For each of these audiences, we created an “Audience Segment Profile.” The Audience Segment Profile describes a specific group that will be impacted by our culminating output in a more structured and detailed way. It breaks the audience down into its jobs, pains, and gains.

GAINS describe the outcomes those assuming the persona want to achieve or the concrete benefits they are seeking.

(See an image of this profile from the workshop: Suppl. material 1)

This audience includes those that design and build scholarly communication software and infrastructure to improve how metadata moves through the scholarly communications cycle. Any solution builder in a business context will need to demonstrate that this new product or design feature operates in the best interest of the company’s outputs. Our audience needs to know what key gains to metadata production and use they can make with a new or refined product and how a new product or system will navigate risks of changing their metadata flows. This audience does not need the technical details germane to their business, but it does need persuasive points that Metadata 2020 information reflects where the scholarly communications industry is headed.

Positions for the solution builder audience include product managers, directors of content or production in a scholarly communications context, and possibly technical roles like software engineers and database designers. The key drivers that influence this group include (Table 1):

(See an image of this profile from the workshop: Suppl. material 2)

This audience includes those that direct content creation and use, such as editors, and repository owners. Content directors are scholarly communications professionals in charge of making decisions on what specific types of content will be published by their publication or channel.

Jobs for this group may contain content director audience include journal editors-in-chief, society publication committees or boards, and database curators. The key drivers that influence this group include (Table 2):

(See an image of this profile from the workshop: Suppl. material 3)

This audience includes those that influence research policy and/or society in ways that direct development choices of research tools, workflows, and processes. This group may contain funders, advocacy groups, national and international efforts (like open access, or FAIR), and others. One such policy influencer could be the Lead for cOAlitionS (Johan Rooryck), a group of research funders setting mandates for publishers and institutions about how to share research. Some of their guidelines already include metadata even though it might not be framed that way, and their goal is to help publishers to comply and progress toward a more open science future. A second person who would be more of a social influencer in this area could be Bill (& Melinda!) Gates; the Gates foundation is an influential supporter of open research and whilst not yet ‘woke’ about metadata richness, could be brought in as a key advocate. It was also discussed that groups like Sense About Science or FORCE, which are already representing broad views and a clear voice for research needs, have been excellent in campaigning for particular causes in this space.

This group may include people with job titles such as foundation program director, social media influencer, start-up investor, and futurist. The key drivers that influence this group include (Table 3):

(See an image of this profile from the workshop: Suppl. material 4)

This audience includes researchers and others that are directly related to the creation and use of content. For example, a scientist at a state university with little funding. This group undergoes a cycle of Discovery -> Access -> Use -> Understand -> Trust. Those directly related to the creation and use of content

The key jobs, gains and pains that drive this audience include:

This group may include people with job titles such as professor, researcher, R&D specialist, and inventor. The key drivers that influence this group include (Table 4):

The Value Map describes the features of value propositions for Metadata 2020 in a structured and detailed way. It breaks our value proposition down into outputs that we produce, and the resulting pains relieved and gains created.

PRODUCTS AND SERVICES The list of all products and services (in our case, outputs) that the value proposition is built around.

(See an image of this value map from the workshop: Suppl. material 5)

The current outputs are moderately well suited for this audience segment as shown below. This team further suggested that the Flow Diagram output needs to be persona specific to maximize its use for this audience, and the metadata evaluation will need a summary. Workathon participants brainstormed the pains that might be relieved and the gains created for this audience, resulting in the table below (Table 5):

(See an image of this value map from the workshop: Suppl. material 6)

The current outputs are moderately well suited for this audience segment. Workathon participants brainstormed the pains that might be relieved and the gains created for this audience, resulting in the table below (Table 6):

(See an image of this value map from the workshop: Suppl. material 7)

The current outputs are moderately well suited for this audience segment. Workathon participants brainstormed the pains that might be relieved and the gains created for this audience, resulting in the table below (Table 7):

(See an image of this value map from the workshop: Suppl. material 8)

The current outputs are moderately well suited for this audience segment. Workathon participants brainstormed the pains that might be relieved and the gains created for this audience, resulting in the table below (Table 8):

Our advocacy campaign helps funders/ influencers who want to save the world by ensuring they understand open research infrastructure and can fund more, better, and faster research.

This solution aims to create a ripple effect of organizations that think globally while acting locally. It uses expert opinions, articles, examples and ‘celebrity’ endorsements to demystify the “metadata” space and its benefits, thereby building trust and increasing research impact and reach (Fig. 2).

IDEA SCORECARD (Table 9).

Our portfolio of experiments is designed to help product developers & solution builders establish shared principles of good metadata design in their organization. It will provide sample experiements that can enhance discoverability through better metadata. These suggestions aim to reduce business risk and increase profits and customer satisfaction.

This solution provides a data engine with a collection of experiments where one learn how how metadata is used and rmanipulated. Relying on persona-specific flow diagrams, this information provides evidence to be used in business cases, featuring a set of principles of shared good design for metadata (Fig. 3).

IDEA SCORECARD (Table 10).

Our collaboration with CSE/ EASE helps content directors who want to improve all aspects of their job by decreasing stagnation and increasing community recognition of metadata importance.

This solution aims to create a collaboration with organizations such as Society for Scholarly Publishers (SSP), Council of Science Editors (CSE), Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), European Association of Science Editors (EASE), and International Society of Managing and Technical Editors (ISMTE) for the purposes of creating joint recommendations, increased awareness leading to increased action (Fig. 4).

IDEA SCORECARD (Table 11).

THE (total -> huge -> encompassing) data warehouse helps scientists who want to know the unknowns by capturing all relevant records and reducing waste and increasing discovery.

This solution aims to centralize (the metadata) resources for scientists to enable a single interface/ search engine for finding and using resources. It advocates for a fresh start to replace legacy systems (perhaps developed by an organization like Google), and emphasize indexing of information around a broader goal such as the UN Sustainability Development Goals (Fig. 5).

IDEA SCORECARD (Table 12).

Our package of education materials help editors and publishers who want to increase citations, improve discovery of content, and be more efficient by providing evidence for investment and increasing discoverability and reputation unlike spending money on Search Engine Optimization (SEO).

This solution uses an education solution to make the business case for investment by providing evidence of the expected benefits and outcomes (Fig. 6).

IDEA SCORECARD (Table 13).

Our online resource helps gatekeepers who want to influence and educate with strong tools & evidence that stimulates action, which in turn leads to richer metadata.

This solution is a dynamic and organic platform that continually reinforces the metadata value proposition by providing resources, case studies, and powerpoint slides for training. Paired with a strong awareness campaign, the platform encourages contributions through community sourcing that further strengthen its value (Fig. 7).

IDEA SCORECARD (Table 14).