This presentation was provided by Liz Allen of Annual Reviews during the second session of our 2025 NISO training series "Secrets to Changing Behavior in Scholarly Communications." Session Two was held June 11, 2025.
2. The next 30 minutes
• Personal background
• The traits of a social marketer
• Evolution of Schol Comm landscape
• Problem-Solution Orientation
• Exchange Value Proposition
• Audience Segmentation
• Community Building
• Behavioral Economics Application
• Multi-Channel Engagement
• Mission Alignment
• Adaptability
• Empathetic Communication
Topics
covered
3. Personal Experience – the tell–tale signs of a social marketer
• Trained in classic for profit marketing, the 4 P’s
• Worked for profit and nonprofit: transferred the
same skills and techniques between both
• Always worked with revenue generating products
• Created social movements, changing business
models if necessary
• Built community using CC licensing of brands;
research content; Wikipedia
• Used social marketing tools for growth (and email)
8. Problems and exchange value propositions (EVP)
Open Access
”I can’t read the
literature about my
father’s diagnosis
without paying $45
per article”.
EVP: visibility and
accessibility
Article Level
Metrics
”PLOS ONE publishes
all good science
regardless of
importance, but how
do we measure
modern impact”?
EVP: demonstrating
impact
Subscribe To
Open
”Annual Reviews
wants to convert our
journals to OA but
we’re invitation only”.
EVP: accessibility and
equity
Resistance to
current US Admin
”US science is being
censored and
dismantled – help”.
EVP: US prosperity
UN SDGs
”We need to build a
more sustainable
future for people and
planet”
EVP: shared
prosperity
10. Problems in academic publishing
Journals portfolio
• Biology and Medicine
launched with funding
support
• Without it they are
unsustainable
• PLOS community journals
more sustainable
• PLOS ONE was the financial
engine
Journals portfolio
• Nature itself had
static growth
• Nowhere for
rejections to go
• Portfolio didn’t exist
Journals portfolio
• 25-page reviews take
minimally an hour to
read and only those
with a PhD or higher can
read
• The knowledge was
locked in in two senses,
access and accessibility