1 2 3 Previous Next

Discover the Future of Research

701 posts
    Fiona O'Connor
Fiona O'Connor
Society Marketing, Wiley

Some members join a society for the career benefits, while others want access to content, but most of all, people join a society for the community. The strength of community is most often felt at annual meetings, but it must be nurtured throughout the year with meaningful communication.


Staying in contact with your members not only keeps them up-to-date on events and news, but also keeps them engaged, and further emphasizes the value your organization offers. If members cannot recognize the value your society brings to their professional lives, they may choose to leave—15% of those who left a society in the past year identified a lack of communication as the key reason.

Member Comms Graphic_1.png


Members join a society for a variety of reasons and want to hear about all different aspects of their community. To ensure that you’re meeting your members’ needs, make sure all communications highlight diverse themes and topics and sound human and personal.

Member Comms Graphic_2.png


Overall, members want a little bit of everything, from social media to monthly emails. While members identified publishing research as the most important activity for societies, 52% said it was important that their society maintains an active large social media presence.


How do you successfully reach your members?


Don’t be afraid to experiment!


Over half of members are “generalists”, meaning that they prefer to be communicated with through several methods rather than just one. Monthly emails could keep the most at-risk members engaged, while social media can appeal to early career researchers. Track your success with different tactics to determine what’s working well and what can be changed or improved upon.


The power of research


Seventy percent of members report actively reading their association’s publication and those who actively engage with journal content are also more likely to recommend their organization to their peers. By consistently featuring research content in communications, you’ll encourage all members to engage with it regularly.


Consider future members


While it’s important to effectively communicate with current members, it’s also essential to explore what methods will attract future generations. In our factor analysis, 51% felt targeted media, such as a magazine or blog, would help to recruit early career researchers. Others thought focusing on career benefits (24%) like educational materials or tools would help reach the next generation, and 13% suggested working closely with universities to engage students. Social media is also important, as 11% felt social media, both in research-related platforms, like ResearchGate, and on traditional platforms, such as Twitter, would help engage future members.


Science Denial By Any Other Name

Posted Nov 20, 2018
    Samantha Green
Samantha Green
Society Marketing, Wiley

The topic of science denial comes up with some frequency in the research community. There are the “anti-vaxxers,” who either think vaccines are ineffective or cause other conditions. There are the “climate change deniers,” who don’t believe global warming is man-made. We even have “flat-earthers” who do not believe the earth is round.


We talk about how to convince them, how to reach them, how to present facts in a respectful way that does not make them feel defensive. We talk about how to change their minds.


SG_186360520.jpgThese conversations always circle around this binary of believers and non-believers. Us versus them. Right versus wrong.


Framing Science Communication


Does the language we use to talk about science denial make it worse? It can often be a combative and negative way to frame these debates and creates a hierarchy.


Perhaps more importantly, it’s counter-productive. By framing conversations around how to “solve” science denial, are we alienating the very people we need to listen to?


Recently, I attended a day-long symposium at The New York Academy of Sciences, co-sponsored by the Rutgers Global Health Institute called “Science Denial: Lessons and Solutions,” and by the middle of the day my biggest lesson was to stop calling it science denial.


I went into the day thinking of science denial as a systemic issue, stemming from the way we educate children and a lack of science and information literacy, or developing from the way private interest groups manipulate science to their own ends, like Tobacco companies in the 1990s.


Then I began to think about hubris. People who refuse to believe in scientific evidence are not necessarily scientifically illiterate: sometimes they are filled with certainty that they know the truth and everyone else is following the herd blindly. There is a sense of pride in that exceptionalism, and the knowledge that when everyone else finally knows the truth, you will be a trailblazer, a hero.


We would all like to change someone’s mind. We would like to find the piece of data that unlocks the universe for someone and makes them see the world in a new light.

But no amount of evidence is going to make someone believe something, and no amount of fact is going to change a mind that doesn’t want to change.


Does it matter?


Communicate, Don’t Alienate


During the day’s discussions, several people pointed out that communication is a tactic, but what we really want is policy or cultural change through science or informed by scientific evidence. If this is the case, then we need to make sure the ways we talk about acceptance of scientific ideas don’t alienate but instead invite collaboration.


We need to get beyond the communication battleground of what the public believes. There is room for us to act on the same thing for different reasons. We can focus on disagreeing with people while still fostering a dialogue and working toward shared goals like safe communities, healthy children and more.


Where we’ve been trained to educate, inform, debate, we need to listen. We need to find common ground on different issues and understand why each of us thinks and believes the things we do.


As EO Wilson wrote, “People would rather believe than know.” But this does not mean we can’t work toward change. By starting the conversation with what we share rather than where our ideologies diverge, we can come together for changes that can help bring about a sustainable future.


To learn more about the other conversations we had during the symposium, visit this link.


Image Credit: Klaus Vedfelt/Getty Images

     Chris Graf
Chris Graf
Director, Research Integrity and Publishing Ethics, Wiley

Research Map.png


Here at Wiley we believe that open research and open science, if it can be made possible in practice, will facilitate faster and more effective research discovery. Our data sharing team (the members of which are listed at the bottom of this post) has recently updated our data sharing and citation policies to reflect this commitment.


Here we walk through each of the four policy levels, from an entry-level policy, via a policy that expects data, to an advanced-level policy, and onwards to a policy for “remarkable” practice (there’s no other word for it). We share examples of journals working closely with researchers to share data, in ways that suit those researchers. We map the new Wiley policies to Levels 1, 2, and 3 from the Center for Open Science Transparency Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines, which Wiley endorses. Finally, we introduce goals for implementation and note the arrival of our Expects Data Toolkit for Wiley journal editors.


If you’re an author or editor, please share your feedback on our policy changes (in the comments below). It’s important that we work together to get it right.


“Encourages data sharing” is our entry-level policy, and does not change materially


The majority of Wiley journals adopted this policy when we launched our data sharing and citation policies a little over a year ago. “Encourages” is not a particularly robust policy, if what you want to achieve is data sharing: Everything about it is optional (data availability statements, data sharing, and peer review). But “encourages” is a good starting point, a stepping stone. It enables journals serving researchers in communities where data sharing is not common to start their journey towards data sharing.


“Expects data sharing” is our intermediate-level policy, and has changed materially


Our friends at Center for Open Science shared with us that, despite our best intentions, the words we chose to express our old “encourages” and “expects” policies did not create clear space between the two policies. Now journals that adopt our new “expects data sharing” policy mandate a data availability statement in every published article. However, it’s important to clarify that “expects” does not require researchers to share data.  Instead it requires in every article a statement to confirm presence or absence of shared data. “Expects” is written to be ideal for many Wiley journals and, for example, the British Journal of Social Psychology published by Wiley for the British Psychological Society is adopting an “expects” policy. It is equivalent to TOP Level 1.


“Mandates data sharing” is our advanced-level policy, and does not change materially


This policy is self-explanatory. Journals that mandate data sharing require as a condition of acceptance that data associated with journal articles are shared. Researchers can share data before submission or, alternatively, after peer review but before publication. This policy option works well when data sharing is the norm within a research community. Ecology and Evolution is among the handful of Wiley journals that take this approach. Have a look at Tim Vines’ study of the impact of adopting a strict data policy across 12 ecology and evolutionary biology journals, if you want some further reading. “Mandates” is equivalent to TOP Level 2.


“Mandates data sharing and peer reviews data” is a new policy at Wiley


Journals that adopt “mandates and reviews” policies represent the top-end of data sharing practices by researchers and research journals. But what does peer review mean when it comes to data? Depending on the journal, data peer review may evaluate the quality of the data by ensuring that the results in the paper and the data in the repository align (for example, sample sizes and variables match). Geoscience Data Journal takes this approach. Or data peer review may evaluate the replicability of the data to ensure that the claims presented in the journal article are valid and can be reproduced. American Journal of Political Science, published by Wiley for the Midwest Political Science Association, takes this approach. This new “mandates and reviews” policy option enables us to showcase remarkable practice by researchers who choose to publish their work with Wiley, and similarly remarkable practice from the journals that we publish. It is equivalent to TOP Level 3.


For all policy levels, data citation is emphasized. Data citation is not new to Wiley policies. EMBO Press, one of Wiley’s publishing partners, has introduced data citation into reference lists. But the emphasis in the Wiley policies is new, and is in-line with industry standards and initiatives to recognize data as a primary research object. We endorse the FORCE11 Data Citation Principles.


Policy is nothing without implementation


We know that careful implementation of policy is key to its success. Our plans include a campaign to implement “expects data sharing” at hundreds of journals in the coming months, and we have an “Expects Data Toolkit” to help. Implementation of “expects” will require data availability statements, and data citations where data has been shared, to be included in every article. This will mean small but important changes across the author experience at Wiley, so we’ll need to be sensitive to that.


Looking further ahead we intend to measure “expects data” policy implementation, and to measure publication of data availability statements and data citations. With this information, we’ll be able to celebrate adoption of new practices by the research communities we work with and serve, and we’ll be able to showcase researchers from those communities leading in open research.


To close, we have a final message for Wiley journal editors, and for researchers who submit their work to Wiley journals.



For Wiley editors, we have an Expects Data Toolkit to help you adopt our “expects” policy. Please speak with your publisher so together we can help researchers in your communities share more research data.



And if you’re a researcher and have thoughts about these policy options, then please make your voice heard in the comments below. Adopting new practices needs good communication and collaboration between all parties, so please, let us know your thoughts. Thank you!


Wiley’s Data Sharing Team

Our team and the people who helped design the new policy include: Erin Arndt (Associate Director, Editorial System), Elizabeth Moylan (Publisher), Kate Perry (Product Manager), Kathryn Sharples (Director, Editorial Development), Terri Teleen (Director, Editorial Operations & Communications), Natasha White (Director, Open Access Product Marketing), as well as the author of this post, Chris Graf (Director, Research Integrity and Publishing Ethics). Thank you all!





Figure: Data visualization: Locals and Tourists #3 (GTWA #4): San Francisco by Eric Fischer  via Flickr https://flic.kr/p/87P5qP CC BY-SA


    Atsuko Inoue
Atsuko Inoue
Marketing Manager,Wiley

Seminar picture for blog.jpg

On a hot summer day in Tokyo, over 60 senior leaders from across the research sector, including society directors, funders, journal editors, librarians and industry partnersm gathered at the Wiley Research Seminar with the theme "Shaping the Future of Research and Discovery".  The morning kicked off with an eye-opening keynote on the future of research, followed by plenaries and afternoon breakout sessions in three streams of interest: "society journal publishing", "universities", and "corporates". Afterwards, everyone reconvened for the closing session on publication ethics followed by a reception filled with lively conversation and networking across different sectors.


Curiosity-Driven Research

The keynote presentation "Innovation and Future Research: from a mathematician’s viewpoint", delivered by Masato Wakayama, VP and Director of Kyushu University, captivated the audience with an intriguing and colorful interpretation of innovation by the magic of numbers.  Prof. Wakayama pointed out the dangers of "agenda-driven research" which may block scientific advances in the long term, as opposed to "curiosity-driven science." While the latter may not bring immediate results, it may prove to have much greater impact decades or even centuries later.


End to end Open Science

Following the keynote, Deborah Wyatt, VP, Asia-Pacific Society Publishing from Wiley, spoke about the evolving global research landscape, and societal trends that are impacting scholarly and scientific publishing. The presentation ended with guiding principles such as the need to constantly focus on quality, ethics, and integrity, the importance of global collaboration, listening to the research community, and investing in the future.


The second plenary, "Implementation and practice of Open Science and Open Access" was presented by Yasushi Ogasaka of the JST (Japan Science and Technology Agency). Dr. Ogasaka introduced JST’s work on J-STAGE which is an online journal platform that serves as an infrastructure for supporting Open Science in Japan. He highlighted the recent challenges of appointing Persistent Identifiers (PID) for research resources and concluded that there is a need to provide open access not only for research results, but also for processes ranging from research strategy planning to tackling societal challenges.


The Evolution of Open Access Policy

In the third plenary session, Mr. Kazuhiro Hayashi of NISTEP (National Institute of Science and Technology Policy) introduced the recent progress of the Open Science policy in Japan and how the Cabinet Office is promoting Open Science and providing guidelines. He stated that the combination of a top-down approach from policymakers and a bottom-up approach by researchers and related stakeholders is a key part of fostering the culture of Open Science in a data-sharing world.


Simon Goudie, Senior Journal Publishing Manager at Wiley, discussed Wiley's recommended policy types on data sharing, while pointing out some of the caveats of implementing a journal data-sharing policy. Simon also raised the important role that learned and professional societies can play in establishing practices which meet the needs of their communities.


The final morning plenary, presented by Dr. Nobuko Miyairi, explained how Open Scholarly Infrastructure can be created by taking the development and progress of Persistent Identifiers (PID) as an example, and the importance of communities working together to support Scholarly Infrastructures.


Learning from Stakeholders

The Society journal publishing sessions offered a range of perspectives and a spotlight on new technologies.  First, Raymond Abruzzi, Program Director, Wiley Digital Archives, offered insights into the obligations and challenges which institutions face in making their archive collection available. Next up, Ms. Anne Harvey, Managing Director Asia Pacific, Digital Science, introduced New Dimensions, which is Digital Solutions’ next generation data module solution interlinking multiple data modules such as: grants, publications, patents, clinical trials, policy documents and metrics. Richard Threlfall, Data Product Manager, Intelligent Solutions at Wiley, introduced services that offer authors, peer reviewers, editors and societies support with data-driven decision-making. The last half of the Society journal publishing sessions were led by Professor Kohei Miyazono, Editor-in-Chief of Cancer Science, and Dr. Takashi Kawahara, Managing Editor of International Journal of Urology, two of the most successful society journals in Japan. The editors presented best practices from their experiences working on these journals.


The afternoon’s University session focused on equipping researchers for the future, with Tsuyoshi Abe, Senior Vice President, CMO, YOKOGAWA Electric Corp. proposing that Open Innovation and industrial and academic cooperation are crucial in maintaining international competitiveness.  Professor Seeram Ramakrishna from the National University of Singapore (NUS), provided specific examples of best practices and strategies to improve and sustain the ranking of universities.  Then Jose Oliveira, VP & Editorial Director at Wiley, introduced Wiley Researcher Academy which facilitates publication process learning for early career researchers.


In the Corporate sessions, Professor Jian-min Liu, Associate Chief-Editor of Journal of Diabetes, Rui-jin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao-tong University School of Medicine, shared practical advice on how to survive the peer review process in the context of industry sponsored content. The session was followed by a lively panel discussion between Prof. Liu and Simon Goudie from Wiley. To wrap upMartine Docking, ISMPP board of Trustees and VP Corporate Sales at Wiley, provided an introduction to enhanced content, the different formats accepted by Wiley journals, and most importantly, the impact these new types of content have on the quality of the engagement with the target audience.


The closing session was presented by Dr Trevor Lane of Edanz Group. He introduced the mission and strategies of the Committee on publication Ethics (COPE) and explained how COPE can help to raise international standards in research publication ethics.


Feedback from the participants was extremely positive and encouraging, and many have mentioned that they would like to attend again in the future.


During the breaks at the seminar, we were fortunate enough to hear from five leading journal editors and society leaders in Japan.Watch the video interviews to hear different views on the three questions posed below.


Do you think the role of journals as a cornerstone of the research and publishing ecosystem will change in the future?



If you could re-design the publishing process from scratch, what is the first thing you would change?




How do you think societies need to adapt to continue to stay relevant and to continue to play an important role in a professional’s career?





Prof. Atsushi Kume, Executive Director for the Ecological Society of Japan

Dr Kazutaka Ikeda, Editor of Neuropsychopharmacology Reports

Dr Kohei Miyazono, Editor-in-Chief of Cancer Science, Director of the Japanese Cancer Association

Dr. Takashi Kawahara, Managing Editor of International Journal of Urology

Prof. Takayuki Matsumoto, Editor-in-Chief of Digestive Endoscopy


If you are interested in attending the Tokyo Research Seminar attend next year, get in touch at jtominaga@wiley.com


Photo credit: Atsuko Inoue

     Chris Graf
Chris Graf
Director, Research Integrity and Publishing Ethics, Wiley

A group of journal editors and experts in reproducibility and transparent reporting are putting together a  framework for minimal reporting standards in the life sciences.



Transparency in reporting benefits scientific communication on many levels. While specific needs and expectations vary across fields, the effective use of research findings relies on the availability of core information about research materials, data, and analysis. These are the underlying principles that led to the design of the TOP guidelines, which outline a framework that over 1,000  journals and publishers have elected to follow.


Working together to achieve transparency

In September 2017, the second major TOP guidelines workshop hosted by the Center for Open Science led to a position paper suggesting a standardized approach for reporting, provisionally entitled the TOP Statement.


Based on discussions at that meeting and at the 2017 Peer Review Congress, in December 2017 we convened a working group of journal editors and experts to support this overall effort by developing a minimal set of reporting standards for research in the life sciences. This framework could both inform the TOP statement and serve in other contexts where better reporting can improve reproducibility.


Using an experienced-based approach

In this “minimal standards” working group, we aim to draw from the collective experience of journals implementing a range of different approaches designed to enhance reporting and reproducibility (e.g. STAR Methods), existing life science checklists (e.g. the Nature Research reporting summary), and results of recent meta-research studying the efficacy of such interventions (e.g. Macleod et al. 2017; Han et al. 2017); to devise a set of minimal expectations that journals could agree to ask their authors to meet.


An advantage of aligning on minimal standards is consistency in policies and expectations across journals, which is beneficial for authors as they prepare papers for publication and for reviewers as they assess them. We also hope that other major stakeholders engaged in the research cycle, including institutional review bodies and funders, will see the value of agreeing on this type of reporting standard as a minimal expectation, as broad-based endorsement from an early stage in the research life cycle would provide important support for overall adoption and implementation. 


What we hope to achieve

The working group will provide three key deliverables:


    • A “minimal standards” framework setting out minimal expectations across four core areas of materials (including data and code), design, analysis and reporting (MDAR)
    • A “minimal standards” checklist intended to operationalize the framework by serving as an implementation tool to aid authors in complying with journal policies, and editors and reviewers in assessing reporting and compliance with policies
    • An “elaboration” document or user guide providing context for the “minimal standards” framework and checklist


While all three outputs are intended to provide tools to help journals, researchers and other stakeholders with adoption of the minimal standards framework, we do not intend to be prescriptive about the precise mechanism of implementation and we anticipate that in many cases they will be used as a yardstick within the context of an existing reporting system. Nevertheless, we hope these tools will provide a consolidated view to help raise reporting standards across the life sciences.


We anticipate completing draft versions of these tools by spring 2019.  We also hope to work with a wider group of journals, as well as funders, institutions, and researchers to gather feedback and seek consensus towards defining and applying these minimal standards.  As part of this feedback stage, we will conduct a “community pilot” involving interested journals to test application of the tools we provide within the context of their procedures and community. Editors or publishers who are interested in participating are encouraged to contact Veronique Kiermer or Sowmya Swaminathan for more information.


In the current working group, we have focused our efforts on life science papers because of extensive previous activity in this field in devising reporting standards for research and publication.  However, once the life science guidelines are in place we hope that we and others will be able to extend this effort to other areas of science and devise similar tools for other fields.  Ultimately, we believe that a shared understanding of expectations and clear information about experimental and analytical procedures have the potential to benefit many different areas of research as we all work towards greater transparency and the support that it provides for the progress of science.


We are posting this notification across multiple venues to maximize communication and outreach, to give as many people as possible an opportunity to influence our thinking.  We welcome comments and suggestions within the context of any of these posts or in other venues.  If you have additional questions about our work, would like to be informed of progress, or would like to volunteer to provide input, please contact Veronique Kiermer or Sowmya Swaminathan.


On behalf of the “minimal standards” working group:

Karen Chambers (Wiley)

Andy Collings (eLife)

Chris Graf (Wiley)

Veronique Kiermer (Public Library of Science; vkiermer@plos.org)

David Mellor (Center for Open Science)

Malcolm Macleod (University of Edinburgh)

Sowmya Swaminathan (Nature Research/Springer Nature; s.swaminathan@us.nature.com)

Deborah Sweet (Cell Press/Elsevier)

Valda Vinson (Science/AAAS)


Photo credit: mikhail-derecha-unsplash

    Helen Eassom
Helen Eassom
Author Marketing, Wiley

Well that flew by! Yesterday, Sunday 28th October, marked the last day of Open Access Week 2018.




We had a great week celebrating all things open access – if you missed anything, here’s a quick summary:



We’d like to continue the conversation around open access – stay in touch and follow us on @WileyOpenAccess and @WileyResearcher, and the Wiley Open Access Facebook page.


Want to find out more about publishing open access at Wiley? Check out www.wileyopenaccess.com

    Helen Eassom
Helen Eassom
Author Marketing, Wiley

Celine Carret.pngWe take great pride in helping our partners transition to more open journal publishing policies and practices. We seek to transition what have historically been subscription journals to fully open access journals when it looks to be a viable and beneficial publishing option for the community it serves.


With that in mind, and as part of Open Access Week, we spoke to Céline Carret, one of the editors of EMBO Molecular Medicine, which transitioned from a subscription model to open access back in 2012, to learn about her journal’s transition, the community’s response, and lessons learned for other editors who may be considering a transition to OA.


Q. Let’s start with an easy one.  Could you tell us a bit about your journal and the community it serves?


A. EMBO Molecular Medicine was founded in 2009 and aims at publishing molecular and clinical studies of the highest quality. The EMBO community is focused on basic science questions across all forms of life, but this increasingly overlaps with medical interest and, with EMBO Molecular Medicine, we wanted to expand our community specifically to reach clinicians and translational researchers, as well as showcasing the medical potential of their research to the EMBO community.


Q What were the reasons behind the decision to transition the journal to open access?


A. EMBO Press has always strived to be as open as possible and became an innovator in OA early on with EMBO Molecular Medicine’s sister journal, Molecular Systems Biology, which was a first- generation OA journal back in 2005. EMBO Molecular Medicine was still a new journal with relatively small publication volumes in 2012 when we flipped to OA, which allowed for an easier, lower risk transition.


We focused on EMBO Molecular Medicine for OA, as clinical and translational areas were new territories for EMBO, so there were benefits through OA to increase the visibility to a community not necessarily aware of EMBO. Clinical and health relevance are also the most important research from a public interest point of view, making OA particularly important as it ensures the research can be widely read and shared.


Q. What kind of feedback did you receive from the community after making the decision to transition to open access?


A. Overall people are in favor of OA, but don’t like to be charged the APCs (Article Publication Charges) that often come from their research budgets. We use APCs to ensure the quality, maintenance and enhancement of the editorial and publishing processes foundational to all five EMBO Press journals. We are part of the Research4Life Initiative and reduce our APC costs when limited funding can be demonstrated. It is essential in our view that any OA model ensures equitable access to the journal for all authors, irrespective of funding.


Q. Do you have any advice for other editors whose journals are making the transition to open access?


A. They should clearly define their aims in terms of quality and selectivity and, considering this, conduct a cost-benefit analysis. They should also keep an eye on the community and competitors, as OA may help to distinguish their journal. Going OA for medical journals makes sense as it provides the public, patients and medical staff access to the relevant research.


Thanks for the advice Céline!


    Joe Walsh
Joe Walsh
Author Marketing, Wiley

research for life.pngThe theme of Open Access Week 2018 is designing equitable foundations for open knowledge. Wiley helped start such a foundation way back in 2002, when it became one of the founding partners of HINARI (Research in Health), a public-private program launched by six leading medical publishers in collaboration with the World Health Organization. Its aim was to bring online access of peer-reviewed biomedical research journals to researchers and physicians in the world’s poorest countries.


Of course, the HINARI program evolved into Research4Life, the collective name for the five programs – HINARI, along with AGORA (Access to Global Online Research in Agriculture), OARE (Online Access to Research in the Environment), ARDI (Access to Research for Development and Innovation), and now GOALI (Global Online Access to Legal Information)–that provide developing countries with free or low-cost access to academic and professional peer-reviewed content online.


According to the Research4Life website, the program has provided researchers at more than 8,700 institutions in more than 115 low- and middle-income countries with free or low-cost online access to up to 85,000 leading journals and books in the fields of health, agriculture, environment, and applied sciences. GOALI is the newest R4L program, having just launched this past summer with the aim of promoting the rule of law and increasing access to legal research and content for students and researchers, as well as policy makers, judges and legal experts.


The Research4Life Capacity Development working group, meanwhile, delivers face-to-face workshops and standardizes curricula to ensure the effective use of research materials available in the participating libraries. In addition, and echoing this year’s OA Week theme, a UN project with Research4Life to promote digital access to research (DAR) is now kicking off with a focus on specific countries first (Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mozambique, Nepal, Rwanda, Senegal, Uganda and United Republic of Tanzania).

Besides providing access to research, Wiley ensures that the opportunity to publish research exists for authors from Research4Life developing countries by providing automatic waivers and discounts on Article Publication Charges (APCs) for authors accepted to publish in our open access journals.


The goal of ensuring these researchers have an opportunity to participate and publish has resulted in nearly 20,000 peer-reviewed articles being published by authors from Research4Life Group A and Group B Countries (as of September 2018) over the past decade. The highest number of articles were published in 2017, and 2018 output is on pace to surpass these numbers.


“Wiley is extremely proud to be recognized as a founding partner of what ultimately became Research4Life,” says Sarah Phibbs, VP, Society Management. “We are delighted to be actively involved in the Research4Life Council, and to ensure we continue to meet our shared goals of widening access, developing local training to increase research impact, and increasing authorship from low-income countries. We’re excited to see what the next decade has in store.”


    Samantha Green
Samantha Green
Society Marketing, Wiley



If we believed everything that was reported about the research published in our journals, we’d be riding our cloned wooly mammoths to work, eating chocolate to lose weight, and drinking red wine to cure cancer.


This joke opened a recent discussion at The New York Academy of Sciences, moderated by Wiley’s Chief Product Officer, Jay Flynn. The panel, featuring Nsikan Akpan from PBS NewsHour, Amanda Aronczyk of WNYC, David Freeman of NBCNews.com, and Amy Marcus from The Wall Street Journal, was there to debate the role of science and journalism in the age of “fake news.” After each statement, the audience raised their two-sided paddles—red for disagree, green for agree—and after each debate they raised them again. How many minds would the Academy change that night?


Fake News and Social Media


Social media was first up, as the panel debated whether or not our use of social media is driving the public’s misunderstanding of science. According to the Pew Research Center, 68% of Americans get their news from social media, and 56% don’t trust the news they get. Some on the panel felt that social media was self-regulating: there’s so much information on social media that there’s a self-correcting mechanism for accuracy. And while science and health aren’t among the most popular tweeted topics, hot button issues like vaccines and climate change tend to drive people apart. As the panel described, we want to be part of a tribe and prove ourselves to that tribe by sharing stories that show off our ideological beliefs. Maybe the challenge is that social media is intended for us to spark conversation, not receive news. We should use it to enlarge the world and our access to people and ideas.


NYAS image 1.png

Science and Credibility


Next the panel tackled the statement: To counter science denialism, it is a scientist's responsibility to communicate the implications of their findings as widely as possible.


The tension in this statement came from the fact that while it might be scientists’ responsibility, it might not be within their skill set. Discovering true things about the world is hard enough as it is, so whose job is it to communicate this in a way that the public can comprehend?


Maybe it’s the institution, maybe it’s the journalist. Regardless, the panel encouraged everyone to talk to journalists. If you receive public funding, then think of the public as an employer.


One thing everyone agreed on was the fact that science is a communal enterprise. Whether you practice it daily in a lab or in the field, or benefit from it, science belongs to us all. As Amy Marcus described, “science is like art, it doesn’t just belong to one group of professionals. It’s something that we all should engage in and be drawn [to]. It’s about marvel and wonder and asking questions that touch all of us.”


NYAS image 2.png


What should we believe?


We then talked about how all the conflicting stories on food safety drive everyone crazy. Are carbs good? Is gluten bad?


Context is king for this discussion. If only, at the beginning of every article, there was a disclaimer that science is evolving, that each study builds on what comes before.  If the public understood this, it would go a long way. Journalists try to emphasize the weight of evidence. A single study is nothing without the larger context, but it’s a challenge when they’re pressured to write short stories with soundbites or catchy headlines.


The panel also turned the tables back on scientists: we report what you write, so even when we try to place it in context, scientists are still the ones publishing papers that go back and forth.


At the end of the day, journalists make value judgements about what to cover and that is most easily done when they can work not just with a published paper, but with scientists themselves.


NYAS image 3.png

Grabbing the public’s attention


Finally, the conversation turned to headlines. Are those sensationalized, eye-catching headlines inherently in conflict with the rules of good science journalism?


The journalists argued that headlines are a necessary part of the game: they are a wakeup call. They get people in the door to read the article, which is ideally full of nuance, context, and a compelling take on the research landscape.


Science news isn’t just competing against other science or health stories; it’s competing against Kim Kardashian and Megan Markle.Headlines need to be gripping. The panel also pointed out that science headlines aren’t for scientists.


The panel also argued that scientific article titles could learn a thing or two from headlines. Academic paper titles are so dense and jargon filled that it can be a real challenge to figure out what the paper is talking about. We need article titles that demonstrate what’s compelling about the paper, why it’s important, why these scientists devoted time and energy to studying it.


“Explain it to me as if I’m a science-minded 15-year-old,” Nsikan Akpan said. “I might not understand it, but I’m interested.”

NYAS image 4.png

With this panel, The New York Academy of Sciences taught me several things. First, it reinforced just how hard it is to change someone’s mind. Though some opinions shifted throughout the evening, what emerged instead was a nuanced look at the balance of science news: juggling clicks with context and nuance with word count. And while the challenges of trust and reliability remain, one thing is certain: science belongs to everyone, and sharing it as widely as possible is a critical part of moving our society forward.

    Natasha White
Natasha White
Marketing Director  Author Engagement, Wiley

Wiley_KEMO.jpgAs part of Open Access Week 2018, we take a closer look at the three-year combined open access publication and subscription agreement that the Austrian Academic Library Consortium (KEMÖ) and the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) signed with Wiley earlier this year to find out how it’s going.


This transformative agreement provides researchers and students at 22 institutions affiliated with KEMÖ access to all subscription journals published by Wiley. Corresponding authors from KEMÖ-affiliated institutions are also able to publish unlimited open access articles in Wiley’s hybrid journals at no charge to the author.


We recently spoke to Brigitte Kromp, University of Vienna, Head of the Austrian Central Library for Physics and Chemistry Library and mandatee for Open Access in the Austrian Academic Library Consortium and Melanie Stummvoll, Head Office of the Austrian Academic Library Consortium who shared their thoughts and experiences of the agreement.


Q. How would you describe the current state of the open access landscape in Austria?


A. Over the last 10 years, Austria has actively participated in the open access transformation process. The FWF implemented its open access policy in 2015, and Austrian research-performing institutions and funding agencies are working together at a consortia level to put open access agreements with various publishers in place. There are currently seven available, offering Austrian researchers the opportunity to publish open access within a variety of different journals on a highly discounted, or non-existent APC-rate.

The collective support of open science initiatives, such as open access and research data policies, are great examples of the Austrian participation within the open access transformation process.


Q. How did signing the open access publication and subscription agreement with Wiley further your strategic goals related to open access?


A. It has the potential to increase the openness of publicly funded research and to boost open access publications in Austria, while continuing access to Wiley's journals.

Q. The agreement was a great example of constructive cooperation between a publisher, libraries and funding organizations. Nearly a year later, can you discuss how eligible Austrian researchers have benefited from it thus far?


A. Austrian researchers have the possibility to publish their research results open access without additional costs to them, and thereby, increasing the visibility of their publication output significantly. The agreement was also intended to provide the researchers with a smooth and simplified submission workflow, while they have the possibility to indicate their open access request. We are working with Wiley to simplify the author submission workflow as much as possible.


Q. What’s the latest on with the the enhancements to Wiley’s open access submission process for eligible authors?


A. Wiley is continuing to review and enhance the workflow to ensure that the open access submission process, as well as the decision to publish their articles open access, are smooth processes for eligible authors, affiliated with the 22 institutions participating within the agreement. Informing the authors about our current agreement in an adequate way and illustrating the associated advantages are crucial for the successful uptake. Here, we still see the opportunity for improvement, but we are dedicated to achieving this mutual goal within the next months.


Q. The theme of Open Access Week 2018 is “designing equitable foundations for open knowledge”. Would you say this agreement exemplifies this in that it provides eligible researchers both access to research and a path to publication by covering APCs?


A. We consider this agreement as one of the building blocks that will open the way towards a reality where equitable access to knowledge is common practice.


Wiley has other unique agreements with institutions and funders that allow authors to comply with open access policies when submitting and publishing in Wiley journals.


Find out more about Wiley’s Open Access Week 2018 activities, and join in the conversation on social media using #OpenAccessWeek2018.


Wiley Open Access by the Numbers

Posted Oct 25, 2018
    Helen Eassom
Helen Eassom
Author Marketing, Wiley

Open Access Week 2018 is here! The 11th International Open Access Week runs from through October 28th with the theme of “Designing Equitable Foundations for Open Knowledge.”  We’d like to share the most recent data on Wiley’s open access program, which started back in 2011.


OA Week Infographic.jpg

For more information on Wiley’s open access offerings, visit our website over at www.wileyopenaccess.com, and be sure to follow Wiley Open Access on Twitter and Facebook for all the latest news and resources relating to open access. And, of course, be part of OA Week by using the #OAWeek hashtag.


    Elizabeth Brophy
Elizabeth Brophy
Journal Publishing Manager, Wiley

Conferences are a great opportunity to connect with researchers across the spectrum, from Editors to early career researchers . This year, I brought with me a question for delegates: What Metrics Matter The Most To You?


I wanted to know what research metrics were important – what is used to judge the quality of research, to identify worthwhile articles, and how can researchers best measure the success of their work?


To get the conversation started, and to get as much feedback as possible, I used a survey board with the option to leave a comment or to simply post an Agree/Disagree sticker. The aim was to allow people to engage as much as they wanted, and many delegates chose to discuss the (de)merits of the metrics in more detail. Delegates at the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR), the Academic Association for Contemporary European Studies Annual Conference (UACES), and Remote Sensing & Photogrammetry Society Annual Conference (RSPSoc) participated– providing a diverse range of interactions, across countries and disciplines.

What metrics matter to you_final image.jpg


Citations were overwhelmingly identified as the most important metric, yet many researchers commented on how unhappy they were with this. Citations are largely important for institutions as a measure of impact, but some questioned the extent to which citations truly reflect engagement. Is this a fair measure by which to judge output? There was also a clear distinction between citations and Impact Factor, with questions raised at to how relevant Impact Factor is, especially with tools such as Google Scholar freely available.


Social media sharing was the most divisive metric proposed. Some wondered how to effectively track social media use and questioned the level to which social media sharing represented real engagement. Each conference drew out slightly different discussions - at ECPR there was a generational divide, with younger scholars identifying it as a place to find content. RSPSoc’s attendees included industry professionals and government representatives, so it is unsurprising that they felt social media was the place to find useful research. Attendees at both conferences suggested that social media sharing might lead to citations and downloads. UACES delegates gave a mixed response, and although one participant bemoaned the use of Twitter, it was still identified as a “21st Century Reality”. This sentiment was echoed by most delegates, who thought it would play a bigger role in research metrics in the future.


At both ECPR and RSPSoc, downloads, while acknowledged as important, received little attention. This was not the case for the delegates of the UACES conference, who noted the importance of downloads, and the potential impact they can have on the subject. At both UACES and RSPSoc delegates highlighted the move away from articles to downloading other types of content. As the research community moves further towards an Open Research landscape, more emphasis is placed on the reproducibility and accessibility of data sets – tracking the downloads, references, and replications of data sets was flagged as a big concern for the future.


Some conference attendees went beyond thinking about these three metrics. One key observation made at UACES was the emphasis placed on metrics by different disciplines; in this case, Law researchers observed that neither citations nor Impact Factor were relevant to them, but it raised questions as to how Political Scientists might apply their metric criteria to finding and assessing law research. There were also conversations as to how useful metrics were; is there too much focus on metrics and are they being used fairly? Many delegates at UACES and RSPSoc agreed with these sentiments, but still put their Agree sticker on the citations section of the survey board.


Almost everyone noted that in the modern world, one metric no longer ruled them all. A combination was needed to truly understand the impact of research - however you choose to define it - and to measure engagement.

    Natasha White
Natasha White
Marketing Director  Author Engagement, Wiley

Open Access Week is the perfect time to announce that Wiley and Hindawi have expanded their open access publishing collaboration. Today’s announcement adds four new journals to the nine currently in the program.


With open access becoming the shared vision of a number of governments worldwide and a source of particular focus within some European research funders, this expanded collaboration allows both Wiley and Hindawi to support the ongoing development of high-quality open access titles, while giving authors additional options for where and how to publish. This partnership is a great example of how open access is a powerful enabler of the open science landscape, supporting a culture of sharing and connecting to maximize the impact of research for future generations.


It's clear that open research is the next frontier in scholarly communication. We embrace this era and the ambitions of all community stakeholders, including researchers, societies, funders and institutions. Our partnership with Hindawi allows us to meet these needs, transitioning more journals to open access and offering greater author choice.


This Wiley-Hindawi collaboration began in 2016 with the conversion of nine Wiley subscription journals to open access published by Hindawi under a joint Wiley-Hindawi brand. Hindawi runs the editorial and production workflow for each of these journals, which are then hosted on the Hindawi website.


The newly launched journals are:


Advances in Polymer Technology

Journal of Interventional Cardiology

Cardiovascular Therapeutics

Heteroatom Chemistry


All content will continue to undergo a robust peer review process, ensuring the high quality of material published in these journals.


Each of the journals will be supported by Article Processing Charges (APCs), allowing the content to be openly accessible and reusable, globally. Every effort has been made to keep these charges affordable while still supporting high editorial and production standards. To further assist researchers, waivers are available to authors from low and lower-middle-income countries (a full list of countries can be found here).


"The first journals launched under the Wiley-Hindawi brand have proven that a transition to open access is not just a path to sustainability, but can provide significant growth,” said Richard Bennett, Hindawi’s Chief Commercial Officer. “It is very rare that a program can deliver benefits for both publishers and researchers, but this is what has been achieved through this collaboration. We are extremely proud that Wiley continues to value their collaboration with Hindawi and we are very excited to be able to share future successes with them.”

A list of all titles in the Wiley-Hindawi partnership can be found


    Claire Mayne
Claire Mayne
Author Marketing, Wiley


Open science is truly about the ability to create a chain reaction to extend the reach of research.  It’s keeping wonder alive through the exchange of ideas and science.


As part of Open Access Week, we’re celebrating the ways open science drives research forward by sharing a story from one of our amazing authors. In a short video, we hear the story of Nadia Magnenat-Thalmann and how, by openly sharing and collaborating on data and software, she was able to advance her research. Motivated by her mother’s Alzheimer’s diagnosis, Nadia builds on her work and creates social robot companions to spend time with people like her mother, to help them stay connected to their lives.the-lab-small.png



Watch the video here.


Now, we want to hear from you:


How does open science drive your work forward and help you achieve your goals?


Share your story using #MyOpenScienceStory on Twitter or Instagram or submit through our website. For every story we receive, we’ll donate $10 to Cure Alzheimer’s Fund.




Cure Alzheimer's Fund is a non-profit organization dedicated to funding the world’s leading Alzheimer’s researchers with the highest probability of preventing, slowing or reversing the disease.


Since its foundation in 2004, Cure Alzheimer's Fund has been providing research grants to the worlds’ leading scientists researching Alzheimer’s disease. 100% of donations go directly to research and to date, it has contributed over $75,000,000 to Alzheimer’s research. The fund insists on collaboration among funded scientists and many of their projects have resulted in significant breakthroughs, developing a deeper understanding of Alzheimer’s disease and getting closer to a cure.


We are committed to communicating and driving research discovery to the world, and open science supports our vision by enabling more rapid and effective discoveries.


At the same time we're openly embracing the fundamentals of enhanced transparency and openness, focusing our efforts and extending our message across our communities and
partnerships, researchers and authors, inventors and innovators. We are fostering support, building advocacy and focusing our open science strategy
across what believe are five key areas:

  • Open Access
  • Open Data
  • Open Practices
  • Open Collaboration
  • Open Recognition & Reward


We believe open science will ultimately drive a more effective and faster pace of discovery, helping researchers achieve their goals. But for us, it’s about more than just words. Find out more about how Wiley is supporting open science at www.wileyopenscience.com

    Anne-Marie Green
Anne-Marie Green
Content and Communications, Wiley

nobel_Freestockphotos.jpgIt’s not often that the general public sits up and takes notice of the transformative research, and the people behind it, that impacts our daily lives. Fortunately, the annual announcement of the Nobel Prize Winners allows us to recognize and reflect on a few of the significant contributions of scientists and scholars. This year’s announcements were no exception and we’re proud to have Wiley authors among the winners.


The Nobel Prize in Physics


This year’s prize winners in Physics have discovered new ways to use lasers as tools- leading to applications such as the manipulation of viruses and bacteria and lasik eye surgery. The prize was jointly awarded to Arthur Ashkin (Bell Laboratories) "for the optical tweezers and their application to biological systems," as well as Gérard Mourou (University of Michigan) and Donna Strickland (University of Waterloo) "for their method of generating high-intensity, ultra-short optical pulses." Dr. Ashkin has contributed to several Wiley journals, including Laser & Photonics Reviews and Berichte der Bunsengesellschaft für physikalische Chemie. Dr. Mourou has published in Physica Status Solidi (a) and Optik & Photonik.


The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine


Immunotherapy has been a game changer in the realm of cancer treatment, resulting in a new class of drugs and new hope for patients with limited options. The two winners of this year’s Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine have been recognized for their “discovery of cancer therapy by inhibition of negative immune regulation." Both of the Nobel laureates have contributed articles to journals published by Wiley, including the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, British Journal of Haematology, Cancer, EMBO Reports, European Journal of Immunology, FEBS Letters, International Journal of Cancer, Immunological Reviews, and The EMBO Journal. Most recently, Dr. Allison contributed to the chapter “Cancer Immunotherapy” in the reference work Holland-Frei Cancer Medicine, and Dr. Honjo published “Combination therapy strategies for improving PD‐1 blockade efficacy: a new era in cancer immunotherapy” in the Journal of Internal Medicine.


The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel


This year’s prize winners in Economics were chosen in part to signify how critical it is for governments to work together to solve global challenges.  Joint prize winner William Nordhaus of Yale University was awarded for his work demonstrating that levying taxes on carbon emissions can help to address climate change, while the work of fellow winner Paul M. Romer of New York University shows how government policy impacts technological innovation. Dr. Nordhaus’s research has been published in a host of Wiley journals, including The Economic Journal, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Journal of Public Economic Theory, The Review of Income and Wealth, South African Journal of Economics, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, and New Directions for Higher Education. Dr. Romer was elected as a Fellow of the Econometric Society in 1990, and his work has appeared in Econometrica.


The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2018


Three scientists were awarded the chemistry prize for their work using evolutionary biology to design molecules, which led to the developments of new drugs and plant-derived fuel sources.  Frances H. Arnold (California Institute of Technology) won "for the directed evolution of enzymes,” and  George P. Smith (University of Missouri) and Sir Gregory P. Winter (MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology) "for the phage display of peptides and antibodies." Dr. Arnold is a member of the Editorial Boards of Angewandte Chemie and ChemBioChem published by Wiley-VCH on behalf of the German Chemical Society (GDCh) and ChemPubSoc Europe, respectively. In addition, she has published in the Annals of the NY Academy of Science, Biotechnology & Bioengineering, Current Protocols in Protein Science, Advanced Synthesis & Catalysis, Israel Journal of Chemistry, Protein Science, Chemistry—A European Journal, Molecular Systems Biology, and Biotechnology Progress. She contributed to books: Directed Evolution of Proteins (2002), Enzyme Catalysis in Organic Chemistry (2008), Protein Engineering Handbook (2011), and Artificial Metalloenzymes and MetalloDNAzymes in Catalysis (2018). Dr. Winter has published in Angewandte Chemie (1984, 1999), ChemMedChem (2012, cover), Journal of Molecular Recognition, FEBS Letters and Journal, European Journal of Immunology, International Journal of Cancer, and Annals of the NY Academy of Science.


The Nobel Peace Prize


Though not through research, Nobel Peace Prize winners Denis Wukege and Nadia Murad are working to make the world a better place. Awarded for “their efforts to end the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war and armed conflict,” Wukege is a physician who has spent his life defending and advocating for victims of sexual violence in The Republic of Congo while Nadia Murad has been an outspoken activist for victims of sexual violence in Iraq. Congratulations to both winners for their brave advocacy work.


Congratulations to all the winners and thanks to the Nobel committee for reminding us of the outstanding impact research and advocacy can have on the world.


Image Credit: Freestockphotos.com

Filter Blog

By date:
By tag: