Alice Meadows
Alice Meadows
Director of Communications, Wiley
Bob Campbell
Source: Bob Campbell

Bob Campbell, Wiley’s Senior Publisher and a well-known and highly regarded figure in scholarly publishing, is retiring today after 46 years in the business (although he will continue to work part-time as a senior advisor). He started at what was then Blackwell Scientific Publications in 1968, and helped oversee the merger with Blackwell Publishers in 2001 to form Blackwell Publishing, and was closely involved with Wiley’s acquisition of Blackwell Publishing in 2007. He has helped numerous colleagues establish their careers at Blackwell and Wiley, and across many other publishing organizations – especially learned societies. Needless to say, he has plenty of stories from his many years in publishing, some of which you can read in this farewell interview.


1. Bob, many of our readers will understand what we mean by “a week can be a long time in politics” but 46 years is certainly a long time in publishing. We should start at the beginning, what brought you to the industry?

My parents were both writers so I had an interest in publishing and I needed to get a job quickly as I was getting married to Frances after graduation. It was quite easy to enter publishing in 1968 with a science degree. Publishers wanted to expand their STM programs and science graduates were a rarity in publishing. I went for Blackwell Scientific Publications (BSP) as it was small enough to give me experience in every aspect of publishing and the people were very friendly. Although mainly in book production (a department of three) I also stacked back issues in the warehouse, made sales visits to bookshops, printed out subscriber address labels, and helped prepare catalogs. After about 18 months, I took on more editorial work and started visiting universities in the hunt for ideas and authors.


2. This interview is a celebration of those 46 years and your career; what have been your most satisfying moments, personally and professionally?

Well, obviously, bringing up three children with Frances, although I have to admit she did most of it. She gave me the time to work long days and weekends.


I have been lucky to have been at the right place at the right time. I didn’t plan a career with objectives, I was always totally absorbed in whatever I was doing at the time; I just love publishing, and managing organizations to be able to publish more effectively. Management itself has been harder, but I had amazing support from colleagues throughout my career.


Publishing a book that makes an impact on the subject and has helped students, or launching a journal that serves a research community building a new subject, are immensely satisfying, as is seeing younger colleagues achieve things that I never managed to do. A distinguished surgeon and editor once described the three stages of salmon fishing to me: first you want to catch fish yourself, then you enjoy teaching people to fish, and finally you are happy to watch others excel. Unlike fishing, where I am still at the first stage, struggling with Spey casting (although I did enjoy seeing our daughters catching their first salmon), I feel I have reached the final stage in publishing. I really enjoy the success of my colleagues: listening to their presentations about publishing, launching new ventures, or winning a contract to publish for a learned society. I suppose related to this is my interest in writing about publishing.


3. You’ve “done time” on many trade bodies and committees, most recently working with Dame Janet Finch. Tell us about these experiences.

My boss and mentor for many years, Per Saugman, was active in trade associations and got me involved early on. In the late 1970s I started an international course for the STM Association on journal publishing with Gillian Page which is still running every year. Later Gillian and I, with Jack Meadows, wrote the first textbook on journal publishing.


I remained involved in the STM Association partly because I felt its lobbying role was central to our industry, but also because, having only experienced one company (BSP), I found the interaction and learning from others stimulating. Chairing STM from 1998 to 2000 did take up a lot of my time, however, and chairing the ADONIS project through most of the 1980s was even more time-consuming. But the lessons we learned about how publishers can work together to develop a technically sophisticated system served us well when we came to launch CrossRef in 2000, which I was also involved with. Later on, I was involved in the Publishers Association, serving twice on its Council, and with the Association for Learned and Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP).


It was through my role with trade associations that I was invited to be a member of the Finch Group, which was set up by the Government as an independent body to advise on widening the access to research output. Starting with the assumption that we shall have a mixed economy (several publishing models) for the foreseeable future, we produced by consensus a balanced set of recommendations which we hope will work for the UK and be a helpful model internationally.


4. I’d like to focus on your work with CrossRef for a moment – it’s been a great model of collaboration, what are your feelings about what’s been achieved and what’s next?

It's certainly been a great model of collaboration. When planning it in 2000 we realized that it needed to be a not-for-profit, with strong representation from learned and professional societies. We were lucky enough to recruit Ed Pentz, who served a board of directors from differing backgrounds and maintained a politically neutral policy, as well as successfully managing people and technology. CrossRef’s mission was much debated, but the guiding principle was that we could achieve more collectively than individually to add value to the article rather than just reference linking which was the original objective. Along with a range of services CrossRef is supporting exciting ventures such as ORCID and CHORUS.


Throughout, Craig Van Dyck has been a central figure in shaping policy, so I was happy to hand over my place on the Board to him recently. CrossRef's slow start with CrossMark has been a disappointment, as in a world of different versions of an article it will be essential to identify the Version of Record on the publisher's platform.


5. We’re in a period of massive change – what’s your prognosis for the next decade?

If I really knew I would keep it to myself is the wrong answer. We are entering an era of open science, open publishing, sharing data and ideas. We have to work out our future together as we tried to do in the Finch Group. CrossRef has demonstrated the power of co-operation. The trade associations will also play a part in this.


Bob in office 8 Jan 2014
Source: Bob Campbell

Peer review, the nature of the article, the role of publishing in providing metrics, and maintaining the scientific record are all basic functions that represent opportunities for us. It was fun helping Arnoud de Kemp organize the program for the APE 2014 conference, which addressed these issues.


6. Some of these changes are being driven by “new stakeholders” – funding agencies and central government – how would you describe their influence now and what it may be in the future?


Huge and will remain so. We have to understand their needs. They want impact and publishers should be the experts at providing this.


7. You’ve worked with learned societies for much of your career, how do you see their role evolving over the next decade?

The combination of the threat to income from disruption of subscription revenues and societies recruiting excellent and forward-looking staff is driving change. If we get it right, societies will offer a wider range of services in future, and we shall help them with this.


8. Peer review is the essential component of what editors, publishers and learned societies do – do have any predictions for how it might evolve?

When I started in publishing in 1968, I was told that journals were doomed, as we would not be able to find enough reviewers. But in fact, just as the annual growth of the research community has been around 2-4%, generating more papers at the same growth rate, so it also provides more reviewers at the same rate. As shown in Mark Ware's survey, published by the PRC, researchers agree to review papers because they like doing it. There does not seem to be the same motivation for post-publication review, however, the success of PLOSOne is based on limited peer review. So publishers will continue to experiment with varieties of peer review, offering authors more choice, such as double blinded peer review, a more transparent process, utilizing elements of social media, and differing degree of requirements to revise. Curiously, as yet, many funders do not seem too bothered, simply wanting quick publication and low cost open access, although there is still pressure to publish in high status titles, especially in China


9. And peer review focuses on articles – the lingua franca of scholarly communications – most “new” publishing models appear to retain the focus on them, would you care to comment?

J. D. Bernal predicted in 1946 that at some stage an international organization will develop a distribution system using the latest technology with the article as the basic unit of publication. I guess PLOSOne with its article level metrics and other value adds is close to this. We shall certainly see more investment in adding value to the article as we compete for authors; CrossRef was only the beginning.


10. Retirement means different things to different people, what do you want it to mean for you?

I hope to be more involved in local conservation based on a trust we have set up (the River Thame Conservation Trust), which has already won funding, as well as hosting a forest school, and perhaps getting involved in a completely different area of publishing. Our son Tom and daughters Chloe and Nancy all write. Just as my parents introduced me to publishing, so our next generation may take me along a new path. What our grandchildren will get up to seems a step too far.

    Anne-Marie Green
Anne-Marie Green
Communication Manager, Wiley

John Seguin is President and Chief Librarian of Third Iron, the makers of the journal reading application BrowZine!™. He earned his MLS from the University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana in 2003 and has since worked both as an academic librarian and for a library vendor before co-founding Third Iron in 2012.


John Seguin
Source: John Seguin

Q: What is BrowZine and what does it offer readers and librarians?


A: BrowZine is an application for iOS and Android devices that allows readers to easily find, browse and read many of the e-journals available from their academic, hospital and corporate libraries. BrowZine arranges e-journals by subject in a newsstand format so users may find titles on the shelf, select an issue, and review tables of contents. BrowZine also integrates into popular authentication systems used by libraries, such as proxy and VPN, so users may easily retrieve full text. Articles may be saved, exported to bibliographic management tools such as Zotero, and links sent to colleagues via email or social media. The My Bookshelf feature of BrowZine gives users the ability to save favorite titles and be notified when new articles are published.


For libraries, BrowZine is a new way to deliver e-journal access and to better serve their fast growing populations of mobile users. BrowZine is unique because it brings people to the complete journals and delivers a great way to read them. BrowZine also helps a library visualize their collection and creates opportunities for serendipitous discovery as users come across other, unfamiliar titles that are on the same “shelf.” And because it provides ways for a library to “brand” their instance of BrowZine, users always know the service comes from their library.



Browzine shelf
Source: Third Iron

Q: Is BrowZine meant to be a research tool? Is there search term functionality?


A: BrowZine is a terrific research tool! Libraries have a lot of great choices for search services, from individual publisher platforms to discovery layers, but searching is not the only way people want to interact with literature. We know researchers have deep bonds with the journals in their field and rely on those titles to keep up to date with major innovations and discoveries. By allowing the researcher to easily review tables of contents, scan articles, build their own bookshelf of those favorite titles, and then alert them when new issues come out, BrowZine creates a seamless experience between researchers and content. BrowZine is unique because it allows users to easily interact with a journal as a journal, and not just individual articles through a search box.


Q: When did you launch BrowZine and what has the response been thus far?


A: BrowZine officially went on sale in October 2012 and response has been terrific. We have received mention at countless conferences, received a 4 out of 5 star review from the Charleston Advisor (thirdiron.com/charleston) and, most importantly acquired hundreds of institutional customers in nine countries around the world. In particular, response from end users has been great and we are excited to evolve the product to continue delighting researchers.


Q: Are all publishers available in BrowZine? If not, why is that?


A: BrowZine links to content from hundreds of publishers, both big and small. Since BrowZine is only directing end-users to content already subscribed to by their library, not aggregating and reselling journals, we can represent journals provided we have a source for metadata. The biggest obstacle to not showing all journals a library may subscribe to is that not all publishers make their metadata readily available; fortunately, the vast majority do, particular scholarly publishers.


Q: What has been your greatest success and challenge thus far?


A: Our greatest success continues to be the validation of the BrowZine concept. BrowZine is based on the idea that people value being able to read journals and that they prefer to do so on mobile devices. Thousands of people each month show us that this theory has been a sound one.


Our biggest challenge, which is also a blessing, is simply keeping up with demand! There is a lot of interest in BrowZine from around the world and a lot of product requests coming from customers. We have organized a terrific sales and development team to manage all of this and we will continue to grow our operations.


Q: What is next for BrowZine and Third Iron?


A: Next on the horizon for us is an expansion of BrowZine from the tablet space to smart phones. While BrowZine was designed for reading full-size PDF documents, more and more publishers are producing content in epub format for better readability on small screen devices and at the same time, BrowZine has evolved into both a reader and a current awareness tool. This Spring, we will be releasing both an iPhone and Android phone version of BrowZine which will feature syncing between your phone and tablet device. We think this capability will really streamline the way researchers encounter information in both short term (phone) and longer term (tablet) ways and keeping these in sync is essential for this to work well.


Being a small team working very closely with librarians and researchers, we continue to see opportunities to develop products to serve both. We look forward to releasing these over time. Happy BrowZine!

    Pavitra Krishnaswamy
Pavitra Krishnaswamy
PhD Candidate, Harvard-MIT Health Sciences and Technology Division

Our ‘Day in the Life’ series of blog posts by some of Wiley’s young science advisers continues – this time with a day in the life of Pavitra Krishnaswamy, a PhD Candidate at the Harvard-MIT Health Sciences and Technology Division.


MRI of the brain
Source: Wenht / Thinkstock

I am a PhD Candidate in Medical Engineering and Medical Physics at the Neuroscience Statistics Research Laboratory and the Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging at MIT and the Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH). One large effort in the Center is aimed at advancing imaging techniques to enable studies of brain function in a variety of cognitive and clinical states (like anesthesia, sleep, epilepsy and depression). A big challenge limiting these studies is the inadequate spatial and temporal resolution of existing non-invasive techniques to image brain function. My PhD research advances computational techniques to enhance the resolution with which we can image human brain activity. Further, I am involved in applying these techniques to study how anesthetic drugs modify brain activity and eliminate conscious perception – a commonplace occurrence during millions of surgeries each year. My project is exciting to me because it requires me to work at the intersection of computational and clinical science, and to integrate math, physics, physiology, and medicine in unique ways.


Behind-the-scenes, my research day typically involves working with brain imaging and time series data acquired using varied measurement techniques, developing visualizations and mathematically intensive algorithms to analyze these data, writing manuscripts, and collaborating with diverse experts at the university or the hospital. At times, I spend most of the day doing math and statistical inference at the whiteboard by my desk, and muddling through equations, either by myself or with pre/postdoctoral associates. Some days are spent on literature review and thinking about the nature of information contained in imaging measurements and how that information can be exploited to enhance resolution. This usually involves linking the physics driving the imaging modality and the physiology underlying brain function. Sometimes I also observe procedures in the hospital to understand the clinical context within which the data is collected. Many days involve extensive coding, debugging, and implementing data analysis streams – often using open-source software tools. These tasks have the interesting dichotomy that they require a creative flow of ideas, while staying organized and tracking how things evolve clearly and carefully. Work days are long (10-12 hours) but flexible. Most days, I work from home at night and can log on remotely into the computational cluster, to start overnight simulations or time consuming runs – it is fun that I can program my work to continue while I go to meetings, happy hours, or sleep.


The lab I work in is spread across institutions with very different characters. For instance, the setup at MIT has the feel of an innovative technologically oriented institution with an intensely entrepreneurial culture -- everyone around here is always starting up something cool and exciting! On the other hand, MGH research is more oriented to patients and medical needs – interacting with patients, doctors and academic medical specialists offers a clinical perspective and often a reality check to when technology can impact medicine positively and more importantly when it cannot! The imaging center within MGH where I work has a number of like-minded engineers and physicists working on research that will have impact on patient care. The diversity of environments and the people I work with is energizing and always allows a chance to refresh when the math is not working out or the algorithm is generating errors. Sometimes, the seamless transitions between these environments makes me believe I am living in a bubble – but other times, when I spend hours on shuttle buses navigating Boston roads to make it in time for meetings at distinct locations, I am jolted back into reality.


My research activities are often interspersed with attending lab meetings, seminar talks, and discussing projects with colleagues. As my colleagues include mathematicians, doctors, scientists, and engineers, I have learned to speak their respective languages and focus the conversation to learn the most from their special areas of expertise. Often, I also spend time discussing my work with my advisors or presenting to collaborators in the Electrical Engineering or Neuroscience departments within MIT or the Radiology and Anesthesia departments at MGH. Often, the goal is to understand the way data was collected, or get inputs on how the algorithms I develop are working, or the clinical perspective on how to interpret the findings. Through these interactions, I have learned how to gain tremendous value from data collected routinely within a healthcare organization. And, it is these very collaborative interactions where new projects begin; for example I was able to build on an existing collaboration to link up with doctors and conduct a novel observational study during a clinical rotation. While the collaborative setup enables a lot of unforeseen unimaginable scientific and learning opportunities, I have had to learn to accept and navigate the differences in culture, timescales and motivations that drive the working of different institutions.


Beyond research, my program, MIT, MGH, Harvard Medical School and Boston in general are teeming with talks, seminars, and opportunities to gain exposure to the clinical and business side of translational medical research. Whether it is getting involved with helping a local startup, attending a hack-a-thon with physicians to understand problems in the clinical world, or attending a seminar on heath economics, everything is within reach of a busy and overworked graduate student. All it takes is deciding to set aside a few hours in the evenings or on weekends to take advantage of these opportunities! These activities have helped me learn a tremendous amount about opportunities for innovation in clinical research and the overall healthcare enterprise – specifically what opportunities are within the reach of technology or science, and what aspects require regulatory or business factors to drive impact.


Overall, my research projects, collegial interactions, work environment and professional involvements have enabled me to discover my professional self, my working style, when I operate optimally and how I can create the best conditions for myself. I have really relished the creative process of solving challenging problems, analyzing data, and communicating findings. I have grown to recognize that sometimes non-scientific challenges such as paperwork requirements, getting access to the right collaborator, or rallying people towards a particular idea, can influence progress of projects more than scientific ones, and I have been able to hone my skills in these soft, subjective and essential aspects of science, research and life. Social opportunities that abound within my study and work environments have enabled me to make many friends, to get to know inspiring colleagues and alumni, and to connect personally with faculty members who are often kind enough to open their homes for potlucks with students! Overall, my professional endeavors and social involvements have truly connected me with people who have helped me work past the most challenging times of research, helped me define my career goals, and kept my drive to explore the mysteries of the mind and world alive and kicking!


Pavitra is a member of Wiley Advisors, a program for early career researchers and professionals to serve as a voice for their communities. For more information, please visit Wiley Advisors online or on twitter @WileyAdvisors.

    Francois Diederich
Francois Diederich
Professor of Organic Chemistry, ETH Zurich.
angewandte coverThe question of how to improve the [peer review] system and its efficiency has become a matter of urgency. The discussion of this exceeds the size of an Editorial, but I will try to give some suggestions.


Journal editors increasingly ask their authors to suggest possible reviewers. This certainly facilitates the editorial selection of experts, but also leads to stress on particularly renowned scientists, whose names appear more often than average. Journals should maintain large databases of reviewers from many countries so that the task can be distributed to as many scientists as possible. However, these databases often do not seem to be current. In particular, the editors should have a good knowledge of young, emerging researchers, who can then be approached to help with the assessment. I often get inquiries about manuscripts that should be addressed to the experts with whom we collaborate on specific measurements. Again, more expertise in the editorial offices is in demand, because scientists should only be asked to review within the frame of their core competencies. In this respect, Angewandte Chemie, with its team of highly qualified editors, is striving to act in a exemplary manner.


The number of requested referee reports from a country should ideally be in reasonable proportion to the number of submitted manuscripts and publications from this country. It is likely that researchers in the emerging and already very productive scientific nations, especially China, are not adequately involved in the peer-review process. This must change quickly.


Furthermore, too many referee reports are frequently requested. This load on the system is unnecessary. An extreme case that affected me personally is that of a review article, mainly on our own work published entirely in very good journals, for which seven (all positive) opinions were sought. In most cases, a decision on acceptance or rejection should be possible based on a maximum of two or three reports and the reading of the manuscript by the editors/publishers.


But the authors are also challenged. The amount of reviewing would drop significantly when they sent their work from the outset to an appropriate (also in terms of “level”) publication organ and when they filed linguistically correct manuscripts with complete data instead of “first drafts”. Poorly written manuscripts should be sent back by editors.

The system will be more efficient by avoiding multiple assessments if the reports that led to the rejection for a journal with a broad readership are accepted for the publication in a thematically more focused one. This is already the case within the families of GDCh/ChemPubSoc Europe/ACES journals published by Wiley-VCH as well as at the RSC and ACS, but it can certainly be further extended.


The other organizations competing for reviewing reports must also question whether they are doing enough to avoid an unnecessary load on the peer-review system. Thus, scientific academies should use their collective large and diverse expertise to fulfill their job of identifying potential new members without external assessment. This also applies to universities. Here, the assessment of tenure packages and the ranking of candidates for appointments are the most important and most responsible tasks. Such requests should always be accepted with priority by the contacted researchers. But is is questionable whether external assessments are required for the distinction of doctoral dissertations (as is the case in many countries outside Germany) or the promotion of a professor to salary levels above the normal standard (in the USA).


The assessments of applications for the Excellence Initiative and the Centers of Excellence in Germany (and subsequent similar initiatives in other countries) have put a particularly heavy burden on domestic and foreign researchers, which makes it difficult to achieve acceptance among the researchers for a broad continuation of these research ratings at regular intervals.


As a general rule, tasks and assessments that can be done within organizations on the basis of their competence and self-critical judgment, should not be moved outside.


This is an extract from the editorial of the same name in the December 23, 2013 issue of Angewandte Chemie, International Edition, a journal of the German Chemical Society, published by Wiley-VCH. The full editorial is available on Wiley Online Library here.

    Alice Meadows
Alice Meadows
Director of Communications, Wiley

knodeFounded in 2011 through Enlight Biosciences and PureTech Ventures, Knode Inc was recently named one of FierceBioTechIT’s
“5 next-gen software tools for biopharma R&D”. To celebrate Knode and Wiley's new partnership to deliver innovative services to scholarly and scientific societies, we interviewed their CEO, David Steinberg.


1. Please can you tell us a bit about why you launched Knode – what need were you seeking to meet?


Knode was originally formed as part of a collaboration among multiple pharmaceutical companies, called Enlight Biosciences, focused on solving common research problems. As research across both industry and academia has become more open and collaborative, Enlight’s pharma members continually faced challenges identifying the most appropriate researchers for key partnerships. We formed Knode as an independent company around the mission of automating the process of capturing expertise, identifying researchers and their content, and forging connections to advance R&D.


2. How does the Knode platform work?


We’ve built a versatile automated platform to capture expertise and foster collaboration. We extract data from millions of documents, including US Patents, Pubmed Abstracts, NIH grants and clinicaltrials.gov. Using advance semantic mining and data extraction algorithms, we create “research signatures” for millions of researchers, describing their core areas of expertise, publication track record, authorship networks, and more. We provide users with advanced tools to filter and assess the information, for example searching for researchers by clinical focus, highlighting prolific inventors, and flagging up-and-coming young investigators. Users can also explore co-authorship networks visually, for example to identify independent reviewers outside an author’s network or gauge an expert’s collaboration track record. Individual profiles can be explored in detail, for example allowing users to filter an expert’s content by specific topic area. We can also process customers’ custom data sets just for them, to add a level of resolution to the insight we glean from the public data.


Because we’ve built this rich, flexible database of experts and their content, we can provide valuable capabilities for many kinds of organizations like universities, scholarly societies, regional organizations, and life science companies. For example we’ve created robust organizational membership portals for many organizations that use Knode to promote their experts to the world, engage with outside collaborators, and manage and track their membership rolls.


3. How does Knode fit into the overall scholarly communications ecosystem?


More than ever, the individual researcher is emerging as the center of the scholarly communications universe. Several forces are converging to bring this about. For example, open access publishing, including broadly practices like pre-publication archiving and post-publication peer-review, is vesting more control over research output in the author. Along with this, an explosion of data – both larger data sets and new kinds of research outputs – creates huge measurement and assessment challenges. Further, the push toward collaborative research and publishing is growing. The average number of co-authors per Pubmed citation has grown from 1.5 in 1950 to around 4 in 2003 to over 5 in 2013, and today almost 10% of NIH grants are inter-institutional. What this all means is that identifying, profiling, and describing research expertise is becoming incredibly important. To succeed in scholarly publishing, researchers and organizations must do a better job – in a noisier environment – of finding each other, promoting themselves, and managing their collaborations. New tools, using the latest data mining and techniques, are required to address the challenges in this changing landscape. That’s exactly what Knode is designed to do.


4. You’re partnering with Wiley to deliver services for societies – what sorts of opportunities do you see for our partnership?


Wiley is the premier academic publisher in the world, with incredibly broad reach, deep insight into the research ecosystem, and an extremely skilled and knowledgeable team focused on disseminating scholarly thought. Wiley is focusing these capabilities toward helping researchers, institutions, and organizations thrive in this dynamic scholarly publishing milieu. Knode has built a deep set of technical capabilities around understanding and profiling researchers. Putting the two organizations together allows us to create the most powerful platform in the world for capturing and sharing research expertise.


This partnership is specifically geared toward providing customized research expertise portals to learned societies and other academic and regional organizations worldwide. The focus is on providing an active, dynamic platform for society members to engage with each other, and for society leadership to better track, manage, recruit and communicate with members.


5. How have the societies and other organizations you’ve partnered with to date responded to your services?


We are just starting to roll out our platform widely and are receiving a fantastic response. We have over a dozen partners and collaborators to date, and thousands and thousands of users of our open beta site. We have many thousands of affiliated researchers covered by institutional portals we’ve provided to these organizations. We’ve also received a tremendous amount of very valuable feedback from our partners, for example on how to “rank” based on expertise, how to get the most out of our visualization tools, etc., that has helped us continually improve our product. Because our platform is cloud based, we can quickly incorporate these and other updates and push them to all of our customers.


6. What are your plans for the future; where do you see Knode in five years’ time?


We see Knode growing to become an integral part of the scientific expertise and scholarly research ecosystem. Drawing insight from the onslaught of research data will only become more important over time, and Knode’s unique researcher-centric view of the world will be critical in this endeavor. We think every organization that participates in science or scholarly publishing will be able to benefit from this approach. We are developing new, exciting ways to characterize researcher expertise based on all facets of their work, helping to move away from raw impact as a measure of research output to more descriptive and broad-based measures of true “research signatures.” To date we’ve focused on life sciences but we will be expanding to new fields soon. At Knode we like to say “it’s not who you know, it’s who you should know” that matters. We’d like to be at the center of that pursuit.


Read the press release announcing Wiley's new partnership with Knode.

    Verity Warne
Verity Warne
Senior Marketing Manager, Author Marketing, Wiley

Rapid publication is widely pursued, but with review taking, on average, 80 days per paper1 (that’s 1,920 hours of waiting for a decision), it is not surprising that it can be a much-maligned process.


And, it all starts over if the paper gets rejected from the author’s first choice journal (often for reasons of impact or scope). The entire peer-review process is repeated upon resubmission to another publication and it’s not uncommon for reviewers to be asked to review the same paper multiple times by different journals.


Addressing this issue, we are piloting Wiley’s transferable peer review – a system to preserve and transfer the initial peer review, enabling the review to travel with the article on its route to publication.


Wiley’s goal is to support efficient and thorough peer review. We believe this enhanced system of transferring papers and reviews in a seamless manner will save authors, reviewers and editors valuable time. By reducing the number of reviews in the universe, we aim to reduce the burden on reviewers, while helping editors to make prompt decisions and significantly increase the publication speed of many papers.



While there are initiatives to take the journal out of the peer review process altogether and detach reviewer reports from publication in a specific journal, we believe that many authors know which journals they would prefer to publish in. They want to own that choice, rather than being told which journal they should submit to or waiting for a journal to bid for publication of their paper (which they may not wish to publish in).


Wiley’s transferable peer review is currently been piloted amongnine of our high impact neuroscience titles – see www.wileyonlinelibrary.com/peerreviewpilot.


Papers submitted to one of these journals will be reviewed using the journals’ usual review format. If the paper is rejected, authors can opt to transfer the paper to another Wiley-published neuroscience journal, sharing the peer review that has already taken place and thereby receiving a speedier decision.


Authors are encouraged to consider a transfer only when appropriate - the purpose is not to provide a soft reject option for the original journal or to keep poor papers in the system.


Of course, most journals are attached to their own approach to peer review and it can be difficult to perform review outside the context and lens of a specific journal. An additional component of this transfer is the use of a standard review scorecard used among all participating journals and filled out by the reviewer in parallel to the current peer review at each journal. The primary goal of the scorecard is to provide a framework for objective evaluation. Using the scorecard,reviewers can provide a quantitative assessment of the quality of the research and also its novelty, impact and interest.


This pilot will run for at least six months and results will be used to develop a robust process which can be expanded across Wiley’s journal portfolio.




1 M. Ware, Peer review: benefits, perceptions, and alternatives (Publishing Research Consortium, London UK, 2008; http://www.publishingresearch.org.uk/documents/PRCsummary4Warefinal.pdf)





Filter Blog

By date:
By tag: