research 2010;32:5‐12) • 33% of those articles were ultimately accepted for publication

• American Sociological Review: 13% of manuscripts whose rejections were appealed were ultimately published (Source: R Simon et al. Who complains to editors and what happens. Sociological Inquiry 1986;56:259‐271)

Handling Appeals | 5 Handling Appeals | 6

Sample Appeals Policies

Appealing Editorial Decisions Is a Commonly Accepted Author’s Right PLOS One: Authors may submit a formal appeal for rejected submissions. Appeal requests must be made in writing to plosone [at] plos.org with the word "appeal" in the subject line. Authors must provide detailed reasons for the appeal and point‐by‐point responses to the reviewers' and/or COPE Code of Conduct: “Journals should have a declared mechanism Academic Editor's comments. Decisions on appeals are final without for authors to appeal against Editorial decisions.” exception. Priority is given to new submissions, so the appeal process may take longer than the original submission process. Handling Appeals | 7 Handling Appeals | 8

Sample Appeals Processes Sample Appeals Processes

American Psychological Association: Nature Communications: If your manuscript is rejected, and if you believe a pertinent point was Even in cases where editors did not invite resubmission, some authors overlooked or misunderstood by the reviewers, you may appeal the ask the editors to reconsider a rejection decision. These are considered editorial decision by contacting the editor. appeals, which, by policy, must take second place to the normal workload. In practice, this means that decisions on appeals often take If you appeal to the editor and are not satisfied with the editor's several weeks. Only one appeal is permitted for each manuscript, and response, the next step in the APA editorial appeal procedure is to appeals can only take place after peer review. contact the APA Chief Editorial Advisor. Decisions are reversed on appeal only if the editors are convinced that If a satisfactory resolution is still not achieved, and you still believe that the original decision was a serious mistake, not merely a borderline key factors have been overlooked in the review process, you may appeal call that could have gone either way. Further consideration may be to the Publications and Communications (P&C) Board. merited if a referee made substantial errors of fact or showed evidence of bias, but only if a reversal of that referee's opinion would have changed the original decision. Similarly, disputes on factual issues need not be resolved unless they were critical to the outcome. Thus, after careful consideration of the authors' points, most appeals are rejected by the editors…

Handling Appeals | 9 Handling Appeals | 10

Why Appeal? Advice for Authors

Probably not worth it May be worth it • Perceived misunderstanding

• Perceived bias Difference in opinion Factual error / misunderstanding • Frustration/anger • Really want to publish in a particular journal Nitpick Substantial flaw that likely influenced • Resubmission and re-review by another journal can take a lot of time the editor’s decision

Problem with the Editor/reviewer Problem with the Editor/reviewer’s comments

Handling Appeals | 11 Handling Appeals | 12

Advice for Authors Advice for Editorial Offices

• Wait at least 24 hours before responding. • Was the manuscript actually rejected? • Try to avoid speculations about the reviewers’ identities or their motives. • Avoid ad hominem attacks. • Is the complaint about the reviewer’s comments or the Editor’s handling? • Use civil, respectful language; the Editor might share your letter with the reviewers. • How best to manage and track appeals? • Do not blame the reviewer (“he/she missed the point…” vs. “we have rewritten to clarify…”) • Who makes the final decision? • Address each point in some way. • Know when to walk away. • Can authors appeal a rejected appeal?

Keep it brief, logical, and respectful. Handling Appeals | 13 Handling Appeals | 14

Editorial Office Process Learning Objectives

After an appeal has been received and acknowledged: • Review sample policies regarding how to appeal editor decisions. • Discuss potential motivations for appealing editor decisions. Options: 12 3 • Identify best practices for both authors and editorial offices.

Forward the Decline the Forward to new manuscript to the appeal reviewers original reviewers

Notify the author Are reviews sufficient to make a decision?

Yes No

Forward for Notify author additional review, repeat as needed

Handling Appeals | 15

Thank you!

[email protected] For All the Tea in China: A primer of the publication landscape in China - the good, the bad, and the ugly Jing Duan, PhD, Managing Editor, Ecosystem Health and Sustainability, Acta Ecologica Sinica (International Journal), Ecological Society of China Donald Samulack, PhD, President, US Operations, Editage / Cactus Communications Sue Silver, PhD, Editor-in-Chief, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, Ecological Society of America

www.ismte.org ISMTE 7th Annual North American Conference Hyatt Regency Philadelphia at Penn’s Landing August 14‐15, 2014

For All the Tea in China: A primer of the publication landscape in China ‐ the good, the bad, and the ugly

Donald Samulack, PhD Global Impressions of the President, US Operations Editage / Cactus Communications Scholarly Landscape in China

Jing Duan, PhD Managing Editor China’s Rapid Growth in Ecosystem Health and Sustainability, Acta Ecologica Sinica (International Journal) STM Publishing Ecological Society of China

Sue Silver, PhD Editor‐in‐Chief Building Bridges with China Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment Ecological Society of America

Session Objectives

• To create a change in the mindset of Western publishers and to build a global awareness of the challenges that Chinese authors face in attempting to publish in English‐ language Western journals • To communicate the top‐down change that is taking place on the publication landscape of China • To showcase models of education, information exchange, and collaboration at the author level as well as at the society/publisher level PUBLICATION PRACTICES IN CHINA Global Impressions of the The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly Scholarly Landscape in China

Presented by Donald Samulack, PhD President, US Operations Editage / Cactus Communications USA, Japan, India, South Korea, China August 14, 2014

www.editage.com

PUBLICATION PRACTICES IN CHINA INCREASING SCRUTINY OF SCHOLARLY OUTPUT The Chef, the Actor, and the Scoundrel Peer and Media Attention

CHINA: LOOKS GOOD ON PAPER AN ORCHESTRATED PUBLICATION FRENZY IN CHINA A Flawed System for Judging Research Is Leading to Academic Fraud “Publish or Perish” Becomes “English or Perish”

DISGUISED as employees of a gas company, a team of policemen burst into a flat in Beijing on September 1st. Two suspects inside panicked and tossed a plastic bag full of money out of a 15th-floor window. Red hundred-yuan notes worth as much as $50,000 fluttered to the pavement below.

Money raining down on pedestrians was not as bizarre, however, as the racket behind it. China is known for its pirated DVDs and fake designer gear, but these criminals were producing something more intellectual: fake scholarly articles which they sold to academics, and counterfeit versions of existing medical journals in which they sold publication slots. Print edition: Beijing, Sept 28, 2013 At Guangzhou Medical University the payment scale is: As China tries to take its seat at the top table of global academia, the IF 1 3,000 RMB criminal underworld has seized on a feature in its research system: IF <2 15,000 RMB the fact that research grants and promotions are awarded on the basis IF < 3 25,000 RMB RMB: Renminbi, Chinese yuan, CNY IF < 4 35,000 RMB of the number of articles published, not on the quality of the original IF < 5 45,000 RMB 1000 RMB ≈ US $155 research. This has fostered an industry of plagiarism, invented IF < 8 70,000 RMB 10,000 RMB ≈ US $1,550 IF < 10 90,000 RMB 50,000 RMB ≈ US $7,750 research and fake journals that Wuhan University estimated in 2009 IF < 15 130,000 RMB 200,000 RMB ≈ US $31,000 was worth $150m, a fivefold increase on just two years earlier. IF 15 300,000 RMB 300,000 RMB ≈ US $46,500

Data source: The outflow of academic papers from China: why is it happening and can it be stemmed? Source: http://www.economist.com/news/china/21586845-flawed-system-judging-research-leading-academic-fraud-looks-good-paper Learned Publishing 24(2):95—97, 2011 GLOBAL PUBLICATION LANDSCAPE GLOBAL PUBLICATION LANDSCAPE Research Output Tendencies (BRICK) Research Output Tendencies (BRICK)

Data source: Building Bricks, February 2013 (Thomson Reuters) Data source: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7ef3097e-09da-11df-8b23-00144feabdc0.html (April 15, 2013) Supplied by: Nicolas Stipp, Director of Business Development – China, Thomson Reuters

GLOBAL PUBLICATION LANDSCAPE GLOBAL PUBLICATION LANDSCAPE Research Output Tendencies Citations Received (5‐yr Window): G8 and China

Current and projected publication trends

China is far below US and below two other G8 countries

Data source: InCites (Thomson Reuters) Data source: Royal Society of London, Knowledge, Networks, and Nations, 2011 Supplied by: Nicolas Stipp, Director of Business Development – China, Thomson Reuters

GLOBAL PUBLICATION LANDSCAPE THE PUBLICATION TSUNAMI OUT OF CHINA Relative Impact (5‐yr Window): G8 and China A Clash of Cultures and an Ethical Dilemma for Publishers Chinese Authors Fundamentally Wish To Do What Is Right! Challenges • English as a second language •A society where services are sought/bought to compensate for personal inability or time constraints, and to achieve maximum efficiency •Often “assigned” a field of study, graduate program, and mentor • Graduate at a very young age with significant family and career pressures •Must publish in Western SCI‐indexed journals to obtain PhD and/or to practice China is below world as a doctor in a top‐tier hospital average and many G8 • Poor training in basic English writing and almost no training in technical or countries scientific writing; taught by non‐native English speakers •Rarely any training in good publication practices and/or publication ethics •Very little exposure and understanding of Western publication practices and peer review, and limited access to Web of Science or such databases • Limited exposure to rigorous scientific or research methodologies •Many academic centers do not have unified e‐mail domains • “Saving of Face” as a guiding cultural principle Data source: InCites (Thomson Reuters) Supplied by: Nicolas Stipp, Director of Business Development – China, Thomson Reuters THE PUBLICATION TSUNAMI OUT OF CHINA CHAMPIONING ETHICAL PUBLICATION PRACTICES A Clash of Cultures and an Ethical Dilemma for Publishers An Insatiable Need Chinese Authors Fundamentally Wish To Do What Is Right! Natural tendencies and output •Heavy reliance on peer support and personal networking within their own institution leads to “insular thinking,” “the blind leading the blind,” and “groupthink” as outcomes • Willingness to pay for services offered by unethical vendors; unknowingly falling prey to use of fraudulently obtained data, paid guest authorship schemes, etc. • Plagiarism of text innocently through ESL compensation strategies, paying of homage to mentor, or by seeking efficiencies in “writing by example” • Duplication of efforts to maximize productivity • Avoidance behaviors in circumstances where there are negative implications or connotations • Limited understanding of the career consequences of a retraction, or of having a paper labeled as “Duplicate” in PubMed • Chinese Medical Association • Chinese Ministry of Health • Unknowingly falling prey to predatory publishers because of lack of awareness • Chinese Academy of Sciences of their existence and inability to identify/distinguish unethical persuasion • YICAS, DXY, ScienceNet, etc. • Western publisher lecture “tours”

CHAMPIONING ETHICAL PUBLICATION PRACTICES An Insatiable Need

Thank You

Donald Samulack, PhD President, US Operations Editage / Cactus Communications USA, Japan, India, South Korea, China

[email protected] T: (267) 332‐0051 x 104 Publications in SCI journals

250000 2013, 229282

200000

150000

100000

50000 Publication number Publication

Jing Duan, PhD 0 1970 1977 1984 1991 1998 2005 2012 Year Ecological Society of China Managing Editor, Ecosystem Health and Sustainability, Rapid growth in China’s publication output to Acta Ecologica Sinica (International Journal) international journals has caused concern

Data source, Web of Science 2014.8.14

Review of China’s STM publishing

1985 1987 1989 1995 1998 Today History of STM publishing in China

1985, China’s Science &Technology system: reform begins 1987, Bibliometrics introduced in scientific evaluation by Ministry of Science and Technology Chinese STM journals: issues and developments 1989, Bibliometric indicators included in scientific evaluation in Nanjing University 1995, Journals report effects of new practices

Review of China’s STM publishing Review of China’s STM publishing

Late 1990s, “Revitalizing the country through science and Late 1990s, “Revitalizing the country through science and education” to be the national strategy education” to be the national strategy  R&D expenditure and scholar population increased rapidly  Knowledge Innovation Project  IF included in evaluations nation-wide  Monetary rewards introduced  Effects on scientists as a result of the new evaluation criteria

China

Science and Engineering Indicators (2010, 2014) Chinese STM journals: issues and developments Chinese STM journals: issues and developments Journals lag behind China’s S&T development Chinese academic journals  Quantity issues: not enough Chinese English-language journals  Quality and impact issues  5000 STM journals, 239 English  Few Chinese journals are indexed by SCI language journals,134 journals  Impact factors are low indexed by SCI  Only a small number of highly-cited articles  80% of journals launched since  Chinese English-language journals marginalized late 1970s Number of China’s SCI articles published in 2000 and 2009  Cover most disciplines

Cited by Peng Bin, Reform and development of Chinese journals, Guangzhou, 2010 Cited by Ren Shengli, 2013

Chinese STM journals: issues and developments Dilemma of Chinese STM journals

Internationalization of Chinese journals Reasons?  What does internationalization mean?  Lack of high-quality papers  Collaboration with foreign publishers  Publishing and dissemination technology issues  China Science Press collaborate with Elsevier and Springer  Journal operation and management issues  High Education Press collaborate with Springer  Production quality issues  Journals collaborate with NPG, Elsevier, Springer, Wiley- Blackwell, Taylor and Francis , Oxford University Press etc.

 Multiple collaboration models

Dilemma of Chinese STM journals Dilemma of Chinese STM journals

Internationalization of Chinese journals The internationalization of Chinese journals  Benefits  Current issues  New thoughts, new understanding, and new information  Project for Enhancing International Impact of China STM  Improved journal quality and impacts Journals (PIIJ) • More foreign experts to serve on journal Boards and act as  US$1.5 million to support Chinese English language journals reviewers • More international submissions  Goal 1, improve journals' quality and impacts and launch new • Helped Chinese journals to be indexed journals in short term • Language polishing and copy editing services provided  Goal 2, develop China-owned, world-leading journal groups • Editor training and STM journals • Journals’ impact factors increased  Improved training of Chinese editors  Modern digital publishing techniques and services  International marketing, circulation, and journal promotion www.ecohealthsustain.org

Jing Duan [email protected] Building bridges ‐ Timeline

Building bridges with China 2006 –Where it all began: Ecological Society of America Annual Meeting Sue Silver, PhD 2007 – EcoSummit 2007 and first workshop Ecological Society of America 2010 –First workshop to be supported by The Ecological Society Editor‐in‐Chief, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment of China 2011 –First approach to ESA by ESC regarding a new journal

ISMTE, 7th Annual North American Conference 2012 – Continued discussions between ESA and ESC August 14‐15, 2014 2013 –Signed agreement between the two societies Dr Jing Duan arrives at ESA (one year Visiting Scholarship) 2015 –New journal launch

Building bridges – workshop venues Getting Your Science Published 2007 –Beijing and Mianyang A WORKSHOP ON CONVENTIONS AND 2008 –Beijing and Hangzhou PROFESSIONAL PRACTICES IN SCIENTIFIC COMMUNICATION 2009 – Tianjin, Shanghai and Hangzhou

Beijing, China 2010 –Taiwan (Taipei and Tainan) and Beijing (ESC) May 28 – 30, 2007

Dr. Sue Silver Dr. Philippa Dr. Lindsay Haddon 2011 –Year off to write a book based on the workshops Ecological Benson British Ecological Society The Wildlife Society 2012 –Urumqi, Xi’an, Changsa, and Beijing of America Society 2013 –Hangzhou and Beijing

Building bridges – Workshop content Building bridges – Workshop content

Day 1 Day 2 . Ensuring the “newness” of your science . Do’s and don’ts of manuscript submission . Selecting the right journal . Getting help writing your paper . Writing key sections . Impact factors and new metrics of impact . Understanding peer review . Writing strategies and readable prose . Dealing with decision letter . Who should be an author . Improving scientific writing – general concepts . How to write a cover letter . Improving scientific writing – avoiding plagiarism . Ethical issues in publishing . Figures and tables . Trends in scientific publishing Building bridges – Timeline Building bridges –A proposal

2006 –Where it all began: Ecological Society of America Annual To form a partnership between two scientific societies Meeting (Ecological Society of America and Ecological Society of 2007 – EcoSummit 2007 and first workshop China), to jointly publish a new journal 2010 –First workshop supported by The Ecological Society of . Creative Commons (CC‐BY) licenses solve problems China associated with copyright ownership 2011 –First approach to ESA by ESC regarding a new journal . Funded by ESC 2012 – Continued discussions between ESA and ESC . Profit‐sharing only after the journal breaks even . Two small committees (one from each society) to 2013 –Signed agreement between the two societies Dr Jing Duan arrives at ESA (one year Visiting Scholarship) agree on major decisions) . Managing Editor Jing Duan spends a year at ESA 2015 –New journal launch prior to launch

Building bridges –A new kind of partnership Building bridges –Progress to date

Ecosystem Health and Sustainability ISSN  . Published jointly by ESA and ESC Editor‐in‐Chief  . International International Advisory Board  . Interdisciplinary International Editorial Board  . Fully peer reviewed Website  . Open access Online submission system  Designs (in progress) Offering rapid publication of high‐quality, fully peer‐ Commissioning (in progress) reviewed papers on advances in macro‐ecology and sustainability science Launch date: early 2015

Building bridges –EHS website Building bridges –Why?

What’s in it for ESC? . Wanted a high‐quality international journal with an excellent reputation . Wanted to try a new type of collaboration . Needed ESA’s branding and reputation

What’s in it for ESA . Wanted an “in” to the Chinese market . Wanted to diversity publishing portfolio . Wanted to raise ESA’s profile in other countries . Possible new revenue stream? Building bridges –Contact details

Ecosystem Health and Sustainability www.ecohealthsustain.org

Sue Silver [email protected]

Thank you Large or Small: EIC Transition is a Big Deal for Journals of Any Size Sarah Bidgood, Peer Review Manager, Applied Physics Letters Glenn Collins, Director of Business Development/Managing Editor, Origin Editorial Erin Dubnansky, Vice President of Publications, American Gastroenterological Association

www.ismte.org About the AGA • Founded in 1897 • Non‐profit organization that serves Managing the Editor‐in‐Chief GI/hepatology healthcare professionals Transition Process: and research investigators Ten Keys for Success • 16,000 members worldwide • 12‐member governing board Erin Dubnansky • 15 committees Vice President of Publications American Gastroenterological Association • 100 national office staff

About the AGA’s Journals About Me • 14 years of experience in journal publishing • Provide executive oversight of 3 journals, newspaper, and repurposed products • 12 years as managing editor of Gastroenterology • Overseen 6 editor‐in‐chief (EIC) transitions • Worked with 8 EICs 1943 2003 2015

1: Get Your Hands on the EIC RFA 2: Promote, Promote, Promote • Update content so that it • Creates buzz about the reflects current position circumstances • Increases potential for • Add qualities YOU are receiving multiple looking for applications • Include the perspective • Tailor strategy to target of the current EIC who you’re looking for • Get the OK from • Offers potential publications committee candidates opportunity or other governing body to ask questions 3: Develop a Selection Process 4: Create a Detailed Timeline • Standardizes steps • Helps you think through the transition process from across time and journals start to finish • Applications can be • Include major milestones and small details judged fairly • Can share with all stakeholders for their input • Transparency for • Creates an enduring document for future transitions

candidates Assign Promote Orientation Manuscripts to • Buy‐in of governing Edit RFA Position Select EIC Meeting Training New EIC body

5: Host an Orientation Meeting 6: Develop an Orientation Guide • Provides all stakeholders • Can be shared with the opportunity to make entire board of editors the face/name connection • Conveys strong foundation of journal • Allows EIC to convey short‐ and long‐term • Provides key expectations processes, policies, and other important • Policies and processes can info in one place be reviewed and modified • Has the potential to limit repetitive • Offers Q&A opportunity questions

7: Meet and Greet 8: Raise Awareness about New EIC

• Considered • Builds • Provides • Notifies readers, authors, and reviewers essential for connections opportunity • Offers opportunity to promote EIC’s background successful for down the for insider transition road information • Potentially generates an influx of submissions • Provides the opportunity to market other aspects of the journal 9: Offer Feedback to EIC 10: Be Flexible!

• Allows for clarification about processes and expectations • Fosters a partnership between you and the EIC • Builds EIC’s confidence in his/her new role

Thank You [email protected] About Me

• In STM Publishing since 1995 –John Wiley & The EiC Transition and the Sons to Elsevier to ACC • Working with journals since 2000 –Brain Editorial Office Research and then the JACC journals Can you keep the journal the same • Overseen two EiC transitions and the breaking while everything around it changes? in of 3 new EiCs Glenn Collins, Director of Business • Past President of ISMTE Development/Managing Editor, Origin Editorial

American College of Cardiology Step 1

• 47,000‐members • Did you see the new EiC's • Stringent Criteria for membership application/presentation? • Physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, pharmacists and practice managers – If not, why not? Is it above your pay grade? • Leader in education and the formulation of health policy, – Be flexible/keep an open mind. Do not get standards and guidelines. defensive. • Supporter of cardiovascular research and continuous quality – Start thinking process‐what can and cannot be improvement done? • Operates national registries for the measurement and improvement of quality care. – Join the conversation? Now is your time to shine.

JACC Family of Journals Step 2 An Integrated Portfolio of Publications for an Increasingly Specialized • What exactly is changing? Take stock Audience – Staff? – Design –print, online, both? – Submission site? – Workflow? Decision letters? – Manuscript Types? – Other new initiatives? Staff Design‐Print and Online

• More or less? • Timelines and objectives? Can you start to • Different? tackle this before the EiC actually starts handling papers? • Location? Did the EiC Transition just morph into a • Workflow changes? • complete redesign?

Submission Site Workflow/Decision Letters

• Does the EiC want to change it? • Critical –is the general workflow changing? • Is he or she correct? Should it change? How so? • A good time to take stock of the site and the • Did you change all the signatures, the letters, stuff you have been living with or working the automatically generated ones? around for years. Everything?

Manuscript Types Other new initiatives?

• Adding New Ones? • Increase social media? • Deleting Current Ones? • Podcasting? • New/different engagement with society? • Was there something you always wanted to do but the outgoing EiC said no? Now is the time. Step 3 COST

• Consequences of change • THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK – Cost? – Authors? – Readership? – Impact Factor? – First Impression?

AUTHORS/REVIEWERS/READERS FIRST IMPRESSION

• HOW IS THE CHANGE GOING TO AFFECT • YOU ONLY GET ONE CHANCE TO MAKE A FIRST THEM? IMPRESSION. • IMPACT FACTOR CONSEQUENCES? • DO NOT BE AFRAID TO SUGGEST MORE TIME IS NEEDED TO GET THINGS RIGHT THE FIRST TIME.

Summary Thank you

• Deleted two MS Types (800‐1,000 submissions) • 3 new staff members and counting • All articles now edited prior to sending to production • All original research now have an illustration drawn by a medical illustration • Podcasting • Doubled the number of associate editors • Introduced Section Editors • Introduced two new manuscript types –invited only • Redesigned print –cover and interior • Redesigned article landing page of website • Increased reject without review, decreased acceptance rate • Etc., etc., etc. Panel Discussion Journals in Transition: Making Informed Decisions Shawn H. Morton, US Journals Publishing Director, Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons Kerry O’Rourke, Senior Managing Editor, KWF Editorial Services Margot Puerta, MBA, Executive Editor, Molecular Medicine and Bioelectronic Medicine

www.ismte.org Journals in Transition Panel -- Print to Online: Plan for the Changes Coming Your Way ISMTE August 2014 Meeting

Kerry O’Rourke Senior Managing Editor Kaufman Wills Fusting & Co. – Editorial Services 1010 Streeper Street S Baltimore, MD 21224 Phone: 773-208-7037 Email: [email protected]

This segment will be geared to those working in the editorial office of journals that have already made the decision to make the transition to an online-only journal.

Overview: Your publisher has made the decision to stop publishing the print version of your journal. How do you operationalize this change? What will change in your workflow and processes?

We will examine these questions through case studies and offer examples and lessons learned from ~3 different journals (different sizes, different specialties, including at least one that is society owned). Case study information will be woven throughout the presentation.

• Workflow and processes: What could change for the managing editor? o Will online and mobile versions take on greater importance, without print? o Have you ensured that the online version is the version of record? o Is there anything that print offer users that should/could be replicated in the electronic editions? o Need an app, special features for mobile, or will optimizing the site for mobile viewing be sufficient? o Will you add new features such as more supplemental digital content, multimedia, online forums? o Do you intend to publish more papers? If so, will that mean more paper recruiting and/or changing your acceptance rate? o Will you use the occasion of the transition to make a change in the journal’s publishing schedule? o Preprints? Or publish only once accepted, author corrected, composed, and copyedited? o Continuous publishing—posting articles when they are ready . When they are ready, pagination, and issue creation . Article numbers, no folios o Or issue publishing (no articles published until entire issue is ready for publication) o Post-publication peer review

• Communication to stakeholders o How does print usage vary by user? How is print being used by authors, reviewers, editors? o How do you best communicate the decision to editorial stakeholders—editor, editorial board, reviewers, authors? o Who else should be involved in the communications effort – marketing department, society leaders, the publisher – and what kind of information should they each contribute? The editorial office will want to be in the loop on all communications so that your efforts regarding new materials/features are amplified in the process. o How do we handle author reprints? o How do we remind authors to submit manuscripts without regular print issue appearing in their in-box?

• Questions you may have to answer include: • How much money will we save from editorial and production standpoint? • Could it affect our Impact Factor? • But the online version is viewed as inferior to the print version by authors, isn’t it?

Considerations for Transitioning to an Open Access Publishing Model

Shawn Morton US Publishing Director Health Science Journals Wiley [email protected]

This presentation will provide a basic overview of the current open access (OA) publishing landscape and a simple framework for assessing the viability of converting subscription-based, peer-reviewed journals to an OA model as well as considering the possible launch of “born OA” journals. No deep knowledge of OA is required or expected and the hope of the speaker is that anyone regardless of experience or interest can leave the session capable of discussing this (potentially) complex topic at a usefully informed level. Examples of converted or launched OA titles such as EMBO Journal and Journal of the American Heart Association will serve to embellish and illustrate the otherwise elementary aspects of the talk.

 What will change?

Kerry O’Rourke, Senior Managing Editor  What will be new and exciting?

 What will you tell people?

 The metrics are different for each journal

 Journals with healthy print advertising revenue will be able to support print longer

 Societies that consider print a valuable member benefit will support print longer.

3 4

$4,000,000  $3,500,000 Start early – 1 year ahead is ideal $3,000,000 $2,500,000  Make a list Online $2,000,000 Print  $1,500,000 Involve everyone - P+E fulfillment, customer $1,000,000 service, marketing, $500,000 ad sales, production

$0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Start Early Involve Everyone

5 6  Journal of Record  Copyright ◦ The online journal (and ◦ If you have been sending its ISSN) should be the paper copies of your journal of record. journal to the Library of ◦ The journal of record is Congress, you will need Ditch the “only” and specifically designated as to change your procedure instead say “published such by the publisher. ◦ Instructions for eCO exclusively online.” ◦ It contains all content online at published in the journal copyright.gov/eco/ and is the version sent to Source: Stalker, M. Launching PubMed and other major an online-only journal. indexing services. Learned Publishing, 20, 283- 289 Journal of Record Copyright

7 8

 Archive  CLOCKSS electronic www.clockss.org  Is there anything in the print journal that has content so it is never been online? always accessible  Portico  in the future www.portico.org This might be front matter or back matter

 Annual list of reviewers

 CME content

9 10

A journal is no longer just a collection of curated articles but a nucleus from which to engage readers.

11 12  Video – “how to,” procedures, abstracts  Audio discussions  Animation Source: Robert Pick,  Data sets www.bobpick.com, HighWire  Publisher’s Meeting, Nov. 20, Online forums 2013  Post-publication peer review  Altmetrics

13 14

 Improve navigation within and among articles

 Zooming feature

 Add links to related content

 Create online collections – test this and see what gets the most traffic

15 16

17 18  Content must be “portable” – optimized for viewing on any device

19 20

. Papers in Press → Just Accepted

. Epub Ahead of Print → ?

. Journal logo and publisher name on each PDF

21 22

 House ads before the print is gone  Mention the journal in member Say communication pieces all year What?  Prominent link to the journal on the society Online again? home page Online  In the booth, display an info card that looks only! Online only! like the journal cover and demo the journal only! on different devices

From: CHEST Launches a New Era With a New DesignCHEST Launches a New Era With a New Design

Chest. 2014;146(1):1-4. doi:10.1378/chest.14-1038  You will save money ◦ Printing and mailing  Some costs could increase ◦ New online features ◦ More pages  Will it affect our impact factor?  You will be able to better analyze how readers use your content

Figure Legend: – On the Journal website, sign up for E-mail Alerts from the content page from which you would like to receive alerts (ie, Current Issue, Online First, or Collection).

25 26

27 28

 Print on Demand! ◦ For individuals who want a copy ◦ If you sold multi-year subscriptions and need to fulfill them ◦ For special issues, such as the annual meeting issue

29 30 Kerry O’Rourke [email protected]

31 Shawn Morton US Journals Publishing Director, Health Sciences Wiley

• A Simple General Heuristic Not a Detailed Introduction Or you can think of it like this… A Framework for Further Study

• Conversion Candidates Hallmarks

• Possible Launches Characteristics

Open Access is like… GOLD

PLOS

DROSS • Launched in 2012 with American Heart • More Readers than Subscribers Association

Measured by Submissions • Large cascade structure: 13,000 potential manuscripts

• More Relevance than Revenue Articles Published Impact Factor as Quality Proxy • 2012: 125 • 2013: 272 • 2014 (through June): 191

• MEDLINE and ISI acceptance in 2013 • PLOS Not Dross • A success but not in the manner expected Where rejected articles go • In OA launches expect the unexpected

• Launched 2009 • “Good for Clinical Content” • 1,075 Submissions in 2012 (published 111)

• Impact Factor of 10.33 (2011) • “Good for Underserved Authors”

• 60 subscribers • “Good for our Impact Factor (of • Flipped March 2012 another journal)” • 1,242 submissions during Year 1 OA

• Published 131 articles during Year 1 OA • “……itunes…..”

• Strong feeder streams • Stay on main roads (submissions or other journals) • Eye the main square • Strong Brand(s)

• Well-funded Area • Avoid dark alleys Launching A New Journal

Margot Puerta MS, MBA Executive Editor Molecular Medicine and Bioelectronic Medicine [email protected] [email protected]

August 14, 2014 International Society of Managing and Technical Editors 2014 North American Conference

Learning Objectives o Review some of the steps a small, independent publisher faces when starting up a new open access journal. § Strategic Planning Considerations § Operations Planning Considerations o Case study example: Bioelectronic Medicine The Feinstein Institute for Medical Research: Who We Are

The Feinstein Institute for Medical Research is the research branch of the North Shore-LIJ Health System and is headquartered in Manhasset, NY.

The Institute is composed of more than 1500 clinicians, scientists and staff who work in laboratories and clinical research programs in collaboration with clinicians and patients throughout the many facilities of the health system.

Every year, more than 15,000 patients and volunteers participate in over 2,000 research studies.

The Feinstein Institute is the publisher of two biomedical research journals: Molecular Medicine and the recently launched Bioelectronic Medicine.

Starting Up A New Journal Strategic Planning Considerations

• Background Research* – what are the reasons for starting a new journal?

• Leadership – who will be the scientific leadership (EIC), other staff?

• Access – will it be open access?

• Peer Review – open or closed, single or double blind?

• Publisher – who will the publisher be, royalty based or profit sharing model?

• Revenue Model – subscription based, advertising, AU fees?

• Design – look and feel (color scheme, modern, traditional?)

• Legal – do copyrights or other items need to be filed or claimed (OA copyright agreements)?

• Social Strategy – what social strategy will be employed, by whom? Starting Up A New Journal Operations Considerations • Background Research – identify potential AUs and target number of articles for first year.

• Leadership – editorial office staff members and roles defined. Office location?

• Access – index or prepare for indexing in appropriate databases.

• Peer Review – online manuscript submission system set up.

• Publisher – PDF and print production, ebook/ print on demand.

• Design – create web presence, acquire domains, logos.

• Legal – policy creation (peer review, editorial, terms, privacy, legal notice).

• Marketing Strategy – promotional materials, marketing & social media calendar.

• Communications – instructions (authors & reviewers), style guide, criteria for transfer of papers from editorial to production. Case Study

Nov Dec-Jan-Feb Mar-Apr-May Jun Jul Aug Sep-Oct-Nov 2013 2013-2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014

Discuss Strategic Identify and Invitations to First MSs Marketing Inaugural start-up of planning & review Ed Board rec’d & into campaign issue new journal background potential Ed candidates peer review initiated published research Board candidates

New journal AU MS EIC inaugural Marketing AU MS MSs rec’d start-up submission editorial campaign submission & into peer approved/ invitations published reviewed & invitations review EIC selected sent to first approved sent group

ISSN rec’d. Manuscript Website submission go-live site live Background Research: Why Start Up A New Journal?

• Why is a new journal needed?

While the fields of molecular medicine, bioengineering and neuroscience have existed separately for some time, they are coming together to form the emerging field of bioelectronic medicine.

Bioelectronic medicine (aka electroceuticals) uses bioelectronic implants to stimulate nerves to treat disease. Basically, using electrical impulses to modulate the body’s neural circuits as an alternative to drug-based interventions.

Background Research: What is Unique About the New Journal?

This emerging field endeavors to bring together not only clinicians and researchers from diverse backgrounds, but also an expanded community and multidisciplinary audience of specialists from fields such as:

device development molecular biology disease biology nanotechnology bioinformatics neuroscience bioengineering neurosurgery materials science

The community faces the challenge of integrating concepts, tools, and a common language and understanding among these fields. The new journal, Bioelectronic Medicine, will act as a forum through which this integration can take place and discoveries can be communicated to this multidisciplinary audience.

Background Research: Is There A Sufficient Need? Background Research: Other Considerations • Who is the audience/readership?

• What is the estimated size of the audience? • How is that audience distributed internationally? • Do we have support networks overseas to support international development?

• Conduct potential stakeholder surveys. • Identify target audience for the journal and determine what they look for as readers and authors.

• Provide a competitor analysis of existing journals in the field.

Background Research: Other Considerations (Cont.)

• What will the new journal name be, abbreviation be?

• What is the objective, scope, mission, vision? • How will the journal fit in with existing holdings of publisher? • Cannibalism of content?

• What is the goal of the journal in the next five years?

• Would the journal publish unsolicited material or a significant amount of commissioned content? Would you pay for commissions?

• What are the price points and estimated page budgets of potentially competing titles? Starting Up Bioelectronic Medicine Strategic Planning Considerations

• Leadership – Dr. Kevin J. Tracey as EIC – a pioneer in bioelectronic medicine.

• Access – Open Access

• Peer Review – Closed, single blind peer review.

• Publisher – Feinstein Institute for Medical Research

• Design – more modern, open, forward thinking feel, include a similar color palette to the Feinstein Institute’s color palette, while complementing existing sister journal.

• Legal – ISSN, doi, crossref, ithenticate, COPE, website terms/conditions

• Social Strategy – minimal at this point, piggy-backing off of Molecular Medicine’s strategy if/when appropriate. Starting Up A New Journal Operations Considerations • Background Research – identify Contributing Editor candidates – issue invitations to join the board, identify potential AUs and target number of articles for first 6 mo.

• Leadership – current editorial staff and office location will be used. Some revision of office space needed. Hired 0.5 FTE with an option of hiring another 0.5 or 1.0 FTE in the future. Also including more volunteer editors to assist with administering peer-review process on both journals.

• Access – reviewed JCRs guidelines and taking them into account as needed.

• Peer Review –cloned existing Molecular Medicine submission site, altered content/templates/artwork as needed for bioelectronic medicine subject matter.

• Publisher – FIMR, online only, pre-typeset articles published online within days of acceptance, later replaced with final versions.

Starting Up A New Journal Operations Considerations

• Design – web presence: piggy-backed off of Molecular Medicine’s website, acquired 5-8 different domain names for redirects/future use. Logo development.

• Legal – policy creation (peer review, editorial, terms, privacy, legal notice). Many of these taken from Molecular Medicine and edited as needed for subject matter.

• Marketing Strategy – promotional materials and marketing calendar developed for 6 months.

• Communications – instructions (authors & reviewers), style guide, criteria for transfer of papers from editorial to production. Many of these taken from Molecular Medicine and edited as needed for bioelectronic subject matter. Questions?

Margot Puerta [email protected]

General Session Reporting on Science in The Media: An Interactive Q&A with Robert Bazell Robert Bazell, Adjunct professor, molecular, cellular, and developmental biology Yale, Former chief science correspondent, NBC News

www.ismte.org How to Conduct Research for Editorial Office Professionals Larissa Shamseer, MSc (Clin Epi), PhD Candidate, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute/University of Ottawa

Participants will be provided with an overview of research methods, how to formulate a research question to evaluate new or existing editorial policies, and provided with examples of previous research carried out within biomedical journals. Other basic questions such as how to detect submission trends and which simple statistics to use will be addressed. A real-life example of a question and how to design a research study around it, will be walked through. Participants should come prepared with a real or hypothetical research question to think about and discuss with fellow participants and the speaker during the session. By the end of the session, participants should learn, at a minimum, how to select the appropriate method to answer a particular research question and key design aspects of typical research methods.

www.ismte.org How to Conduct Research for Editorial Office Professionals

A health researcher’s perspective

Larissa Shamseer PhD Candidate, University of Ottawa

14 Aug 2014 Overview

What do I do? What is Epidemiology? Formulating a research question Selecting the best design Using the appropriate statistics A few examples of published editorial research Who’s here today? Why am I here?

Clinical Epidemiologist / Methodologist – think “epidemic” – Health researcher – Research on research § Critique methods and reporting of research Research interests

Methodology and reporting of health-related research (mainly systematic reviews & clinical trials)

– Assess the reporting of research studies § Poor reporting is prevalent § E.g. therapeutic interventions are so poorly described, over 50% cannot be replicated in practice

– Quantify selective reporting of research studies § Publication bias: majority of published literature is in favour of health interventions; lack of literature around treatment failure and harms Research interests (cont’d)

Reporting guidelines/checklists e.g., – CONSORT: Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials – PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses E.g. Does CONSORT improve the reporting of published trials in journals that endorse it’s use

Applicable outside of biomedical sciences Research interests (cont’d)

Journalology – The scientific study of publication practices (editing, peer reviewing, writing)

– Applying epidemiological methods to evaluate the effectiveness of publishing practices/policies

E.g., – Do “predatory” journals have less rigourous editorial and peer review processes than legitimate open access journals? What is Epidemiology?

“the study of what is upon the people”

Traditional epidemiology: – Determinants (i.e. exposures: drinking contaminated water) – Distribution/spread (e.g., disease transmission, incidence, prevalence, geographic location) – Effect of health-related states (e.g., high blood pressure, obesity) at the population-level

Clinical Epidemiology – Concerned with patient-level care – Diagnostics/prognostics – Efficacy and effectiveness of health care interventions

Main goal: association and causation (does A cause B?) Why bother with formal research methods/statistics

Evidence-based medicine – i.e. evaluation of drugs – Implementation of only safe & effective treatments

Systematic approach (established step-by-step methods) Can help determine risks/predictors for future outcomes Can answer questions about association and even causation Provide reliable way to make decisions

Goal: Evidence-based publishing What is data?

information that may have been collected from a historical record (i.e. database), a survey, an experiment, etc.

How do we ask questions of it?

How do we analyze it?

Two approaches to studying data

Descriptive Epidemiology – Summarize/describe/understand data § E.g., The acceptance rate for Journal X was 21.3% in 2006. – Generate hypotheses for future planning/testing (i.e. pattern detection) § E.g. The number of submissions at Journal X increased by an average of 40% per year between 2006 and 2012

Analytical Epidemiology – Understanding the “why” behind the descriptive data – Used to compare different aspects of data – Use data to make predictions/forecasts § E.g. Does promotion through social media improve submission rates at Journal X? Descriptive Epidemiology

Basic useful statistics

MEAN: sum of data points / number of data points – E.g., average length of peer review

Cumulative days for peer review turnaround ______# of peer reviewers Proportion: number of events / total number – E.g. Acceptance rate Number of accepted manuscripts ______Number of submitted manuscripts Why just the mean isn’t enough: variance Objective: average time to peer review

Days to peer review: 10, 10, 10, 10, 10 Average days to peer review: – (10+10+10+10+10) / 5 = 10 days Range: 0 days Standard deviation: 0

Why isn’t the average sufficient?

Days to peer review: 0, 5, 10, 15, 20 Avg time to peer review: – (0+5+10+15+20) / 5 = 10 days Range: 20 days Standard deviation: 7.9 Why is the spread of data important?

Mean: 10 Mean: 10

Wide variability in peer Narrower variability in peer reviewer submission time reviewer submission time When the mean is NOT appropriate

E.g., Journal Impact Factor # citations to any articles over past 2 years ______# original research & review articles over past 2 years

What it’s meant to be: average number of citations acquired by most papers in a given journal

Why it’s problematic? – Can be skewed by very highly cited papers § E.g. Nature 2005 IF showed that 89% of citations came from only 25% of papers

Median: the value at the middle of a frequency distribution – When no skewing present, median=mean – Report both, with a measure of variance Analytical epidemiology

Understanding reasons behind trends, means, proportions

Requires carefully designed, rigourous methodology Analytical study designs

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY researcher intervenes to Randomized change reality then observes Controlled what happens Trial

Cohort study

OBSERVATIONAL Case-control study STUDIES Researcher studies, but does not alter, what occurs Cross-sectional study How to develop a an analytical research question

Essential elements of a research question:

P: population

I: intervention / exposure

C: comparator / control / non-exposure

O: outcome of interest Formulating a PICO question in epidemiology Do cell phones cause brain cancer?

Population: general public, possibly country-specific, (implied) Intervention/exposure: cell phone Control: unexposed to cell phone use Outcome: brain cancer Formulating a PICO question for editorial research How can I increase my peer reviewer invitation acceptance rates?

Population: peer reviewers

Intervention: declined invitations

Comparator: accepted invitations

Outcome: completed peer review Why correlation does not imply causation

A is associated with B

E.g., You carry out a survey of teens asking whether over the past year, they smoked marijuana and whether they felt depressed. You find that 40% more teens who smoke marijuana indicate being depressed and conclude that marijuana causes depression. – Is this correct?

In your area of research…

You suspect that methodology experts produce higher quality reviews than non-methodologists. You determine the expertise of all peer reviewers who reviewed over a 1 month period & rate the quality of their reviews using some sort of rating criteria You find that, indeed, methodologists produce better quality reviews and set out to find more methodological reviewers.

Problems: – not feasible – you don’t know why their scores are higher; is there an underlying factor affecting quality of peer review? A more appropriate approach?

Survey all peer reviewers over 1 month (or longer) to determine how they carry out peer review. You find that 50% more reviewers with methodological expertise are are assessing certain aspects of the manuscript that non-methodologists are not Conclusion: providing all reviewers with the minimum set of criteria that are used by methodologists (and training) should improve peer review quality Causation

To determine causation (uni-directional association), researchers must be able to introduce/control exposure to a variable among different groups over time

Best way to determine causality is through an experimental study Epidemiological research designs

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY researcher intervenes to Randomized change reality then observes Controlled what happens Trial

Cohort study

OBSERVATIONAL Case-control study STUDIES Researcher studies, but does not alter, what occurs Cross-sectional study Cross-sectional study

A collection of information about both an exposure/ intervention/factors and outcome of interest at a single time point

Pros Cons Quick/Inexpensive to carry out Causality impossible to determine Can reach many people (i.e. Cannot easily assess population vs sample) confounders

Used to generate hypothesis Responder bias

Can be repeated to create a Subjective responses longitudinal study

Used to determine prevalence Single snapshot, cannot identify new cases/events (incidence) E.g., Cross-sectional study

Population: Invited peer reviewers from 5 journal over 9 month Intervention/Exposure: factors associated with declining Comparator: factors associated with accepting Outcome: completed review Case-control study

Compares the same exposures/interventions/factors between groups with different outcomes (i.e. cases and controls) E.g., compare accepted vs rejected manuscripts based on: country of origin, Cross Check score, reporting quality, etc

Pros Cons Can explore multiple suspected Cannot determine causality causal factors Relatively inexpensive, little time Limited to historically collected to carry out data on exposures- recall bias Good for rare outcomes Bad for rare exposures/ (because comparison on basis of suspected causal factors outcome) E.g., Case Control study

Population: submitted manuscripts Intervention: to be explored Outcome: accepted Comparator: rejected Cohort study

Compares outcomes between exposed and unexposed groups Prospective and retrospective

Pros Cons Can evaluate multiple outcomes Expensive and time consuming of single exposure (prospective) Good for rare exposures Cannot study rare/infrequent outcomes Can measure incidence (new Confounders must be accounted events) for/thought of ahead of time so they can be measured Clear chronological relationship between an exposure and outcome (Causality possible in some cases, if done well/large enough sample) E.g., Cohort Study

Population: Peer Reviewers Intervention: training workshop Comparator: nothing Outcome: performance of peer reviewers (quality of peer review) Randomized controlled trial

Comparison of outcomes between groups which have been prospectively, randomly assigned to receive a specific exposure/intervention

Pros Cons Can determine causality/ Expensive and time consuming effectiveness Randomization controls for Cannot study rare/infrequent external/forgotten confounders outcomes E.g., Randomized controlled trial

Population: peer reviewers Intervention: reporting guidelines w/regular reviewer instructions Comparator: regular reviewer instructions Outcome: Quality of peer review, author adherence to suggested changes More randomized trials

….more common than you think! One more design to consider…

Before-after studies Resources for designing a study

BMJ research on publishing/editorial processes: http://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/evidence-based-publishing/bmj- research-publications

Epidemiological study designs: http://www.med.uottawa.ca/sim/data/Study_Designs_e.htm

Online training modules in basic statistics & epidemiology: – Khan Academy: https://www.khanacademy.org/math/probability/descriptive-statistics – Coursera https://www.coursera.org/course/epidemiology Questions?

Contact me!

[email protected]

@larissashamseer @CONSORTing @PRISMAStatement

LinkedIN: https://www.linkedin.com/in/larissashamseer References to studies in this presentation INTERPHONE Study Group. Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile telephone use: results of the INTERPHONE international case–control study. Int. J. Epidemiol. (2010) 39 (3): 675-694. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyq079 Tite L., Schroter S. Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey. J Epidemiol Community Health 2007;61:9–12. doi: 10.1136/jech.2006.049817 Lee, K. P., Boyd, E. A., Holroyd-Leduc, J. M., Bacchetti, P., & Bero, L. A. Predictors of publication: characteristics of submitted manuscripts associated with acceptance at major biomedical journals. Medical Journal of Australia, 2006; 184(12), 621. Callaham M. & Schriger D.L. Effect of structured workshop training on subsequent performance of journal peer reviewers. Annals of Emergency Medicine. 2002; 40(3), 323-328. Cobo E., Cortés J., Riber J.M., Cardellach F., Selva-O’Callaghan A., Kostov B., García L, Cirugeda L, Altman D, González JA, Sànchez JA, Miras F, Urrutia A, Fonollosa A, Rey-Joly C, Vilardell M. Effect of using reporting guidelines during peer review on quality of final manuscripts submitted to a biomedical journal: masked randomised trial. BMJ 2011;343:d6783 doi: 10.1136/bmj.d6783 Justice A.C., Cho M.K., Winker M.A., Berlin J.A., Drummond R., PEER Investigators. Does Masking Author Identity Improve Peer Review Quality? A Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA. 1998; 280(3): 240-242 Schroter, S., Black, N., Evans, S., Carpenter, J., Godlee, F., & Smith, R. Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial. BMJ, 2004; 328(7441): 673. Houry D., Green S., Callaham M. Does mentoring new peer reviewers improve review quality? A randomized trial. BMC Medical Education 2012, 12:83 Hopewell S., Collins G.S., Boutron I., Yu L.M., Cook J., Shanyinde M. Wharton R., Shamseer L., Altman D.G. Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: retrospective before and after study BMJ 2014; 349:g4145 A few other studies

van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Black N, Smith R. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers’ recommendations: a randomised trial. BMJ 1999;318:23–7 Rajesh A, Cloud G, Harisinghani MG. Improving the Quality of Manuscript Reviews: Impact of Introducing a Structured Electronic Template to Submit Reviews. AJR 2013; 200:20–23. doi:10.2214/AJR.11.8299 Jefferson T., Rudin M., Brodney Folse S., & Davidoff F. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007; 2 Two types of statistics

Descriptive statistics – simple numerical calculations used to summarize or describe a data set § Summary measures: Mean, median, frequency, proportion § Variance measures: range, standard deviation – Assumes that data are collected from an entire population § E.g. data from all manuscripts every published by a journal

Inferential statistics – Assumes that a sample of data are taken from a larger population which is impossible to measure § E.g. data collected from manuscripts published over 1 month or year – Most summary measures apply – Major difference: levels of ‘confidence’ and ‘significance’

Working with the Production Office: What they need and how this affects the editorial office Nancy Devaux, Process Improvement Manager, Dartmouth Journal Services, Sheridan

www.ismte.org

ISMTE, 2014 North American Conference Philadelphia, PA August 14, 2014

Journal Production: The Basics and Beyond

Nancy Devaux

Process Improvement Manager Dartmouth Journal Services, Sheridan 5 Pilgrim Park Waterbury, VT 05676 [email protected] 802-882-1603

64 It’s frustrating when my Managing Editor… • allows manuscript files to come into production that are incorrect, incomplete, or wrongly formatted • does not provide complete source material in the beginning of production, and during issue workflow, withholding important front matter • does not provide all needed pieces of front matter prior to issue compile • submits multiple corrections to the mastheads up until final stages of production rather than waiting to send in all at once • sends in new initiatives with a quick TAT, not realizing that it takes some time for comp, tech, and HW to set up, develop and test • does not provide materials (manuscripts, lineup, etc.) according to the schedule • does not provide timely answers to questions (e.g., about specific manuscripts or general style questions) • does not provide time-sensitive materials in a timely manner or sufficient details to complete a request • does not provide edits (ie, of front matter like the TOC summaries) within the necessary turnaround schedule • does not provide special articles (ie, Editorial, Preface) in a timely manner • decides to add an article or Editorial at a very late stage of production, after the deadline • fails to answer questions about special publications (ie, press run, special mailing, etc) • does not provide ample production time for new/live work that is oside of the established workflow • does not express frustrations regarding errors or workflow issues directly, but rather waits until they become larger than necessary when they could have been easily addressed early on • does not provide scheduled workflow items on time • does not communicate internal scheduled holiday, vacation, or personal time away that may affect deadlines on our end • does not provide feedback/expectations • does not provide style examples when a new type of article or section is requested • does not provide all materials for an article at the same time. Tracking which articles have gaps and matching up late materials is time-consuming and is a significant locus for possible error • does not provide materials on time, especially at the late stages • does not provide reasonably prompt answers to production questions • does not provide up to date and clear expectations to authors (author instructions/author guide/digital art guidelines) • does not provide detailed, complete instructions that are fully thought out • does not provide complete metadata • does not provide enough heads-up for significant projects, like redesigns and adding new article types • does not use the Acrobat annotation tools properly or consistently, causing confusion, rework and delays • do not provide information by requested deadline • does not tell me when she’ll be out of the office (sometimes I find out via out-of-office messages—fine for 1 day, not for 1-2 week breaks) • does not advise of personnel/contact changes at the editorial office

65 I wish my Managing Editor understood… • that schedules are established for a reason and that turn-around times are structured in a way that allows all aspects of production adequate time. So when we receive very late manuscripts on a regular basis, it’s detrimental to the schedule and rushing could introduce mistakes • that technological improvements and change in workflow are not always available immediately upon request • production processes better and what is involved in the work that we do • the workflow, and the direct impact that late submissions has on meeting print dates • that every request for action outside the normal production workflow reduces the time available to production staff to meet critical (to the customer) deadlines • that it’s difficult for us to remain on schedule when numerous articles are provided at the tail end of the production cycle or after the submission deadline has passed • materials that are submitted incompletely only delay production and cause extra work and re-work • that keeping me informed about anything unique allows me to prepare better to meet her needs • what happens at each stage of the workflow whether manual or automated, and not just the TATs • if manuscripts or materials are submitted at the last minute or after the deadline, we might not be able to make up the time • that we need a heads up when things are delayed and some idea when the missing material will arrive • queries to authors can take a long time; a request to check something with an author at a late stage can hang up a whole issue • when we receive final approval or corrections, we proceed immediately; therefore input from other editorial office staff should be coordinated and included in that one communication • we keep an open dialogue with the understanding that customer feedback is greatly appreciated • that schedules are important and last-minute changes or delays have a ripple effect on many different areas of production • how the production process works • that correctly annotated PDFs create less errors, less emails, less confusion, less questions, less rework • that deviations from the schedule are difficult • that we’re juggling a lot of different tasks each day; when special requests or projects are sent to us we have to prioritize them among the rest of the daily tasks; everything can’t be taken care of immediately and the more requests we get, the more difficult it is to keep everything on schedule

The workflow is best when my Managing Editor… • provides everything for the issue on time • handles editorial matters with Editors-in Chief • provides materials (manuscripts, lineup, etc.) according to the schedule • does her job in a timely manner • sends articles early in the cycle, provides the issue lineup immediately at issue close, answers my questions swiftly • is open to dialogue regarding process and workflow limitations/expectations • asks questions that impact each of our responsibilities • trusts me to “own” the details of production • follows a schedule and lets me know when things are delayed • does the intake work: confirming that figures meet journal requirements and quality standards, paperwork such as permissions and COI forms are complete, no major gaps such as missing text sections • does a thorough job of reviewing articles and addressing problems with authors • answers my emails promptly • meets deadlines (or at least tells me when the files/information will be available) • is available to answer questions quickly • trusts me • follows the production schedule; when she sends things to us on time and doesn’t ask us to send things back to her sooner than the schedule, it helps a great deal • provides sufficient details and background on any given situation so I am able to appropriately address it

66 The Sheridan Group The Sheridan Press

Sheridan Books, Inc.

Dartmouth Printing Company Dartmouth Journal Services Journal Production: • ~145 employees • >260 titles The Basics and Beyond • Editorial, composition, image processing, online deliverables Nancy Devaux • Issue management Process Improvement Manager • Technology solutions Dartmouth Journal Services

ISMTE, 2014 North American Conference

WORKFLOW

Online Article Objectives Peer Article acceptance Supplementary Review Production Data Learn the major workflow components of article and issue production Mobile Apps

Appreciate the responsibilities that a Production Editor manages

Understand better how you can work with your production vendor Printed Issue Issue Lineup Issue Ads Production Covers Online Issue

3 4

Article Production Login

…of data and materials, from Peer Review provider to Production vendor

What is transferred to Production? Manuscript Login Copyediting Composition Preparation . Metadata – data about the manuscript, typically in XML format • MS number (and other IDs: DOI, CID, ORCID, etc) • Article Title and Article Type • Corresponding Author; all authors • History: Submission Date, Acceptance Date Proofing Corrections Approval Publication • Figure information (number, color status, etc) . Manuscript file (including tables)

Issue Production . Figure files(s) . Supplementary data and materials

5 6

67 Manuscript Manuscript before Preparation Preparation

Standardize the structure and format • Remove extra returns and white space; single-space; standardize margins • Apply standard tagging (XML codes) to every element of the manuscript These codes drive the typesetting templates and online presentation!

Perform auto-redact functions • Global search and replace, following a strict journal-specific rule set  spelling  abbreviations  units of measure  common phrases and terminology • Reference restructuring • Citation matching – figures, tables, references, etc • PubMed linking and CrossRef checking • Add standard queries These features increase consistency and reduce copyediting time!

7 8

Manuscript after Manuscript after Preparation Preparation

9 10

Copyediting Copyediting

Read and correct manuscript for grammar, syntax, spelling, etc. Follow a style guide •APA •AMA •Chicago •MLA •CSE • House style • Unique journal style Track changes for ease of review

11 12

68 Copyediting Composition

typesetting, image processing, pagination, proofreading

. Template-based typesetting • All elements are tagged with XML codes and spec’d with definitions of font, size, spacing and layout • Those specs are then built into an article template

. Image processing includes preflighting, sizing, clean-up and color conversion

. Pagination involves flowing the text, tables and figures per journal style and to a defined composition standard

. Proofreading ensures the typographic elements are accurate and presented in a consistent, sensible, aesthetic layout

13 14

Composition Corrections

Author Review article proof Mark edits on PDF, answer queries, provide revised figures

Production Editor Review corrections - conform to editorial and comp style Ensure queries are answered completely Ensure corrections are clear and understandable Process revised figures Review for stylistic requirements that might have been missed

Composition Revise typeset file (figure reprocessing, proofreading)

Production Editor QC check

15 16

Corrections Corrections

17 18

69 Corrections Approval

Production Editor typically has approval responsibility Managing Editor or Author may need to approve

Publish Ahead of Print Publication Article-based Publishing

Final version of article is posted online Articles are citable via a unique identifier (DOI, CID, etc) Do not include volume/issue information Date of publication is typically the online pub date Most publishers do not allow further corrections … Erratum Content may be delivered to other repositories, indexers, or for a mobile app

19 20

Publication Issue Production

Lineup – sequence of entire issue Covers • images, banners, title lines, issue updates, ads Front matter • TOC, ed board, masthead, ITI, paid ads, etc Folios • text/articles with issue page numbering Back matter • filler ads, classified ads, indexes, calendar, IFA, etc

Compile – pull all issue elements together Process images and ads Recompose front and back matter Apply issue-stage revisions QC & Revise Add or remove an article Late corrections, change of sequence Late ads

21 22

Issue Production

Approval by Publisher/ME or Production Editor PE generates Closing Memo and performs final QC checking

Release to Printer Release to Online Host CMYK-converted Issue PDF RGB issue PDF Print-specific metadata Issue XML Graphics Bluelines Supplementary materials Final QC before print, bind and mail

23 24

70 • Incomplete or sub-par submissions create delays Provide advance notice of anything out of the ordinary… …make sure the source material is ready for production • Production is staged and scheduled late, but must-include article new initiative …avoid random, piecemeal submissions, after the deadline has passed special issue • New initiatives and workflow changes take time to scope, to develop, high-maintenance author to test, to revise, to implement must meet conference or special meeting …allow for this in preliminary discussions of the timeline new element • Unclear expectations and unanswered questions cause confusion and rework vacations and holidays …provide ample detail in a timely fashion new article type journal redesign …be clear about what you need and let us take care of it • Your production vendor works hard to satisfy you with a quality journal on time change with online display high-profile editorial or lead article …allow us to focus on what’s most important and urgent staff change • Your production vendor should act as an extension of your office style change special collections …if you don’t like something, tell us … involve us in the solution …if things are going well, tell us that too! new EIC change with other vendors schedule delay

25 26

Objectives Questions and Comments Learn the major workflow components of article and issue production

Appreciate the responsibilities that a Production Editor manages Nancy Devaux Dartmouth Journal Services Understand better how you can work with your production vendor 5 Pilgrim Park Waterbury, Vermont 05477

[email protected] 802-882-1603

27 28

71 Navigating Policy: Mandates and New Initiatives Kent R. Anderson, CEO/Publisher, STRIATUS/JBS, Inc.

www.ismte.org

72 Poster Session

www.ismte.org

74 Speed Networking

www.ismte.org

76 Excel Workshop: Preparing Annual Editorial Reports Tom McClung, MIS Analyst, ACE Private Risk Services

Reporting is a critical activity for any editorial office. The number of tools available for collecting data is as varied as the manner in which offices wish to present their metrics. Excel can be used to animate the data and create powerful presentations. Mr. McClung will walk attendees through the basics of Excel, the features of tool, and how to use the application as a foundation for editorial reporting. His presentation will include tips on organizing data and leveraging the power of formulas and charting capabilities within the tool. Those who use Excel as their sole application for office management will benefit from this session. The presentation will be made using Excel 2010.

www.ismte.org

78 Becoming a Freelance Editorial Office Professional Arlene Furman, Managing Director & Co-Founder, Technica Editorial Services Jack Nestor, Senior Editor & Co-Founder, Technica Editorial Services

www.ismte.org

80 Are You Ready To Take That Step? Recognizing Opportunities: Let’s Go Freelance

Jack Nestor and Arlene Furman Co‐owners at Technica Editorial Services ISMTE Conference Philadelphia August 15, 2014

Agenda

1. What is a freelancer? 2. What’s your motivation? 3. What are your goals as a freelancer? 4. Time to take a self‐inventory. 5. Turn your idea into a plan. 6. The business. 7. Trust. 8. Conclusion: wrapping it up. 9. Q & A session.

What Is a Freelancer? free∙lance: Noun: ‘frē‐,lan(t)s

1.) usually free lance: a mercenary soldier, especially of the Middle Ages

81 free∙lance: Noun: ‘frē‐,lan(t)s

2.) a person who pursues a profession without a long‐term commitment to any one employer

My Life as a Freelancer

• Independent Contractor • Short‐ and Long‐Term Assignments • Multiple Clients • Network of Industry Contacts • Professional Reputation • No Paid Vacation or Sick Days • Responsible for Your Own Health Care • Long Hours, Erratic Schedule • In Charge of Your Own Destiny…

Be sure to separate your motivation from your business model.

• Negative Motivations include disliking your boss, your What’s Your Motivation? commute, or just getting up in the morning. • Positive Motivations include a desire to build your own business, work toward your professional goals, contribute to industry innovation, and continue your own education and personal growth. • http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/opinion/sunday/the‐secret‐of‐effective‐ motivation.html

82 Plan ahead: self- assessment tools • Aptitude and personality tests: What Are Your Goals MAPP, Myers‐Briggs as a Freelancer? • Career and personal counselors: college career centers • Self‐reflection: trends in work history, what do you like, what do you seek out?

Part-Time vs. Full-Time • Part‐time work • Full‐time work • Supplement current income • Build a sustainable business Time To Take a Self-Inventory • Widen experience and skill set • Long‐term career option • Broaden professional • Responsible for health care “Know Thyself? If I knew myself, I’d run away.” community and vacation days ‐ Goethe

• Resources • Resources • Social/professional network • Social/professional network • Clients • Staff and clients • Online communities and forums • Online communities and forums • Societies and associations • Societies and associations See Resources slide at the end for links. See Resources slide at the end for links.

Self-Inventory Pros and Cons

• Are you ready to take full responsibility for the management and success Pros Cons of your freelance business? • Do you have the skills you need to compete and succeed? • Freedom • Self‐discipline • Flexibility • Isolation • Do you like to work long hours? (You must answer YES!) • Non‐corporate lifestyle • Burnout • Is your personality suited to this commitment? • Never a dull moment • Multiple bosses • Do you need to partner with others? • No limits • Cash flow • Do you have a high risk threshold? • You can work in your underwear • You can work in your underwear • Are you flexible and able to change direction quickly? • Explore interests • Selling/Promoting services • Do you enjoy solving problems as they arise?

83 Your Business Plan

• Define the focus of your plan as a mission statement. Turn Your Idea into a Plan • Specify the services/products you will offer. (Diversify!) • Who will be interested in your services/products? • What kind of help are they looking for? • How much revenue do you need to generate? • What are your expenses? • Who will be working with you? (Will you be working alone or partnering with someone –what are their qualifications?) • What is your risk tolerance?

Envisioning Your Business Unintended Consequences: Imagine the Potholes! Business Type The “Little” Incidentals • Sole proprietor? • Taxes? • Partnership? • Certifications, regulations, and compliance? In all the planning for your • Corporation? • Staff? Hiring? Compensation? Payroll? dreams, prepare for a few • Consider the business size, the market need, • Work space? Technology? Supplies? disappointments. How will and your earlier self‐inventory. you handle setbacks?

Planning Considerations Planning Considerations

Finances: Burnout: • What if the work (and your income) take a few months to ramp up? What if it slows to a • More businesses “fail” from burnout (just don’t want to do it anymore!) than actual trickle? business failure. How will you get a break when you need one? What will happen to your business while you’re taking a break? Time Management Market: • No Monday through Friday, 9 to 5 here. How will you delineate work time from personal time? What about rush/emergency jobs? • New technologies, globalization, competition, and economic fluctuations can all impact what your clients want and how much time and money they’re willing to spend on it. Make a contingency plan now for how you’ll weather industry changes.

84 “ Many of life’s failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up. The Business ” Thomas Edison

“ You can do anything, but you can’t do everything. ”

The Details Your Many Hats

• Sole proprietor, partnership, or corporate entity Office Administrator / Accountant Marketing / Sales • Business license • Invoicing / Billing • Advertising • Talk to a CPA and lawyer • Paying quarterly taxes • Web presence • Know your liabilities –which will include insurance (various types) and taxes (various types) IT Management / Human Resources • You will need to know your hardware and • Hiring and layoffs • Compliance and payroll issues if you have people working for you software • Payroll and benefits • Pricing your services competitively Problem‐solve computer and internet • Employee handbook and policies issues •

85 The Business: Build Your Base To Grow… Or Not To Grow?

No matter what business you’re in, you’re in the relationship Hiring & Expansion business. Build relationships! • This is when you really need to plan ahead • Networking: it’s not just for schmoozing anymore. • Identify what work can be outsourced to freelancers (bookkeeping & accounting, public • Talk to your current business contacts. Let them know what you can do for them. relations/marketing/social media, web development, administrative) • Join professional networks, then PARTICIPATE. • Determine your in‐house needs. When you really need to hire full‐time employees, you’ll be the first to know • Be proud of your new business. Be excited about others’ work, too. • Plan with cash –to hire, expand your facilities, or purchase new equipment

And remember… the wolf is at the door

• Stay current and informed • Learn new skills Trust • Maintain healthy relationships with clients • Network • Be aware of competitors and market trends

Trust: What Your Clients Need

• Your expertise and experience in your services need to be apparent and consistent. Conclusion: Wrapping It Up • Reliable: It doesn’t matter how skilled you are if you don’t deliver results. • Timely: Make sure you beat or meet your deadlines! Get those questions ready now • Estimates: Stand by them. Your costs must be predictable; no one likes surprise fees. Estimate and price well—if not, eat it! • Discretion: A client’s business information must be guarded and kept confidential.

86 Take-aways Resources

Professional Societies Small Business Resources There’s more than one way to have a successful freelance career. • • www.ismte.org • www.sba.gov • Be prepared for long, hard work. • www.councilscienceeditors.org • http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small‐Businesses‐ &‐Self‐Employed/Small‐Business‐and‐Self‐ • www.the‐efa.org • Know thyself –before you begin. Employed‐Tax‐Center‐1 • www.copydesk.org • Be clear about your plan. • www.score.org Freelance Editing Resources Self‐Assessment Resources • Remember the importance of trust. http://markallenediting.com/2011/05/03/freelanc • www.assessment.com er‐resources • • Persevere. www.myersbriggs.org • www.copyediting.com • https://personality‐testing.info/tests/BIG5.php • http://www.kokedit.com/ckb.php • • http://www.editorsforum.org/resources.php

Q & A and Contact Information

Jack Nestor and Arlene Furman Technica Editorial Services 205 W. Main Street, Suite 206 Carrboro, North Carolina 27510 [email protected] 919.869.7650 www.TechnicaEditorial.com

87 Publishing 101: What we Wish We’d Known, and How to Find out More Julie Nash, Senior Partner, J&J Editorial, LLC

www.ismte.org

88 ScholarOne Manuscripts (Vendor Session) Suzanne Hopkins, Thomson Reuters

www.ismte.org

100 AGENDA PRODUCT UPDATE AND FUTURE • What have we released? DIRECTION • What’s on the horizon? Suzanne Hopkins Product Manager Thomson Reuters

v4.13

RELEASE TIMELINE GOALS MANUSCRIPT TRANSFER IMPROVEMENTS Many improvements to the manuscript transfer INTEROPERABILITY functionality, including: • A new Reject with Transfer decision type •Manuscript Transfer S1Mv4.13 Improvements • Ability to Reject with Transfer at the Admin Aug 2013 Checklist step. •FundRef Taxonomy Support • If a manuscript is transferred in, the ability to S1Mv4.14 •New PLR: Invited designate whether it’s automatically sent to the Dec 2014 Papers Author Center or the Admin Center •Top-ranked Ability for author on transferring site to S1Mv4.15 ScholarOne Ideas • approve or reject the request to transfer to June 2014 •Browser, OS, ISO Country List Updates another journal SCHOLARONE SCHOLARONE

v4.13 v4.13 AUTHORS CAN APPROVE/REJECT REJECT WITH TRANSFER DECISION TYPE TRANSFERS

Admin Center Dashboard View

Author Center Dashboard View

SCHOLARONE SCHOLARONE

102 v4.13 v4.13

OTHER TRANSFER IMPROVEMENTS INTRODUCTION OF FUNDREF TAXONOMY

•Colored ribbon so journal FundRef is an industry-wide initiative to standardize staff can easily ID a and track the sources of funding for published transferred manuscript •New transfer details research. Launched in May, FundRef allows authors included in the Version to link their submissions to funders listed in the History along with a link to FundRef Registry, a standardized taxonomy of over the Review Details 4,000 funding institutions. •Configurable ability to transfer notes to the Due to recent Open Access mandates and the importance of measuring the receiving site •Information about the output of research funding, FundRef is an import initiative with heavy client transfer is visible in the interest. History column of the Person Details pop-up. With 4.13, we introduced the ability for authors to search and designate their funding body during the submission process and the ability to designate their grant number. Additionally the funder name, the concept ID and the grant number were added to the S1 DTD to facilitate export to other systems. More to come with FundRef in our 4.15 release.

SCHOLARONE SCHOLARONE

v4.13 SCHOLARONE IDEAS: v4.13 SCHOLARONE IDEAS: SOFT END DATES AUTHOR’S RESPONSE TO THE DECISION AND AUTOMATIC ASSIGNMENT 1660 LETTER POINT • Journal will now S have the ability to allow editorial staff with lapsed soft end dates to finish out 1110 revisions that are POINTS automatically assigned to them. • Journals must be configured to allow automatic assignment of future versions to utilize this feature.

SCHOLARONE SCHOLARONE

RELEASE TIMELINE GOALS ENTERPRISE WEB SERVICES

With the v4.14 release, ScholarOne has launched the industry’s only INTEROPERABILITY scalable solution for integration. • Not unique APIs for one-off data exchanges but a holistic solution for enterprise-level integration. •Web Services: one- S1Mv4.13 way basic service • Best-in-class infrastructure including auditing, monitoring, and Aug 2013 requests updating of data to support real-time and robust data exchange. •Integration with S1Mv4.14 ORCID system Dec 2014 •Reviewer Locator •Top-ranked S1Mv4.15 ScholarOne Ideas June 2014

SCHOLARONE SCHOLARONE

103 v4.14 v4.14

ENTERPRISE WEB SERVICES INTEGRATION WITH ORCID

Example API Calls • The initial launch includes Major features added in the v4.14 release : Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) for retrieving • Seamless authentication of user ORCID iDs via the granular manuscript metadata ORCID API elements, and detailed • Ability for users to populate ScholarOne site registration information about authors. form with data from their ORCID record

• Our web services will follow the • User interface and DTD elements to display the validation continuous, market- same status of ORCID iDs driven development and enhancement path as the rest Dynamic email tag of our solutions • to request users register for an ORCID iD.

SCHOLARONE SCHOLARONE

v4.14 v4.14

AUTHENTICATION VIA API AUTHENTICATION VIA API

ORCID entry has Users are now given the option to register for a new ORCID or been moved to the associate an existing ORCID to their account. first page of the account creation and modification process.

SCHOLARONE SCHOLARONE

v4.14 v4.14

AUTHENTICATION VIA API AUTHENTICATION VIA API

Users will be • Upon logging redirected to the into the ORCID site where ORCID site, they can sign in or users will be register with asked to ORCID. authorize ScholarOne as a ‘trusted’ institution.

• Trusted institutions may read data marked as ‘limited’ in the user’s ORCID

SCHOLARONE profile.SCHOLARONE

104 v4.14 v4.14

AUTHENTICATION VIA API AUTHENTICATION VIA API

Once the user authorizes the At this time, users are also given the option to populate certain journal site, they are redirected biographical fields with data from their ORCID record. back to ScholarOne with their validated ORCID iD.

SCHOLARONE SCHOLARONE

v4.14 v4.14

VALIDATION ELEMENTS REVIEWER LOCATOR All ORCID iDs on ScholarOne sites will now display with an icon In the v4.14 release we set out to tackle a major issue facing to denote validation status. peer- reviewed scholarly publication: the supply of qualified reviewers. • Validated ORCID iDs will display with a • iDs that have not been validated will display with a • Current reviewer selection model based on editors’ personal networks and manual research makes it difficult to consistently find qualified, available reviewers

• Often the most sought-after reviewers are unavailable or unwilling to review

• Lead researchers, principal investigators and other subject matter experts are inundated with requests

SCHOLARONE SCHOLARONE

v4.14 v4.14

THE APPROACH THE TECHNOLOGY To tackle problem successfully it was clear the solution would • ATLAS is a flexible tool, developed by Thomson Reuters, able need to: to extract and analyze entity relationships across multiple • Greatly expand the pool of potential reviewers for each sources of structured and unstructured content. manuscript • ATLAS analyzes manuscript metadata and abstract, linking • Provide intelligent, efficient search tools to target key entities and topics to create a manuscript “fingerprint”. meaningful reviewers in vast researcher databases • This fingerprint is then compared to the fingerprints generated • Function without relying on discipline-specific for indexed content across the Web of Science. taxonomies so that it works across research fields

Teams from across Thomson Reuters, each with specialized expertise, worked together to build Reviewer Locator.

SCHOLARONE SCHOLARONE

105 v4.14 v4.14

THE DATASET REVIEWER LOCATOR • Web of Science covers over 12,000 of the highest impact •Reviewer Locator is run journals worldwide, including Open Access journals and over upon submission so 150,000 conference proceedings. results are immediately available for editors. • Reviewer Locator draws on Web of Science content published in the past 5 years so the pool of potential reviewers remains •Reviewer Locator current and relevant results will display beneath the Author’s • This results in a potential reviewer database of over 7.3M Preferred/ Non- authors, all published in the last 5 years. Preferred Reviewers.

• Web of Science content within Reviewer Locator is updated on a •Reviewer Locator can quarterly basis. be configure to return up to 30 potential reviewers.

SCHOLARONE SCHOLARONE

v4.14 v4.14

REVIEWER LOCATOR REVIEWER LOCATOR Researcher’s Full title of the name work Email address and Authors of the work Institution, when available Publication Name and Year of ORCID iD Publication

Up to 3 relevant The article DOI works by the researcher A link to the article record in If the researcher Web of Science has an S1 account, prior

review statsSCHOLARONE SCHOLARONE

v4.14 v4.14

REVIEWER LOCATOR ADDING POTENTIAL REVIEWERS WeIfClicking a matchattempt this is toiconfound link will allthe bringReviewer researcher’s up the Locator Person Reviewer results Deta Locatorils with Pop-up existing record for AThe researcher researcher matched is immediately to an existing account may be added as a accountswillthis appearuser. using with botha magnifying the email glass address icon and next ORCID to their iD name. supplied Revieweradded to by the simply manuscript’s clicking the ‘Add’ button. by the Web of Science Reviewer List

SCHOLARONE SCHOLARONE

106 v4.14 v4.14

ADDING POTENTIAL REVIEWERS REVIEWER LOCATOR • Researchers without a match will bring up an account creation • To help prevent duplicate account creation, the system will form pre-populated with data from Web of Science. check to see if the first and last name of the reviewer match an existing account. • If a match is found, a warning message will fire giving the user an • Confirm information option to check for and enter any potential duplicates. missing fields for the new account. • Clicking the View Search Results Button • Click ‘Create and will bring up all Add’ to add the new accounts sharing this reviewer to the name so the user can Reviewer List. check for duplicates.

SCHOLARONE SCHOLARONE

v4.14 v4.14 ADDITIONAL “MERGE USERS” FUNCTIONALITY TOP-RANKED SCHOLARONE IDEAS

1. Search Results Post Merge Review Last Saved – 700 points The date a reviewer last saved their review will be displayed in Search results will the Reviewer List History until the review is submitted. update to remove merged accounts but search will remain displayed.

2. Middle Initial Display To help properly identify accounts, users’ middle initials will appear in the search result.

SCHOLARONE SCHOLARONE

v4.14

TOP-RANKED SCHOLARONE IDEAS RELEASE TIMELINE GOALS

Unsubmit from Admin Checklist- 470 points An ‘unsubmit’ button has been added to the Admin Checklist INTERFACES task.

•User Interface Update: S1Mv4.13 PhaseS1Av4.5 1 Aug. 2013 (Header/Footer)June 2014 •Language Toggle S1Mv4.14 •FundRefS1Av4.6 Dec 2014 Improvements •Publisher-Level S1Mv4.15 Reporting June 2014 Improvements

SCHOLARONE •Top-ranked SCHOLARONE ScholarOne Ideas

107 v4.15 v4.15

UI: NEW HEADER DESIGN INTERMEDIATE GRADIENT LOGO Redesigned header modernizes the look and feel while maintaining a Intermediate Step to Full Redesign strong brand presence

• Default configuration for all sites upon release. • Easily configurable in the Logo section of S1 Configuration Center • Will be sunset August 1, 2015

SCHOLARONE SCHOLARONE

v4.15 v4.15 S1MV4.15 LANGUAGE TOGGLE LANGUAGE TOGGLE

• A language toggle offering will be generally available with plans to continue the development of supporting tools to make it a fully scalable offering USA 21% • Chinese, Japanese, and French will CHINA 10% be the first languages generally available UK 7% JAPAN 6% GERMANY 6% FRANCE 4%

STM Report: An overview of scientific and scholarly journal SCHOLARONE SCHOLARONE publishing, November 2012

v4.15 v4.15

FUNDREF FUNDREF

•Authors can be required to • Authors can be required designate whether or not to designate whether or a submission is funded not a submission is funded •Locate funding • Locate funding type- institutions via a institutions via a type- ahead search ahead search • Enter funding institutions that are not part of the FundRef registry • Add institutions that are under a parent organization

SCHOLARONE SCHOLARONE

108 v4.15 v4.15

FUNDREF PUBLISHER-LEVEL REPORTS

• Authors can be required • Submissions to designate whether or Over Time not a submission is funded • Transferred • Locate funding Manuscripts institutions via a type- ahead search • Enhanced Decisions Report • Enter funding institutions that are not part of the FundRef registry • Add institutions that are under a parent organization

SCHOLARONE SCHOLARONE

v4.15 v4.15 SCHOLARONE IDEAS PUBLISHER-LEVEL REPORTS GRANT AN EXTENSION, EMAIL TAG

• Grant an Extension link • Submissions • Transferred • Enhanced appears in the Reviewer Over Time Manuscripts Decisions Report List once the reviewer agrees to review

• Links to a pop-up containing the existing extension granting facility only.

• Not configurable

##TASK_ALL_PREVIOUS_REVIEWERS_EMAIL## - Email all the reviewers who have submitted reviews for all versions of a manuscript.

(Tip: Use the Bcc field to ensure reviewer anonymity.)

SCHOLARONE SCHOLARONE

v4.15 v4.15 SCHOLARONE IDEAS SCHOLARONE IDEAS AUTHOR PROXY DUPLICATE ACCOUNTS IMPROVEMENTS

Add an Author: • Proxy as the • Author from lists email address field is larger of manuscripts • Select any role for • Proxy as the the Reviewer Quick Author from the Search manuscript header • (Tip: The default set in the quick search • Available if proxy is the default set for is turned on Advanced Search)

SCHOLARONE SCHOLARONE

109 v4.15 v4.15 SCHOLARONE IDEAS DUPLICATE ACCOUNTS: THE GRID PLAGARISM ENHANCEMENT

• If a workflow is configured to use the manual plagiarism process and there exists an Originality Report from a previous version (Original, latest Revision, or Resubmission), then there will be a link to the existing report in the Manuscript Details, Plagiarism Check section:

SCHOLARONE SCHOLARONE

DISCLAIMER

This presentation may contain forward-looking statements that involve risks, uncertainties, and assumptions. If any such uncertainties materialize or if any of the assumptions proves incorrect, the results of Thomson Reuters could differ materially from the results expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements we make. All statements other than statements of historical fact could be deemed forward-looking, including any projections of product or service availability, subscriber growth, earnings, revenues, or other financial items and any statements regarding strategies or plans of management for future operations, statements of belief, any statements concerning new, planned, or upgraded services or technology developments and customer contracts or use of our services.

This document is for the sole use of the intended recipient and contains information that is privileged and/or confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete this document and any related materials.

FUTURE DIRECTION: PREVIEW OF V4.16

SCHOLARONE

PREVIEW OF S1MV4.16 RELEASE TIMELINE GOALS SCHOLARONE IDEAS

1230 Points INTERFACES

•User Interface Update: S1Mv4.16 AuthorS1Av4.5 Submission June 2014 •Web Services: Integrated Workflow S1Mv4.17 SolutionS1Av4.6 Part 1 •Browser/OS updates •ScholarOne Ideas

2015 2015 2015 2015 S1Mv4.18 Q4

SCHOLARONE SCHOLARONE 54

110 PREVIEW OF S1MV4.16 PREVIEW OF S1MV4.16 SCHOLARONE IDEAS ENTERPRISE WEB SERVICES CAPABILITIES

SCHOLARONE SCHOLARONE 55 56

PREVIEW OF S1MV4.16 ENTERPRISE WEB SERVICES CAPABILITIES

Notification Services

• Catalog of PUSH notifications • Stay informed, in real-time, as key events occur in S1

REVIEWER REVIEWER REVIEWER QUESTIONS? INVITED ACCEPTS SCORES ** Use Case Example [email protected]

EXTERNAL Notification EXTERNAL DASHBOAR DASHBOAR D SERVICE D SERVICE ‘GETS’ NOTIFIED DATA FROM S1 SCHOLARONE API 57

THANK YOU!

111 Editorial Manager (Vendor Session) Tony Alves, Aries Systems Corporation

www.ismte.org

112 Data Exchange, Imports, Exports & Cross System Communications

Product Management Tony Alves Director, Product Management

API’s API’s QA Tools . eXtyles Imports, Exports . Artwork Quality Check . Transmittal to Production systems . CrossCheck / iThenticate . Transmittal to PubMed Central . Taxonomy tools . Transmittal to and from vendors . ORCID . Transmittal to repositories . Manuscript transfer to Non‐EM publications Workf low Tools . Manuscript import from Non‐EM publications . arXiv import . Reviewer Discovery . Editor matching tools . Bibliographic searches

QA Tools Workflow Tools QA Tools Workf low Tools . eXtyles . arXiv import .Reference checking, linking and clean up .Easier upload from prepub repositories . Artwork Quality Check . Editor matching tools (proprietary) .Getting good art from the start! .Increase and improve editorial boards . CrossCheck / iThenticate .Reviewer Discovery .Similarity checking .Increase and improve reviewer options . Taxonomy tools (proprietary) .Bibliographic searches .Better keywords for more efficient .Provide editors and reviewers with quick automation access to focused resources . ORCID .Author and Reviewer disabiguation

113 Imports and Exports Imports and Exports

Imports, Exports Imports, Exports . Transmittal to Production systems . Manuscript transfer to Non‐EM publications . Editorial‐only customers can send data and . Cascading workflows files to other production systems . Society and subject area consortiums . Transmittal to repositories . Manuscript import from Non‐EM publications . PubMed Central, IR’s, others . Transition from legacy systems . Transmittal to and from vendors . From non‐EM sites into ProduXion Manager . Data and files are sent for processing and received once work is complete

Standards

. JATS & NLM . CrossRef DOI . FundRef Incorporating & Promoting Standards . ORCID . Institutions ‐ Ringgold

JATS and NLM 3.0 DOI’s Aries generates DOI’s Export data from EM or PM .Automatically Recent enhancements to these data transfer methods include: . At acceptance . ORCID .When production is initiated . FundRef .Manually –user entered

114 FundRef Integration FundRef Integration

. CrossRef initiative: http://www.crossref.org/fundref/ . Submission step in the submit (and/or revise) manuscript workflow –Article Type configurable . Standardized list of funder names (6,000+)

. Manuscript tagged with funder IDs during submission and . Auto‐complete text box facilitates accurate when deposited into CrossRef database selection of funding agency

. Thereby enables funders to transparently identify research . Multiple entries allowed ‐ including grant number published with their support & grant recipient

FundRef Integration ORCID Registration

When a user is self‐registering or updating an EM record, they can register or fetch and confirm their ORCID (if they already have one)

EM retrieves the confirmed ORCID number and automatically adds it to the People Record

Editors or Corresponding Authors selecting ORCIDs for other people (Proxy Registration, Search People, or adding Co‐Authors) have the option to retrieve ORCID from public profile information. In this case the ORCID is not confirmed by its owner.

ORCID Registration Authorization through ORCID API

115 Authorization through ORCID API ORCID Retrieved

Single Sign On Single Sign On

Why do we need this functionality?

. Remembering all of those passwords!

. Different login credentials for different Publication sites not currently in a Portal group

. Switching between Publications sites and having to login in each time becomes time consuming

Contributor Institution Selection Institution Normalization

Manually entered affiliations are prone to mistake: .University of Southern California .USC Ringgold database : .U of Southern Cal .Etc. .300,000+ standardized institutional entities Solution: standard identifiers for Institutional affiliation Selected by author and co‐author

116 Institution Normalization . Standardization means reduced back‐end data cleansing and increased accuracy of quantitative results . Correct affiliation data is available downstream General Release April 2014 . Marketing analysis .Promote journal to appropriate institutions based on authoring and reviewing patterns . Open access fee processing .Discounts or waivers may be available to authors from member institutions .Simplifies the billing process for publications trying to identify the ‘correct’ institution

General Release August 2014 In Quality Assurance for testing Beta Release Planned for October 2014

With Engineering for coding Beta Release Planned for January 2015 Tony Alves, Director of Product Management

117 More Than Just Metrics: PRE-val and Social Cite Adam Etkin, Managing Director, PRE (Peer Review Evaluation)

www.ismte.org

118 In order for peer review to work…

7th Annual • Honesty/Integrity North American Conference

More Than Just Metrics: • Personal/Professional Responsibility PRE-val and Social Cite • Good Behavior Adam Etkin Managing Director, PRE and SocialCite • Trust www.pre-val.org www.social-cite.org @prescore1 @socialcite Is this unrealistic to expect?

Securing Trust and Transparency in Peer Review

Bad apples spoil the bunch

A Brief History of Peer Review

1450: Gutenberg invents movable-type printing press 1450-1600: We see the rise of the modern scientific method 1665-1669: 1st recorded pre-publication peer-review process at the Royal Society of London in 1665 by Henry Oldenburg, the founding editor of Philosophical Transactions. 1731: 1st peer reviewed journal? “Medical Essays & Observations” 1800-1900: Between the 19th and 20th century it became the norm for scientists to undergo peer review before being published

Sources: Thomas H.P. Gould; Do We Still Need Peer Review? An argument for change Peer Review Watch; TIMELINE: HISTORY OF PEER REVIEW

Constant Criticism What is peer review supposed to do? Traditional peer review & scholarly publishers • Prevent the publication of bad research seem to be under constant criticism • Check that research was conducted properly and look for obvious flaws

• Improve the quality of the study and the written article What is peer review NOT supposed to do?

• Detect fraud • We’ve seen the emergence of "predatory" publishers • Reward or punish scholars • Some high profile cases of faulty research being published • Validate actual experiments • Non-reviewed pieces appearing in peer reviewed journals • Endorse a specific methodology • “Publish then filter” and “Publishing is a button” attitude Negative news gets high-profile Hyperbole vs. Facts

Really?

7 10

The Silent Majority

Surveys show peer review is valued by our community.

Most (69%) researchers are satisfied Most (84%) believe that without with the current system of peer peer review there would be no review but only a third think that the control in scientific communication current system is the best we can do

Almost all researchers (91%) believe While many want a faster process with that their last paper was improved fewer rounds, the overwhelming majority as a result of peer review (~70%) prefer to wait for thorough review

78% of OA authors Only 20% want basic prefer traditional, check followed by post- rigorous peer review publication review

“The qualitative data also point to the fact that peer review is the central pillar of trust.”

University of Tennessee and CIBER Research Ltd, December 2013 11

8 Sources: Sense About Science; Taylor & Francis; CIBER Research

One size does NOT fit all “Even Einstein Hated Peer Review” Peer review is not one thing, and it cannot be assumed • The number of varied approaches to peer review is increasing, yet readers often assume it is a uniform practice

• Journals with high standards have no clear way of routinely showing these standards at the article level

• Trends toward “light” peer review are dominating the discussion, while quality has a harder time finding a voice This leads to confusion and questions about trust . . .

9 Evaluation, Validation, Communication A Lesson From The Car Industry Metrics, Altmetrics, and ALL Metrics Metrics/Filters = Knowledge = Power • Authors/Researchers Looking for a new car? Evaluating a journal? •MPG •Impact Factor • Readers •Size •Audience • Speed • Speed • Features •Altmetrics • Librarians •Safety • Peer Review (PRE) •Cost •Cost • Journals/Editors/Reviewers

• Universities & Funding Agencies

Before vs. After Measurements Abound

Quantity vs. Quality From the time we’re born…

Future Managing Director Best Metrics: - Guide Us as We Decide - Provide Qualitative Information SocialCite and PRE-val

Current metrics and alt-metrics are based on: Summation Division False precision

What problem does SocialCite solve? The right tool, used for the job

SocialCite is a new tool intended to dig deeper into the citation bog and not just count citations, but also to shed light on their quality.

Assumption is that citations are “positive intellectual debt” However… • Citations can be made for many reasons • Critical or negative citations • Misleading or deceptive citations • Quality of cited evidence can vary • Yet, all citations are currently counted as equivalent

What problem does SocialCite solve? A growing journals market

28,000+ journals, and growing 2 million articles in 2013

Total Peer Reviewed Journals Total Peer Reviewed Articles Published

35,000 2,500,000 30,000 2,000,000 25,000 20,000 1,500,000 Citations currently include no information about the

15,000 1,000,000 Articles Journals 10,000 reason a paper is cited or the quality of evidence being 500,000 5,000 0 0 cited 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Year Year • Is the citation to methods? assertions? critical of cited article? • Does the cited article provide strong evidence? More information than ever, less time to sort through it all. • Citations can be inappropriate – misrepresenting researcher arguments, conveying unfounded authority *B.‐C. Björk, R. Annikki, and M. Lauri. Global annual volume of peer reviewed scholarly articles and the share available via different Open Access options on cited work *The National Science Board estimates the average annual growth of the indexes within the Web of Science to be 2.5% (See: Science and Engineering Indicators 2010, chapter 5, page 29) *The stm report: An overview of scientiﬁc and scholarly journal publishing What problem does SocialCite solve? SocialCite Dashboard

• SocialCite uses the existing citation network –the citation linkages between papers plus researchers who interact with the literature – to measure the appropriateness and evidence strength of citations

• The citation network offers huge untapped potential – we estimate that more than 150 million references in online journals are interacted with by readers each year

SocialCite Widget Future integration with manuscript tracking systems

SocialCite Widget

Critiques Cited Work – Critical of the cited work; “negative citation” Cites Evidence – Citation backed by research evidence Cites Assertions – Citation of a claim/argument Cites Methods – Citation to support research methods Cites Authority – Citation backed by person of authority What is PRE? PRE services are different

PRE services & tools are unique.

• The only tool pertaining to quality available upon publication. It’s The goal of PRE is to help recognize those who work hard at a leading indicator, not lagging. quality peer review, to increase the level of trust and transparency around the process, and to help users locate • The only service that reflects the intellectual contributions of the high-value content. reviewers and editors of the literature

• A unique filter that can be tied to other metrics measuring activity after publication (e.g., citations, impact factor)

PRE-val is a product designed to assist members of the scholarly publishing community who are committed to preserving an ethical, rigorous peer review process.

PRE supports quality peer review.

What is PRE-val? PRE-Val demo

• A service that works with the publisher to provide independent validation of the review process

• A badge that publishers can display in various places – search results, article pages, article-level metrics – to signal to readers that quality peer review has been conducted

• A window into the quality of a given publisher’s peer Online Demo review process accessible by end users

• PRE-val answers the most basic, and important, question about scholarly works: “Has this article been peer reviewed?”

We believe in peer review PRE-val creates incentives to use best practices in peer review

• Our services recognize journals that have an editor-in- chief or an “overseeing editor”

• PRE-val supports journals that use quality reviewers

• We take into account multiple iterations, which may indicate more thorough review

• PRE-val helps promote the use of best practices, which are markers of commitment to better peer review approaches Info about peer review process: • COPE member? • Rounds of review • Plagiarism screening? • Roles who participated

Additional OPTIONAL Info: • Reviewer comments • Reviewer names

PRE for everyone

Who Benefits? Readers Authors Librarians

Publishers/Journals Editors/Reviewers

How it works 7th Annual North American Conference

Thank You!

Adam Etkin Managing Director, PRE and SocialCite www.pre-val.org www.social-cite.org @preval1 @socialcite

Securing Trust and Transparency in Peer Review

Sources

Thomas H.P. Gould; Do We Still Need Peer Review? An argument for change

Peer Review Watch; TIMELINE: HISTORY OF PEER REVIEW

Irene Hames; Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals

Susannah Locke; This scientific journal just had to retract 60 papers. How does that even happen?

Andre Spicer, Thomas Roulet; Hate the peer-review process? Einstein did too

Rebecca Schuman; Revise and Resubmit!; Slate

Sense About Science; Peer Review Survey 2009

Taylor & Francis; Author Survey: April 2013

CIBER Research; TRUST AND AUTHORITY IN SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATIONS IN THE LIGHT OF THE DIGITAL TRANSITION 2013

Mark Ware, Michael Mabe; The stm report: An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing Sheridan is pleased to sponsor and print this program for the ISMTE 7th Annual North American Conference.

Meticulous Content Preparation. Workflow Automation. Mobile Technologies. Full Spectrum Print. Service Like No Other. sheridan.com