Ubiquity Press (United Kingdom)

How can a brand go from being the most recognised in its category to winning consumers’ hearts? That was the challenge faced by AustralianSuper, Australia’s largest superannuation (pension) fund. While the Fund was clearly outperforming the market, its ‘voice of customer insights’ revealed Emotional connection to the brand was not increasing at the same rate as rational drivers. For Ubiquity Lab, this posed an opportunity, particularly in light of Binet and Field’s (Binet, L., and Field, P. (2013, June 11) ‘The Long and the Short of it: Balancing Short and Long-Term Marketing Strategies’, IPA, London) findings that emotional campaigns yield stronger long-term effects. Paramount to the project’s success was a focus on consumer intent and market orientation that would leverage AustralianSuper’s existing work and meld current and new inputs. This meant designing a customer-led paid, owned and earned (POE) strategy that would monetise emotion to reach more people within the target market, while differentiating, building salience and, ultimately, increasing sales and profit. A ‘brand experience map’ methodology was used to correlate data against the digital consumer journey and sales funnel, ultimately unlocking insights to optimise POE tactics. The goal was to arrive at a set of emotional territories that AustralianSuper could begin to ‘own’, winning hearts and minds and deepening the relationship between accumulating super and its purpose — to enable people to live their best retirement.

Ubiquity Press was founded to catalyze and accelerate the adoption of open access. Until now we have followed the gold and diamond models, and currently support OA publication in over 700 journals, plus hundreds of book publications per year. We are now expanding our platform to fully support and drive the uptake and effectiveness of green open access also. In this presentation I will explain how we are doing this by integrating an open source repository solution with our platform. I will detail the features being added to especially enhance green OA, as part of the Advancing Hyku project with funding from Arcadia, a charitable fund of philanthropists Lisbet Rausing and Peter Baldwin, and in partnership with the University of Virginia and the British Library.

<p>This white paper has been elaborated by the Tools (R&D) Working Group, one of the 7 Working Groups<br>\nlaunched by the OPERAS research infrastructure. The Working Group goal was to set up a list of tools<br>\nand development which need to be done, to improve their usability for the OPERAS partners.</p>\n\n<p>The approach in OPERAS emphasizes the importance of building the open science scholarly<br>\ncommunication infrastructure in Social Sciences and Humanities on community driven tools. In<br>\nthis perspective, the development of Open Source tools and the setup of a toolbox appear to be<br>\nappropriate answers to the existing needs and evolutions in scholarly publishing.</p>\n\n<p>Following a first discussion in the Working Group, participants discussed the partners’ practices and<br>\nneeds to help focus the Working Group objectives on three functions:<br>\n–– Peer review: interest in emerging practices such as open peer review, peer review tracking<br>\n–– Authoring: interest in simple and all-in-one services, especially online and collaborative authoring<br>\n–– Publishing: in particular, simple tools needed by small academic journals</p>\n\n<p>The main results of the Working Group are:<br>\n–– Notes on observed trends<br>\n–– A common approach and criteria for choosing tools<br>\n–– A list of relevant tools, detailing features and functionalities<br>\n–– An analysis of the current needs of the partners</p>\n\n<p>For Peer Review, the reviewing workflow is implemented in most Open Source software like Open<br>\nJournal System (OJS) but developments are still needed to match the commercial software services.<br>\nSimilarly, the review tracking data available via services such as Publons is currently not open. The<br>\nemerging trend for Open Peer Review represents an innovative area, both in terms of usage and tools.</p>\n\n<p>For Authoring, we see a bloom of new online and collaborative tools. Promising Open Source software<br>\nfor editing structured scholarly content are being developed and are near to production, alongside<br>\ncommercial tools such as Authorea or Overleaf. One of the main challenges, in this case, is to obtain a<br>\ncontinuous production environment through interoperability.</p>\n\n<p>For Publishing, several Open Source software solutions are already used in production, but, as the<br>\nlevel of service expected from a publication service is rising and includes a growing number of thirdparty<br>\nservices, the community is considering ways of working together to combine their effort to be<br>\ncomparable with the state of the art of the commercial solutions.</p>\n\n<p>The Operas partners are willing to go beyond this working group and consider engaging in follow-up<br>\nprojects, notably to help create a resource centre dedicated to providing the community with current<br>\ninformation and support on scholarly communication software and tools, and to contribute to the<br>\neffort in developing Open Source tools.</p>

This white paper has been elaborated by the Tools (R&amp;D) Working Group, one of the 7 Working Groups<br> launched by the OPERAS research infrastructure. The Working Group goal was to set up a list of tools<br> and development which need to be done, to improve their usability for the OPERAS partners. The approach in OPERAS emphasizes the importance of building the open science scholarly<br> communication infrastructure in Social Sciences and Humanities on community driven tools. In<br> this perspective, the development of Open Source tools and the setup of a toolbox appear to be<br> appropriate answers to the existing needs and evolutions in scholarly publishing. Following a first discussion in the Working Group, participants discussed the partners’ practices and<br> needs to help focus the Working Group objectives on three functions:<br> –– Peer review: interest in emerging practices such as open peer review, peer review tracking<br> –– Authoring: interest in simple and all-in-one services, especially online and collaborative authoring<br> –– Publishing: in particular, simple tools needed by small academic journals The main results of the Working Group are:<br> –– Notes on observed trends<br> –– A common approach and criteria for choosing tools<br> –– A list of relevant tools, detailing features and functionalities<br> –– An analysis of the current needs of the partners For Peer Review, the reviewing workflow is implemented in most Open Source software like Open<br> Journal System (OJS) but developments are still needed to match the commercial software services.<br> Similarly, the review tracking data available via services such as Publons is currently not open. The<br> emerging trend for Open Peer Review represents an innovative area, both in terms of usage and tools. For Authoring, we see a bloom of new online and collaborative tools. Promising Open Source software<br> for editing structured scholarly content are being developed and are near to production, alongside<br> commercial tools such as Authorea or Overleaf. One of the main challenges, in this case, is to obtain a<br> continuous production environment through interoperability. For Publishing, several Open Source software solutions are already used in production, but, as the<br> level of service expected from a publication service is rising and includes a growing number of thirdparty<br> services, the community is considering ways of working together to combine their effort to be<br> comparable with the state of the art of the commercial solutions. The Operas partners are willing to go beyond this working group and consider engaging in follow-up<br> projects, notably to help create a resource centre dedicated to providing the community with current<br> information and support on scholarly communication software and tools, and to contribute to the<br> effort in developing Open Source tools.

The BRIF is an ongoing initiative that encompasses reflections and actions from various stakeholders (researchers, funders, industrials, editors) towards i/ standardised identification schemes and reporting for better visibility and tracing of bioresources on the web; ii/ incentive policies from hosting institutions; iii/ creation of tools allowing follow up of their use. Tracing the use of bioresource is the first step in this process and for this purpose we have published the CoBRA (Citation of BioResources in journal Articles) guideline, launched the Open Journal of Bioresources and started developing new metrics. The CoBRA guideline aims to standardise the citation of bioresources in scientific articles in order to trace their use on the web. The Open Journal of Bioresources (OJB) was created in close collaboration with the open access publisher Ubiquity Press allowing both the resources and the OJB papers to be cited, and also providing authors with tools to get metrics on reuse and impact. New better adapted metrics are being worked out in a dedicated BRIF working subgroup. A first list of relevant parameters to take into account in the impact measure of bioresources has been provided. The tools proposed here foster easier access to samples and associated data as well as their optimised use, sharing and recognition for data producers. Input from the scientific editorial community would be highly appreciated at this stage.

The International Journal of Integrated Care (IJIC) is an online, open-access, peer-reviewed scientific journal that publishes original articles in the field of integrated care on a continuous basis.IJIC has an Impact Factor of 5.120 (2020 JCR, received in June 2021)The IJIC 20th Anniversary Issue was published in 2021.