Really Strategies
RESOURCE CENTER
“Really Strategies provides us with the third-party expertise we need.”
USATODAY.com
Oh Really! 5 Questions With...
[Kent R. Anderson]
May 2004In each issue, this section presents an interview with someone in the field of content management. In this issue we interview Kent R. Anderson from The New England Journal of Medicineto learn about some of the lessons discovered during the past 8 years that it's published both online and in print.
| Name: | Kent Anderson |
| Company: | The New England Journal of Medicine |
| Title: | Executive Director, International Business and Product Development |
| Brief Bio: | Kent R. Anderson is the executive director of international business and product development for The New England Journal of Medicine, Journal Watch, and other publications of the Massachusetts Medical Society. Prior to this, he was publishing director for The New England Journal of Medicine. He joined the Journal in 2000. From 1996 through 2000, he was director of medical journals at the American Academy of Pediatrics in Chicago, IL. He has been in healthcare publishing for more than 15 years, and has worked as a writer, editor, designer, production manager, copy editor, managing editor, and publisher. He has shared in regional, national, and international awards as a writer, editor, and designer. In 1995, he helped to develop one of the first online continuing medical education (CME) sites, and in 1997 launched an early e-only journal publishing program. In more recent years, he has helped develop novel online author information services and successful services for handheld computers. In addition, he has launched many viable new titles both in print and online, managed major publication overhauls and redesigns, and helped to develop robust ancillary product portfolios. He writes and speaks occasionally about aspects of STM publishing. Kent has a graduate degree in business, and an undergraduate degree in English. |
[1] The New England Journal of Medicine views the electronic version of the Journal as complementary, not as a competing offering to its print component. Many services are available to the online readers and authors that are not available in the print version. What are some of the trends you've seen among users of the print compared with the electronic versions of the Journal?
Kent: Busy office-based physicians seem to value the print edition of the Journal. It lets them keep in touch with major developments in the field at their leisure, and puts information in front of them in a way that online still cannot match—portable, foldable, and usable in many settings. Physicians in academic medicine and research seem to use online resources more, but we see that print still drives readership more than online. We get a good deal of our online traffic from outside the United States, so the Web has increased our reach and immediacy outside the US. The information is the same, but we now have new options for users. I think that's why they're ultimately complementary.
[2] The Journal has been on the Web since 1996. Can you describe how your editorial and production processes have changed over the years to accommodate print and online content? Have you achieved a single-source workflow?
Kent: Our workflows ultimately converge into XML, and we are implementing completely electronic workflows. It's difficult to create completely predictable work paths with information as complex and unpredictable as the research we publish. There are many subtleties. In my mind, the publishing flow is shaped like an hourglass, with disparate inputs converging to a central XML/data repository, where it is then repurposed into myriad forms—print, Web, PDA, slides, MEDLINE records, CrossRef linkages, and other external representations. We've been on the vanguard for years, and it's a constant effort to stay there—and make it appear natural and effortless to information consumers.
[3] How did the transition impact your editorial staff? Did your authors experience any side effects of this transition?
Kent: The editorial staff has been terrific at adapting to new workflows. They are rightfully skeptical about jumping on the latest bandwagon, but once they're convinced of the virtues of a new approach and that core safeguards around quality will be preserved if not enhanced, they incorporate changes gracefully. We're now working with authors and one another using email, PDFs, and marked-up electronic documents much more than before, even for illustrative materials. Exchanging information with authors is much more efficient now, and we provide authors with a PDF of their article upon publication as well. We can also be much faster when we need to be, so I think authors are much better served now, overall.
[4] You offer both full text and PDF versions of articles online. Do you see a preference among your readership? Does this imply anything?
Kent: It's hard to know whether HTML full text or PDF is preferred, because it's natural for users to go to the HTML full text before getting the PDF. That makes the data hard to interpret. To me, the main goal is to provide information in a useful format, so we also provide versions for PDAs, and subscribers can convert figures and tables into PowerPoint-compatible slides. We try to have some representation at every widely recognized technological shrine.
[5] What are your thoughts regarding the future of medical publishing and online services?
Kent: It's always tempting to say something wry when questions like this are posed, like "I wish I could know when the future arrives." It sure seems like it has, and now we're hitting a pace that has fewer features of upheaval, more features of incorporation and integration. I think atomizing information will continue, repurposing to myriad devices will continue, and the need for quality filters to save time and gain reader trust will continue. I think demographics will shape our response more than technology—technology will be part of the response to change, but technology can't be imposed. We need to understand the need, the behavior, and the pre-conscious mind.
