As growth in content licensing slows, sophisticated content providers are building businesses supporting researcher workflow and university business processes.
Scientific workflow providers Elsevier, Digital Science, and COS differ in their strategy. To what extent will they provide end-to-end integrated workflows?
Revisiting a 2017 post looking at how, due to the slowing growth of content licensing, sophisticated content providers are building businesses supporting researcher workflow and university business processes.
Major scholarly publishers have made substantial investments in preprints in recent years, integrating preprint deposit into manuscript submission workflows.
An emerging duopoly for the new class of scientific research workflow products could marginalize publishers large and small to the benefit of the Big Two. This first of two pieces provides the strategic context, while tomorrow we will review options […]
As workflow providers build deep relationships with scientists early in the research lifecycle, how can publishers establish and maintain strong author relationships? This piece proposes a number of fundamental strategic options.
With scholarly communications business models embracing the entirety of the research process, how can visualizations help us understand scholarly workflows?
[…] If I translate the “redesign, don’t automate” lesson into publishing and learning, it becomes four practical moves: Pick one end-to-end workflow where the handoffs are the pain. For publishers: submission triage → reviewer selection → decision support; or production QC […]
[…] and topics (blue) discussed at purepub.ai. There are few surprises in the concepts which dominated: “Business-model-and-market-evolution,” “Machine-as-consumer,” “Front-door-editorial-triage,” and “ Workflow-transformation” sat at the top. Themes with the most uniformly positive sentiment included “Workflow-transformation,” “format-evolution,” and, perhaps surprisingly, “Organizational-and-resource-readiness”. Business […]
[…] about the people and the culture than it is about the technology. We have grown used to systems that automate workflow. A peer review system routes manuscripts, tracks status, enforces sequences: which editor sees what, when, in what order. The […]
[…] to reshape scholarly publishing. The sector has moved from experimentation toward integration, with advances in ethical writing tools, AI-driven discovery, summarization, and automated peer review. While workflows are becoming more efficient, the long-term impact on research creation and evaluation remains uncertain.
In today’s Kitchen Essentials interview, Roger Schonfeld speaks with Sami Benchekroun, CEO of Morressier, which provides publishers with workflows that ensure research integrity.
To round off Peer Review Week 2021, Phill Jones and Alice Meadows share work under way to map out a PID-optimized workflow for peer review – and invite your feedback!
The analysis of workflow is a primary activity for many publishers today, but new workflows can only lead us to where we have already been. We have to get beyond analyzing workflow and focus instead on new product development.
Byron Russell, John Sack, Alison McGonagle-O’Connell, and Tony Alves look at the way publishers are adapting their traditional submission workflows to better integrate the use of preprints.