1 2 3 Previous Next

Discover the Future of Research

704 posts
    Claire O'Neill
Claire O'Neill
Library Services, Wiley

In order to effectively understand and respond to the current challenges we face as a modern society, it’s critical that researchers have access to the holistic scholarly record – one that goes beyond an article or its conclusions – encouraging deeper understanding or even reinterpretation of findings through the lens of historical context.



At this year’s Charleston Conference, we brought together a panel of library leaders from a diverse group of institutions to share strategic insights on acquiring primary source collections and offer best practices to promote information literacy, enrich classroom instruction, and bolster research outcomes.


“There is a broad appeal that expands beyond the history department to all levels of research.”


As the Librarian for History, History of Science and African Studies at Princeton University, Alain St. Pierre is no stranger to the value of historical context in education and learning. As part of his collection strategy, he has invested in a range of primary and secondary materials to support relevant subject areas, including reference works, rare books and manuscripts, microfilm and microfiche, and digitized print and archival sources like Wiley Digital Archives.


Significant value is derived from the interdisciplinarity of primary source collections in particular, as they “don’t just apply to undergraduate researchers studying history,” but rather to all levels of research. From freshman writing seminars and senior theses to dissertations and research papers, graduate students and faculty researchers also have a “voracious appetite for primary sources in all formats.”


“Primary sources took us from show-and-tell to hands-on learning.”


Maureen Maryanski, Education and Outreach Librarian at Indiana University’s Lilly Library, added a unique perspective to the conversation as the coordinator of classes and tours that visit the rare books area of her library.


Providing tangible “evidence of lives lived,” primary sources are a vital component of original research across many disciplines at IU, helping researchers develop critical thinking skills, find, interpret, evaluate and ethically use items, and promote active, engaged inquiry-based learning.


Maryanski places immense value on the shift towards experiential learning that is a result of exposure to “hands-on” original sources, as one student described being “struck by the humanness of the documents” after visiting the Lilly Library’s special collection. It’s this visceral connection to original materials that opens the door for students and researchers to achieve a deeper, more personal understanding of their research topics and approach learning through a new lens.


When it comes to evaluating primary sources, it’s important not to think about them in isolation.”


Despite the clear value of primary source materials in research, the suggestion isn’t that researchers abandon all other sources, but rather that they learn how to balance them. Sarah Horowitz, Curator of Rare Books and Manuscripts and Head of Quaker and Special Collections at Haverford College, reflected on the need to integrate the use of primary sources with other scholarly materials.


“Critical engagement and context are important no matter how you’re working with primary sources,” Horowitz stressed, “and both primary and secondary sources need to be evaluated in a multitude of ways.”


As print primary source collections are augmented by their newly digitized counterparts, “it’s important,” Horowitz notes, “to interrogate the format, to ask why things were included in an archive collection in the first place,” and “to see the collection as a whole.”


The digitization of physical collections from across the globe certainly allows scholars to discover, search and explore content previously unknown or inaccessible, but it also offers a comprehensive look at the historical context and materiality.


In addition, secondary sources provide useful facts surrounding historical events and offer existing interpretations through published literature.


“It’s important to collect materials for the future, not just for right now”


Of course, building and marketing a robust collection of primary source materials comes with an array of challenges. First, there is pressure to maintain historical strengths and collect exhaustively in select fields across multiple formats – which can be costly and difficult to find.


Secondly, librarians are also faced with the challenge of foresight. When it comes to meeting research needs at the highest level, “we need to buy it before the researchers even know they need it,” explains St. Pierre.


Furthermore, it’s incumbent on the librarian to not only invest in these original collections, but to also ensure their proper use and engagement in classroom and research activities.


So where to start? Panelists strongly emphasized collaboration, as building relationships with new and existing faculty is imperative to both acquiring the right collections and ensuring successful learning outcomes. Consulting with researchers directly is also paramount in order to support use of archive finding aids and help identify the print and digital collections available.


To learn more about the value of primary sources and discover newly digitized archive collections, visit www.wileydigitalarchives.com.


Image Credit: Istockphoto

    Morgan Kubelka
Morgan Kubelka
Library Services, Wiley

Opening Keynote Audience .jpg“We still have a lot to learn about how research could work better than it does today.”


CEO of Scientific & Academic Research at Clarivate Analytics, Annette Thomas set the tone for the 2018 Charleston Library Conference—inspirational, motivational, and at times, downright sobering.


There are challenges that need to be put into perspective—i.e. she’s “not talking about flat library budgets”—challenges that extend from the existential (who and what are universities for?) to the very exact (why is so much research impossible to reproduce?)


The message? We can do better. This year’s conference sessions were, in large part, a manifestation of the core guiding principles Thomas outlined in her opening plenary—connectedness, openness and seamlessness.


The top 10 takeaways from this year’s Charleston Conference illustrate what Thomas says we need most of all: “talent, diversity of thinking, and creative approaches.”

1. “We need to be open to a wider range of indicators beyond citations…”


For the last several years, evidence-based decision making has dominated library conversations nationwide. With information more available than ever, we’ve amassed an incredible wealth of knowledge to help understand user behavior and preferences while identifying gaps to aid in critical collection decisions.


How data is being used though is becoming increasingly nuanced and complex, as librarians are emboldened by their evolving familiarity with spreadsheets and experimenting with more creative methods of analysis.  This is enabling librarians to look beyond the traditional indicators of “success,” transcending circulation and usage statistics to include a whole range of factors when determining the value of library investment.


In Data Expeditions: Mining Data for Effective Decision Making, Ivy Anderson of the California Digital Library (CDL) presented CDL’s newly-developed journal value analysis algorithm that’s informing cancellation and retention decisions at the journal and package level. The more holistic approach to assessment allows a more objective view of the return on their investment. Similarly, Gwen Evans of OhioLink described how the consortium is currently scaling their data models to “help members make the decisions that work for them.”


In Is High Use a Big Deal, Jason Price of SCELC discussed how after spending a lot of time looking at sheer usage data, he decided there may be an even more telling indicator of value—how journals are being used.


Determining research-use to be the most significant indicator of ROI for SCELC members, Price analyzed COUNTER data with a mind towards separating the usage of journals for instructional purposes versus research purposes. Through this type of analysis, Price determined that the proportion of research-oriented journals accounted for 17.5% of the usage, and that those titles were the ones that they’re paying the most for; demonstrating a positive return on their investment.


Like many others at the conference, this session illustrated the significance of estimation and modeling that, while not 100% perfect, represents tremendous progress in the library’s ability to understand the value of their collections.


2. What’s my job again?


The role of the librarian is continuing to evolve almost as quickly as the number of wide-ranging skills necessary to be one. With so many emerging needs and areas of support, new positions continue to be created while existing ones continue to be redefined.


For more nascent areas like scholarly communications, no clear standard has been set for what specific skills this type of librarian should have. Whether it be expertise in publishing and data management, or law and copyright, there’s no central training or continuing education resources available to chart a certain course.


Even more traditional collection development roles are departing from what was once found in the MLS curriculum. In fact, Head of Collection Strategies at University of Rochester, Lindsay Cronk, noted that “even if we did learn this in library school, it wouldn’t have been enough.” Citing the lack of fund codes, the amount of math, the need to be a lawyer, an accountant and a statistician, she describes what it’s like to be in collections today: “you get to do everything but it’s impossible to know everything.”


But Tyler Walters, Dean of University Libraries at Virginia Tech, urges librarian leaders to “help employees see that today’s practices aren’t etched in stone.” He describes the library as a village that’s now expanded beyond the MLS to include web developers, software engineers, digital library architects, user experience specialists and more. Walter encourages, “believe you and your library can make the changes and focus on that.”


3. Catching up with Collections


The world of collections has never been more complex. The increase in procurement options, collaboration with academic departments, and interdisciplinary content are just a few of the factors driving strategic organizational change.


In terms of the collection department’s structure, it seems more libraries are moving away from the liaison model in favor of a more functional approach. The shift reflects the academic liaison’s ever-broadening range of duties--including subject-focused information literacy, course-embedded research support, individual research consultations and more. This shift requires greater flexibility and the need for a more sustainable approach. A more functional model enables agility and a broader [GA1] view of collection development that allows for greater budget consolidation.


However, current collection models are far from perfect. Samuel Cassady of Western University describes the challenges of moving to a fully-functional model, as acquiring material for users is more difficult when you have less interaction with them. The model also requires new skill development, as collection librarians move away from subject expertise to more specialized areas of functional knowledge.


Other traditions are being questioned as well, including the common approach of allocating budget based on format and subject. Increased interdisciplinarity has complicated this approach, creating more splitting of funds and greater complexity for acquisitions and financial services staff.


In Budgets on My Mind, Associate Dean Denise Pan of University of Washington expressed the need for a better collections model, with her own institution allocating from 70 subject funds based on historical percentages that haven’t changed in 20 years. After conducting a survey of 91 libraries, Pan shared that she’s not alone: roughly half of the respondents said that they’re using historical allocation patterns. And, with half of the respondents reporting that they’re making changes now or in the future to move to more agile models, it’s clear that librarians are still seeking a better answer.


4. “Librarians are increasingly working in a seamless way across the institutions—supporting communications between scholars, assessing the research and communication of research discoveries…”


One of the most noticeable changes to this year’s agenda was a discernable increase in the number of sessions surrounding scholarly communications. From author identity management and publishing training support to intellectual rights and citation management, librarians are embedding themselves more deeply across the research lifecycle.


In large part, the increase in these services reflects the mounting pressure researchers are under to publish, combined with a gap in the education and training needed to become a published author.


“Researchers don’t know how to navigate through all of the steps to successfully publish,” says Assistant Dean Beth Bernhardt in Preparing Researchers for Publishing Success. As a result, UNC Greensboro’s Library is proactively acquiring the research tools and services faculty are requesting and supporting these solutions with active outreach.   Further, by investing in these multidisciplinary solutions, it enables the library to get “the biggest bang for their buck” since their value extends across campus and disciplines.


UNC Greensboro and other academic libraries are also developing homegrown programs to address these needs.  One large research institution, the University of Minnesota, offers an entire suite of author support tools, including Research Services as well as Instruction and Production services. [GA2] [KM3] Director of Content Services Kate McCready described the range of programs available to help researchers achieve publishing success, including coauthoring systematic reviews, individual consultation, grant funding workshops, data management training and more.


Libraries are also drawing support from their commercial partners, helping to get “real-life” publishing professionals in front of their researchers. In Marketing is Not a Four-Letter Word, Scholarly Communications Librarian Krystie Wilfong described working with a publisher to bring in an editor to speak at an author workshop that addressed the fundamentals of how to get published.


“It’s not something they’re taught in school,” Wilfong explained, adding that “faculty need to publish to stay at the institution.”


5. Matters of privacy


Librarians have long been concerned with protecting user data, as the increasingly digital landscape of information and the open nature of the web continue to expose networks to a wide range of significant cyber threats.


Several conference sessions addressed traditional IP-based access, expressing concerns related to piracy and illegal harvesting, network security, remote access, and negative user experiences.  Straightforward and Secure: Subscription Access Matures – a Milestone Report-Out from RA21 underscored these factors motivating change, and explained the joint STM and NISO initiative’s project to improve streamlined access while protecting user privacy. Further to their mission, RA-21’s alternative would allow publishers to only see attributes—not identities—of users, allowing them to provide libraries with more granular usage statistics and information.


It’s precisely this issue that remains to be balanced—how to protect patron privacy while also providing the best services and right collections to users? Dean of Libraries at the University of Denver, Michael Levine Clark meditated on these issues in Walking the Critical Line Between User Privacy and Leveraging Knowledge for Greater Library Impact, illustrating both the “utopian view” and the “dystopian view.” On the one hand, “by knowing exactly which students used which resources, we can intervene to ensure success, use that success to improve other services for other students, tailor recommendations to those students and provide better services.” On the other hand, collecting or sharing student data could yield dangerous consequences were it to fall into the wrong hands.


It's clear that opportunities to achieve a happy medium remain, but the road is still fraught with peril.


6. Discover, Deliver and Delight


With more options than ever to discover and access information, technology plays an enormous role in meeting researchers’ needs. To accommodate for an increasing number of access points, libraries are embedding search beyond the library’s website to other applications, like campus apps, eResource access tools and content management systems.


Metadata 2020, a collaboration of over 120 librarians, publishers, service providers, data publishers and repositories, and researchers and funders, is working tirelessly to address multiple challenges with metadata in scholarly communications, including the need for best practices and principles, mapping between schema, assessing evaluation tools, creating a common list of definitions and more.


In All Roads Lead to Rome: Uncovering New Paths to Discovery, linked data was cited as a way of driving users to the library after performing a search in Google and Google Scholar. This initiative targets users beginning their search off-campus, a trend that reflects a growing number of places in which researchers begin their discovery journey. In order to bridge this gap, thought leaders suggest a range of ways to improve user experience, from sharing subscriber holdings with Google and participating with CASA to exploring browser extensions and integrating with the institution’s LMS.


User centricity is and will continue to be a prevailing focus of technical librarians as they feverishly work to understand the choices and preferences of their users as it relates to access and discovery. In Meeting Customers Where They Are, Lisa Janice Hinchcliffe’s assertion that “discovery should be delivery,” reflects consumers’ expectation of seamlessness and immediacy that’s fueling evolving library services.


7. Libraries Lead Textbook Affordability Initiatives


A continuing trend from last year’s conference is the library’s leadership role in developing and offering alternative solutions to costly course materials.


Open Educational Resources (OERs) continue to gain support from the library community, as librarians are steadfastly working to increase the adoption of these materials.  In many cases, targeted marketing efforts like customized web pages are being implemented to reach as many students and instructors as possible. Despite this progress, librarians are still competing with faculty opposition and the challenges of operating the OER model at scale.


Meanwhile, inclusive access programs are growing in popularity with report of over 400 institutions now working with publishers directly to get deeply discounted digital textbook editions. This more recent trend not only solidifies the library’s position as king when it comes to large-scale publisher negotiations, but also demonstrates their contribution to core institutional objectives like student success.   


8. Research was founded on openness. It’s about transparency between individuals and between organizations, including services providers.”


Like confetti out of a cannonball, Open Access (OA) littered the Charleston agenda with a colorful splash. From the opportunities and challenges, to the rise of transformational business models and the need for sustainability, any question of OA’s arrival here in the US can be put to rest.


So here’s what librarians and vendors can agree on: the inevitable impact open access will have on our community.


Julia Gelfand of UC Irvine considered how OA will act as an equalizer to access for those libraries that currently cannot afford pricey collections. Reduced inter-library loans, increased collaboration of discovery and support systems, and a heightened role in institutional repositories and publishing itself will, she predicts, also be likely byproducts of the movement.


Conference sessions also focused heavily on the transformation of publisher business models, with more OA content driving down the cost of traditional subscriptions. But from knowledge innovation and author recognition to tenure and academic freedom, Kevin Sayar of ProQuest reminds attendees “there’s a lot at stake in this ecosystem” and “we must preserve the right activities if we’re going to achieve the same outcomes.” This means considering OA’s impact on the quality of publishing—predatory journals, lower rejection rates and a higher volume of articles could compromise the researchers’ ability to discover the right materials for their work.


Further, OA publishing is not self-sustainable. Conversely, it’s funded by grants, institutions, libraries and, most frequently, authors themselves, who represent the highest funding source of APCs (article processing charges). As a result, both libraries and publishers are looking at ways to contribute to a sustainable balance. Some libraries are adjusting their cost structures to help authors, while publishers are considering how they can help their library partners by using the library’s investment to reinvest in OA.


With OA cost models still in their infancy, there’s still many questions to answer. For the library, will OA really mean paying less, or just be a redistribution of funds? For publishers, if subscription fees are no longer offsetting the cost that’s required for peer-reviewed publication, how will that compromise the quality of output? All this, and we’re still largely waiting with bated breath to hear from faculty and researchers themselves. What will their careers look like without the credibility, recognition and prestige that publishing in high-impact journal brands brings?


Which brings us to the next point…


9. Open Access and the Big Deal


With Europe driving a huge paradigm shift from subscriptions to transitional OA models, one of the biggest conversations at the conference surrounding OA is how this impacts the “big deal.”


For instance, if OA is becoming more mainstream, why shouldn’t the library just stop investing in expensive journal packages and redistribute those costs to OA? In the panel Open Access, Open Research and the Future of the Big Deal, a diverse panel of publisher and library representatives explained the inherent challenges of this.


For one, OA investment does not benefit every researcher nor every discipline. Chris Bennett of Cambridge University Press provides mathematics as an example of “low usage, niche journals which do not have a clear economic model in this new world but are key to development in these communities.” Humanities is another area that faces huge challenges in this space: with fewer articles in these journals each year, the output doesn’t lend itself to APC charges.


“We still see demand for our publishing from authors in our subscriptions program--more than OA. We need to find ways to engage with authors who APCs don’t work for,” said panelist Liz Ferguson, Vice President of Editorial Development at Wiley.


Another reason for the untenability of subscription extinction is the inconsistent consequences it has across the globe. Liz Ferguson provides China as an example of one region “looking at open access with wide eyes” because, as the largest leader in publishing, they see better value through the subscription model. Research-intense institutions across the world also face similar issues, as the OA transition is contingent on the “funders’ willingness to engage with the issue.”


So what will the future hold? “A lot of continued experiment and change,” says Ferguson, but “we all share the same destination—the challenge is how we work together to get there in a way that is sustainable for all of us and the researchers that we serve day in and day out.”


10. The Art of Negotiation and Communication


Perhaps a promising sign of good things to come is an increased focus on more pragmatic issues like negotiation and communication.


In Throwing Back the Curtain: a Candid Conversation about Negotiating, vendor and library panelists discussed the importance of mutual trust and empathy in order to work more effectively together. So how to achieve this?


For one thing, it’s about transparency. Librarians want vendors to “do their research” and spend time getting to know their portfolios. Vendors want librarians to understand the cost associated with making content available and the risks being assumed on both sides during the negotiation process.


Above all, successful partnerships are not about one side winning or getting the best price; it’s about compromise, mutual fairness, and an explicit understanding that both are working towards a common goal.


In an age where library budgets are not likely to skyrocket and subscription rates unlikely to significantly diminish, it’s imperative that common goals and outcomes are openly outlined to make negotiations work for both sides of the table.


That’s a Wrap on Charleston 2018


Above all else, this year’s Charleston Library Conference confirmed the overarching commitment of librarians, vendors and publishers to experimenting with new approaches that better satisfy the increasingly diverse needs of researchers today. And, with increased transparency and a shared vision of the future, they might just be able to achieve more--together.


*From 2018 Charleston Library Conference, Opening Keynote – The Future of Research Information: Open, Connected, Seamless, featuring speaker Annette Thomas, CEO of Scientific & Academic Research at Clarivate Analytics

    Claire O'Neill
Claire O'Neill
Library Services, Wiley

Screen Shot 2018-11-16 at 10.52.03 AM.pngScholarly publication is a pervasive goal across the academic community. With institutions looking to raise their rankings, faculty determined to make tenure, and researchers under pressure to differentiate themselves, it’s an increasingly competitive environment and the need to publish innovative research is as strong as ever.


But while researchers are the experts in their areas of study, they are often not as well versed in the process of publication itself. From developing a grant application and selecting where to publish, to manuscript submission and peer review, many researchers lack formal training in the skills needed to become published authors.


Utilizing an increasingly diverse suite of research services, librarians are investing their time, budget and expertise in providing the support programs that are needed to both fill critical gaps in the researcher’s toolset, and meet the bottom line of core institutional goals.


At this year’s Charleston Conference, we brought together a diverse panel of library leaders to discuss how their libraries are proactively developing, expanding and promoting their research services in support of these critical outcomes.


“This fills a gap in our collections, and the faculty asked for it.”


As Assistant Dean for Collection Management and Scholarly Communications at University of North Carolina Greensboro, Beth Bernhardt is always looking to invest in new resources that meet the widest range of faculty and researcher needs possible.


That’s why she’s recently selected resources that help researchers with various aspects of the publishing process like APA Style Central, Wiley Researcher Academy, Sage Research Methods, Zotero and others that are widely used by researchers and offer multidisciplinary value; allowing the library to “get the biggest bang for its buck.”


“This is something we’ve really been needing.”


If you’re a librarian, this kind of faculty feedback that Beth and her library received from a workshop on Wiley Researcher Academy is exactly the kind of thing you want to hear. But “ongoing outreach” is key to these programs, whether they’re purchased from a vendor or grown from within.


A screenshot of UNC’s website advertises the plethora of library services available to support faculty and student research—from formal instruction and individual consultations to mentoring programs, orientations and writing boot camps. But collaborating with faculty and other partners on campus like the Teaching and Learning Center, the Office of Research and Engagement, the School of Nursing and the Graduate School has been key, as Beth and the UNC Greensboro Library have been able to increase the impact of research services and successfully generate awareness and engagement.


“Right now, we’re trying to figure out an ecosystem for these services.”


Similarly, Kate McCready, Director of Content Services at the University of Minnesota, explained the various ways in which the librarians at her institution are also supporting author needs through three key branches: research services, instruction and production services.


Each robust service area caters to different points in the research lifecycle, from consultations with liaisons and systematic reviews to grant funding workshops, data management training, and counsel on where to publish.


But with the vast array of programs and services now available to student and faculty researchers, how are they responding to and utilizing library resources? Communication is key here, and there needs to be a consistency in approach.


“We need to start thinking about this as author services as a whole,” McCready expanded, “by making sure we have a good referral network inside.”


While there’s no shortage of library support, Kate also describes the difficulty of executing and marketing all these services at scale. With several physical library locations and a student body of over 50,000, figuring out a sustainable ecosystem for these services is a priority to ensure its continued success.


“How does a library beginning on its back foot propel itself forward?”


For some institutions, the path forward is still being mapped out. George Stachokas, Electronic Resources Librarian at Auburn University, reflected on his library’s recent growth and the strategic imperatives that are driving change.


With a new provost, a commitment to attract new faculty to campus, and a goal of raising Auburn’s rank from an R2 to an R1 institution, there is a push to increase research in STEM, Agriculture and Allied Health Services. As a result, librarians are working to improve collection analysis, identify gaps in information resources and services and drive down the costs for all resources and tools for students.


Current plans range from creating a new data management librarian position and hosting research data management workshops to promoting the ORCiD ID and the ongoing use of institutional repositories. New initiatives are also underway, including investigation of new analytic capabilities, collaboration with internal and external partners to identify long-term trends in research productivity and the creation of teams of librarians to liaise on these issues.


A trend to watch


If this year’s Charleston Conference was any indication, libraries will continue to proactively develop and scale their research services to support the growing need for awareness and training in scholarly communications. And, as researchers increasingly turn to their libraries for publication support, they can expect to not only benefit their institutions and careers, but also to improve the quality of research available to the world.


Photo credit: Claire O'Neill

    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.

Filter Blog

By date:
By tag: