{"objectType":14,"id":2014,"valid":true}
1 2 3 Previous Next

Discover the Future of Research

578 posts
    The Wiley Network
The Wiley Network
The Wiley Network

As Benjamin Franklin, founder of one of the earliest lending libraries in America, once said, “When you’re finished changing, you’re finished.” Fortunately for all of us, academic and research libraries (ARLs) are apparently not finished just yet. At least, they are not finished according to the NMC Horizon Report: 2017 Library Edition. In this report education and technology experts identify six trends they predict will influence technology-related decision-making by academic and research libraries over the next five years, as they evolve into the libraries of the future.

 

The Report is produced by the NMC Horizon Project, an effort founded in 2002 to study technological developments expected to significantly impact education-related institutions (i.e., schools, libraries and museums). This is the third library-related report the organization has issued and, as with the Project’s earlier library-related reports, the trends identified in the 2017 edition are projections arising from an examination of current and ongoing organizational changes within academic and research libraries worldwide. After an exhaustive review of technology-impacting trends, the Horizon Project team selected what they determined to be the two most impactful trends over each of three projected time frames: short-, mid-, and long-term.

 

3283819_Blog_Inforgraphics_Design_blogMarch_18.jpg

 

Short-Term Trends are those considered to be currently driving technology adoption in academic and research libraries but which are expected to become either commonplace or to fade in importance over the next one to two years. For this time frame, the two trends considered the most impactful by the Project’s experts include Research Data Management and Valuing the User Experience.

 

     1. Libraries taking on Research Data Management

 

While libraries have traditionally played two primary functions—providing patrons with access to data and providing support for data research efforts—rapidly expanding capabilities for generating and storing data have resulted in ARLs adopting a third role: Research Data Management (RDM). As applied here, RDM includes both of the traditional roles ARLs have played while adding an increased emphasis on implementing appropriate and needed storage and retrieval systems. With more numerous data formats being utilized (including digital, graphics and A/V formats), new policies, procedures and processes are being developed to address issues from data generation and curation to safeguarding privacy.

 

     2. Valuing the User Experience

 

Just as Google and Amazon and other companies have developed user-data-driven processes to provide increasingly personalized services to their customers, so ARLs have recognized the importance of continually improving their patrons’ interactions with their libraries. In response, ARLs are developing practices, processes and technologies designed to improve patron interactions, whether these involve library computer systems, signage, use of space, or any other aspect of the patrons’ touchpoints with library resources and staff. The results from these efforts might range from the implementation of search engines that provide more personally tailored search results to the addition of digital displays throughout facilities that direct patrons to available seating.

 

 

Mid-Term Trends are those expected to become increasingly vital in driving technology adoption over the next several years and to have their greatest impact on decision-making over the next 3-5 years. The two most impactful trends discussed in the Report for this time frame include Patrons as Creators and Rethinking Library Spaces.

 

3. Patrons as Creators

 

In recent years pedagogical practices in higher education have begun to incorporate hands-on and other experiential learning to a much greater degree. This development reflects greater societal trends that we popularly recognize in the form of crowd-funding endeavors or you-tube videos, and so on. Simply put, people are increasingly learning by making and doing rather then by simply consuming content. In response to this trend, ARLs are evolving into providers of creation-enabling technologies in addition to their traditional roles. For example, libraries are increasingly introducing “makerspaces” within their facilities which include technologies such as 3D printers and video and audio tools that support creative activities by patrons.

 

     4. Rethinking Library Spaces

 

This trend is closely associated with the Patrons as Creators trend. With the advent of the internet, students and other researchers are much less dependent on ARLs as primary providers of source materials. Rather, most researchers begin their data searches online and libraries are increasingly seen primarily as resources where scholars can find conditions conducive to productivity and/or where they can meet with others to work on creative projects collaboratively. In response, ARLs are looking closely at how library spaces can best be utilized to service these evolving patron needs. For example, some libraries have begun identifying specific spaces as collaborative work studios and have begun equipping such spaces with technologies supportive of collaborative creative endeavors. The result might include classroom space with flexible display screens set up to facilitate teleconferencing, or studios equipped with media production technologies, and so on.

 

Long-Term Trends are trends seen as currently impacting technology adoption decisions and which are predicted to continue to do so for the next five years and more. The Horizon Project’s two most impactful trends over this timeframe include Cross-Institution Collaboration and the Evolving Nature of the Scholarly Record.

 

     5. Cross-Institution Collaboration

 

With the increasing digitalization of data (including text, visual and audio) comes the opportunity for academic and research libraries to share content virtually instantaneously. This, combined with tightening budgets and other social trends towards resource-sharing efficiencies, has resulted in ever stronger collaborative efforts among ARLs. Libraries have begun joining together to share ever larger digital collections, allowing them to provide patrons with access to greater research resources. By sharing patron usage data, they are increasingly enabled to develop technology strategies that better respond to patron needs. Working together on a worldwide basis, for example, they can do a better job of identifying and supporting broad academic and pedagogical trends such as the ascension of “hands-on” learning in academia.

 

     6. Evolving Nature of the Scholarly Record

 

The advent of the internet has moved scholarship away from a print-based and hard copy print-distribution model to an electronic publishing and distribution process. This has sped up and changed the peer-review process in significant ways. Whereas in the past the slower print-based review process provided substantial safeguards against the distribution of faulty research efforts, for example, the new digital publishing reality will mandate that libraries evolve in terms of how they accept, validate, curate and disseminate research materials going forward. One emerging ARL initiative to help address this trend includes developing advocacy groups that promote open access and open peer review approaches to scholarly submissions.

 

In addition to these six trends affecting ARL technology adoption, the Report also discusses technology challenges libraries face as well as opportunities further technological developments may bring. We will discuss these challenges and opportunities in upcoming posts, so stay tuned! Coming up next month: Six Challenges Impeding Academic and Research Library Technology Adoption.

 

Permission is granted under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license to replicate, copy, distribute, transmit, or adapt this report freely provided that attribution is provided as illustrated in the citation below. To view a copy of this license, visit us here.

 

Citation

Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Davis, A., Freeman, A., Giesinger Hall, C., Ananthanarayanan, V., Langley, K., and Wolfson, N. (2017). NMC Horizon Report: 2017 Library Edition. Austin, Texas:The New Media Consortium.

    Kelly Neubeiser
Kelly Neubeiser
Author Marketing, Wiley

If you’re new to publishing, the whole process may seem daunting- there is so much to consider before you even submit your paper for consideration! We’ve put together the following infographic which lists some tips and tools available to help you navigate the pre-publication journey. You can find these tools, as well as further information and advice on different stages of publication, on our journal authors resources pages here.

Before you publish-page-001.jpg

 

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

These two infographics from our Registered Reports Toolkit explain what this innovation in peer review is all about, and why researchers – whether acting as authors, readers, journal editors or society leaders – should give them a try. And here they are, below! Also, check-out our interview with David Mellor from the Center for Open Science: “8 Answers About Registered Reports, Research Preregistration, and Why Both Are Important” over here. In that article is a link to the list, curated by Center for Open Science, of journals that offer researchers Registered Reports.

 

BIG_9746-Wiley Registered Reports interactive 2_A4.jpgBIG_9746-Wiley Registered Reports interactive 1_A4.jpg

 

    Anna Ehler
Anna Ehler
Society Marketing

In this episode of the Wiley Society Podcast we talked to two Wiley editors, Helen Dickinson and Janine O’Flynn. In honor of International Women’s Day on March 8th, we asked them about their experiences as successful women in academia and how societies and associations can help to improve gender parity in research fields.

shutterstock_85040797.png

 

 

Helen_Dickinson.jpg

Helen Dickinson

Helen is Associate Professor Public Service Research and Director of the Public Service Research Group at the School of Business, University of New South Wales, Canberra. Her expertise is in public services, particularly in relation to topics such as governance, leadership, commissioning and priority setting and decision-making.  Helen has published sixteen books and over fifty peer-reviewed journal articles on these topics and is also a frequent commentator within the mainstream media.  She is co-editor of the Journal of Health, Organization and Management and Australian Journal of Public Administration. In 2015 Helen was made a Victorian Fellow of the Institute of Public Administration Australia and she has worked with a range of different levels of government, community organizations and private organizations in Australia, UK, New Zealand and Europe on research and consultancy programs.

 

 

janine_oflynn.png

Janine O’Flynn

Janine is Professor of Public Management and Director of Education at the University of Melbourne’s Melbourne School of Government. Her expertise is in public management, with a particular focus on reform and relationships. This covers topics as diverse as the creation and evolution of public service markets to the design of performance management systems. Her latest work explores the intersection of public service markets and morality. Since 2015 she has been an editor of the Australian Journal of Public Administration and she sits on the editorial boards of several journals in the field including: Public Administration Review; Public Administration; International Journal of Public Administration; Canadian Public Administration; Teaching Public Administration; Journal of Management & Organization; and Policy Design and Practice.

 

 

Listen to the previous episode: In a time of change, what makes societies strong?

 

You can listen to this episode and others – including our conversation with Jesse Wiley about the future of societies – by going to

iTunes and subscribing to the Wiley Society Podcast.

 

Image Credit: Shutterstock

 

Samantha Green
Samantha Green
Community Marketing, Wiley

Whether they are philosophers, biologists, nurses, or engineers, members need the same things from their society: an opportunity to advance their career, connect with others in the community, and access to the latest content.

 

But do discipline differences tell us how to get the best member engagement possible?

 

How do members in your field engage with research?

We know from the overall survey segment that people are most likely to be members if they engage with research frequently. Building a learning community around the research published in your journals can help encourage authors and readers to become members.

 

1.png

 

How do members in your field engage with your society?

Professional needs vary across disciplines, which means that the impact of engagement strategies will also differ. For example, members in clinical medicine or health sciences are more likely to pursue certifications through society membership, whereas those in business, life sciences, and social sciences are less likely.

 

2.png

*Note: If discipline not listed, then there are no significant differences between the discipline and the averages across all disciplines.

 

Reading publications and attending conferences are core engagement activities for many societies. Though individuals in some disciplines are less likely than the average to engage in them, they remain the activities in which members across all disciplines most frequently engage.

Opportunities like social media or webinars are currently less frequently utilized in some fields over others. Building up these new types of activities can help create a robust digital engagement strategy that is as meaningful as the in-person engagement at conferences.

 

Why do members in your field join a society?

Across all disciplines, members join societies for similar reasons: content, community, and career. But some disciplines might be more focused on one over the others.

 

3.png

*Note: If discipline not listed, then there are no significant differences between the discipline and the averages across all disciplines.

 

 

These differences are more likely to represent differences in the professional lives of society members, rather than their willingness to engage with other members or society content. Bearing these variations in mind can help ensure that the things that matter most when members join are the areas of focus for ongoing society strategy.

 

How likely are members in your field to recommend societies to others?

Peer recommendation is an important aspect of growing any community. Potential members want to be part of a network that is filled with people they trust.

 

4.png

The above chart represents the Net Promoter Score (NPS) score for each discipline, which are all very positive and represent an impassioned community.

Across the full range of disciplines represented in the survey, peer recommendation is a strong indicator of an engaged community. Members are most likely to recommend others join if the mission resonates with them. Making sure that communications are authentic and focused on the mission can help ensure that members become ambassadors for your society.

 

Members are more alike across disciplines than they are different. Differences in member motivation most commonly mirror differences in professional fields. More than anything, members want a meaningful experience that helps advance their career and helps them to be part of something bigger than themselves and helps society as a whole.

 

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

Scholarly societies and related institutions around the world are home to extensive archive collections, many of which have yet to be explored by today’s researchers. Methodical digitization of these historic original sources is critical to both their preservation and their integration into everyday research.

 

Now, these scholarly institutions are beginning to form strategic partnerships to enable the discovery and accessibility of their archive collections, revitalizing integral evidence of the scholarly record.

 

So how do these materials go from the remote physical archives to being a click away at a university library?

 

Check out the infographic below to see how we boil down the extensive process into five core steps.

 

Wiley_Infographic_020518_Final2_print.png

To learn more about archive collections, visit wileydigitalarchives.com.

 

    Helen Eassom
Helen Eassom
Author Marketing

In last weeks’ blog post, we looked at some of the most common reasons behind the rejection of manuscripts, but what if you’re on the receiving end of a rejection? Peer review is about making your paper the best it can possibly be, but if your paper has been rejected, knowing this doesn’t make it any easier. However, it’s very common for papers to be rejected; studies have shown that around 21% of papers are rejected without review, while approximately 40% of papers are rejected after peer review.

Options after rejection_resize.jpg
So, what are your options if your manuscript is rejected? If your paper was rejected without review due to it falling outside the aims and scopes of the journal, you should find a new journal to submit to (find tips on choosing the right journal for you here). If you receive your rejection after review, you should have some good suggestions about possible improvements you could make to your paper. Some of the options you might want to consider include:

 

1. Make the recommended changes and resubmit your manuscript to the same journal.

If you’d like to publish in a particular journal, and the editor has indicated that they will accept your paper if revisions are made, then this is probably your best option. However, if your paper was rejected outright and the editor doesn’t want to reconsider, you should respect this decision and submit elsewhere.

 

2. Make changes and submit your manuscript to a different journal.

First, take into account any recommendations you may have received during the first round of review, and if necessary, work on improving your manuscript before submitting it to another journal. Don’t forget to adjust any details such as the cover letter, referencing, and any other journal specific details before submission to a different journal.

 

3. Make no changes and submit your manuscript to a different journal. This is an easy option, but one that you should probably avoid. To begin with, any suggestions made during the first round of review could lead to improvements in your paper; not taking these suggestions into account would be missing the opportunity to increase your chance of acceptance at the next journal. Secondly, there is the possibility that your manuscript may be assessed by the same reviewers at the new journal (especially if you work within a niche field). Their recommendation is unlikely to change if you haven’t addressed any of the concerns raised in the previous review.

 

4. Discard the manuscript and never resubmit it. You might decide that it’s not worth the trouble of resubmitting your manuscript, but remember that your work is still valuable. It may be that the data you have collected is useful to someone else, or that your paper could help another researcher avoid generating similar negative results. You could consider posting your paper to sites such as figshare or Dryad, where it will be both accessible for others and citable.

 

5. Appeal the decision. If you feel that the decision to reject was unfair, or there were major flaws in the review process, then as the author you have the right to appeal. Most journals will have a publicly described policy for appealing editorial decisions. It’s important to remember that, as much as rejection hurts, your decision to appeal should be based on logic rather than emotion.

 

You should appeal if you believe that any misconduct has taken place, or a legitimate misunderstanding or error that has led to the decision to reject your work. Make it clear to the editor why you are appealing the decision and be careful not to use emotive, combative language. If your work has been rejected based on the scope of the journal, or its perceived impact, then appeals are unlikely to be successful.

 

What steps have you taken after an article rejection? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

 

Image Credit/Source: eternalcreative/Getty Images

 

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

Archives can offer deep and meaningful insights, not only for a particular subject, but for an entire field of study. This holds true for the archives of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland (RAI) which illustrate the history of not only various indigenous groups and cultures, but also of the study of anthropology itself.

 

In the exclusive “behind the scenes” video  below, one of the world’s most renowned archives, Anthropologist Christopher Pinney and Sarah Walpole, Archivist and Photo Curator for RAI, delve into the archives to illuminate specific examples of some of the preserved collections that they are passionate about.

 

 

Up close and personal

 

As the author of Photography and Anthropology, Pinney is particularly focused on the relationship between anthropology and photography.

 

Thumbing through a collection of historic materials, Pinney introduces Edward Horace Mann, a colonial officer in the Andaman Islands in the Bay of Bengal, who took numerous photographs of the natives he met. But perhaps the most curious part of this collection is an anonymously hand-drawn image of E.H. Mann himself, huddled under the camera curtain as the subjects of his photograph stood against a tree.

 

This drawing, mixed in with formal images, “suddenly startles viewers by the presence of an image coming from a completely different viewpoint, an indigenous viewpoint, in a different medium.”

 

This is one of the experiences that’s unique to examining primary sources, as interaction with original materials allows for a more visceral understanding of the historical context.

 

Memorial or Ruin? Anthropology in evolution

 

As Pinney examines photographs of one Pygmy man covered in measurement tape, it’s impossible not to reflect on the progress of anthropology as a field—and of the world itself. The image evokes the primitive interpretations of Darwin’s evolutionary theories, marking the “shuttering to a halt of the institution’s collecting of anthropometric images.”

 

In fact, a new anthropology was in the making, and these photos serve both as a memorial of the Pygmies as an ethnic group, as well as a ruin of an obsolete method of practicing anthropology. This broad shift would steep anthropology in fieldwork rather than decontextualization and ultimately alter the way researchers interact with research subjects.

 

For Men’s Eyes Only

 

In what may be the most elucidating indication of how times have changed, Sarah Walpole handles an envelope marked “Central Australia Men’s Ceremony – Men Only to View,” as part of a box containing famous photographs of the last of the Tasmanians, an ethnic group that is now extinct. Walpole respects this and does not look at its contents, demonstrating the archivist’s deep respect for not just the archived materials, but also reverence towards the original authors.

 

Walpole’s inability to view some of the contents of RAI’s archives demonstrates one of the daily challenges archivists face; she must honor the wishes of those who created the materials and treat each item with the utmost care. This also depicts the value of the collections and their critical role in preserving the culture and practices of otherwise unknown societies.

 

The Challenges – and Rewards – of Archivists Today

 

As Walpole navigates the RAI archives, she must wade through boxes, shelves, drawers, and closets, each housing different collections and different types of materials. These moments demonstrate the difficulty of accessing and using these materials in everyday research—not only must you know what you’re looking for, but you must also know where to find it.

 

Archivists and anthropologists devote their days to preserving and respecting collections of primary sources, and they play an instrumental role in the introduction of archives into everyday research. Thus, these professionals are the reason that these materials are not ruins or evidence of destruction, but instead become memorials for civilizations, people, and places that, although perhaps no longer exist, still have the power to transcend the restraints of time.

 

Continue the Conversation

 

Sarah Walpole, Archivist and Photo Curator at the Royal Anthropological Institute, will be discussing RAI’s archive collection and the importance of digitization in Denver this February at the ALA Midwinter Conference.

 

The archive collection from the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland will be digitized and available on Wiley Digital Archives this spring. Sign up for a personal demonstration of Wiley Digital Archives during the ALA Midwinter Conference here.

 

Video still.JPG

 

9 Common Reasons for Rejection

Posted Feb 1, 2018
    Helen Eassom
Helen Eassom
Author Marketing, Wiley

Nobody likes rejection. If you’ve spent a lot of time and effort on your latest paper, only to have it turned down, it’s going to hurt. Articles get rejected for all manner of reasons, from easy to avoid errors and oversights, to simply falling outside of the journal’s scope. In this two-part blog post (part two to follow next week) we’ll look at some of the most common reasons for rejection in more detail, before discussing the various options open to you if your article is rejected. So, what are the most likely reasons for rejection?

 

Reasons for rejection.jpg

1.The manuscript fails the technical screening

Before the manuscript gets passed to the Editor-in-Chief or Managing Editor of a journal, the editorial office will undertake some basic checks. The main reasons for rejection of papers at this stage include:

  • The paper contains elements that are suspected to be plagiarized
  • The paper is under review at another journal (submission to multiple journals at the same time isn’t allowed)
  • The manuscript lacks key elements such as a title, list of authors and affiliations, main text, references, or figures and tables
  • The quality of the language is not sufficient for review to take place
  • Tables and figures are not clear enough to read
  • The paper does not conform to the journal’s Author Guidelines

 

2. The manuscript does not fall within the journal’s Aims and Scope

If the paper won’t be of interest or value to the journal’s audience, it’s unlikely to be accepted. When choosing a journal to submit to, always make sure you read the Aims and Scope so you have an understanding of the type of articles the journal is looking for. For more tips on choosing the right journal, see last week’s blog post: How to Maximize Your Study’s Visibility by Choosing the Right Journal.

 

3. The research topic isn’t of great enough significance

Again, if the topic covered by the paper isn’t of interest to a journal’s audience, it will likely be rejected. It may be that the paper’s findings are incremental and do not advance the field, or that the manuscript is clearly part of a larger study which has been divided up to make as many articles as possible.

 

4. The research is over-ambitious

If the authors have been overly ambitious or all-encompassing, results may be difficult to interpret or may even be flawed. In these cases it may be more appropriate to divide the work into a series of smaller research projects.

 

5. A clear hypothesis hasn’t been established

The question behind the research may be unclear, poorly formulated, or not relevant to the research field. Carrying out an extensive literature review can help guide your hypothesis or research question.

 

6. The manuscript is incomplete

The paper might contain observations but is not a full study, or it may ignore or overlook other important work in the field.

 

7. There are flaws in the procedures, presentation or analysis of the data

Major flaws might include a lack of clear control groups or other comparison metrics, non-conformity with recognized procedures or methodology (which makes it difficult to repeat or replicate the work), or the lack of a statistically valid analysis. Watch out for any minor flaws such as the incorrect, inappropriate or unclear labelling of tables and figures.

 

8. Flaws in the manuscript’s arguments and/or conclusions

Arguments should be logical, structured and valid, and support the conclusions reached by the paper. If the conclusions reached cannot be justified on the basis of the rest of the paper, or they ignore large portions of the literature, the manuscript will be rejected.

 

9. Language, writing and spelling issues

The language, structure of the paper, and any tables or figures need to be of good enough quality for the paper to be assessed; if this isn’t possible, then the paper will be rejected. It’s always a good idea to ask others to check your paper before you submit it – a second pair of eyes can help pick up any errors you might have missed. If you aren’t confident in your English writing skills, most publishers offer English Language Editing services which you can use before submitting your paper.

 

Check back next week for advice on what to do when your article is rejected.

 

Image credit: Jacob Lund/Shutterstock

 

    Dawn Peters
Dawn Peters
External Communications, Wiley

shutterstock_113181709.jpg

We live in a time of great discovery in science, medicine and technology. Yet, never before has there been such a trashing of the truth in the news. We are all witness to the unprecedented conception of fake news that seeks to undermine progress, deter attention from important issues, and intentionally mislead the public. What’s more, when misinformation is spread, it negatively impacts the reputation of research and scholarship in your field.

 

By working together—publishers, scholarly societies, the media—we can fight fake news with fact-based evidence, while generating public awareness of the importance of science and fostering greater trust and understanding around science.

 

As an associate partner of the World Federation of Science Journalists (WFSJ)—a non-profit organization with more than 50 member associations, representing 10,000 journalists from around the world—Wiley is delivering on its promise to societies to expand the reach and impact of sound research, science, and scholarship in every field. Through this partnership WFSJ journalists have complimentary access to Wiley Online Library (WOL), supporting their news stories with the latest scientific evidence published in its hosted journals.

 

Giving the media greater access to research helps to create connections between researchers, journalists, and ultimately, the general public. In fact, a recent Reader’s Digest article of the best sources of health news on the web cites a number of our publishing partners as trusted sources of information for people trying to maintain healthy lifestyles, understand a medical diagnosis or discover the latest treatment options.

 

Without access to authoritative research sources, journalists may also be more likely to   cite evidence published in journals which are highly accessible but lack proper peer review, retraction policies, and reliable archiving. According to a Newsweek article, there are thousands of predatory science journals where profits, as opposed to sound science, are the driving force.

 

At times it seems like fake news may win the day given the constant barrage of suspect headlines. However, there is hope in combating fiction with facts. If researchers, publishers and media work together to advance sound scientific knowledge, we can impact the spread of false information by improving access to creditable research and help educate the public to advocate for better health, preservation of natural resources, and social justice for all.

 

Image Credit: legenda/Shutterstock

 

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

Mobile optimization is increasingly essential to reaching your society’s audience online. 62% of US online adults now expect a mobile-friendly website. To learn more about mobile optimization we chatted with Wiley marketing expert Liane Shayer.

 

Q. What is mobile optimization?
A. Mobile optimization means that an email or a website will offer an experience that is designed for a specific device (tablet or smartphone or laptop). The font may change to be more readable. Buttons may become bigger as the device becomes smaller. Content and images may be reformatted in a way that makes them suitable for the device. This is a little different than a mobile-friendly experience in which a website, for example, displays accurately on any device though it may not reformat itself.

 

mobile optimization_4.jpg

Q. Many experts now say that having a mobile-friendly site is essential. Why is mobile optimization so important?

A. According to a Return Path report released in July 2017, 55% of email is now opened on mobile devices. Desktop email opens have now declined to only 16% according to the same report. Mobile optimization is increasingly important to make sure customers have a good online experience.

 

Q. What recommendations do you have for organizations just beginning to build their mobile strategy?
A. Focus on your members. It is important to understand who they are and what they do when online. Build the online experience around this information.

 

One way to do this is to see what devices and browsers they are using. Email on Acid and Litmus are great tools for this. If an organization learns that six out of ten email opens occur via Gmail, or that close to 80% of mobile email opens are on a device running iOS, developers know what tools to optimize for.

 

Test to make sure the experience is what you expected and is seamless throughout. Providing a poor experience may cost an organization members. 61% of users indicate they are unlikely to return to a mobile site they had trouble accessing (per Google).

 

Finally, don’t forget about Search Engine Optimization (SEO), Search Engine Marketing (SEM), and engagement metrics. Use the insights from these metrics to make informed decisions on changes that might be needed to optimized strategy.

 

Q. Are there any simple ways that an organization can improve the mobile optimization of their website?
A. There are quite a few easy ways that an organization can enhance the mobile optimization of their website:

    • Provide only essential information. Remember, mobile screens are much smaller than desktop and laptop screens.
    • Keep copy short and sweet and make it catchy.
    • Use a consistent structure throughout the site.
    • Provide a clear path to the call-to-action.
    • Use a larger font size and make sure it is easy to read.
    • Use checkable boxes and scrolling menu bars.
    • Make sure the site scales so that it looks good on the over 500 screen sizes found across smartphones, tablets, and laptops.

 

Q. Optimizing email for mobile is also important to effectively communicate with your audience. What can an organization do to ensure they’re reaching members on all devices?
A. According to emailmonday, 8 in 10 users will likely access email exclusively from mobile devices in 2018, so email optimization is key. Learn what the key devices are that members are using. Use this information to create a simple template that works across these devices and stick with it for all email outreach.

 

Q. As we start the new year of 2018, are there any trends to be aware of that may have a big impact on mobile optimization this year?
A. Voice and visual search are already a widely used part of a user’s activity on a mobile device. Organizations will need to begin to think about how their site is optimized for voice search and work with developers to make necessary updates. Another trend to watch is automation and machine learning. We are still waiting to see the full implications of this. Big data and analytics have already had a huge impact, but should stay on your watch list.

 

Micro-moments occur when people reflexively turn to a device to act on a need to learn something, do something, discover something, or buy something. How an organization reaches people at these micro-moments will become increasingly important.

 

Further Resources

There are a lot of good sources of information on mobile optimization, including:

 

https://www.impactbnd.com/blog/mobile-marketing-statistics

https://www.emailmonday.com/mobile-email-usage-statistics/

https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/304735/majority-of-emails-read-on-mobile-devices.html

https://blog.kissmetrics.com/8-mobile-ux-tips/

https://searchenginewatch.com/2017/10/13/seven-seo-trends-to-watch-in-2018/

 

Image credit: Jonnystorey Ltd/Getty Images

 

Morgan Kubelka
Morgan Kubelka
Library Services, Wiley

How can sketches of a twentieth-century anthropologist-in-the-making tell us just as much about the field of anthropology as we know it today, as they can about the subject of the fieldwork itself?

 

When Arthur Bernard Deacon began his anthropological research of a South Pacific civilization in 1927, he couldn’t have predicted the value his meticulous field sketches would have on the legacy of the people of modern day Vanuatu or on the field of anthropology itself, any more than he could have foreseen his own untimely death.

 

But for a society unwittingly endangered by imperialistic influence and without extensive written history, it would be Deacon’s raw “I-witness” account of its customs, language and traditions that would not only enable it to be preserved for its future generations but to also be studied by many leading anthropologists and researchers to come.

 

A picture (or sketch) says a thousand words

 

Pic1[1].jpg

Deacon’s original drawings and notes, a collection now long since cataloged in the archive of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland (RAI), and recently accepted into UNESCO’s Memory of the World Program, capture that which posthumous secondary research cannot—the unmediated firsthand account of a vanishing culture and the methods by which a promising twentieth-century anthropologist might achieve these results.

 

Like many primary sources, Deacon’s drawings and field notes give us a glimpse not only into the research and the mind of the researcher himself, but of the historical context that colored the discipline and time period in which Deacon studied and lived.

 

Deacon’s sand drawing sketches, arguably the most widely renowned work archived in his wake, demonstrate the multi-faceted significance of such primary research. For one, the preservation of these sketches enables the continued practice of sand drawing, one of the most important traditions of Vanuatu both then and today. According to UNESCO, Deacon’s original drawings are “of great value to the people of the islands of Vanuatu eager to retain knowledge of their heritage,” as they continue to refer to these illustrations as a ‘how-to manual’ even in present-day.

 

Pic2[1].jpg

Another significant element of primary research like Deacon’s is the light it sheds on the evolution of the scientific discipline itself. In this case, Deacon’s schematization of sand drawing-- or in other words, the structure he put around the creation of these fragile creations—reflects the anthropological concepts of ‘cultural patterning’ and ‘diffusion’ that were being popularized at Cambridge at the time Deacon studied. This idea illustrates the broader shift taking place from anthropology as a ‘natural science’ preoccupied with evolution to a ‘social science’ more interested in the psychology, culture and sociology of human populations.

 

Similarly, one of the unique opportunities offered by studying original materials is a glimpse at the intersection and interaction between the researcher and the historical context of the time. In Deacon’s case, it was clear from his sketches that to some extent, he too was more interested in the more social aspects of his research. While the prevailing western sentiment of Deacon’s time would have encouraged him to study the people of Vanuatu as a more objectified “primitive” species, Deacon often chose to annotate his notes with people’s first names, suggesting a more intimate respect for the people he studied.

 

Introducing archive collections into everyday research

 

The ability for modern-day researchers to interact with archival content is critical to the understanding of not only specific research areas in their discipline, but to understanding the evolution of the discipline itself. Without the integration of these sources into everyday research, huge amounts of historical context is lost or displaced, and researchers are left only to build upon the published interpretations and insights of their predecessors, robbing them of the opportunity to pursue new lines of inquiry themselves.

 

As a result, the archival collections found in historic societies and scholarly associations like The Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland aren’t something that should be considered supplementary, but rather integral to the process of research innovation and advancement. Making these collections widely accessible is critical to this objective, as digitization can now transcend many historic constraints and add a layer of discovery and engagement of primary sources we once never thought possible.

 

Now researchers will be able to find the likes of Deacon’s sketches without a travel grant to RAI’s offices, and to lend their own interpretations to the raw materials left behind in his and so many others’ wakes.

 

And who knows? It could be your field notes researchers are studying one day.

 

About Wiley Digital Archives and The Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland Collection

 

The complete archive collection from the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland will be available on Wiley Digital Archives this spring. The notes, drawings, and recordings of Arthur Bernard Deacon (1903-1927) will be featured as part of the esteemed collection, along with original photographs, maps, drawings, reports, papers, surveys and more spanning 1871 to 1967.

 

To learn more about Wiley Digital Archives, visit www.wileydigitalarchives.com

 

RAI’s collection of the original drawings and notes of Arthur Bernard Deacon was awarded status of documentary heritage by UNESCO’s Memory of the World Program in 2012.

 

UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, established the Memory of the World Program in 1992 as part of a growing awareness of the precarious state of preservation of, and access to, documentary heritage in various parts of the world. The vision of the program is “that the world’s documentary heritage belongs to all, should be fully preserved and protected for all and, with due recognition of cultural mores and practicalities, should be permanently accessible to all without hindrance.”

 

Pic 1: Schematized sand drawing of “The Turtle” (Photo credit: RAI)

Pic 2: Modern-day sand drawing in Craig Cove, Ambrym (Photo credit: Stephen Zagala)

 

     Shelley Williams
Shelley Williams
Author Marketing

With the growing amount of published medical research, it is increasingly imperative for authors and publication managers to find innovative ways of making their findings known. Savvy publication managers realize that the authors’ target journals can be much more than a static depository for their papers—journals can be valuable partners in helping promote the published research. Thus, choosing the right journal for industry-sponsored research now requires careful consideration of several factors in addition to the journal’s core submission requirements and its reputation.

 

Understand the journal’s impact

Choosing the right journal.jpgAuthors tend to equate journal impact with the “impact factor.” It is true that journals with a high impact factor (e.g., The Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, or The BMJ) typically happen to be among the ones that are most widely respected by the medical community and are read by clinicians and researchers across specialties. However, many of these broad-scope journals are inundated with submissions and have very high rejection rates, reaching as high as 93% in the case of The BMJ.

 

Along with the authors, you might decide to target a specialty journal where there is somewhat less competition, but you would still want to thoroughly understand the journal’s metrics. Keep in mind that some journals use the term “impact factor” loosely, displaying their SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), which is based on Scopus, rather than their actual impact factor from the Journal Citation Reports (JCR), which is based on the Web of Knowledge. So you need to confirm that the number displayed on the journal website is (1) the actual impact factor, and (2) up-to-date (see how Cancer clearly mentions its impact factor and 2016 JCR ranking).

 

Both JCR and SJR figures are averages that are calculated on the basis of how many times a journal’s articles are cited. They are journal-level metrics and may not always reflect the amount of attention an individual article receives. An article could receive no citations at all, even if published in a journal with a reasonably high impact factor. Moreover, citations typically take time to emerge and are not the only indicators of how much of a ripple an article creates, especially among stakeholders who may not be actively engaged in authoring new research articles (e.g., health journalists, insurers, patient advocacy groups, health policymakers, or practicing HCPs whose main role is not research-oriented). At a basic level, article usage data (downloads, views, etc.) give you an idea of the online traffic a journal receives. More importantly, altmetric data show a paper’s coverage in the mainstream media and blogs, how many times it is tweeted about, or how many “likes” it gathers on Facebook. Journals like Annals of Neurology actively track and share altmetric data, and if you are considering such a journal, checking the altmetric score of a published paper relatively similar to yours in that journal can indicate the kind of engagement you can expect if you publish in this journal.

 

Understand the journal’s aims and scope—explicit and implicit.

A journal may be more “niche” than its name indicates. Take, for example, Histopathology (which aims to be of practical value to surgical and diagnostic histopathologists) and the Journal of Pathology (which deals with the pathophysiological and pathogenetic mechanisms of human disease). Besides checking the obvious—the “About” or “Editorial mission” sections—you should skim through the table of contents of some previous issues, and read a few editorials and published articles to get a better understanding of whether your article would be appealing to the journal. For example, Tobacco Control, which directly asks authors to “consider whether their intended submissions address issues or themes, which are likely to be of interest to researchers working in other nations,” is unlikely to be interested in a country-specific epidemiological survey on smoking prevalence. Further, not only manuscript format but also the submission process may differ by article type (especially for primary vs. secondary literature). For instance, NEJM typically does not publish unsolicited review articles, asking authors to submit a presubmission inquiry for such articles.

 

If the journal has a high impact factor, you should also critically compare your own research with its recent publications. Questions you can ask include “Is my sample sufficiently large and diverse?”, “Have I used the most sophisticated and rigorous methodology for data collection and analysis in the field?”, and “Are my findings going to interest the people who read this journal (across specialties and locations)?”

 

Moreover, the type of article you submit can affect how the journal positions and promotes it. For instance, Acupuncture in Medicine publishes a systematic review under Original Research but a narrative review under Education and Practice. Article type can also influence the level of access or position allotted to an article. For example, review articles in Orthopaedic Surgery can be accessed for free and are prominently displayed on the journal’s landing page.

 

Check for opportunities to improve your article’s visibility.

Mere publication does not guarantee that your article will be read by relevant stakeholders. Look for journals that actively “push” their content to their readers, for example, by offering authors the option of sharing read-only versions of their articles. Social media is a valuable tool for journals to reach out to readers and engage them with content, as in the case of Cancer, which actively disseminates its top articles through Facebook and Twitter. In addition, publishers like Wiley have also begun partnering with science news portals like Scimex, in order to disseminate groundbreaking scientific research as widely as possible in the mainstream media.

 

Several forward-looking journals have begun offering authors assistance in promoting their research, through multimedia solutions. For instance, the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology not only assists authors in putting together an audiovisual abstract that can be uploaded on YouTube and Vimeo but also advises them on using these abstracts to increase their findings’ visibility and enhance their professional reputations. Medical Education uses both podcasts and vodcasts (video podcasting) to engage readers. Remember that even if the journal itself appears niche or regional in reach, its publisher could provide article promotion support, as Wiley does for all its journals through various channels.

 

Look for journals that actively try to meet your readers’ needs.

Readers of medical journals, whether in the laboratory or clinic, have needs aside from just information. Journals often identify and cater to these needs in order to build a loyal and engaged readership. For instance, Transfusion allows HCPs to earn continuing medical education credits by reading certain articles and then passing a test on the content. Muscle & Nerve includes links on its homepage to connect readers with job opportunities in both healthcare and academia. HIV Medicine provides free guidelines on care for the diverse spectrum of patients whom HCPs in practice would encounter (e.g., pregnant women and adults with TB/HIV coinfection), as well as a fast-track process for manuscripts disseminating information critical for patient care. Obesity’s Patient Page provides information on the latest findings in the field in non-technical language, which HCPs can directly share with their patients.

 

Verify the journal’s reputation.

While most experienced authors probably know enough to not get duped by predatory journals and are aware of various whitelists and blacklists available online, you can never be too careful. Besides confirming your choice of journal with your colleagues or seniors, you can look up the editorial board members listed on the journal website and check resources like ThinkCheckSubmit.org and Retraction Watch, to make sure that the journal’s reputation does not inadvertently tarnish your article. For instance, the mass retraction of 107 papers by Tumor Biology in April 2017 was a heavy blow to its reputation. While even highly respected journals like JAMA Internal Medicine have retracted articles, the reasons for retraction and the frequency of such cases have a bearing on their reputation. So you need to do a “background check” of the target journal before submission, as you do want your findings to gain the trust they deserve.

 

Reconfirm that you can meet the journal’s special requirements.

Ultimately, it is no use submitting to an attractive journal if you cannot meet its basic requirements. For example, you need to make sure you have an ORCID ID before submitting a paper to Diabetic Medicine. The Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery will likely reject a paper on a non-invasive treatment strategy. Similarly, an article submitted to Tropical Medicine & International Health may not be considered if it relies solely on null hypothesis significance testing, presenting only P values.

 

Considering the recent ICMJE recommendations on data-sharing, it is advisable to revisit the submission guidelines of your target journals even if you have previously published articles in them. If you are submitting an article to, for example, JAMA or PLOS Medicine, on or after July 1, 2018, including an appropriate data-sharing statement will be essential for avoiding rejection. It also would not hurt to include such a statement before July 2018, and in fact might subtly give the impression of a high level of sophistication and dedication to following best practices in medical research.

 

In summary, choosing the right journal for a medical research submission goes beyond matching the journal’s aims and scope or looking for a high impact factor. Target the journal that gives you and your research the most benefits, making the most of facilities for presubmission inquiries, fast-track submissions, etc. Ultimately, selecting an appropriate journal to disseminate industry-sponsored research is crucial not just for getting the manuscript accepted but also for the findings to reach the most relevant stakeholders and translate into actual impact.

 

Image credit: Wavebreak Media/Getty Images

 

    Anna Ehler
Anna Ehler
Society Marketing

In the first Wiley Society Podcast episode of 2018 we have a conversation with Jesse Wiley, a 7th generation member of the Wiley family engaged in the organization, about his perspective on how societies are weathering the changes in scholarly publishing and taking advantage of the new opportunities that change opens up.

 

 

Listen to the previous episode: Are you ready to create a data policy?

 

You can listen to this episode and others – including our two-part data policy discussion with a multidisciplinary society panel – by going to iTunes and subscribing to the Wiley Society Podcast.

shutterstock_149190815.jpg

Image Credit: Sever180/Shutterstock

 

    Samantha Green
Samantha Green
Society Marketing, Wiley

Access to content is one of the cornerstones of society membership. Whether it is a suite of peer reviewed journals, or a member newsletter, content helps members develop a shared body of knowledge.

 

Shared knowledge, which allows members to be on the cutting edge and stay informed, is one of the most common reasons for engaging with research. In our 3rd annual Society Member Survey, we dig deeper into the question of content: why is it important and how do members want to receive it?

 

160937463.jpg

The people who respond to our survey engage with research for a variety of reasons, but the most common all have to do with being part of a learning community.

 

79% want to engage with research to learn new things, including those that could effect change. 63% want to be an active part of the community in their chosen fields, and 61% want to be informed when communicating with colleagues. The ability to access content is therefore essential for members to feel involved and engaged with their communities.

 

Society members engage with research more frequently than non-members. Members read or otherwise engage with content 15 times per month, compared to just 11 times for those who aren’t currently society members.

 

Our survey shows that content is important; it matters deeply to society members. To make sure that members are happy, easy access to content is essential.

 

When we consider access, we need to explore content format and delivery. A variety of formats, from research articles to newsletters and magazines, can attract members with different needs and different amounts of time to engage with research. Members also expressed different levels of interest for delivery methods ranging from electronic to print.

 

In terms of format, the research journal is the most important type of content to members. 91% indicated that the journal was important or very important to them. Other types of publications were less important, like newsletters (64%) and magazines (49%).

 

However, these informal publications can still be important, depending on where members and potential members are based. Not only do members who are earlier in their careers value informal publications more than older generations, but members from India and many African nations are more interested in these types of publications.

 

The desire for different delivery methods also varies. The vast majority, 92%, want access to digital PDFs of research journal articles. Equally important is an online journal, which 88% indicated was very important. Electronic delivery is, on the whole, the most desirable method of delivery for society members.

 

Members who are earlier in their careers and those who read research daily are more likely to prefer electronic delivery of their society content as well.

 

Personalized delivery is also something members want from their societies. As part of a community, members like to feel that their society knows them and knows what they want.

 

Sometimes, that means the latest content, research rounds ups and electronic table-of-contents emails can be very impactful for members. Other times, it might mean creating opportunities for discussion around content on social media and at conferences.

 

Members already use their mastery of content and deep knowledge of their chosen fields to build communities. Facilitating more connections around content and greater access to content through diverse channels opened up by technologies reinforces the connections between members and your journals.

 

For more from our 3rd annual Society Member Survey, visit our Member Resources site here.

 

Image Credit: Wavebreak Media/Getty Images

 

Filter Blog

By date:
By tag: