Benchmarking for the Small Publisher

Society for Scholarly Publishing

June 7, 2006

The Panelists

Moderator – Alma Wills, The Kaufman-Wills Group, LLC

Editorial Benchmarking– Jane Rea & Jayne Sutton, Editorial Experts

Production Benchmarking– Jim Donahue, Am Institute of Physics

Marketing Benchmarking– Patricia Hudson, Oxford University Press

Benchmarking: What is it?

A point of reference A standard Best performance Best practices Benchmarking is the systematic measurement of business

performance against an outside group. Through benchmarking, a company uncovers gaps in its performance -- areas to target for improvement

Benchmarking is a practical tool for continuous improvement. It disturbs companies into action, uncovers new ways of improving business processes and activities, and provides external examples for success.

Why benchmark?

Evidence of a problem The environment is changing New goals New competition New opportunities Ongoing effort

Why benchmark?

Continue to support your mission– Educate members and your non-member

community– Support quality publishing efforts of authors– Return revenue to support Society programs

Why benchmark? continued

Find ways to increase influence – Through market share of high impact papers– Through large direct circulation/usage and licensing

venues– Through capturing advertising market share

Why benchmark? continued

Ensure that your publication is responding appropriately to market changes– Publishing industry changes– Disciplinary changes– Needs of the readership, membership, advertisers

Why benchmark? continued

Position your journal to counter threats from new and existing competitors – How do your authors perceive your journal? Are

other journals publishing papers that you wished you had published? Why?

– How does your readership rank your journal relative to your competitors?

– What does industry think about your reach and frequency?

Why benchmark? continued

Improve quality– Original and solicited content– Author services, review process, production process– Electronic publishing features and functionality– Circulation management and customer service– Advertising promotion and sales– Business and financial management

Types of benchmarking

Internal – Comparing similar functions in different business units of

your organization External

– Comparing similar functions in other organizations Functional

– Comparing similar processes within an industry (unlikely direct comp w/ cooperate but could get similar)

Generic – Comparing operations between unrelated industries (focuses

on processes) Collaborative

– Group of organizations collaborate

Steps

1. Decide which functions to benchmark2. Identify the key performance variables to measure

(must be quantified)3. Identify the best-in-class companies4. Measure BIC companies5. Measure your performance6. Identify ways to close the gap7. Set goals!!!8. Implement9. Monitor results

How to identify best practices organizations

Authors Suppliers and distributors Trade associations Employees Customers Librarians

Where to find info

Published information Web sites Surveys User groups Online discussion groups Ex-employees Consultants In-house competitive information system

Publishing Benchmarks

Internal– Dept vs dept– Change over time

External– Vs other publishers– Vs other industries

Editorial Production

Marketing Sales

– Subscriptions– Advertising– Ancillary products

Finance– ROS– ROI

What’s important/what’s not?

Key Performance Indicators are those factors that are essential to your organization’s success

Just because it’s measurable doesn’t mean it’s critical

Keep the number of indicators to a manageable number

Editorial

Is your journal…– Attracting high-quality content?– Supporting the publishing efforts of authors?– Competitive in its manuscript processing?– Efficient? – Reaching and read by your target audience?– Trending upward in terms of its influence?

Editorial metrics

Number of manuscripts received

Number of manuscripts published

Accept/rejection rates Submit to 1st decision Review cycle Revision cycle Accept to publish Submit to publish Impact Factor

Manuscript backlogs Issue size Article length Geographic/topical mix Costs of editorial office Term limits Author satisfaction Reader satisfaction Reviewer satisfaction Editorial Board

organization/composition/performance

Ask authors

Journals: Randomly select a few authors from each issue

Books: Post publication follow-up Identify authors who have published with you

and other publishers. Ask them to compare experiences.

Measure change over time

Author survey

Percent Satisfied

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Content mix

Types of articles Editorial features Online functionality Subject coverage e-only

– Articles– Features– Supplemental data

Express publication

Case study

Problem– Number 1 read journal in field but not number 1 journal in

scientific impact– Competitors gaining ground in growing scientific impact– Journal’s impact factor dipped while two main competitors’

impact factors continued upward trend

Objective– Improve scientific impact

Method– Publications Committee and publishing consultant to

determine strategy to meet objective

Impact FactorSurgery Journals 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999

Ann Surg 1 5.937 1 6.073 1 6.674 1 5.987 1 5.647

Am J Transplant 2 5.678 2 4.940 139 0.000

Am J Surg Pathol 3 4.535 3 4.122 4 3.691 2 4.269 3 3.916

Liver Transplant 4 4.242 5 3.786 8 3.030 18 2.130

Brit J Surg 5 3.772 7 3.444 5 3.464 7 2.935 11 2.732

Transplantation 6 3.608 8 3.265 3 4.184 3 4.035 4 3.463

Ann Surg Oncol 7 3.574 4 3.824 6 3.308 12 2.799 14 2.427

J Vasc Surg 8 3.507 6 3.467 7 3.145 5 3.114 6 3.009

J Thorac Cardiov Sur 9 3.319 11 2.842 10 2.818 6 3.057 7 2.986

Endoscopy 10 3.227 37 1.700 42 1.459 29 1.817 28 1.726

Case study continued

Strategy More active recruiting of high-impact articles

– Associate Editors to help recruit not just review articles Document distinctive competencies, reasons to publish in journal Identify ongoing research and set acquisition goals

Greater international representation – 50% of papers submitted outside the US, but none of senior editors and

only fifth of editorial board from outside the US– Competitor A has 4 Associate Editors and competitor B has almost half

its board outside the US Solicit particular types of articles

– Reviews, guidelines, for example tend to increase citations– Examine ISI data presenting top cuts of most cited authors, papers,

institutions, countries, journals– Rush publication of articles pre-scientific meetings (PR)

Case study continued

Reduce acceptance rate improve impact factor and ranking

Journal A accepts 10% now, 20% 15 years ago impact up Journal B accepts now 15%-18%, 25% 10 years ago impact up Journal C papers in last 10 years declined 30% impact up

Prepare statistics to monitor trends– Submission to reviews (measures speed of reviewers)– Submission to first decision (measures speed of associate editors)– Submission to acceptance (measures revision cycle)– Acceptance to issue assignment (measures backlog)– Issue assignment to publication (measures time in production)

Article acceptance rates

25%

31%

25%22%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

A-SO B 2003 C 2005 D 2005

Days to 1st decision

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

A-SO B-2003 C-2005

Editor and reviewer turnaround

5.76

16.47

0

5

10

15

20

Day

s

Editor Turnaround Reviewer Turnaround

Cara S. Kaufman, PartnerAlma J. Wills, Partner

Kaufman-Wills Group, LLC24 Aintree Road

Baltimore, MD 21286ckaufman@verizon.net

almawills12@comast.net www.kaufmanwills.com