Print

Print


Dear Medical Librarians,

I am the CEO/Founder of JoMI (http://jomi.com), a surgical video journal
recently discussed on this list.  I hope the community does not mind that I
offer some clarifications/viewpoints on some of the issues discussed.  I
apologize for this email being a bit verbose.


*Re: Indexing*

*“It's not indexed in PubMed or in Scopus.”*


New journals must meet requirements to be indexed in PubMed:

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/services/ejournals.html

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/jsel.html


We are preparing our application to PubMed, recently reached out to Quertle
and Scopus, JoMI is currently indexed by Google Scholar, Google, Bing, and
other search engines.


*Re: JoMI vs. JoVE*

*“they are former JOVE people trying to make a better product”*


*Re: former JoVE people* - Not quite.  I was one of the JoVE founders (JoVE
was Moshe Pritsker’s idea, I was his tech co-founder).  At present, only
one team member besides myself was also involved with JoVE.  The rest of
the team is completely unrelated.

*Re: better JoVE* - JoMI does *not* compete with JoVE.  JoVE focuses on
early-stage research while JoMI focuses on clinical content.  My hope is to
eventually work with Moshe to have JoVE/JoMI cover the bench-to-bedside
vector.

*Re: Pricing, Performance, Education*

*"I never heard of it until they started contacting the consortium I
co-chair every week.  It appears to be pretty much brand new, as they only
have 26 institutional subscribers and are offering "Early adopter pricing."
They say they will work with institutions on pricing, but their individual
prices are $1000 yr. for a resident, and $2000 yr. for an attending ....
What kind of numbers does that come out to in a hospital our size? Or even
half our size, which is probably the average place? Video I tested took
forever and a day to load, and that's before 8:00 am, with a very small
subscriber base. There's also a part of me that wonders how many residents
will voluntary sit through hour long videos without being assigned to watch
them. Side issue - I find it bizarre that they call it Journal of MEDICAL
insight when it is pretty much 100% a surgical thing. How much education
would it take to make sure all the surgical folks know it's really for
them, and get them to use it enough that the cost per use is reasonable?"*


*Re: Pricing* - so this is where I bare my soul. We have not had any
residents or attendings subscribe as individuals: they always recommend an
institutional subscription and we work with institutions. We have had
several medical students subscribe, but the economics there are not very
good yet.

Most of the recent institutional transactions have been $3,500 to $10,000
per site depending on size, expected use, etc. The articles cost us between
$20,000 and $30,000 each to put together, so the current value of all the
content on JoMI is slightly less than $1MM. The value that we provide to
our users has been recently outlined here:

http://jomi.com/value


Given the value of our content, we feel that the pricing we propose is
reasonable, although we are always open to discuss and adjust. For example,
we had lowered the price for a nursing program and for a program that was
primarily focused on podiatry.  In both cases JoMI had value, but expected
usage was lower than for an orthopedic program, for example. So if our
pricing feels off, we are open to discuss on a case-by-case basis and to
find a fair arrangement.

*Re: video problems* - we use Wistia (http://wistia.com/), an established
company, which uses multiple CDNs (Content Delivery Network, Wikipedia
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_delivery_network>). A short while
ago they acknowledged problems that they claim have been fixed. If you
still have problems, please email [log in to unmask] and we will do our best
to resolve the issue or will stop using Wistia and begin managing traffic
ourselves. At present, I am not aware of performance issues.

*Re: Medical vs. Surgical* - I decided on “Medical” because our intention
is to grow beyond surgery. We have considered rebranding as “JoMI Virtual
Operating Theatre” in the meantime.

*Re: Education* - some places reference JoMI as “JoMI Surgical Video
Journal”.  We are working to assist in ensuring awareness/traction.


*Re: Residency and Growth*

*"I think the materials are exceptional. They offered a very good price for
the first year so we jumped in. The number and variety of surgical fields
covered by JoMI is increasing but not as quickly as I had hoped. Sadly, we
have had minimal interest here from residency groups. All in all, I would
suggest letting the product grow for another year and reevaluate. If they
can keep their quality, increase their output, and deliver that with a
reasonable price tag (less than their list price) I think they should be
considered seriously. The additional piece I have not done very well with
is outreach to residency programs."*


*Re: residency groups* - the interest has been growing along with our
volume. Most residency programs we speak with recognize that we have some
value now, but it is limited due to limited volume and most of our value
will be realized in a year or so when volume picks up. Some have chosen to
wait, while others have chosen to subscribe and will benefit in having a
lower price in the future.

*Re: growth* - we are now working to grow as quickly as we can and hope to
meet your expectations this year. The challenge has been in video journals
being very tough to run due to capital and operational requirements - this
makes scaling particularly difficult. That said, we have released around 30
articles over the course of this year and are growing consistently, so our
growth will considerably accelerate this year.

*Re: Aggressive, Crazy*

*”...this is one of the more aggressive vendors I've worked with in a
while.”*
*“Yes, they drove us a little crazy too …”*


So this is incredibly awkward to respond to. As a CEO, I am responsible for
every interaction and take full responsibility for what we do. That said,
using words like “crazy” and “aggressive” is something I did not expect,
although I confess I am not surprised.

To this end, I’d like to offer my vantage point:

The purpose of medical resources is to improve medical education and
patient care/outcomes. When reaching out to librarians, publishers/vendors
request that their resource is assessed and a determination is made on a)
whether the resource is valuable and, if it is (and only if it is), b) a
discussion ensues about a fair price for the resource. Granted that the
concept of “fair price” may be a loaded in medicine, but it is arguably
better than anarchy, so we all make do.

When we reach out, we have experienced a number of responses.


*Appropriate Responses:*
The appropriate response has generally been an assessment by a librarian, a
committee, or a user/third party (Chief of Surgery, Residency Director,
etc.). In some cases, the librarian communicated that they operate in
response to internal demand only, which, in my opinion is operationally
incorrect.

Upon an assessment, if the prospect has no need for JoMI (ex: psychology
program), then communication stops.

If there is not enough value to subscribe yet, then a next step is
discussed and agreed upon (ex: “reach out to us when you have more
podiatry”).

If value was recognized, if our proposed price is not seen as fair, we find
a fair price. Sometimes the price is adjusted because expected value is
lower, at others due to budget constraints.  We have an "emergency" program
where institutions are in crisis mode with budgets frozen are able to
access our content free of charge until the crisis resolves. At the end of
the day, we are on the same side (patients) and it is our respective jobs
to find a fair arrangement.

*Inappropriate Responses:*

For all the librarians who assessed us, there were some who engaged us in a
manner that I can only describe as “why is this telemarketer calling me
during dinner?” It was generally some variation of “No budget!” and an
abrupt hanging up of the phone without an assessment. The first time this
happened, I thought that I did something wrong. And then I imagined my
loved ones in a hospital with a librarian who refuses to assess new
resources that may impact care because “No budget!” Frankly, that made my
blood boil.


*“No Budget!!!”*
Bedside manner aside, I’d like to focus on the budget issue.  Susan Harman
recently asked on this list “How much usage is enough?” In response to Ms.
Harman’s question, I did not see *a single mention of patients, impact, or
outcomes*. I find this incredibly troubling. Budgets are always in limited
supply and the tighter they are, the harder the vendors should be
competing, dropping prices, demonstrating value, pivoting, and so forth.
Shutting out vendors whose whole reason for existence is to provide content
to your patrons in an effort to improve outcomes - this makes absolutely no
sense: it not only reduces competition, but does it not go against what
medical librarianship is about?  Is it not about finding the best resources
for physicians to maximize outcomes?

My professional and respectful opinion is that librarians, who lose rapport
with vendors claiming that there is no budget prior to performing an
assessment either a) are not doing their job or b) do not have an adequate
assessment processes in place.

*Conclusion - Thank You*

I’d like to thank whoever wrote this. It is psychologically not easy (even
if necessary) for my team and myself to read negative statements given all
the work that we have put into this project. It is comments like these that
make us feel that it is all worth it:

*"Very positive feedback from users. Quality of the content is great. We
showed it to our surgical education team and they were impressed. We will
probably renew. More standardized than the WebSurg collection of surgical
videos [http://www.websurg.com/ <http://www.websurg.com/>] or SAGES
surgical videos [http://www.sages.org/video/
<http://www.sages.org/video/>]. More open surgical videos as opposed to
endoscopic than the others have."*


On behalf of my team and myself, thank you.

To everyone: if you have any further questions, suggestions, or criticisms,
please reach out anytime.

Sincerely,
Nikita

---
Nikita Bernstein
CEO, Founder

[log in to unmask] | 609.462.6715
www.jomi.com | Journal of Medical Insight

<https://jomi.com>

On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Stephen L. Clancy <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Howdy.
>
> A couple of weeks ago, I posted a query regarding the Journal of Medical
> Insight (JOMI) and asking for feedback from anyone who has subscribed or
> been contacted by the publisher.
>
> I received several interesting responses, both positive and negative.
> Because of the public nature of this list, I'm not entirely comfortable
> with posting all of the information and opinions I received.
>
> A few of the (highly redacted) responses are below, but if you would like
> to receive the unedited versions, please contact me directly via email. I
> should note that I will remove any identifying information from those
> comments as well.
>
> Here is some of the feedback I received:
>
> "...this is one of the more aggressive vendors I've worked with in a
> while. They have improved their content since first releasing the product a
> year or a year and a half ago. JOMI includes many more videos now than it
> did initially ... we still haven't picked up this resource ... as it's a
> journal of surgical procedure videos, my reference colleagues felt that it
> would be of more use to the hospital than the medical school and since we
> were already spending so much money on resources for the hospital ... we
> decided to take a pass on JOMI at this time."
>
> "It's not indexed in PubMed or in Scopus.  How would your patrons find the
> videos other than Google - only word of mouth?  That's kept us from
> subscribing so far"
>
> "Yes, they drove us a little crazy too ... It has a lot of potential and
> several of our folks were interested in publishing in JOMI.  We are all big
> JOVE users here and they are former JOVE people trying to make a better
> product.  I like the content but the coverage was spotty.  I understand
> that early subscribers are paying for future content and the higher costs
> of production for this kind of journal."
>
> "Very positive feedback from users. Quality of the content is great. We
> showed it to our surgical education team and they were impressed. We will
> probably renew. More standardized than the WebSurg collection of surgical
> videos [http://www.websurg.com/] or SAGES surgical videos [
> http://www.sages.org/video/]. More open surgical videos as opposed to
> endoscopic than the others have."
>
> "I think the materials are exceptional. They offered a very good price for
> the first year so we jumped in. The number and variety of surgical fields
> covered by JoMI is increasing but not as quickly as I had hoped. Sadly, we
> have had minimal interest here from residency groups. All in all, I would
> suggest letting the product grow for another year and reevaluate. If they
> can keep their quality, increase their output, and deliver that with a
> reasonable price tag (less than their list price) I think they should be
> considered seriously. The additional piece I have not done very well with
> is outreach to residency programs."
>
> "I never heard of it until they started contacting the consortium I
> co-chair every week.  It appears to be pretty much brand new, as they only
> have 26 institutional subscribers and are offering "Early adopter pricing."
> They say they will work with institutions on pricing, but their individual
> prices are $1000 yr. for a resident, and $2000 yr. for an attending ....
> What kind of numbers does that come out to in a hospital our size? Or even
> half our size, which is probably the average place? Video I tested took
> forever and a day to load, and that's before 8:00 am, with a very small
> subscriber base. There's also a part of me that wonders how many residents
> will voluntary sit through hour long videos without being assigned to watch
> them. Side issue - I find it bizarre that they call it Journal of MEDICAL
> insight when it is pretty much 100% a surgical thing. How much education
> would it take to make sure all the surgical folks know it's really for
> them, and get them to use it enoug!
>  h that the cost per use is reasonable?"
>
> --
> Steve Clancy, MLS
> Research Librarian & Bibliographer for Health Sciences and Nursing Science
> Ayala Science Library/Grunigen Medical Library
> Univ. of Calif., Irvine CA. U.S.A.
> 949-824-7309 * sclancy AT uci.edu
> http://www.faculty.uci.edu/profile.cfm?faculty_id=5109
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "We don't see things as they are...We see things as we are." - Anais Nin
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Medical Libraries Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Stephen L. Clancy
> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 12:07 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Journal of Medical Insight (JOMI)
>
> Howdy all.
>
> For some time now, I have been getting repeated requests from the folks at
> JOMI to consider a subscription.
>
> I am calling on the collected wisdom here to see what folks' experience
> and opinion is of the product.
>
> A year's subscription is a sizable chunk of $$ so I'd like very much to
> look with some intelligence before I leap :-).
>
> Any insights you all might have would be appreciated.
>
> Feel free to email me personally if you don't want your opinions to be
> public.
>
> Thanks!
>
> --steve
>
> --
> Steve Clancy, MLS
> Research Librarian & Bibliographer for Health Sciences and Nursing Science
> Ayala Science Library/Grunigen Medical Library Univ. of Calif., Irvine CA.
> U.S.A.
> 949-824-7309 * sclancy AT uci.edu
> http://www.faculty.uci.edu/profile.cfm?faculty_id=5109
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> "We don't see things as they are...We see things as we are." - Anais Nin
>