1 2 3 Previous Next

Discover the Future of Research

500 posts
    Helen Eassom
Yukari Arao
Journal Publishing Manager, Wiley

On July 30, 2017, more than fifty journal editors, editorial office administrators, funders, and librarians gathered at the Tokyo International Forum for our annual Tokyo Wiley Executive Seminar. We spent the day reflecting on innovations in publishing for a sustainable future, comparing experiences around the internationalization of journals, and sharing case studies for issues in peer review and publishing ethics.



In the first session, “Innovation in Publishing for the Future,” Gordon Tibbitts, SVP Corporate Development, Atypon Systems, Inc., spoke about the critical need for societies, publishers, and libraries to adapt in order to weather the rapid rate of change in scholarly communications. According to Gordon, societies in particular are well-placed to thrive amidst market changes. Societies can differentiate themselves, he proposed, by leveraging the quality of their brands and harnessing the power of search technology to make it easier for researchers to discover the research that is most relevant for them.


Speaking on behalf of Howard Ratner from CHORUS, Mark Robertson, President for Wiley Japan, shared the results of a recent successful pilot between CHORUS and JST (Japan Science and Technology Agency)-Chiba University. By leveraging existing networks, CHORUS can show institutional funders where the research they fund is being published, which articles are free, and when they became free.


Next up Janette Burke, University Librarian at Monash University, described how the role and function of libraries is changing. Monash’s print collection will soon be moved off-site to make more room for students, and in 2017 she expects that the library will spend nearly 90% of its budget on digital resources. Other priorities include making life easier for researchers by helping them comply with funding mandates, find the right journal for their work, and safeguard their intellectual property rights. The final speaker in the morning session was Miwako Doi, Auditor, National Institute of Information and Communications Technology, who shared strategies for open data infrastructure and management based on the recommendations of the Science Council of Japan. 


The day’s second session focused on the benefits of internationalizing journals and was facilitated by Yuji Nakajima, Editor-in-Chief of Congenital Anomalies. According to findings from Japan’s Research Output and International Collaboration Trends, more than 85% of the readership for Japan’s research output comes from outside of Japan. Yuji also shared data suggesting that globally authored papers have higher impact - based on average number of citations per article - compared to locally authored papers, suggesting that internationalization could be key to improving the impact of a journal. Editors of Digestive Endoscopy, Cancer Science, Asian Economic Policy Review, and Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience also shared their strategies and experiences with internationalizing journals. This session was the most popular of the day according to the post-seminar survey.


The seminar closed with a focus on ethical issues in peer review. Jun Fudano, Professor at the Institute for Liberal Arts, Tokyo Institute of Technology, talked about the challenges caused by the lack of peer reviewer training, the various biases which may arise throughout the peer review process, and the possible solutions to these issues. Trevor Lane, a Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Council Member and Education Director & Senior Publishing Consultant, Edanz Group, presented three COPE case studies for discussion: salami publication, peer reviewer selection policy, and peer review confidentiality. Seminar participants discussed the cases in small groups and then presented back to the room on the ethics problem in the case, actions taken, and preventive measures to avoid similar problems in the future. This session was facilitated by Choitsu Sakamoto, Professor Emeritus of Nippon Medical School and former Editor-in-Chief of Digestive Endoscopy, who was also involved in selection of the three cases.


After each session, there were spirited Q&A discussions between the panelists and the room of highly engaged delegates. In the first session on innovation, the discussion revolved around the future roles of societies, funders and governments and their dependences, as well as how data will become as much a part of future dialogue as the journal article itself. On internationalization, finding a solution to the significant problem that Japanese authors have a tendency not to cite the articles they publish in Japanese society journals engaged many editors in attendance. The ethics in peer review session could have continued for hours, as the potential solutions to the cases discussed were complex and open for interpretation. Many of the delegates said that as journal editors they themselves were facing similar ethical challenges, and that COPE’s recommendations would be very useful in their own work.


Overall it was a very engaging day, and according to the survey, 99% of attendees said that the seminar met their goals and expectations while 89% said that they would attend the Tokyo Wiley Executive Seminar in the future.


Image Credit: Yukari Arao


     Rebecca Andrews
Rebecca Andrews
Wiley Intern
Noelle MacDonald
Noelle MacDonald
Wiley Intern
Joseph Pold
Joseph Pold
Wiley Intern
Steven Zieselman
Steven Zieselman
Wiley Intern

As interns at Wiley this summer, instead of the rote Powerpoint presentation on what we’d learned, we were thrown into the Wiley “shark tank.” Like the television show, we were tasked with inventing a new product for the publishing industry, developing our idea, and then pitching it to the “sharks.”


Students and researchers ourselves, we decided to focus on increasing research accessibility. Wiley already partners with Research4Life and the International Network for the Availability of Scientific Publications (INASP) to provide philanthropic access to institutions in developing countries. However, many scholars in the developing world still face technological barriers that make accessing Wiley Online Library impossible.


To further investigate, we looked to Africa as a case study. 71% of Africans, (869 million people), can’t access the internet. Both limited network coverage and cost prevent Africans from logging on to the World Wide Web. One megabit/second (a standard unit of internet speed) costs $120/month in the United States but $13,000/month in Africa. For an African university to enjoy the same high-speed coverage as its American peers (one Gigabit/second) would cost $13,000,000/month. For already under-resourced institutions, such costs prove a major barrier, translating to overloaded connections and frustratingly slow browsing.


For individual scholars, poor internet service is disastrous, causing an availability-accessibility gap. One INASP-funded study at Tanzania’s Sokoine University found that of 25 researchers, 80% tried to access journal content in a given week but 60% couldn’t download the e-resources necessary to read it, 44% faced readability issues, and 40% experienced internet problems. A professor might wait all night to download just one PDF, only to find the article useless and her time wasted as she skims it the next morning. To broaden our scope, we examined download data for three of Wiley’s major health sciences journals, Pediatric Diabetes, Thrombosis and Haemostasis, and the Journal of Viral Hepatitis. Though Wiley provides philanthropic access to 125 institutions in Mozambique, the country’s researchers downloaded just 138 medical articles in 2016, compared to 130,077 in similarly-populous Australia. The disparity is comparable or worse in other African nations, as evident in the chart below.


availability vs usage.png

Cellular networks provide faster and better coverage. 54% of the population (557 million people)
is subscribed to mobile services. Furthermore, cell phone usage is growing, according to the Groupe Spéciale Mobile Association (GSMA). In 2002, only 8% of Ghanaians owned a mobile phone, compared to 83% in 2016. They also estimate that the number of unique mobile subscriptions will rise to 725 million by 2020. Utilizing that infrastructure, SMS Bots--simple programs that receive texts and output responses--have already revolutionized the ways Africans interact with traditionally internet-based services such as banking and email. Mobile money in particular has become an important part of many Africans’ lives.  In 2013, 68% of Kenyans used mobile banking compared to the 11% global average, according to the Pew Research Center.


textley.pngThus, our innovation idea, which we’ve named Textley, is an SMS Bot for Wiley Online Library. To read a scholarly article, the user would text its DOI to the Textley number, be prompted through the login sequence, and then receive the article’s text, all through mobile rather than internet networks. If his/her article included charts or diagrams, Textley would ask if he/she wants to receive the accompanying images, a measure to avoid overloading phones, before sending them. Though Textley is not a perfect solution, it would allow the same frustrated researcher to read dozens of articles a day, saving him/her invaluable time and effort.


Textley also has the potential to deliver high returns. Because the technology is so simple, with low initial and operating costs, developing Textley would only be a small investment. Though the market is immature now, enrollment in and funding of African higher education is expanding. So much so that Research4Life is transitioning some institutions from philanthropic to regular access. Furthermore, though we focused on African scholars, academics in Latin America, the Middle East, and South and Southeast Asia face similar circumstances. For example, in 2014 only 19% of Indians could access the internet while 28% subscribed to mobile services, a difference of hundreds of millions of people.


As a leading scholarly publisher, Wiley has both a responsibility and interest in increasing the availability of research to all. Developing Textley or a similar service seems like a logical first step to bridging the accessibility gap around the world.


    Helen Eassom
Helen Eassom
Author Marketing, Wiley

Researchers are under more pressure than ever, but if you’re an early to mid-career researcher, you’re probably feeling the strain more than most. Huge workloads, job insecurity and a lack of training are all contributing to a crisis on both a short and long term basis.


Anyone working in scientific research knows how important this sector is, and governments and public bodies are also aware that a strong research and innovation ecosystem equates to a stronger economy. A number of studies have looked at the rate of return on public investment in research by examining the links between research and innovation, across a range of industries. In terms of annual rates of return, median values range between 20% and 50%. However, given that so much research is in the hands of those just starting out on their careers, any government strategy aimed at supporting research should take their needs into account.


What’s happened so far?

WRA whitepaper 1.jpgIn the developed world, various strategies and programs have been implemented to support scientific research and those undertaking it. In 2007, the UK Government recognized the need for a national framework which would position the country as one of the best places in the world to conduct research, science and innovation. The UK Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers was created to set out clear standards that research staff could expect from their employers, while also encouraging the uptake of training in transferable skills in order to stay competitive in both internal and external markets.


More recently, the Research Excellence Framework (REF) was established by UK higher education funding councils, with the ultimate aim of promoting the quality and delivery of research in the UK.


“Important at this time is a very supportive environment, both intellectually and fiscally… Pressure on early-stage researchers to publish often militates against their collaborating with business or the public sector and this needs to be addressed urgently through the Research Excellence Framework” (Council for Science and Technology)


In Europe, the Lisbon Strategy aimed to make the EU ‘the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010’. Recognizing that early career researchers were central to this plan, the European Commission focused on improved support for them, driven by the need for better career development, transferable skills and collaboration.


The US National Science Foundation (the NSF) is also clear in its aim of supporting the next generation of researchers to advance science, arguing that the significant investment costs are justified by the promise of future discoveries and advances.


What impact have these strategies actually had on early career researchers?

Despite best intentions, many of the problems experienced by early career researchers remain unresolved, and in some cases, have even been exacerbated by government policies. The REF has resulted in controversy among the scientific community, with many feeling under pressure to focus solely on those areas of research with strategic importance. Researchers have felt like they’ve needed to ‘play the game’, holding back or rushing out publications to fit the REF cycle. Other controversial aspects of the REF include:

  • Academics have been driven towards a short-term approach to research, focusing on ‘safe’ subjects.
  • Institutions recruit staff with certain REF profiles in order to enhance their REF status.
  • Impact is too narrowly interpreted and defined by publication in certain journals.


The REF has resulted in additional anxieties for researchers. The constant pressure to publish is a key concern for early career researchers, many of whom are lacking in support and opportunity. A 2015 study by the European Science Foundation (ESF) tracked the careers of PhD holders from five research organizations up to seven years following graduation, and found that only a third ended up in a tenured position. Researchers feel that publishing more will increase their chances of securing a permanent position, but with so many early career researchers finding the publishing process difficult, further support and development is surely needed.


What now?

In short, past and current government strategies have not gone far enough in helping early career researchers, and in some cases, have actually had a negative impact. Governments and policy makers can play a crucial role in providing support and training for early career researchers. After all, investing in the future of science is critical to economic growth. However, this support needs to be much more centered on publication and publishing processes such as writing, submission and peer review.


Our next blog post on this theme, coming soon to Wiley Exchanges, addresses the specific training needs of early career researchers and what can be done to help.


Image Credit: Hero Images/Getty Images


    Laura Orchard
Laura Orchard
Marketing Manager, Wiley

Are you an aspiring author? The early stages of your career offer many exciting opportunities. If you’re new to the publishing process however, selecting the right journal for your research or successfully promoting your published article can be challenging prospects.


We asked delegates at the European Congress of Psychology to draw on their experiences and share their top tips for early career researchers. We received an overwhelming response of inspirational advice and practical tips, from finding a good mentor to keeping an open mind.


See below for a snapshot of conversations from leading psychologists from the British Psychological Society, the International Association of Applied Psychology, the American Counseling Association, the Australian Psychological Society, and the International Union of Psychological Science.


ecr (2).jpg


“Follow your passion! Work hard and play hard” Abigail Gewirtz, Editor-in-Chief, International Journal of Psychology


"The most important thing is to select the right journal for your publications:

  • Not too lengthy in terms of the reviewing process
  • Not too difficult/easy acceptance rate
  • Relevant to your topic!”


Christine Roland-Levy, President-Elect, International Association of Applied Psychology


ecr (3).jpg

“Be true to yourself” Saths Cooper, President, International Union of Psychological Science


“Put passion [into your work], and work to be evidence based, paying attention to people” José Maria Peiro, International Association of Applied Psychology


“A career only makes sense looking backwards. Go with what you have to do.” Simon Crowe, Honorary Fellow, Australian Psychological Society


“Stay true to your ideas – they will shape the field’s future.” Caroline Clauss-Ehlers, Editor, Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development


“Collaborate, collaborate, collaborate” Daryl O’Connor, Chair of Research Board, British Psychological Society


“Work hard and network” Janel Gauthier, President, International Association of Applied Psychology


  • “Don’t get side-tracked
  • Ignore anyone you don’t rate
  • Pretend to take account of those you do
  • Follow your own route”


Pam Maras, President-Elect, International Union of Psychological Science



What advice do you have to add for researchers just starting out? Share with us in the comments below.


    Vicky Kinsman
Vicky Kinsman
Assistant Marketing Manager

Whether you’re a newbie or an experienced reviewer, getting involved in the peer review process can be a highly rewarding experience that improves your own research and furthers your career. Our new peer review quiz puts your reviewing skills to the test to help you discover if you’ve got the strength of Thor, need to boost your reviewing power like the Hulk, or need a little more training to overcome reviewer kryptonite.


At the end of the quiz, sign up to tell us more about your peer review experience and we’ll send you tailor-made peer review training and information on our reviewing opportunities.


If your article is currently going through the peer review process, find out more about peer review here or keep reading to discover how to become a reviewer yourself.


Who can become a reviewer?

Anyone who is an expert in the article’s research field can become a reviewer. Journal editors are often looking to expand their pool of reviewers which means there may be demand for your particular specialist subject area. Editors might ask you to look at a specific aspect of an article, even if the topic is outside of your specialist knowledge.  Their invitation to you will outline exactly what they would like you to assess.


How do I become a reviewer?

Peer review is a good opportunity for early career researchers to play a role in the research community and gain valuable experience to help improve their own research writing. There is no one way to become a reviewer, but there are some common routes. These include:


  • Asking a colleague who already reviews for a journal to recommend you
  • Networking with editors at professional conferences
  • Becoming a member of a learned society and then networking with other members in your field of study (or does she mean physical location here?)
  • Contacting journals directly to inquire if they are seeking new reviewers
  • Seeking mentorship from senior colleagues
  • Working for senior researchers who may then delegate peer review duties to you


How do I build my confidence and learn more?

If you’re new to peer review and feel unsure of yourself, don’t worry, confidence will come with experience! A good place to start is by seeking out the guidance of a more experienced colleague or mentor who can help you build up your track record and gain confidence.


From understanding the basics of the peer review process, to overcoming common challenges, and gaining recognition for your reviewing activity, there is a wealth of information available in our peer review training center for you to explore.  The resources are free for you to access and include videos, expert interviews, infographics, and guides to help you understand the review process and improve your skills—you’ll be a reviewing superhero in no time!


Are you a reviewing superhero or a super-bad reviewer? Take our fun quiz and test your reviewing skills.


peer review quiz.jpg


     Tom Griffin
Tom Griffin
Director, Global Communications, Wiley      
Eva Elisabeth Wille
Eva Elisabeth Wille
Vice President, Government Affairs, Wiley

I recently sat down with Professor Wolfram Koch, Executive Director of the German Chemical Society (GDCh), which is celebrating its 150th anniversary this year− to discuss its long and proud history and the importance of intellectual property rights in the digital age.


Q. Could you tell us a little about GDCh?

  1. DSC_5074.jpgThe Gesellschaft Deutscher Chemiker, with around 31,000 members, is by far the largest chemical society in continental Europe. The GDCh covers all areas of chemistry (with the exception of Physical Chemistry which is represented by our partner organization, the Deutsche Bunsen-Gesellschaft) with members from academia and industry alike. We are organized in almost 30 technical divisions ranging from food chemistry to chemical education to chemistry and law and even self-employed chemists. In addition, the GDCh's 60 local sections ensure that we are present everywhere in Germany where chemistry is of importance, be it a university, a chemical industry site or a public institution. In order to fulfill our statutory aim of advancing the chemical sciences, we organize conferences and symposia, publish internationally renowned scholarly journals, offer career services and professional education programs and we’re engaged in chemistry teacher training.


Q. GDCh celebrates its 150th anniversary this year, a significant achievement. What are you most proud of as an organization?

  1. In the 150 years of our (and our predecessor organizations') existence the GDCh played a decisive role as the most important network of chemists in our country. Our scientific events, our highly successful scholarly journals, foremost Angewandte Chemie, the work and exchange within our divisions and the many contacts across borders of companies and universities are crucial catalysts for the success of the chemical enterprise in Germany and beyond. We’re also proud of our continuous outreach initiatives to the general public in order to increase public awareness of the important role of chemistry to everyday quality of life. In addition to the 150th anniversary, we are also celebrating the 20th anniversary of the foundation of the JungChemikerForum, a highly successful network of younger chemists.


Q. The GDCh mission states: "If chemistry is to receive due recognition, it needs to be promoted." How can authors better promote the research that they publish?

  1. On the one hand, a close interaction between the authors and the editorial teams of our journals helps to increase the visibility within the community. In addition, our scientific events offer authors a great opportunity to present their research. Together with our publishing partner Wiley-VCH, we are constantly developing and testing new ways of promotion, such as newsletters, social media, apps and so on.


Q. Copyright and, in particular, the online sharing of research articles has been a topic of conversation in the research community recently. Why is copyright important to GDCh?

  1. As Marcelin Berthelot once said: "La chimie creé son objet", i.e. chemists are creators and inventors. This intellectual property needs protection and a crucial part of this protection is the copyright. At the same time, it’s important to strike the right balance between preserving copyright, which is usually transferred to the publisher, and allowing for sharing. For the publisher, copyright is of great importance in order to fight piracy and to secure the financial basis needed for sustaining the high level services being offered. At the end of the day, we need to find solutions which protect the copyright but do not hinder the progress and the teaching of science. The STM Article Sharing Policy is an important step in this direction.


Q. In 2013, the GDCh published a position paper on the future of scientific publishing. In particular the statement mentioned that the GDCh "openly welcomes new approaches in publishing as long as these approaches are for the benefit of science and are based on a solid and resilient business model." Why is it important that access to research is supported by a resilient business model?

  1. We need to make sure that scientists do what they do best, and that is conduct research. When it comes to driving visibility and disseminating the results of research the experts are not the scientists, but publishers. Hence, to safeguard their publishing services - which are an integral and highly relevant part of the scientific enterprise - we need business models which remain attractive enough to keep publishers in business.


Q. What best practice information do you provide to your members regarding the sharing of research to ensure maximum impact while upholding the principles of copyright?

  1. In its 2013 position paper, the GDCh explicitly answers this question: The recommended and completely legal way of sharing research results is described in section 38 paragraph 4 of the German copyright law. It stipulates that publications from publicly funded research can be deposited in repositories after a 12 months embargo period.


To commemorate the 150th Anniversary of the Gesellschaft Deutscher Chemiker (GDCh, German Chemical Society)  ANGEWANDTE FESTSYMPOSIUM will be held on September 11th, 2017.  Visit the website to learn more and to register for the free virtual online event.


And to learn more about the impressive history of the GDCh, explore the GDCh facts of the month from ChemistryViews.


Image Credit: GDCh


     Tom Griffin
Tom Griffin
Director, Global Communications, Wiley

How Can I Share It, launched in 2016 by the International Association of STM Publishers, is a website providing researchers with tools and guidance on sharing research content. As the site celebrates its first anniversary, we sat down with Matt McKay, Director of Communications & Events at STM, to discuss the site.


17871f2.jpgQ. For readers who are unaware, first tell us a little about the International Association of STM Publishers.

A. STM is the global trade association representing academic and professional publishers. We have over 120 members across 21 countries who collectively publish around two thirds of all journal articles. STM plays a leading role in promoting industry best practices and developing public policies which support publishers and their authors in disseminating the results of research. Members include learned societies, university presses, private companies, news start-ups and established players – many of whom are not-for-profits. You will often meet STM members at the various publishing industry events which take place annually around the world – including at STM’s two main conferences in the US and at the Frankfurt Book Fair.


Q. Can you describe how the ‘voluntary principles for article sharing on scholarly collaboration networks’ came about?

A. Research is by its nature a collaborative process. Scholarly Collaboration Networks (SCNs) have been a part of the scholarly communication landscape for some time now, providing a way for researchers to collaborate and share their results. To gain a better understanding of the current landscape of article sharing through SCNs, STM conducted an open consultation in early 2015. The aim was to facilitate discussion by all stakeholders in order to establish a core set of principles that clarify how content should be shared using SCNs.  Our hope for this initiative is for publishers and SCNs to work together to facilitate the sharing of subscription and licensed content in a manner that is simple and seamless for academic researchers while also consistent with access and usage rights.


The consultation generated 50 substantive comments and the resulting feedback was carefully considered and woven into a revised version of the Voluntary principles for article sharing on scholarly collaboration networks. The principles have subsequently been endorsed by over 50 organizations from university presses, learned societies and academic publishers through to industry organizations, publishing service providers and SCNs themselves. Since the posting of the principles, several major publishers have already produced simplified, open and transparent publishing policies that specifically address the sharing of articles, and many more publishers are in the process of adapting their policies as called for by the principles.


Q. What was the impetus for How Can I Share It?

A. How Can I Share It was envisaged as a continuation of the project STM started with the creation of the voluntary principles. We wanted to produce a dedicated website which would cover all aspects of scholarly sharing as well as provide a new public home for the Voluntary principles. Since its launch last year we developed additional resources to add to the site, including visualizations (e.g. http://www.howcanishareit.com/pdfs/Infografik160715.pdf) and (http://www.howcanishareit.com/shared-journey) and useful external resources on the current sharing landscape.


We’re seeing a good volume of traffic to the site – nearly 8,000 unique visitors last month so we’re hoping that How Can I Share it can continue to be a useful jumping off point for scholarly sharing, and a useful source of tools, information and resources for all interested in the sharing of scholarly research.


Q. How does the site make sharing easier for researchers?

A. The site includes practical information and tools to ensure articles can be shared quickly, easily and consistently. A DOI look-up tool provides researchers with an easy way to check where a journal article can be shared in line with its access and usage rights. To date, seven leading publishers have added their policies into this tool and we’re currently working to expand its breadth further. A section outlining publisher policies provides assistance to visitors by linking to the latest versions of a publisher’s license information – many of which have been updated because of this site and the voluntary principles to provide additional clarity around the specific topic of article sharing.


Alongside the voluntary principles themselves (offered in seven different languages) we have also included a detailed FAQ and visualization to further clarify how, where and what content should be shared using scholarly collaboration networks. The “Share it Here” section of the site offers a wide selection of recommended SCN sites where researchers can share their articles, as well as a compilation of sharing resources.


The latest addition to the site ‘A shared Journey’ is an interactive visualization which follows a paper from conception through to publication to demonstrate how ideas go on to become peer reviewed articles while highlighting how the research might be shared along that journey.


Thanks for sharing, Matt!


Editor's note:

Wiley recently launched Wiley Content Sharing across its portfolio. Wiley Content Sharing facilitates collaboration by allowing authors and subscribers to share free-to-read full-text articles with non-subscribers. In addition, Wiley Content Sharing provides the public with greater access to research when following links from selected media outlets globally. For more information regarding Wiley Content Sharing please visit our FAQs.


Image Credit: STM


     Victoria Renigan
Victoria Renigan
Journals Continuing Education       
Deirdre McKlveen
Deirdre McKlveen
Journals Continuing Education        
David Kempe
David Kempe
Journals Continuing Education

When Wiley’s ACCME-accredited providership launched back in 1992, the goal was to  enhance medical knowledge through the dissemination of research and its clinical implications, resulting in improvements in the quality of patient care and professional practice. Beyond this, as a publisher we’re uniquely positioned to offer journal-based learning solutions that may benefit physicians in all stages of the publishing process.


The CME for Reviewers program is a new Wiley service that awards AMA PRA Category 1 Credits™ to physician peer reviewers for eligible journals in the health sciences to recognize learning already taking place within their busy schedules that may further their education requirements.


We began the pilot in August 2016, starting with three journals after completing a needs assessment to ensure relevance for each target audience. A total of 964 requests for credit were made across 2,932 submitted reviews, demonstrating a 33% participation rate for the pilot (aligning with our initial estimates based on a pre-pilot survey). Of the 531 unique users that have claimed credits, 177 have done so multiple times, reflecting a 33% retention rate over a relatively short time. One of the pilot journals, Transfusion, has published an editorial to promote the service’s availability to its readership.




As a result of the successful pilot, the CME for Reviewers service is being made available as part of Wiley’s reviewer recognition offerings for qualified journals in the health sciences field. We plan to continue to develop new and innovative teaching and instructional pathways for CME, to complement our more traditional journal-based activity development and to help authors and physicians achieve their goals.


More peer review resources are available at www.wileypeerreview.com.


     Victoria Renigan
Victoria Renigan
Journals Continuing Education       
Deirdre McKlveen
Deirdre McKlveen
Journals Continuing Education        
David Kempe
David Kempe
Journals Continuing Education

Physician and scans.jpg

Peer review is the foundation for safeguarding the quality and integrity of scientific and scholarly research. It provides the author with practical advice to improve the quality of his/her manuscript and requires the reviewer to have analytical, specialized, and applied knowledge on the subject matter.  In addition, peer review aids in career development, improves the reviewer’s own writing skills, and increases the reviewer’s knowledge of their field.


Often anonymous and voluntary, peer review is vital nonetheless and at Wiley we’re continually seeking ways to recognize and reward the contributions peer reviewers make. For journals in the health sciences, many peer reviewers are practicing physicians with significant demands on their time, including the need to regularly meet continuing education requirements.


To recognize learning already taking place in a way that furthers their education requirements and rewards reviewers for their invaluable input, Wiley now offers a Continuing Medical Education (CME) for Reviewers program which awards AMA PRA Category 1 Credits™ to physician peer reviewers, through the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME).  The primary goal of Wiley’s ACCME-accredited providership (established in 1992) is the enhancement of medical knowledge through the dissemination of research and its clinical implications, resulting in improvements toward the quality of patient care and professional practice.  Participating in peer review enhances the reviewer’s medical knowledge by providing reviewers with access to information on the latest research findings.


Our initial pilot included Transfusion, the official journal of the AABB. Anne Eder, MD, CME Editor of Transfusion, indicated that reviewers may be “willing to get involved with manuscript review” with the addition of the CME program, as it could alleviate the challenges “to motivate even well-published, but busy professionals as reviewers.” Additionally, Dr. Eder “expects the primary benefit will be in reviewer recruitment and retention,” with the secondary benefit of “contribut[ing] to the quality of reviews—as reviewers realize they are being awarded credit, they might spend a little extra effort on their reviews. Conversely, reviewers who are denied credit might seek to improve their critiques.”


Look out for our post tomorrow on the full results of our initial pilot.


More peer review resources are available at www.wileypeerreview.com.


Image Credit: Fuse/Getty Images


    Helen Eassom
Helen Eassom
Author Marketing, Wiley

If you’ve ever needed to reduce the word count of a paper, you’ll know how difficult this task can sometimes be. Being able to write concisely is an important skill for all authors, but when you’ve got so much to say about your research, it can be tricky! This SlideShare from Editage Insights (used with permission) offers some quick and simple tips to help you keep to your desired word count.


Screenshot for wordcount postJPG.JPG

You can view the original SlideShare deck here.

    Penny Smith
Penny Smith
Senior Publicist, Wiley

As Senior Publicist at Wiley, I’m constantly on the lookout for newsworthy, new, unpublished research from the 1,700+ journals we publish, to publicize to the mainstream and specialist media.judging day.jpg


Our main media outreach tool, Wiley Research Headlines is an effective way of doing this as it allows trusted reporters to request embargoed papers so that they can research, write up and ‘break’ stories when the study publishes. As a result our research is regularly featured in major global news outlets such as the New York Times, Mail Online and Reuters.


My day-to-day dealings with the media tend to be via email or phone – usually responding to urgent requests for papers or interviews from reporters working to tight deadlines.  So when an invitation landed on my desk to be a judge at this year’s Medical Journalists’ Association (MJA) Awards, I leapt at the chance.


Here was an opportunity to represent Wiley at the prestigious MJA Awards ceremony that recognizes and encourages excellence in health and medical journalism. Little did I know when accepting the offer just how difficult it would be to choose one winner from all the excellent entries to be judged.


I joined five other judges as we were tasked to select the winning entry from the 30 articles submitted for the Feature of the Year (Specialist Audience) category. Each of the articles had been written for varied and specialist audiences in publications which are dedicated to health, medicine or science.


After individually considering each of the 30 entries, each judge was asked to submit a shortlist of five articles for further consideration. My fellow judges included a national newspaper journalist, the BMA Director of Professional Activities, a Media Officer from the Welcome Trust, a respected Media Dietician and a Media Officer from Imperial College.


We were all highly impressed with the quality and professionalism of the entries.  An important part of the judging criteria was to consider the respective audience each article was aimed at (i.e. doctors, pharmacists, practice managers, nurses, teachers) and the potential post-publication impact the articles may have.


Entries spanned a huge variety of topics and shortlisted entries included : NHS in 2017: the long arm of government (BMJ), The power of the unfocused mind (Times Educational Supplement) and MJA Awards - l to r Sian Williams Emma Young Penny Smith.jpgHello, again, Dolly (The Economist) It was difficult to narrow down the 30 entries and I was greatly relieved to learn that the other five judges in my category had arrived at similar shortlists. Even better, at the awards judging day we all agreed unanimously on the winner Emma Young and her article in Mosaic Iceland knows how to stop teen substance abuse but the rest of the world isn’t listening.


Emma’s entry stood out for its clarity of approach to what is an important global issue. Her compelling article, we felt, could have a major impact on public policy approaches around the world.


We also awarded a ‘highly commended’ to Meera  Senthilingham for her article Sex in the UK: How Culture and Society can define your Sexual Health. Her article, published by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, was well-grounded, measured, non-judgmental and covered a highly sensitive topic. It was a compelling narrative on a major public health issue.


My involvement as a judge culminated with my attending the awards ceremony at the Barber Surgeons’ Hall in London. On arrival I was delighted to be asked to represent Wiley and co-present (with Channel 5’s Sian Williams) the award for the Feature of the Year (Specialist Audience).


The event was an overwhelming success and a great opportunity for me to network with journalists from across the spectrum of press & broadcast media.


For more details on the MJA and this year’s winners and entrants visit the MJA website.


Images: Top: Judging Day;. Bottom: Left to right: Sian Williams, Emma Young, Penny Smith. Credit: Medical Journalism Association

    Samantha Green
Samantha Green
Society Marketing, Wiley

From developing a consistent tone of voice to determining how to measure your success, social media offers a challenging yet powerful opportunity to build a community for your members that Woman with tablet & coffee.jpgstretches around the world. We asked a few of our partner societies about how they’re using social media to engage their members.


American Headache Society

Matthew S. Robbins, MD, FAAN, FAHS; Chair, Electronic Media Committee AHS


The purpose of social media for us is to extend the reach of our society members to patients and the public. It’s an important information channel today; one I don’t think we can do without.


We use Twitter chats to help our members interact with the other groups we serve. In the past we’ve partnered with patient advocacy organizations in chats so our researchers help answer patient questions. By participating with other organizations, we can widen our audience and enable our members to have real impact on patient lives.


The impact of social media is hard to measure. There’s a randomness to it that makes it very unpredictable. But for our organization, measuring its success is critical for us to determine what’s most successful and also to validate the impact of social media for AHS. As part of the past couple of AHS meetings, we’ve presented data on our social media use with detailed metrics. One year, we analyzed the impact of our social media over several consecutive conferences.  We identified a significant increase in #migraine tweets during the conference from Twitter users not in attendance, suggesting that conference tweets about #migraine influenced the discussion outside of the conference itself.


Showcasing the data has led to new investments for our society: we have now enlisted professional digital marketing help to handle our social media since the society leadership identified it as a major priority worthy of investment.


See more @ahsheadache.


European Molecular Biology Organization

Tillmann Kiessling, Head of Communications


EMBO uses social media as additional communications channels to communicate news and achievements from the organization, its various communities of life scientists, and from the EMBO Press journals. More importantly, EMBO uses the capacity of social media to engage on distinct, but integrated channels with specific and specialized audiences in order to interact with them on topics of their interest, e.g. with EMBO Fellows (postdoctoral researchers) on Facebook; with EMBO Young Investigators (principal investigators supported by EMBO) on Twitter;  with scientists interested in
advancements in scientific publishing via a Twitter handle run by the EMBO Head of Scientific Publishing; and to promote the EMBO Press journals via Twitter (e.g. the EMBO Journal). Applicants for open positions at EMBO are increasingly coming to EMBO triggered by information shared on social media.


A spontaneous project which has gained surprisingly high engagement through social media and which resulted in international media coverage was the Science Solidarity List, initiated by EMBO on its webpage. Soon after its launch, it was referred to with the hashtag #ScienceSolidarity and became viral, impressively demonstrating the life science community's solidarity for their peers affected
by a temporary travel ban imposed by the Trump administration earlier this year on scientists from six Muslim-majority countries.


See more @EMBOComm.


British Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies

Dr Danielle Thom, Communications Officer


We used to have several different Twitter accounts for different purposes or audiences, like our postgrad activities and for our online reviews ‘Criticks.’ This year, I merged these with the main account to avoid confusion and create a more coherent online identity; now the BSECS officers responsible for those areas tweet via the main account.


My aim is to make the Twitter account informal and engaging, and provide a fairly comprehensive overview of what’s going on in the wider field of 18th century studies. We have an email newsletter which goes out to our members every couple of months, which contains BSECS updates and selected job vacancies, calls for papers and reviews. However, the Twitter account is open to all and I try to make it as interdisciplinary and comprehensive as possible. Occasionally, I will retweet things from other scholarly societies, but they retweet us on other occasions. In that sense, it’s not a competitive forum, but a collaborative one.


On Facebook, much of our content is follower-generated. I review and approve submissions from people wanting to post about books, calls for papers, seminars and other activities. In this way the society’s social media becomes a platform for our members to discuss what most matters to them.


See more @BSECS.


The Obesity Society

Tanesia Dwight, Manager of Marketing, Membership & Partnerships


The Obesity Society’s social media strategy is two-fold. The first objective is to provide the public with informative content on all aspects of obesity research, whether from our journal Obesity or from members. The second objective is to make our posts fun and engaging.  TOS is a scientific organization, but it’s also a community where our members can network, find collaborators and share ideas. A couple of social media examples are Twitter polls and society tips. On Twitter Poll Tuesdays, we ask fun questions such as our audience’s favorite TV nurse or medical drama. On TOS Tip Thursdays, we highlight past society press releases as our version of throwback. These initiatives have been more successful than we anticipated because they integrate so easily into the feed and have significantly boosted our audience engagement.


In addition to our social strategy, we’ve increased member engagement with a society blog. Our blog provides the platform through which early career members interview leaders in the field of obesity. We’re delighted to be able to facilitate these interactions between our younger members and veteran professionals.  We also include features of the TOS President and Executive Director to lend further credibility while incentivizing our members to contribute.


See more @ObesitySociety.


No matter the field, one thread running through each of these conversations was the willingness to use social media to experiment. Some things work—perhaps better than expected—and others will be less successful, but either way social media is a place where you can pilot new engagement strategies. Is your organization trying anything new? Let us know in the comments below.


Image credit: Cultura RF/Getty Images

    Rachel Smith
Rachel Smith
Journals Publisher, Wiley

As a journal publisher within Wiley’s society services team, the aspect of my role I enjoy most is working with our publishing partners to help them refine their vision and draw up strategic Journals Strat Meeting.jpgdevelopment plans for their portfolios.


Over the last 12 months I have been involved in strategic planning with a wide range of partners, from large membership organizations such as the International Federation of Structural Concrete, to smaller charities such as the Antipode Foundation. We recognize that for many of the people we work with, publishing is only one part of their busy jobs, and it is rare that they can take a whole day to focus on the longer term development of their publishing program. Feedback from people involved in strategy meetings shows that visiting the Wiley offices and hearing from a range of experts from different parts of the business is incredibly valuable. For the Wiley team it helps us understand our partners better – and I always find it inspiring to see how what we do fits into the much bigger picture.


Preparing for a Strategy Day

The process works best when we work together beforehand–ideally at least 2-3 months in advance – to define the key questions we want to answer on the day. The Royal Statistical Society, for example, wanted in particular to look at emerging fields of research, and how their portfolio could be developed to ensure that researchers would find a natural home for their work in these areas. For other journals it has been the appointment of a new editorial team, or a significant anniversary that prompts the review. In general, however, common themes have recently tended to be in the following areas:


  • Attracting the best research and increasing impact;
  • Planning for growth: expanding to cover new areas and reaching out geographically;
  • Opening up access to research and data, and ensuring policies and processes are fit for a sustainable future;
  • Optimizing workflows to increase speed and improve service to authors and reviewers;
  • Ensuring the goals of the portfolio reflect the organization’s overall mission;
  • Increasing member engagement with the publications – as authors, readers and citers;


From this we will prepare a structured agenda, and invite the people whose opinions and experience will be most valuable to the discussion. The next few weeks are dedicated to background research, and gathering data to be circulated to participants in advance: much of this will be quantitative and benchmarked against competitors, but we also seek a range of expert opinions where possible too.


The Strategy Day

During the day itself, we often start by defining the vision: I like to ask society officers and editors what they would like to be able to say about their journal, and then we can discuss what needs to change in order for that to be true.  Asking the question “if money were no object, what would you do?” also helps to identify overarching goals, so we can prioritize areas to invest the resources which are available.


We then use a ‘strategy canvas’ to ensure we cover the key questions from all angles:

  • Who are the individuals we are trying to attract, and what are they looking for? For example, reaching Early Career Scholars is often a concern, and Wiley’s work on persona development can help with understanding expectations and motivations of individuals in different countries and career stages.
  • Who are your competitors and what are they doing well? What are the gaps?
  • What opportunities do advances in technology open up, and what are the risks that we need to mitigate?


It’s not necessarily all about the journal, either – we know that access to a journal is one of the key reasons for joining a society, but a society needs to offer a range of services and benefits in order to engage and retain its members. So we can look at the website, newsletter, social media presence, book series, CPD offerings and overall membership package. For many societies a print journal has been a significant component of the membership package for decades, but as demand for print falls this can reduce costs and free up money to reinvest in other areas.


Beyond the Strategy Day

And of course it doesn’t end there! While we expect to agree upon the overall goals during the day and the broad objectives we will work towards over the next 3-5 years, a prioritized timeline of activities takes longer to draw up and will – by definition – take longer to implement. In recognition of this, the London Mathematical Society have set up a smaller working party who have met regularly since their strategic retreat, to take forward the key ideas and maintain momentum.


If you have published with Wiley for a while you will be familiar with our regular reports which cover the main publishing metrics such as reach, readership and citations. Over the next few months we will also be rolling out access to our new Wiley Journal Insights tool, so our publishing partners can check the latest figures for themselves throughout the year. However, for tracking progress towards specific objectives agreed as part of a development plan, we will agree a set of measures to report back on.


Plans will naturally evolve over time as new opportunities arise and impacts of actions become clear, and we expect to review these regularly with our partners. But having a clearly defined vision and set of overarching goals – agreed together on the basis of in-depth analysis and discussion – is invaluable in shaping our activities and priorities.


Image credit: Arash Hejazi

    Samantha Green
Samantha Green
Society Marketing, Wiley

From princes gifting private islands to scientists, to inventions bearing the names of their financiers, funding has influenced science in surprising ways. Take a look at our latest comic strip to see just a few examples of how science funding has evolved throughout the ages. Click to enlarge


Science Funding Comic Strip.png


Don’t miss our previous comic strips An Illustrated History of Open Science and Trailblazing Women in Science: An illustrated History.

The Search for Reproducibility

Posted Jul 21, 2017
    Anna Ehler
Anna Ehler
Society Marketing

In part two of our conversation with Chris Graf, Wiley’s new Director of Research Integrity and Publishing Ethics, we discuss what reproducibility really means and share how the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) works to protect research integrity.



Don’t miss part one of our conversation with Chris: Can emerging technologies bridge the peer review gap?


You can listen to this episode and others – including how to help protect research integrity and a discussion of evolving models for peer review – by going to iTunes and subscribing to the Wiley Society Podcast.


References from the episode:

  1. Research Resource Identifiers (RRIDs)
  2. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)


Filter Blog

By date:
By tag: