ourjournal columbia

Peter Muennig MD MPHGareth Highnam PhDMiranda Bernstein

Kartik Vyas

Lean Launchpad Day Final PresentationJanuary 13, 2017

Ourjournal is disrupting the publishing industry by automating the entire process, saving our users time, providing access to all readers, and reducing library subscription fees by billions

Ourweek

•70 interviews•Countless canvas revisions•Several pivots•Endless fun!

Key Partners (7) Key Activities (5)

Value Propositions (1)

Customer Relationship

(4)Customer

Segmentation (2)Research Individuals (Nobel Laureates)

Reader Free, rapid dissemation of scientific information

Press releases 1. Junior faculty (Equal male/female, young)

Academic Institutions (libraries) Editor 1. Automated editorial process Social Media (RG, A.edu, FB)

2. Readers

Open access journals (editors w/o contract)

Peer 1a. Crowdsourced peer review Email blasts 2a. Science writers/media

Data mining companies Prestige 1b. AI-based reviewer solicitation

campus awareness programs

2b. Patients

Traditional publishers (Elsevier) Grant writing 2. Measurement of scientific impact

Crowdfunding 3c. Aspiring kid scientists

Collaborative writing tools (e.g. RapidScience)

Outreach/Partnership 2a. Mathematical metrics Academic channels 4. Institutional funders (interact w/scientists)

2b. Social media (Circles than FB)

Famous people (solicit for word of mouth)

5. Highly educated

3. Improved scientific collaboration

6. Big data companies (scrape like IBM)

4. Reader (Tweet/XML/save data locally)

5. Data sharing

Key Resources

(6) Channel (3)

Beautiful software 1. Internet Database 1a. Desktop Email pool 2b. Mobile

Brilliant and beautiful people

Ivy league relationships Famous people

Cost Structure (9) Revenue Streams (8)Server Maintenance User recuritment Grants Data miningStorage Software

dev/improvementOperations Subscription (libraries) Advertisting

Advertising Research and evaluation

Expertise recruitment

We’ve come so farrjournal

Get: Email blasts, social media, word of mouth, google scholar, direct outreach

Keep : Continued free access to high quality science- free publishing, Brand of Columbia University, Collaboration and chance to get reviewed by thought leaders in the field.- MOU structure for fixed guaranteed payment

Grow: Slow shift of authors and readers from traditional journals with the increase in content on the platform

So, so far

Readers -outside of 1st tier institutions, students, patients -who read on devices -who want less pain by having all info in one universe

Authors who are not conducting grant funded research

All libraries, all research institutions, some NGOs/CBOs

All Editors

Google AdSense

Data purchasers

- Getting notable researchers on board

- Motivating editors to adopt the platform

- Improved reading experience over PDF/Print

- Superior peer review process

- Leading prestige (reputation) metrics

- Maintaining comment integrity (troll control)

Readers: free access to high quality scientific journals

Authors: free, rapid publication of their work with timely feedback from scientific community

Libraries: reduces cost, accomplishes open science mandates

Editors: simple, free curation of high quality research

Capture highly educated users

Hold all scientific data

- Thought leaders- Open access journals- Traditional publishers

(Elsevier)- Peer/network/

complimentary tools- Computer engineers

- IT- Advertising- Software development/improvement- Cash incentives to pilot users

- Library investment (~$20bn + current expenditure)- Data mining- Advertising

Direct—Mobile + InternetIndirect—AdSense

- Traffic - Publishers - Expanded database- Readers

1

3

4 2

5

6 7

8

9

Key Partners

Channels

Value Propositions

Key Activities

Key Resources

Customer Segmentation

Customer Relationship

Cost Structure Revenue Structure

Accessing science wastes

time and money

Hypothesis

Value PropositionAuthors and Readers

Access free articles via any search engine

Solution


time and money

Hypothesis


1


time and money

Hypothesis

40 Interviews


Readers want our product

Validation ✔


time and money

Hypothesis

40 Interviews


1Some lessons

learnedAccessing science wastes

time and money

Hypothesis

40 Interviews


1Publishing

science wastes time and money

Free, simple submission

system without requirements and instant publication

SolutionHypothesis


1

Publishing science wastes

time and money

Hypothesis

40 Interviews


1Major lesson

learnedPublishing science wastes

time and money

Hypothesis

40 Interviews


1

40 Interviews

Famous authors

should be on board, not on

system

Publishing science wastes

time and money

Hypothesis


Scientific review should be

interactive and transparent

PreprintCrowdsource

AI SystemReviewer-Author

Dialog

Hypothesis Solution

40 Interviews


1Scientific review should be rapid and transparent

Hypothesis

40 Interviews


1

Pivot!!Scientific review should be rapid and transparent

Hypothesis

40 Interviews



40 InterviewsDepends On

Customer Segment

Hypothesis



40 Interviews

Junior Scientists Do

Not Want Transparency

Hypothesis



40 Interviews

Junior Scientists Do

Not Want Transparency

Hypothesis


Big idea

1Some editors

will shift to our system

5 Interviews Pivot!Hypothesis

Value PropositionEditors

1

5 InterviewsMany editors might switch to our system

Some editors will shift to our

system

Hypothesis


Big idea

1

5 InterviewsWithout

being paid to do so


system

Hypothesis


Big idea

1

5 InterviewsOnce their contracts expire


system

Hypothesis


Big idea

1We can sell ads

directly to scientific

manufacturers and pharma

Mentors

If we use AdSense, our

market is bigger and we can

focus

Hypothesis

Channels

1Libraries will

benefit and pay us $25 billion

7 Interviews

Hypothesis

Revenue StreamLibraries

Libraries will benefit and pay us $25 billion

Pivot!!Hypothesis

7 Interviews


1Libraries will

benefit and pay us handsomely

One can’t simultaneously

disrupt a market and claim its

spoils

7 Interviews


Big idea

Earnings from data sale revenue

Investors in the project to save ever increasing

subscription fee by journals.Advertising profits

LIBRARIES CORPORATE

Salaries of employees, building database, domain

charges, server maintenance

OPERATIONS EXPENDITURE

Operational expenditure

Revenue Model

Value proposition + customer segmentation (Authors)

• Time to publish• Expensive• Cant do open access• Not wide distribution

of your work• Existing software is

tiring • Losing copyright to

journals• Feedback is slow• For new publishers, AI

system for editing and finding peer reviewers

• Real time publishing• Free for all• Open access to all

around the world• Ergonomic software

experience • Keep content right • Real time feedback

and quick editing

Pains Gains Was it confirmed

✔✔✔✔✔✔

Value proposition + customer segmentation (Authors)

• Access to scientific material

• Expensive• Poor reading

experience across devices on PDFs

• Open access journal• Free• Improved reading

experience


✔✔✔

Value proposition + customer segmentation (Readers)

• Costly subscriptions • Hire extra personnel

to take care of this vertical

• Inefficient • Losing copyrights to

journals

• Reduces cost, accomplishes open science mandates

• Real time publishing and peer review system

• Automated editing y AI

• Professors get to keep copyrights


✔✔✔✔

Existing platforms fail to solve these issues

Author end: Collaborative Writing & Publishing

Credibility but reader’ $$$: Peer-reviewed Publishing

Reader’s access but authors $$: Efficiency Rapid Publishing tools

Readers access without peer review: Pre-print Servers

Any Questions?

ourjournal columbia

Education

Transcript of ourjournal columbia