Tools and Strategies for Content Management – Publishers’ Perspective Jabin White, Executive Director, Electronic Production-Health Sciences Elsevier Jabin White, Executive Director, Electronic Production-Health Sciences Elsevier Presented by: Jabin White Title: Tools and Strategies for Content Management Presented at: SSP Annual Meeting; Baltimore, MD Date: April 30, 2003

Copyright 2003, ElsevierJabin White, SSP AgendaAgenda Introductions The Problem – simple Content Management is no longer enough Brief history of workflow, reasons for improvement Case Study And now for the next trick… Conclusions

Copyright 2003, ElsevierJabin White, SSP Who is Elsevier? Publish more than 1,800 journals, more than 2 million pages per year Publishing imprints include Mosby, Saunders, Churchill- Livingstone, BH, and more…

Copyright 2003, ElsevierJabin White, SSP Who am I? Started as Editorial Assistant, then Developmental Editor Learned SGML at Mosby Moved to Williams & Wilkins in 1997, merged with L-R in responsible for “front-end” SGML initiative Moved to Harcourt Health Sciences in October, 2000, acquisition by Elsevier completed in September, 2001

Copyright 2003, ElsevierJabin White, SSP The Problem “Traditional” content management, by definition, is no longer enough More to the point, it is: – Managing content more efficiently ($$$) – Content enrichment – Setting up content for multiple delivery streams – Preparing content to be searched/indexed more intelligently All of these have become part of the definition of Content Management, hence the confusion

Copyright 2003, ElsevierJabin White, SSP Traditional (Old) Workflow Manuscript submitted on paper (sometimes with disk) to Editorial office Paper accepted for publication Paper keyed and coded Article laid out (paginated) in proprietary typesetting system Proofs sent to authors, proofreaders, etc.

Copyright 2003, ElsevierJabin White, SSP Traditional Workflow (cont’d) Changes made to pages, author queries answered Changes inserted into proprietary typesetting files Final pages approved Print pages published Typesetting files converted to SGML Electronic product produced

Copyright 2003, ElsevierJabin White, SSP Traditional Publishing Process… Galleys PagesManuscript Electronic Product (repurposed from print) XML front ends  rethinking content & markup

Copyright 2003, ElsevierJabin White, SSP Problems inserted… Galleys PagesManuscript Electronic Product (repurposed from print) XML front ends  rethinking content & markup Paper submissions Changes made on paper Changes made to proprietary typesetting files Changes lost in media-neutral format (version management issues)

Copyright 2003, ElsevierJabin White, SSP Traditional Publishing Process… Galleys PagesManuscript Electronic Product (repurposed from print) XML front ends  rethinking content & markup

Copyright 2003, ElsevierJabin White, SSP Problem solved? Galleys Pages Manuscript XML front ends  rethinking content & markup Galleys Electronic Product X, Y and Z Final, corrected articles in DB

Copyright 2003, ElsevierJabin White, SSP Problem solved… Galleys Pages Manuscript XML front ends  rethinking content & markup Galleys Final, corrected articles in DB Publishers can add value and “squeeze” profits by making this part more efficient – enter CONTENT MANAGEMENT And by diversifying the product suite it offers to the market Electronic Product X, Y and Z

Copyright 2003, ElsevierJabin White, SSP Content Management for Efficiency “Extend” benefits of digital workflow back in the process to author submission Benefits: – Seamless movement of files in media neutral format – Enforcement of standards begins early – No surprises – Speed, speed, and more speed Examples: ElSubmit  Elsevier Editorial System; Author Gateway

Copyright 2003, ElsevierJabin White, SSP Efficiency at the Front Committed to a suite of web-based author services A-Team (author support team) Goals: – Better management of peer review process – Provide tools for authors to track status of their manuscript throughout publication process – Decrease transfer time from: Author to Editor Editor to Referee Editor to Production

Case Study Submission and Peer Review Tools

Copyright 2003, ElsevierJabin White, SSP Author Gateway “One-stop shop” for authors’ interactions with Elsevier Dissemination of information (author guidelines, paper tracking, marketing materials, etc.) Fantastic feedback from marketplace

Copyright 2003, ElsevierJabin White, SSP Author Gateway

Copyright 2003, ElsevierJabin White, SSP Author Gateway

Copyright 2003, ElsevierJabin White, SSP Author Gateway

Copyright 2003, ElsevierJabin White, SSP Author Gateway

Copyright 2003, ElsevierJabin White, SSP Major activities of the E-workflow: Websites for Electronic submission Science Direct, MD Consult, etc. Production Editorial offices Production suppliers implement electronic submission Digital workflow in Production Network delivery implement use of tracking systems and electronic peer review Link editorial to Production system

Copyright 2003, ElsevierJabin White, SSP CAP Workflow (Computer-Aided Production) Began in 1997 with SGML DTD, related tools One common global workflow, many different local production offices All use same tools, tracking systems, etc. All copyediting is outsourced Submission systems, peer-review systems occur before CAP

Copyright 2003, ElsevierJabin White, SSP PTSIII (Production Tracking System) Completely integrated between production offices and suppliers Provides “transparent” global workflow capabilities Oracle database with lots of XML managing workflow triggers

Copyright 2003, ElsevierJabin White, SSP The EW (Electronic Warehouse) Massive storage facility in Amsterdam Oracle database with proprietary extensions Millions of articles Today handles just journal articles, in the future will handle books Helps in production, assembly of products

Copyright 2003, ElsevierJabin White, SSP End-to-end process Production processes Electronic Warehouse Products Editorial process

Copyright 2003, ElsevierJabin White, SSP And now for the next trick! Doing for book workflow what Elsevier has done for journals workflow CAP workflow for books? Vast differences in content, authoring environments Same principles of consistency, enforcement, etc., can be applied, but very carefully

Copyright 2003, ElsevierJabin White, SSP Re-using what we’ve learned Common DTDs, enforced centrally Content Management standards enforced globally Authoring/editing tools that help with standardization and enforcement – Keeping in mind the different author environment Recognizing *when* workflows must be flexible, and when they cannot

Copyright 2003, ElsevierJabin White, SSP ConclusionsConclusions Digitization of “end” of workflow is assumed Business case has been made for having digital files at the end of the production cycle (this little thing called the web) How far “back” in the workflow you go depends on many factors in your organization (size, “change environment,” content types, etc) It’s a marathon, not a sprint!

Thank You