Say NO to all forms of submission. Instead of making authors fill form after form after form, InC takes the uploaded manuscript, tags every element, and presents the manuscript back to the author as HTML. When in doubt over a particular tag, InC says so and seeks the author's intervention and allows the author to retag it. When a cited element like a figure or a reference is missing, InC asks the author to supply it. With the received inputs, InC updates the manuscript on the fly and shows the author a Preview. Once the author verifies it, InC accepts the manuscript. In effect, what happens here is, the manuscript is pre-screened, the XML is created at submission, and the reports are generated and broadcast to publisher systems. The author goes back a happy person, free from queries that usually go out weeks later.
Conventional submission systems treat the process as an act of file management. InC treats it as content management. Quite literally, it is content over form. Document Intelligence tools constitute the core of InC. And there are three of them - there is Auto Conversion (to HTML), Completeness Diagnostics, and Auto Structuring. Machine learned, these tools have their KPIs in the high 90s. InC empowers the author to fix things early, so the manuscript package is source corrected rather than course corrected.
The XML created by InC is consumed by the workflow systems, helping to drive the rest of the publishing process. The pre-screening reports can be broadcast as JSON, for instance. It is the perfect start to the publishing process. And what begins well has a better chance for ending well.
Our products combine with each other in surprising ways. The HTML created by InC is set up for Peer Review for which TNQ has another intelligent product. See Review Central. Combined with Page Central (see), our browser-based pagination engine, InC can show the manuscript in the journal's publishing template, with clean pagination, to the author and everyone else downstream - peer reviewers, journal managers, editors, and journal production staff -, receive their inputs in HTML, and update them to the page without the need for DTP repagination.
Reject the paperwork. Whether or not you accept the paper. Reject multiple versions. Accept a single URL workflow. Reject status quo. Accept Review Central.
Chances are, you will review RC as ★ ★ ★ ★ ★. Especially when you consider that publishing employs actor-centric workflows, and e-mail or FTP doc share, which induce referee fatigue and burden the already over-burdened. Review Central presents source content as HTML to Peer Reviewers, Reviewing Editors, Journal Managers and Authors, to have them all collaborating on and contributing to a single URL that keeps a record of its own evolution. As the actors enrich the document continuously, the system preserves its integrity.
With Review Central, Journal Editors can set up the share (blind/open) and invite multiple Referees who can express their approval, rejection or nuanced opinions as the case may be, within the document, inline. In Review Central, the delta is preserved, multiple deltas if there are multiple referees. The system requires the user to point each delta the user creates to a specific location in the content. This ensures that throughout the share, the system can monitor, consolidate and assemble a Review Summary - by location within the content, type of delta, actor and time.
Journal Editors can use Review Central to moderate Referee observations. The JE can hide certain deltas that need to be, and modify others as required, even while preserving everything that's been done up to that point. When the share is available to the Author, there is a unified view. The Author can choose to update manuscript and complete the revised submission within Review Central, without having to go to a desktop application to do so.
Review Central facilitates not only inline commenting, but also discussions, in a layer above the content. This means the system can record and keep in one place all communication, without externalising these activities into email, attachment, or database. The whole process is content-centric, not actor-centric as in traditional workflows. There is complete transparency, and well-defined access parameters to get into the history of the document. Peer-Reviewed Publishing never looked this credible.
The clean proof that science needs. In recent times, Proof Central has delivered over a million journal articles, for nearly 2000 STM journals, and they have come back twice as quick as PDF proofs used to. Over 90% of authors have favoured our HTML proofs over PDF when given the option to do it either way, consistently, for six years now.
In Proof Central, a journal article equals one URL (for books, a chapter equals one URL). XML-aware publishing systems share this URL with authors as HTML. The authors view the proof as HTML and edit it, do it WYSIWYG, sans code view, in a Freestyle Editing Environment. Once the author finishes, this URL is available to Journal Managers, Editors, Typesetters, or other actors as can be configured. Throughout, the XML remains intact.
Every edit, comment, query and response in Proof Central is recorded by time, actor and the nature of change in an Edit Log, which then becomes a table of contents of sorts to navigate through the edit points in the manuscript. This valuable record is archived, analysed, databased, secured and cloud-hosted. Proof Central has saved publishers a lot of money, has spared them from having to transfer PDF annotations manually; equally from having to face irate authors because a new error got introduced while transferring PDF annotations into the application file. HTML proofing is fast becoming the standard in STM. And Proof Central remains the standard to live up to.
Together with Page Central (see), our browser-based pagination engine, PrC can show the manuscript in the journal's publishing template, with clean pagination, redacting the inline changes made in PrC, to the author and the correction editors in journal production. The corrections are received in HTML. On one click, the browser creates the page. It is the beginning of the end of DTP pagination.
Page Central flips page production upside down. A patent-pending paging engine in Page Central coaxes the browser to render the continuous XML-as-HTML page to neat, cookie-cut pages with publisher logos, footnotes, and page numbers. The floats stay close to their citations. The page is produced only when the user calls it - page on demand, the arrival of zero-inventory page production.
You publish in your style of copy editing, XML, DTD, Schema; in single column or two. It is a feat of auto-pagination on the browser. There is no legacy desktop application. It is one-touch pagination, and it happens in seconds. Ah, it used to take days - Send file to typesetter -> Repaginate -> Regenerate Dataset -> Reload -> and Send a million signals to dozens of workflow systems that all this is happening. Forget it. Now you don’t need a typesetter to paginate and repaginate.
Page Central can be combined and deployed with any or all of the products in the Central suite. Throughout the publishing process, users can revise the page in its intended look and feel. The same XML that is given to DTP is given to the browser instead, and the browser gives the page. The quality is comparable to DTP in appearance. In fact, we have a tough time convincing our experienced customers that what they are seeing is not a typeset PDF. In terms of interactive potential, the quality is way superior to DTP.
PgC went live for an open access journal in August 2015. Since then it has been rolled out to over 1300 journals producing nearly 1.5 million pages. Is it the beginning of the end of DTP? Can we make the page fixed or fluid, print or electronic, for computer or device? Can we cut costs? Can we make the page interactive? Can the page support rich media? Can we generate usage data and analytics? Can we drive engagement? Can we get STM publishing to be on the same page?
Excellent system for fast publication after the acceptance.
Very good process of submission of corrected proof.
Excellent interface. In places where I could not make the changes I needed, I left a comment, which was very helpful.
This is a great tool - way better than other options!