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

Discover the Future of Research

552 posts
    Paige Panter
Paige Panter
PhD Researcher, Durham University

Peer review can seem daunting to an early career researcher. At this stage of our careers, it often seems one-sided: a process carried out by other people behind closed doors. As a second year PhD student, I admit I hadn’t really thought about the process beyond asking myself “has this paper been peer reviewed?” until I saw the workshop: Peer Review: The Nuts and Bolts, advertised by Sense about Science. At this point, at the beginning of publishing my own work and knowing I wanted to continue in research, it seemed like the right time to learn more about, and get involved with, peer review.

 

The workshop, held at Glasgow Caledonian University in October 2017 was a great opportunity for Early Career Researchers to get together and discuss peer review and why and how we do it.

 

Hero ImagesGetty Images.jpg

So what exactly is peer review? Chris Graf, Director of Research Integrity & Publishing Ethics at Wiley, kicked off the workshop by saying how peer review is a “practical and social exercise.” Peer review is an integral part of the scientific process—in order for our science to be robust, we must make sure the quality and validity stands up, so we know we can trust the evidence. Peer review is also about give and take, and increasingly it may become the case that if you publish papers, you should be peer reviewing one in return.

 

How does peer review actually work? The process was briefly described by Dr Ian Hartley, Editor-in-Chief of Bird Study. First, the paper is submitted to the journal, the editor or associate editor of which then selects the reviewers. The reviewers provide reports which the associate editor considers and then passes to the editor. It is then down to the editor to make the final decision as to whether the paper is published, rejected, or should be resubmitted. There are various models of peer review which are used for different subjects or differ depending on the journal.

 

Whilst choosing the correct reviewers for the paper, editors will sometimes have to ask a dozen people before finding two available. The questions to ask according to the selection criteria include: are they independent; do they know the subject area; do they have a good publication record?

 

What makes a good reviewer? A great piece of advice given by Ian was to write a review in the way you would like to receive it. Be polite and constructive, identify the strengths, weaknesses, and novelty of the paper, and most importantly, be punctual. If you don’t feel you can commit the time, suggest someone else who could. It’s also not uncommon for the editor to ask what your level of expertise is. Interestingly, the person who is top of his/her field is not always the best reviewer— often an early career researcher is most up to date with the literature and can provide the best revisions.

 

Why peer review? Peer review is a part of your personal development as a researcher. Dr Amy Nimegeer, Qualitative Public Health Scientist at the University of Glasgow, gave some other great reasons for getting involved. First, it sharpens up your critical appraisal skills, which helps you improve your own papers and grant applications. Second, as the process is constantly improving, a researcher’s contribution to peer review is increasingly being tracked, meaning a good review record could help you get that position you’re after. The piece of advice I took home is that if you are passionate about your field, it means you serve as a “gatekeeper” for that research community, only letting good, robust research through.

 

How do I get started? The best thing to do if you want to become a reviewer is to ask your supervisor for practice. Have a look at the next paper he/she reviews. Give it a go and then you can discuss your ideas together. If you’re looking for some tips, there are lots of different websites that give you advice on how to carry out peer review. Visit the Sense about Science website and check out their guide “Peer review: the nuts and bolts.” Lots of publishers will also produce their own guidelines for carrying out peer review, containing quality criteria to look out for depending on the study. Like most things, the more you practice, the better you will be, and eventually your supervisor can begin to recommend you for reviews. It's never too early to start thinking about peer review.

 

Image Credit: Hero Images/Getty Images

 

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

We had questions about Registered Reports. So I recently spoke with David Mellor from the Center for Open Science for some answers. Here they are. And we have a special message for Wiley journal editors (which we repeat at the end): Please, speak with your publisher about our Registered Reports toolkit so together we can make this option available for researchers in your communities.

 

david mellor.jpgQ. Thanks for agreeing to speak with us, David. So what’s all the fuss about preregistration?

A. A preregistration is a time-stamped research plan that you can point to after conducting a study to prove to yourself and others that you really are testing a predicted relationship.

 

Preregistration has been around for a while. Statisticians have been warning us for decades that commonly used tests could misrepresent scientific evidence if we only report some of the answers, let the data inform the hypotheses we’re testing, or switch outcomes. These problems were affecting the credibility of drug trials, and so specifying in advance has been required by law for clinical studies in many countries for about 20 years. However, similar tools can be applied to basic research that informs policy or that affects our understanding of the way the world works, and so preregistration can increase credibility in these situations too.

 

Q. Seems like yet another hoop for researchers to jump through… What’s the point? Why bother?

A.It is certainly a new step in the workflow for some. However, everyone wants to produce the most rigorous and credible findings. Preregistration makes the distinction between confirmatory research and exploratory research clearer. Confirmatory research tests a very specific prediction. Exploratory research looks for something unanticipated. Both are vital to the advancement of knowledge. However, using the tools we have for confirmatory hypothesis testing when reporting exploratory, preliminary results makes the research more publishable, but at the expense of credibility. Addressing this conflict motivates our work.

 

Q. Oh, I see. There are likely benefits to research as a whole. But are there benefits for researchers who preregister?

A.There are several benefits for the individual researcher. The first comes from better planning. Every step that goes into a preregistration: writing the hypotheses, defining the variables, and creating statistical tests, are steps that we all have to take at some point. Making them before data collection can improve the researcher’s study design.

 

We built a structured, easy to use system that guides the researcher through this process on the Open Science Framework. Because this step is so new and so capable of improving science, the Laura and John Arnold Foundation is supporting $1000 awards for one thousand researchers who publish preregistered research through the Preregistration Challenge. This education campaign is our way of introducing this concept to researchers who are not familiar with the practice.

 

fig 1.png

 

The other major benefit for the researcher comes from working with a journal that offers Registered Reports. These journals (there are currently 80) will consider accepting the study before results are known. Submitted research plans are evaluated through peer review based on 1) the importance of the research question and 2) the ability of the proposed methods to answers those questions. If both of those criteria are positively evaluated, the paper can be given an in-principle acceptance, which is a promise to publish regardless of outcome.

 

This is a huge benefit to the researcher. The researcher gets earlier feedback on their proposed study, when it has a chance to actually improve the work. The decision to publish is based on the quality of the work and the importance of the research question instead of the outcome, which is very attractive for anyone looking to publish.

 

fig 2.png

 

Q. Even so, I’m still not convinced. What indication do we have that researchers are even remotely interested in preregistration?

A. Clinical researchers have been using this process for a long time. But it is new to researchers in basic science or pre-clinical fields. We’ve provided tools to any researcher since 2013 and have seen explosive growth in the number of preregistrations on the OSF.

 

fig 3.png

 

The OSF is designed for researchers in any field, but there is a lot of demand for preregistration among discipline-specific registries, such as those run by the American Economics Association, international impact evaluations, and education. There are even tools made by proponents of preregistration to help researchers make concise preregistrations.

 

Q. Now we’re getting there. So what role might a journal play in preregistration?

A. There are four specific steps that journals can take, and they’re summarized in the policies outlined in the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines.

    1. The first is to simply have researchers disclose whether or not any empirical work was preregistered.
    2. The next step would be to include comparisons between the preregistered protocols and reported findings to evaluate whether or not the research plan was followed. Linking to a preregistration at least allows this to happen after publication, but we’d love it for these comparisons to occur during peer review.
    3. The third step is to require preregistration for any relevant work. Journals that publish clinical research take this step, and others can as well.
    4. The final step is to offer Registered Reports as an option for researchers to use.

 

Q. And how does this fit within the “open research” agenda?

A. Open Science is about connecting each part of the research that went into the final results. Traditionally, we didn’t have the means to easily share data, or to point to time-stamped research plans, or disseminate materials beyond the appendix section of a printed journal. However, now we have the means to realize that ideal workflow, and to make science work in the way it was meant to work.

 

Q. What does this all mean for early career researchers?

A. In 10 years I think the field will have different expectations. Researchers will be expected to demonstrate reproducible work by pointing to a body of work that contains all of the essential parts: preregistered plans, materials identified with persistent and unique IDs, datasets with clear descriptors, code for running tests on those data, preprints showing preliminary findings, and finally the peer reviewed manuscript that guides the reader through the complete and accurate narrative.

 

We’re on the cusp of that now. It is possible to cite that complete workflow for those who are on the cutting edge. But it also takes people caring about science and about transparency so that decisions to publish, award grants, and offer jobs are made based on the reproducibility and transparency of the scholar’s opus.

 

Q. OK… I’m convinced that this is worth trying. So how can a journal help researchers with preregistration?

A. Besides the four specific steps already mentioned, journals can do a lot to make this happen sooner. They can use Open Science Badges to allow researchers to signal when they are taking these steps. They can let their authors know that preregistration is valued by sharing news about the Preregistration Challenge on their website or social media platforms. They can point to example preregistrations to guide researchers.

 

fig 4.png

 

Q. You can count me in! So… what’s our “take home”?

A. Whether you’re an early career researcher or a seasoned scholar; journal editor or author, there are steps that you can take to make science better. Raise awareness, talk to your colleagues, do one thing in your next project that is a bit more open than your last, and in the near future we will have made a huge difference.

 

Thanks, David. We’ll add new journals that launch Registered Reports to the 5 Wiley journals listed already on your site here. For researchers who publish in Journal of Neuropsychology (published for the British Psychological Society by Wiley) launch of Registered Reports is imminent. And we have more journals queuing up.

 

And for Wiley journal editors, here’s our closing message. We have a Registered Reports toolkit to help launch Registered Reports quickly. Please speak with your publisher and we’ll get things organized. Thank you.

 

David Mellor (pictured) works at the Center for Open Science on incentive programs with researchers, journals, publishers, and funders. He received his PhD in Ecology and Evolution and has a background in behavioral ecology and citizen science. Find him online on Twitter and ORCID.

 

    Helen Eassom
Helen Eassom
Author Marketing, Wiley

Procrastination, writer’s block, multiple distractions…let’s face it, getting down to the business of writing isn’t always easy.  So how do highly productive writers do it? The following infographic, based on a previous blog post, lists some of the habits productive writers have in common.

 

12+Habits+of+Highly+Productive+Writers+Infographic.jpg

 

Do you have any other habits or practices you use to help with the writing process? Let us know in the comments below.

 

    Alexandria Chrumka
Alexandria Chrumka
Medical Student, Western Michigan University Homer Stryker M.D. School of Medicine

shutterstock_179654165.jpgBeing a member of the rowing team at Stanford is a grueling undertaking ripe with some great life lessons. I developed the qualities of altruism, prioritization and perseverance, but it was actually when I was injured that these qualities got hammered home.

 

Just before junior year of college I required hip surgery. This meant spending the next ten months recovering and being solely a supporting member of the team. Still, this included two team practices a day, one daily workout on my own, and three to five physical therapy sessions a week. While some may think it was crazy that I decided to attend every team practice even though I was unable to participate, to me it was a way to show the team and my coach that the team came first. The new freshman class needed a driver to get them to the boathouse every morning at 5am, so I gladly volunteered in order to bond with my new teammates. Whenever my coach needed someone to time race pieces, I was her girl. As other team members rotated through the spin bike injury squad, I gladly led the pack. I knew the team came first, and would do whatever I could to support that idea. This altruistic mindset is what makes medical school worthwhile to me. I’ll deal with the first two years of rigorous studying without almost any patient contact because I know I’m not learning this stuff so I can impress people with my intelligence or win at trivia night. I’m going through this hell so that at the end of it all I can do everything possible to help my future patients.

 

Because my injury made for quite a hectic schedule, I learned to prioritize two things; medicine and athletics. With every decision I would ask myself, “Will this help me become a great doctor?” or “Will this help me succeed as a rower?” If the answer was no to both of those questions, then it didn’t happen. This meant being asleep by 9pm each night, choosing to opt out of my free meal plan for a healthier and less time consuming option, and leaving my sorority because it wasn’t helping me achieve my goals. Since medical school has started, my priorities remain similar, however the lack of structured rowing practice has opened up my schedule a surprising amount. Each day is ruled by studying, with working out as a stress reliever. Sleep remains incredibly important, and my social life definitely takes a back seat, but as long as I don’t waste too much time on social media or binge watching the latest TV series, I manage to still have a great relationship with my family, classmates, and lifelong friends. It is all about finding the balance.

 

During junior year I had many setbacks, and was even told I may need an additional surgery. But I was unrelenting in my pursuit to rejoin the racing squad by spring. That year my four-person boat placed second at the NCAA Championships, a first for Stanford. This hardly needs explanation as to how it applies to medical school. It is common knowledge that medical school is no easy feat. As I face the daily course load, exams every six weeks, and inevitable burn out, I regularly enter my athlete determination mindset to carry me through.

 

While my elite rowing career may be over, the many lessons it has taught me hold true. My altruism, prioritization, and perseverance allow me to tackle medical school and continue toward my goal of becoming an incredible surgeon.

 

Image Credit: John Kropewnicki/Shutterstock

 

    Samantha Green
Samantha Green
Society Marketing, Wiley

When the volume of work to be done gets overwhelming, it can be extremely difficult to take time to focus on the big picture, and even more difficult to look outside of your organization for inspiration and examples. The pressures of running a society can make the times when we stop, share, and “think big” all the more impactful. Together, we can come up with new ideas and solutions that we could not discover on our own.

 

To support those types of discussions, last week in Chicago we held the inaugural Wiley Society Workshop, where we gathered a small group of society leaders. The theme of the day’s brainstorm was how to serve the needs of the evolving society member, and throughout the workshop we shared experiences, ideas, and examples from our different communities.

 

Although members may have diverse priorities and desires, they all need societies to support them professionally and to help them feel that they are changing the world in a positive way.

 

With that in mind, we came up with dozens of innovative ideas for serving the members of the future. Here’s a snapshot:

 

November Headline Image.jpg

Engaging the next generation of members:

  • Raffle for free membership for early career members
  • Create a membership “badge” for members to display on their social media accounts
  • Offer writing workshops both virtually and at the annual meeting
  • Target membership marketing to graduate programs
  • Offer more volunteer opportunities for early career members
  • Create a junior publishing committee to encourage engagement with the journal
  • Build mentoring and networking opportunities for peer-to-peer engagement
  • Explore collaborative-style programming at conferences
  • Make sure content is mobile friendly
  • Develop member-led content platforms like blogs and new social media channels

 

Creating community via content:

  • Offer members-only supplemental materials
  • Market membership to current authors, inviting them to join your society
  • Ask your members what current/trending topics they are most interested in and consider these when determining publication strategy
  • Create opportunities for members to share their work and discuss new findings
  • Develop ways for your members to create additional types of content
  • Make opportunities for comments, sharing, and participation with content
  • Find your current and future thought leaders and help them develop their content
  • Build self-selecting communities around shared interests and subtopics
  • Consider conference events that are more discussion-based than presentation
  • Expand your definition of content to include more informal publications

 

Building a global community:

  • Localize content, both in terms of language and relevant topics
  • Create networks of local society ambassadors to help build community in new regions
  • Consider regionalized leaders for some of your larger committees
  • Offer travel grants and scholarships for students outside of the U.S. or Europe
  • Make sure conferences and events have virtual components or host similar local events around the world
  • Develop online forums for sharing and discussing research that include English language support
  • Create virtual discussion groups for sub-specialties and other member segments
  • Consider travel restrictions when selecting your conference locations
  • Develop tiered member rates based on local currency and economy
  • Affiliate with local societies in your growth regions

 

Supporting professional development and networking:

  • Support career transitions at all stages of development
  • Raise awareness for alternative career paths and how membership can support those
  • Consider fellowship programs for community building and creating an earned professional designation
  • Help members cover membership costs between jobs so they can still take advantage of professional development when they need it most
  • Explore gamification and badge certifications for members to solve real-world problems and demonstrate their skills
  • Develop mentoring groups with specific goals and strategies
  • Create casual networking events like drinks meet-ups
  • Partner with local networks and places of work to create strategy
  • Sponsor an “Ask an expert” session or Reddit AMA (ask me anything) about professional development
  • Offer continuing education credits for peer review

 

Reaching communities outside of academia:

  • Create bite-sized research overviews for practitioners who don’t engage with research in the same way
  • Brainstorm who your potential members are by asking “who else are we for?”
  • Develop ways that members in different professional settings can share and ask questions
  • Make applied, practice-based guides based on research
  • Create special interest groups that focus on practice
  • Consider networking and other events at conferences for members outside academia
  • Design membership campaigns around the release of new guidelines or practice impacts
  • Offer live or virtual courses in practice management, leadership, or other relevant professional skills
  • Consider tiered membership structures based on the needs of practitioners
  • Survey your practitioner audience to learn more about what they value and need

 

We hope that some of these ideas spark ideas of your own! Share in the comments below.

 

Image Credit: Yuri Arcurs

 

    Rosie Duffy
Rosie Duffy
Journal Publishing Manager at Wiley

The magnificent State Library of Victoria played host once again to the Melbourne Wiley Society Executive Seminar on Friday, November 3rd 2017.  The sixth seminar to be held in Melbourne for Wiley’s Australasian journal editors, society executives, university librarians and others connected to the academic sector, this year’s theme was “The Transforming Research Landscape.”

 

Mark Robertson, Wiley’s VP and Publishing Director for Asia-Pacific, welcomed the seminar audience for the final time before his retirement at the end of the year. With over 35 years of journal publishing experience, Mark was well-placed to talk about the various “disruptors” to our industry and how they signal a need to adapt to, rather than resist, change.

 

Wiley_Seminar_Melbourne_2017 (27).jpg

Daniel Hook, CEO of Digital Science (the company behind innovative start-ups like Altmetric, Figshare and Readcube) spoke about the “invisible hand of data” that drives research. Publication is not just a static piece of paper or PDF anymore; rather, Daniel encouraged the audience to think of publication as a collection of all research output, including data. He did note, however, that incentives need to be aligned accordingly for this to happen. As “impact” is difficult to measure retrospectively, Daniel’s advice was to “capture early, capture everything, share early” and that persistent IDs like ORCID and DOI are key to this. For more insights, see the Figshare report on “The State of Open Data” here.

 

Everyone is talking about innovation these days, but what does it mean? In the next session, RMIT Distinguished Professor Suresh Bhargava provided his thoughts on “innovation at the ground level.” Illustrated with some apt quotations from Yes, Minister, Suresh described what he sees as the key enemies of innovation: delay, confusion, fear and ridicule. The disconnect between academic output and real world issues signifies that now is a time for change: change driven by true innovation. He declared that all innovation will fail, however, unless we allow academia itself to facilitate the change needed. Initiatives like Professor Suresh’s Academic Sharp Brain are beginning to address this problem.

 

ABC’s National Medical Reporter Sophie Scott spoke about her approach to influencing public policy in health. In her view, true change is brought about by a combination of realistic solutions and a clear pathway forward. In one example, Sophie’s team investigated claims that cosmetic surgery clinics administered drugs without consent. In their report, the team identified the problem and also suggested possible ways to change this dangerous situation, namely new government regulations and a medical board review – both of which are underway. Sophie appealed to researchers to collaborate with the media, noting that advance knowledge of, and access to, upcoming research publications enable journalists to develop richer and more impactful stories that connect with the public on a different level.

 

Freelance science writer Andy Stapleton asked: is the future really “bleak” and “unstable” for early career researchers? He highlighted the importance of having the right collaborators, being the hardest worker and, crucially, being lucky in order to succeed in academia these days. Again, the need for change was evident: PhD students must be trained so that they are prepared for other careers, while industry needs to understand the skills and value a PhD graduate can bring to their workforce. Andy has looked beyond academia and created PocketConference, an app that enables authors behind the 2.5 million papers published annually to summarize their research in a simple way. Check it out here.

 

A lively panel followed, facilitated by Deb Wyatt, VP, Asia Pacific Society Services at Wiley. It discussed the problem of academic “counting” – papers, citations, grants, dollars – and the current highly metricized assessment of research. The panel argued that a culture change and more nuanced appraisal system must be developed to truly understand research and its impact. By adapting content to the audience you wish to reach, more powerful communication is possible.

 

Mark Robertson then returned to the stage with an overview of CHORUS, a not-for-profit membership organization of publishers, societies, funders and other stakeholders. CHORUS makes the output from funded research easily and permanently discoverable, accessible, and verifiable by anyone in the world. See more detail on CHORUS here.

 

Advice on commissioning journal articles was next on the agenda with Esther Levy, Editor-in-Chief of Advanced Materials Technologies. In an increasingly competitive market, top quality content can be difficult to secure. Esther offered best practices for developing special issue and section ideas, ongoing “casual” commissioning, and how to attract the best authors to your journal.

 

Wiley’s Senior VP for Research, Simon Beale, explored the needs of researchers as readers and provided a snapshot of findings from a recent Wiley survey of users of journal content. For instance, 73% of readers access journal content via web searches. Simon emphasized that Wiley’s role and duty as a publisher is to make publishing technology seamless. Detailed results from the survey on how, why and what readers consume will be available soon.

 

A vibrant panel of speakers brought the day to a close. Facilitated by Sophie Scott, the group featured Adam Bandt, Member of the Australian Parliament, Lyn Brodie, CEO of Optometry Australia, Bruce Chapman of the Crawford School of Public Policy, Paul Dietze from the Burnet Institute, Tim Eaton of the Environmental Protection Authority, and Kim Ryan, CEO of the Australasian College of Mental Health Nurses.

 

The topic was “Supporting Evidence-based Policy” and many of the key messages from the day were amplified: the significant part media can play in translating research findings, and the importance of understanding your audience and adjusting your language and message accordingly. Other advice included taking a strategic and “scientific” approach to pitching research to policymakers  by understanding how decisions are actually made, as well as the challenges facing policymakers– they can be overwhelmed by an abundance of often contradictory pieces of information. Nurture key relationships, develop a profile, stay consistent and know your elevator pitch!

 

Tune into the conversation from the day using #wileyseminarANZ, and if you’d like to join this exciting and ever-expanding event next year, drop us a line at auswileyforum@wiley.com or visit the seminar website.

 

Photo Credit: Sadira Campbell

    Anna Ehler
Anna Ehler
Society Marketing

In part two of our conversation with societies on how various disciplines are navigating the complexity of data archiving, we learn how to get started on a policy and what incentives are encouraging researchers to share their data.

 

 

Society Panelists:

 

Professor Peter Diggle, past President, Royal Statistical Society

 

Chris George, Senior Editor, British Journal of Pharmacology, British Pharmacological Society

 

Catherine Hill, Head of Publications, British Ecological Society

 

Listen to the previous episode: Four Disciplines, Four Different Data Policies

 

You can listen to this episode and others – including our two part conversation with Wiley’s Director of Research Integrity and Publishing Ethics – by going to iTunes and subscribing to the Wiley Society Podcast.

 

Image Credit: Jeff Rotman / Getty Images

School of fish.Jeff Rotman.Getty Images.jpg

    Morgan Kubelka
Morgan Kubelka
Library Services, Wiley

Archival Content from the Royal College of Physicians (RCP).jpgWhat do scholars think they need with digital archives?

 

“The first thing I’d say is more, more, more.”

 

College of Charleston History Professor Jacob Steere-Williams wasn’t the only one to weigh in.

 

At this year’s Charleston Library Conference, we brought together members of the academic community to discuss their unique perspectives on the digitization of primary source content. From a professor, a society archivist, a chief scientific officer and a librarian, we learned more about the role that archives play in their professional lives and how digitization of these primary sources will impact their objectives.

 

“The digitization of archives makes my research much, much easier.”

 

Professor Steere-Williams was able to shed light on two critical perspectives—that of both an instructor and a researcher.

 

As a student, Steere-Williams shared familiar anecdotes of “trudging to the library to use the oversize green folios,” having to “visit the physical building and check out a box one at a time” to do his research with archival content.

 

He’s hardly alone in this sentiment, as recent discourse suggests the inconvenience and limitations of visiting traditional archives.  To safeguard these rare physical artifacts, the “one at a time” checkout method was--and still is, in many cases—a necessary evil.

 

So why bother at all?

 

“Scholars like myself have understood digital archives to have real, tangible benefits to scholarly research,” Steere-Williams explained, “they’ve led us to some new answers but more importantly, to new questions.”

 

“As an educator, digital archives are a game changer.”

 

As a History Professor, Steere-Williams has seen a tremendous impact on his day-to-day professional life. Over the last decade, instructors like him have relied on curated primary source anthologies and PDFs that “take primary sources out of their historical context.”

 

Why does historical context matter?

 

Steere-Williams explained that by placing the primary source back in its historical context, undergraduates benefit from “using archives in their entirety,” leading to more innovative research that goes beyond traditional textual analysis.

 

Adding to the discussion was Tim Bucknall, Assistant Dean of University Libraries and Head of Electronic Resources and Information Technologies at UNC Greensboro, who raised the importance of addressing audiences beyond just students and faculty. There’s an “external audience” for this rare content that needs to be addressed and a “responsibility to digitize resources and make them available to the world.”

 

“For us, it’s a reclamation of our history.”

 

For the New York Academy of Sciences’ (NYAS) Chief Scientific Officer Doug Braaten, it was NYAS’s 200th anniversary that prompted a renewed interest in its archives.

 

“Our Archives had ended up in boxes in Queens, sitting for years. No one knew what was in it.”

 

The re-discovery of these precious materials gave Braaten a moment of pause, reflecting on how “surprising” it was that the Academy hadn’t taken their rich history into account before.

 

Unsure of what to do with this newfound treasure trove, NYAS decided to partner with Wiley to get this archival material scanned, digitized, and catalogued in Wiley Digital Archives for use in everyday research.

 

Calling it a “reclamation of our history,” Braaten said that NYAS has since used the archival material they found to create the first timeline of the Academy they’ve ever had.

 

“Archives don’t stop when the hardcopy stops”

 

Archives Manager Pamela Forde of the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) described the importance of digitization in relation to two strategic priorities: to “preserve and complete an honest record of who we are and what we do” and to “continue to be an authoritative source on the history of medicine.”

 

With 40,000 hard copy items in RCP’s archives and 35,000 rare books and special collections that are part of their research offering, the need to invest in digital solutions is critical to ensure access and provide a single source for their long-term history, present and future.  Forde also offered more environmental considerations for digitization, including the risks that fires, floods and other natural disasters pose to physical archives.

 

As RCP looks forward to their historic 500-year anniversary in 2018, Forde emphasized the importance of prioritizing digitization according to researcher needs and working with a commercial partner to execute a staged approach.

 

“Digitization, apart from helping us improve access, should also help us to provide context to our history.”

 

Interested in learning more about the digitization of primary source content? Visit Wiley Digital Archives at www.wileydigitalarchives.com

 

Image Credit: Royal College of Physicians

 

    Helen Eassom
Helen Eassom
Author Marketing, Wiley

Your title is your first opportunity to draw in readers, so you must ensure that it makes an impact. Compared to the work you put in to the full paper, the title may feel like an afterthought, but creating a good title is essential to maximizing the reach of your article.

 

The Basics

shutterstock_307759688.jpg

Your final title should do several things to draw readers into your article. Consider these basics of title creation to come up with a few ideas:

 

  • Limit yourself to 10 to 20 substantial words.
  • Devise a phrase or ask a question.
  • Make a positive impression of the article.
  • Use current terminology in your field of study.
  • Stimulate reader interest.

 

A good research article title offers a brief explanation of the article before you delve into specifics. Before you get to a final title, you can start with a working title that gives you a main idea of what to focus on throughout your piece. Then you can come back to revise the title when you finish the article.

 

The Writing Process

As you write your research article, it can be useful to make a list of the questions that your article answers. For a broad topic, your article may answer 20 questions. If your subject is very narrow, you might come up with two or three questions. You can then use these questions to inform your research title.

 

Your article subject or hypothesis may also give you an idea for the final title, but so can your conclusion. As you write your research article from beginning to end, you draw several conclusions before answering your main idea or hypothesis. There's nothing wrong with using your conclusion as a title because your readers want to know how you derived the solution. A good research article title may actually be a spoiler, but that's a good thing. Once you have a draft title, you’ll need to take care of a few details to keep it interesting.

 

The Details

Take out any unnecessary words (such as ‘A Study of’, or ‘An Investigation of’) which don’t contribute any real meaning or value to your title. Avoid words or phrases that don't help your readers understand the context of your work, and ensure that your title gets to the real point of your article.

 

Your title needs to grab readers’ interest, so don't fear putting a little style into your article title. You can still avoid a boring title while getting to the point.

 

Don't make your title too short. The words "South American Politics" are clearly much too broad and don’t say what your research article entails. Rather, expand a bit to include more detail. Examine the title "South American Politics and Venezuelan Oil Clash with Brazil's Rain Forest Conservation Efforts”. The second title has more substance, keywords and enough meat to build interest.

 

Final Thoughts

Ask yourself a few questions that get to the heart of your article. What is the purpose of the research? What's the narrative tone of the article? What methods do you use to write the article? The purpose of your article provides the perfect lead-in to your conclusion. Meanwhile, your narrative tone depends on the point you make, such as delivering results of a paradigm-shifting study, breaking news of some major story or making a startling conclusion that no one expected.

 

A good article title represents the first impression people see of your work, so make sure you give your research the title it deserves!

 

How do you determine the title of your research article? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

 

Image Credit: Niklebedev/Shutterstock

 

    Morgan Kubelka
Morgan Kubelka
Library Services, Wiley

A packed auditorium of diverse information professionals eagerly looked on as Loretta Parham, CEO and Director of the Atlanta University Center Woodruff Library, began the opening plenary of the 2017 Charleston Library Conference.

 

Parham deadpanned, “A recent article in USA Today said that librarian will be one of the eight careers that will become extinct by 2030.”

 

Parham looked up from her perch at the podium with a winning smirk, sending an eruption of laughter across an audience of peers, who, like she, have heard it all before.

 

In fact, what makes the Charleston Library Conference so special is this ability to congregate together and laugh at the naysayers; to remind the world that librarians, publishers and scholarly professionals everywhere are still very much alive and well.

 

So what exactly dominated this year’s jam-packed agenda?

 

Check out our top 10 trends from this year’s Charleston Library Conference:

 

  1. Pineapple Fountain .jpgGetting the library culture right
    Change is still very much a part of the library agenda right now, as Generation Z follows Millennials as the next wave of users. Having lived with technology all their lives, this cohort born between 1995 and 2012 expects change and innovation as a matter of course. To keep up, librarians continue to reorganize around the needs of this rapidly evolving user base and are paying more attention to recruiting and retaining the right talent. “No MLS required” has become a more widely adopted mantra as leaders in the field recognize a need for skills outside of the traditional library domain.
  2. “Without rules, there is no game!”
    This remark from Atypon CEO Georgios Papadopoulos reflects a widely held frustration with lagging technology in scholarly publishing and one that was echoed across many sessions at this year’s conference. “Technology standards have remained the same for 20 years,” exclaimed Papadopoulos, “there’s an ecosystem that needs to embrace these changes.”

    From technology executives like Papadopoulos to librarians and vendors alike, there is increasing concern over many technology-related issues: archiving (“it’s too important to be this haphazard”), keeping researchers up to date (“email alerts no longer cut it”), content piracy, search engine limitations and anxiety over current authentication and access formats that are “digital in name only.”

    The good news? There are a lot of solutions on the horizon and technologists are prepared for a radical overhaul in the next two years. New dynamic formats for archiving, Scholarly HTML, and personalization tools are just some of the technological improvements we can expect.
  3. “It used to be about the stuff, and now it’s about the people.”
    Partnering with faculty continues to be mission critical in terms of getting in front of students and communicating library worth. By “getting in” with faculty early in the semester, embedding themselves in the classroom, offering help crafting assignments, and demonstrating the correlation between library course involvement and student success, librarians garner the trust of their faculty colleagues while earning coveted facetime with students.
  4. “We change along with those that need us.”
    Librarians are being called upon to assert their expertise across the research process more than ever amidst an increasingly complicated information landscape.  From helping undergraduate students navigate their first literature search, to educating early career researchers on the publication process, librarians must be confident in their ability to educate users across the research spectrum.

    In one example, a new opportunity has emerged for librarians to play a greater role in the “packaging of science,” or educating researchers on the scholarly communications process as a whole. Publishing ethics, adherence to guidelines, data management, citation standards and metrics are just some of the areas that several conference speakers alluded to as requiring librarian expertise, in light of the increasing number of “unreproducible” results coming out of published research.
  5. Librarians take the “fake news” issue head on
    Amidst a climate of doubt and misinformation, librarians are emphatic about their role in both providing researchers with the most credible scholarly resources as well as helping users interpret it. One conference speaker urged her colleagues to establish themselves as “the experts on fake news and fact checking,” imploring them to share their knowledge on the “economics of information” with library users. Providing a humanistic window into the power structures at play in the information ecosystem is critical to ensuring students are equipped to “stay afloat” on the “rivers of technology” that continue to churn out the “facts” of our world.
  6. Librarians have “the opportunity to preserve the record of the societies and institutions we serve”
    Preserving the scholarly record through special collections and digitization efforts was a major theme at this year’s conference. From libraries across the country to centuries-old scholarly societies across the globe, special collections and rare primary artifacts are being threatened by exclusivity, barriers to access, and the inability to scale digitization efforts.

    Librarians at one conference session wondered if “curation is death,” alluding to the focus on building the library collection from the outside while neglecting what already exists in its special collections.  In another session, the Chief Scientific Officer of the New York Academy of Sciences (NYAS) reflected on the astonishing “indifference to its own history” as the society’s archives sat in boxes for years with “no one knowing what was in them.”

    Librarians and scholarly societies are partnering with publishers and outside partners to help scale digitization efforts and integrate these rare historical sources into everyday research. As an inaugural partner of Wiley Digital Archives, NYAS described the digitization of its archives as “a reclamation” of its 200-year history, while one professional historian on the panel shared that he’s looking forward to putting primary sources “back in their historical context.”
  7. Librarians as leaders of student affordability initiatives
    This year’s conference showcased librarians at the forefront of student affordability issues, from cultivating open educational resources to piloting access to eTextbooks in the library. Under increased pressure to demonstrate their impact on student success, librarians are encouraging their peers to take what they know about negotiations, publishers and licensing and apply it to resources like textbooks. By collaborating with faculty, exploring new funding streams and beginning to break down institutional barriers, librarians are challenging their position as bystanders to the student affordability crisis and tackling the issue head on.
  8. Collaboration and partnership
    There was a distinct shift in tone at this year’s conference as librarians, publishers and vendors recover from tensions incited by the short-term loan crisis that erupted several years ago. A more conciliatory spirit seemed to be prominent, as more members of the scholarly ecosystem voiced their support for collaboration and partnership. Rallying around a common objective to support scholarship and research, there was wide recognition across session speakers that a fundamental exchange of knowledge must take place to advance the collective agenda.
  9. Data continues to drive decision-making
    Evidence-based models and demand-driven approaches continue to dominate the eBook landscape as librarians partner with publishers and vendors to meet their collection needs. While analyzing usage data remains a primary driver of collection development, there seemed to be an increased focus on balancing this quantitative data with qualitative research to really understand user trends. Surveys and social media were cited as additional ways to gauge user behavior and sentiment as it pertains to collection needs. While librarians seemed pleased with many of the eBook programs they’re involved in, challenges still remain in managing all the different collections and ensuring they’re meeting the diverse needs of their patrons.
  10. Librarians welcome the future with open arms
    If one thing can be learned from the 2017 Charleston Library Conference, it’s that librarians are not backing down from their historic posts on the university campus or from the scholarly community writ large. If anything, librarians appear emboldened by the challenges posed by the difficult economic climate and a rapidly evolving digital landscape. Armed with an indefatigable passion for serving their patrons, deep knowledge of the information ecosystem, and a collective battle cry to embrace the tides of change, as one librarian put it, they’re ready to“sell the change to leadership, share success with stakeholders over and over and over again, [and] promote and market repeatedly until our constituents say ‘aha.’”

 

Image Credit: Claire O’Neill

    Samantha Green
Samantha Green
Society Marketing, Wiley

Evidence-based research is a key pillar in the foundation of public policy. Its impact can be far-reaching and can help inform decisions being made right now.

 

Bur how can we ensure that research is proactive in addressing ongoing policy concerns? Are there editorial strategies that can be made that can help bring together multiple studies on a single topic to make applying research to policy easier?

 

We asked Professor John Davis, Editor of Eurochoices, to describe how he determines what’s relevant and timely so that the research published can impact policy effectively.

 

Q. In your role as Editor-in-Chief of EuroChoices you recently compiled a special section on some potential areas of impact from Brexit. What was the genesis of this section, and why was it important to cover in your journal?

 

Lachlan Coin.jpg

A. The UK government’s White Paper (February 2017) sets out its vision and intentions for a Brexit settlement…” an ambitious and comprehensive Free Trade Agreement and a new customs agreement”…but it is not at all clear if this can be achieved.  The White Paper  contains little detail on the possible shape of a post-Brexit UK agricultural policy (UKAP).  As a result there is huge uncertainty within the agri-food sector as to what will happen post-Brexit   to trade patterns, farmers’ incomes and food prices etc.

 

EuroChoices has been covering the Brexit process since the decision to hold  a UK referendum on EU membership. A special Brexit section on possible implications for UK agri-food was published in 2016 prior to the referendum; and so following the decision to leave the EU the Editorial Board agreed that, given the core remit of the journal, a special section looking in more detail at Brexit implications for UK and EU agri-food was essential. As negotiations proceed the journal will continue to cover Brexit issues.

 

Q. What role do you think collections of content, whether in an issue of a journal or compiled digitally to provide context to a central theme, play or should play in current policy discussions?


A.Collections of content on issues such as Brexit and other policy priorities have a key role in providing context to the big policy issues of the day.  For me the key aspect of their role is in providing the policy community in the UK and internationally with expert opinion and a rigorous evidence base on which to base policy priorities and choices.

 

The UK government, the EU Commission and member state governments are committed in varying degrees to an evidence-based approach to policy development. Special issues or sections on key current themes such as Brexit, which bring together experts with differing perspectives, play a very important role.

 

Q. Can research that addresses current affairs or ongoing policy debates have an impact on the public’s understanding of the issue?

 

A. Improving the public’s understanding of the issue is a key challenge for the research community, especially for research on the economics of policy and other issues. Economics affects all of us in our daily lives but economic concepts tend to be poorly understood, including at the highest levels in government and industry.

 

In reporting research results therefore, it is important keep it real. People and stories matter so the emphasis should be on the impacts on actual groups or even individuals. EuroChoices is unique in communicating quite complex economic research findings and viewpoints on agri-food issues to decision makers in accessible  language and formats that can be  understood by non-technical readers.

 

Q. What do you, as an Editor-in-Chief, look at in terms of timeliness and relevance of content? How do you predict what research might have policy impact in the future?

A. Getting the timing right and identifying relevant high-quality content are key responsibilities of the Editor, particularly when communicating with the policy community and industry at times of policy change or reform. For a journal such as EuroChoices it is important to be engaged as early as possible in the policy cycle to contribute rigorous evidence and viewpoints as a counter to the pseudo analyses of interest groups with which ministers and their advisers are typically bombarded.

 

Some policy issues may have been running for a long time, such as reform of the Common Agricultural Policy and the debates are quite predictable which can make sourcing of content relatively straight forward, especially where there is a quite large and engaged research community. In trying to identify relevant future impactful research it is important also to be aware of societal challenges and tensions, such as obesity, and the need perhaps for a more integrated agri-food-health policy nexus. EuroChoices has an advisory group consisting of “policy watchers” including members from the EU Commission and the OECD who provide advice to the Editor.

 

    Anne Borcherds
Anne Borcherds
Managing Editor, Terranova

Peer-review can sometimes feel like a lottery. On occasion, a paper may receive wildly divergent reviews. So, as an author, what should you do if one reviewer loves your paper but another seems intent on finding fault with everything you’ve done?

 

The role of the editor is key

The first thing to note is that divergent reviews should present a challenge to the editor rather than the author. When a paper receives divergent reviews, it is the job of the editor to decide how to proceed, and the editor should give you guidance on how to address the disparate comments and which comments are most important. Ideally, the editor should summarize the most important points of both reviews and advise on where to focus your revisions.

 

Consider the value of each review

But, occasionally, this does not happen. What should you do if you receive a set of very disparate reviews with little or no guidance from the editor? First, take a careful look at the reviews. The more positive reviewer sees value in your study, as does the editor; otherwise your article would have been rejected. But, the more critical reviewer has found problems. A good reviewer will have approached your article with an open mind and tried hard to understand your methods and arguments. The problems seen by the more critical reviewer give you a snapshot of the problems readers may have with your article, so it is important that you try to address them. Remember that the reviewers have been chosen from among the intended readership of your article.

 

Seek guidance when necessary

How to deal with conflicting reviews.jpg

If the reviews are fair and constructive and you can address all of the points raised, then there’s no problem. But, what should you do when the reviewers are asking for contradictory modifications? For example, perhaps one reviewer wants a figure to be expanded to give more detail, while the other reviewer feels the figure is not relevant to your arguments and suggests getting rid of it? In fact, these requests may not be as contradictory as they appear – did the second reviewer fail to see the point of the figure because there was not enough information contained within? Would addressing the concerns of the first reviewer help the second reviewer to see why you included the figure in the first place?

 

Think also about how best to address the reviewers’ comments while adhering to the requirements of the journal. If a reviewer has requested that you present more data, but the journal has a length limit, could you make the data available as supplementary material?

 

If you really cannot see how best to address all of the reviewers’ comments, don’t be afraid to ask the editor for guidance. The editor knows what type and quality of article he/she is looking to publish in the journal – something reviewers may not always be aware of. So, the editor should be able to guide you as to how best to target your article to the journal’s readership. Email the editor outlining the various approaches you could take in addressing the reviewers’ comments and ask for advice on which route to take.

 

As author, you have the final say

Even if the editor provides guidance, you, as author of the paper, must make the final decision on how to respond to each of the points raised in the reviews. Once you have decided what direction to take and have revised your article, it is essential that you prepare a detailed response to the reviewers’ comments before submitting your revised paper. The most helpful way to do this is usually to paste all of the reviewers’ and editor’s comments into one document and insert your response to each point immediately below it, using a different color or font to distinguish the reviewers’ comments from your replies. If you have chosen not to address some of the comments, you should explain why. Be respectful; the reviewers share your goal of ensuring that your paper is a useful addition to the scientific literature. You want to show that you have approached their comments in a thoughtful and constructive way, even if you do not agree with everything that they have said. Unless you have completely rewritten the article, it is also helpful to supply a copy of the revised text with all of the changes highlighted.

 

Author takeaways

If you are faced with contradictory reviews of your article:

  • Step back – think whether the reviews are as contradictory as they first appear

  • Contact the editor for guidance if none was provided with the reviews

  • Address as many of the comments as you can

  • Provide a detailed response, focusing on any comments you have not addressed.

 

By following the steps above, you should be able to produce a stronger paper that will pass easily through the next review round.

 

Image credit: Yuri_Arcurs/Getty Images

 

    Helen Eassom
Helen Eassom
Author Marketing, Wiley

With so many academic journals out there, deciding where to submit your manuscript is no easy task. The options can sometimes seem endless, so how do you go about finding a journal that’s suited to your research, while ensuring that you stand the best possible chance of your work being accepted for publication? Check out the infographic below for 6 simple steps you can take to find the right journal for you and your research.

 

How to find a journal.jpg

How do you choose where to submit your work? Let us know in the comments section below.

 

    Morgan Kubelka
Morgan Kubelka
Library Services, Wiley

RAI Ethnographic Photographic Collection.pngDigitization efforts over the last decade or so have made scholarly content more accessible than ever before. From current journal articles to historic back files, from academic books to reference works, researchers today are able to leverage a massive amount of resources to accelerate their own scientific discoveries.

 

So what’s missing?

 

Primary sources by their very nature are physical artifacts; maps, manuscripts, periodicals, correspondence and other physical relics often predate the proliferation of digital media. Because they’re one of a kind, these primary sources are typically kept under lock and key, available only to select scholars, and even then, with tight restrictions. Hidden away in file drawers, boxes and other antiquated storage units, the ability to find what you’re looking for is severely compromised. So is any attempt to draw significance or deduce enlightening connections between contextually-like sources.

 

And even these issues are relatively benign compared to the most endangered types of primary source materials—ones that have been left behind without care, stuck on a shelf in some obscure location, or exposed to the elements. Just last month, The Guardian published an article on “a cache of decaying notebooks found in a crumbling Congo research station,” even as it would later prove to “help solve a crucial puzzle – predicting how vegetation will respond to climate change.”

 

But locating these significant artifacts is just one part of the challenge. Restoring and digitizing these documents are critical steps in order to make them widely accessible and to enable preservation for future generations of researchers to come.

 

Seeing science through a humanistic lens

In order to effectively understand and respond to the current challenges we face as a modern society, it’s critical that researchers have access to the holistic scholarly record—one that goes beyond an article or its conclusions--encouraging deeper understanding or even reinterpretation of findings through the lens of historical context. Only by placing the sciences within history and cultures can researchers truly understand the interdisciplinary nature of the subjects they strive to advance, ultimately yielding positive research and educational outcomes.

 

Professional societies are home to some of the most robust archives of our collective history. Not only do they reflect a comprehensive institutional perspective, but they illuminate the personal values, ideas, disagreements, breakthroughs and aspirations that helped scientists organize and fund their ideas in the pursuit of their scientific goals. Documents like internal correspondence, meeting notes and internal memos offer a dimension of the scholarly record that has yet to be fully explored and capitalized on in the quest for continued discovery.

 

Expanding partnerships to improve research

As a 210-year-old publisher, Wiley is fortunate enough to partner with some of the most prestigious societies around the world. Through these partnerships, we’ve been able to explore the massive trove of primary source content accessible only on-site, and develop a solution that will not only make this content available for use in everyday research, but also restore and preserve it for generations to come.

 

Wiley Digital Archives will launch in 2018 as an ongoing program that will tell the stories behind the more contemporary content Wiley publishes. From manuscripts, maps, periodicals and photographs to illustrations, proceedings, pamphlets, personal papers and grey literature, Wiley Digital Archives will expand access to historic primary artifacts that have been largely untapped to date.

 

Working with societies, archivists, curators, librarians, conservators, scholarly, subject matter experts and technology partners, Wiley Digital Archives will conserve and restore physical documents, scan hi-res images, perform Optical Character Recognition (OCR) on printed works, add searchable terms to handwritten content, and enhance or create new metadata, cataloging records and subject indexing to ensure the highest level of discoverability.

 

Inaugural Partners

The archival content of The New York Academy of Science (NYAS) and the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland (RAI) will mark the inaugural collections to be made accessible on the Wiley Digital Archives platform. Through careful restoration and skilled digitization, millions of pages of archival content will finally be accessible to researchers as an integral everyday resource, whether they’re logging-in from their home laptops, a library’s desktop or their mobile devices. By mitigating the difficulty associated with accessing and using physical archive materials, researchers will finally be able to spend more of their time with these critical resources and less time trying to find them.

 

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

 

Image Credit: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland

 

    Helen Eassom
Helen Eassom
Author Marketing, Wiley

It’s that time of year again when we look to Stockholm, Sweden, and the announcement of the 2017 Nobel Prize winners. The Nobel Prize, awarded by the Nobel Foundation on an annual basis, celebrates outstanding achievement in chemistry, physics, physiology or medicine, economics, literature, and peace.

 

Becoming a Nobel Laureate is an amazing accomplishment, and we’d like to take this opportunity to wish all of the 2017 Nobel Prize winners the warmest of congratulations.

 

Wiley is incredibly proud and grateful to have published work by ten of this year’s Nobel Laureates in various journals and books.

 

David Buffington  Exactostock-1598SuperStock .jpg

Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine

The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, awarded by the Nobel Assembly at the Karolinska Institutet, went jointly to Jeffrey C. Hall, Michael Rosbash and Michael W. Young ‘for their discoveries of molecular mechanisms controlling the circadian rhythm’.

 

Working with fruit flies, the Nobel Laureates isolated a gene controlling the normal daily biological rhythm, demonstrating that the gene encodes a protein that builds up in the cell overnight, and is then degraded during the day. Their work explains how the biological rhythms of multicellular organisms are synchronized with the Earth’s revolutions.

 

All three researchers have published in Wiley books or journals, and in 2013, they were jointly awarded the 12th Annual Wiley Prize in Biomedical Sciences. Dr. Rosbash has a chapter in Molecular Clocks and Light Signalling: Novartis Foundation Symposium 253. Both Dr. Rosbash and Dr. Hall have published in Bioessays, and Dr. Young has published work in various journals, including the Journal of Comparative Neurology and Developmental Neurobiology.

 

Nobel Prize in Physics

This year’s Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, with one half going to Rainer Weiss, and the other half jointly to Barry C. Barish and Kip S. Thorne, ‘for decisive contributions to the LIGO detector and the observation of gravitational waves’.

 

The universe’s gravitational waves were observed for the first time in September 2015, having taken 1.3 billion years to reach the LIGO detector in the US. LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory) is a collaborative project involving over a thousand researchers from different countries. The 2017 Nobel Laureates have been credited as being invaluable to the success of this project, ensuring that gravitational waves were finally able to be observed.

 

The three winners are among the contributors to a recent cover and overview article in Annalen der Physik, ‘The basic physics of the binary black hole merger GW150914’. Dr. Thorne has also published in Annals of New York Academy of Sciences.

 

Nobel Prize in Chemistry

Awarded to Jacques Dubochet, Joachim Frank, and Richard Henderson ‘for developing cryo-electron microscopy for the high-resolution structure determination of biomolecules in solution’ the 2017 Nobel Prize in Chemistry laureates are credited with moving biochemistry into a new era.

 

The development of cryo-electron microscopy simplifies and improves the imaging of biomolecules, allowing for a much greater understanding of life’s chemistry.

 

All three Nobel Laureates have published in a range of Wiley journals, including Bioessays, FEBS Letters, and the Journal of Electron Microscopy Technique, and have contributed chapters to reference works Encyclopedia of Life Sciences and Burger’s Medicinal Chemistry and Drug Discovery. Henderson and Frank were also among the recipients of the 2016 Wiley Annual Prize in Biomedical Sciences.

 

The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2017

This year’s Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences has been awarded to Richard H. Thaler (University of Chicago, IL, USA) ‘for his contributions to behavioral economics’.

 

Through the exploration of the consequences of limited reality, social preferences, and lack of self-control, Thaler has combined economics with psychology, demonstrating that these human traits affect individual decisions as well as market outcomes. His work has been highly influential in creating the new field of behavioral economics, which has had a far-reaching impact on economic policy.

 

Thaler has published in Wiley journals The Journal of Finance, and the Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. In addition, he was selected as a Fellow of the American Finance Association for his contributions to the field of finance.

 

Once again, we’d like to extend our congratulations to all of this year’s Nobel Prize winners!

 

Image Credit: David Buffington / Exactostock-1598 / SuperStock

 

Filter Blog

By date:
By tag: