{"objectType":14,"valid":true,"id":2014}
2014
    Martin Davies
Martin Davies
eLearning Director, Wiley
Source: iStock/Thinkstock
Source: anyaberkut/Thinkstock

Memberships are in decline

It is no secret that many scholarly societies or associations are seeing membership numbers dwindle in recent years. Whether this is due to member needs changing and societies being unable to adapt quickly, the almost ubiquitous access to academic resources seeing the society publication cease to be the main draw, or just simply that societies may not be offering enough to justify their membership dues.

Educational mission

Whatever the ultimate reason for decline, there are steps that can be taken to increase the value proposition to members by looking more closely at their needs. Most societies exist to serve their members, so making those who make up the membership central to the organization’s strategy is crucial. If you look at the key activities most societies undertake, they are closely linked to education: conferences, publications (e.g. journals and books), outreach and so on. Different societies will approach these activities with different emphases, and many are already investing in eLearning programs (78% according to a recent Tagoras report on learning management systems). As I'll demonstrate below, there are great possibilities open to societies in optimizing their existing programs and calibrating them to deliver maximum value, or by setting up an eLearning program from scratch for those remaining 22% of societies or associations.

What about eLearning?

eLearning can take many forms, but there are some common benefits it can yield for societies or associations. It can provide members with professional development and learning, facilitate accreditations and certifications that are critical to their careers, and increase the levels of engagement between societies and their members, and between the members themselves. By matching their strategic goals to the professional needs of their members, society executives and Directors of Education within the organizations can deliver a valuable program of benefits that will attract new members, and bolster retention rates. In a previous post, we highlighted education and certification as two key roles of the ‘Association of the Future’.

Matching up to member needs

If a society can match its membership offerings with the actual needs of its members, the foundations for success are set. So what are the needs of the society and the typical member in the case of eLearning?

 

Society needs

   

    • Retain members, attract new members. Where educational resources are available online for members, there is potential to attract members from diverse regions around the world, while building relationships with new communities (and not simply relying on the annual conference to generate discussions).

   

    • Increase member engagement. Connecting people is often a fundamental objective of any society. Therefore, providing educational activities enables the members to interact and engage more effectively with the society and vice versa.

   

    • Generate new revenue streams. Creating an online learning platform can open up new commercial opportunities, reducing the reliance on traditional publications and/or conference income.

   

    • Show leadership. What better position to be in than the go-to place for resources on a particular subject area? It can help to promote the ideas, research and knowledge of the society itself through its educational content. It will also help the society to demonstrate its influence in a digital world.

 

For these ideas to be realized, a society should focus on a few important aspects: commitment and buy-in from society executives and governors, robust curricula (this is the foundation of eLearning), a delivery platform capable of deploying the content effectively, technological knowhow (which can be injected from the right partner), and a desire to diversify.

 

Member needs

   

    • Lifelong learning. Many professions require continuos learning as protocols, standards and knowledge change over time. Many professionals must ensure they have the latest certifications to enable them to actually work.

   

    • Supported professional development. This is generally a high priority item for many professionals whether they are considering a new job, or joining a professional membership organization.

   

    • Convenience. Users want information but digital barriers often result in the user looking elsewhere. They want digital content instantly, wherever they are, and that's compatible with the device they choose. They also want the platform to work intuitively. User-experience is an enormously important (and sometimes overlooked) element of eLearning design.

   

    • Community engagement. How can a society create eLearning programs that really motivate and engage the members? Diversity of media, graded content, incentives, deep social media integration and in-activity polls and surveys and are a few ways this can be achieved.

 

Where to start?

I've only scratched the surface here, as eLearning is a big step for many societies or associations. There are many vendors of eLearning software, curriculum development packages and online knowledge banks, but many sit outside the research or academic landscape and never really grasp the complexities and nuances crucial to success in this industry. As the publishing industry diversifies,  publishing organizations are building on existing capabilities to support their partners in developing new initiatives. Wiley is a great example of this. Our successful eLearning packages are being adopted by membership organizations around the world as we combine our expertise in publishing with our experience in developing digital learning environments to create new possibilities for our society partners.

eLearning should be part of the strategic roadmap for societies who wish to diversify or improve their membership value propositions to satisfy and attract members, who are committed to continuing education for their members, and who want to further develop the depth of their valuable communities.

How do you view the possibilities for eLearning within the society or association setting?  Let us know your thoughts in the comments below,

    Joan Capua
Joan Capua
Training and Development Manager, Wiley

I collaborated with the Wiley Author Team to launch a webinar on November 13, 2014 on time management for authors. As the Manager for Training and Development at Wiley, I was pleased to apply time management techniques to feedback and live questions from authors and researchers. If you missed the webinar, you can listen to the recording for free on the Wiley Author Services Channel.

With participants calling in from 37 countries, we provided an introduction to the latest research on time management, a step-by-step application of a professional time management tool to examples of real author concerns and stressors, a strategy for the best way to trim down the typical researcher “To-Do” list and prevent burn-out, and tips on preventing distraction.

We had a wide range of questions submitted from participants that we did not have time to answer during the session, so as promised, please see below for a sample of these responses and we've posted the full list of questions and answers here. If you have any more time management questions beyond what we have responded to, please do submit via the “Comments” box at the bottom of this post and I will get you an answer!

1.  How can I handle a boss who keeps interrupting my agenda? If your professor/advisor asks you for 5 minutes, you can't really refuse that request, right?

Right! There are of course some people that you can’t and shouldn’t turn away. Try to think of it as giving five minutes to interact with someone with whom you are looking to build a long-term and valuable relationship. But if you find that this kind of interaction keeps occurring and is truly impacting your productivity, you have a few options: If your boss is asking you questions about projects and other items that are related to your workday, you can use this as an opportunity to discuss a common framework that will get you both approaching your workload the same way. But if your boss is actually distracting you on a regular basis to talk about the weather or a football game, consider that this might be their way of connecting with you. To diplomatically turn things back toward immediate productivity, you might try mentioning a key deadline that you are working toward for them and then schedule time LATER to stop in and have a discussion about that football game.

2.  What do I do when I have 10 minutes scheduled for one task but due to an emergency, this time is now 15 or 20 minutes, changing the rest of the day? (Related: How do you identify what a “crisis” is?)

That is why we advocate building in a “time cushion” of up to 25% of your day - so that you are able to handle true emergencies or crises. But do try to step back and reflect on whether something that’s come up is definitely an emergency and requires your immediate attention. If you find yourself having “emergencies” every day, then - unless you’re a doctor or nurse - you might need to consider either re-categorizing what an “emergency” is and how you react to it or else consider adding even more cushion time into your schedule. Whenever possible, try to step back and see if there are steps you can take to prevent things from becoming emergencies in the first place. This isn’t always possible but it’s worth a shot. Emergencies cause the most stress and really can completely disrupt our plans if we don’t figure out a way to get control.

3.  I would have more time if I just stopped sleeping – ha ha. What is the latest research on the impact of sleep loss on productivity and are there ways people can sleep more efficiently?

We do need our sleep! There is a lot of science out there about how critical sleep is to being productive. Here is an article on “The Science of Sleep” that contains some of the most useful information I’ve found that ties in closely with time management.

4.  Do you have any recommendations for resources on how to cut time off meetings? Like “How to Make an Agenda for Dummies” or websites on meeting preparation?

We do have a Running Great Meetings and Workshops For Dummies book as well as Successful Time Management For Dummies, and the more specific Time Management for Department Chairs. And here’s a blog post on “Conducting Effective Business Meetings” on the Dummies blog, as well as a post on “10 Tips for Effective Meetings.”

5.  Is it possible to get the presentation/slides so I can formulate questions later on? I am not prepared to fully concentrate on this presentation right now.

Yes of course! Please refer to the Wiley Author Services Channel for a recording of the full webinar, including slides, and please do enter any questions in the “Comments” section below this post and I’ll respond.

6.  Pressure to publish articles from my department sometimes makes me push back by not doing what I need to do for an article. I recognize that this is an emotional reaction and likely at my own expense. Is there a way to block off that external pressure in my mind so I can focus?

Yes, there is an element of emotion and pressure that can impact attention and effectiveness. So what you want to do is determine which articles you can handle, present those to your department or to the person who is actually doing the pushing, and discuss and agree on some realistic deadlines with them so that you can achieve them without being overly stressed. Simply communicating often leads to the easing of emotional pressure on both sides.

Read the full list of questions and answers from this session here>

Thanks again to everyone who called in and especially to those who submitted questions. You can listen to the recording on the Wiley Author Services Channel and don't forget to leave any additional questions in the comments section below!

    Sarah Andrus 
Sarah Andrus
Business Development Manager, Wiley 

"Welcome to the Connected World."

This simple yet portentous greeting marked a day of thought-provoking—and at times provocative—discourse on exactly that concept.  But, haven’t we always been here? Even before the advent of the Internet, before telecommunications, before the rise of modern society itself, we have been a species with an intrinsic and prevailing need to connect.  So what new things can we say about this reality?  What does it mean, here and now, to live in the Connected World—and what is the present and future role of the professional society in this ever-evolving reality?

On November 5th I attended, with my Professional Innovations colleague Dennis Velasco, the second annual The Next Billion conference and forum presented by Quartz—a two-year-old digital media outlet “for business people in the new global economy”— at Bohemian National Hall in Manhattan.  “The Next Billion” refers to the next wave of  technological and social revolutions: it is the next one billion people who will become connected to the Internet for the first time over the next ten years.  Many of them have thus far had their access restricted by social or infrastructural limitations; many are only recently or not yet born; but whatever the circumstances, these new entrants to the online community provide the opportunity—and necessity—to rigorously assess how we will interact with them, and how we can start this evolution with those who are already here.

Facilitate, don’t control

The subject may be incredibly broad, but luckily there was no shortage of actionable takeaways for businesses, nonprofits, and individuals alike.  What felt particularly relevant to the society and association world were several variations on one recurring theme: the individuals in your community are more empowered than ever before, and the only way to thrive as an organization is to embrace and facilitate this new distribution of influence, not try to control it.

 

Fareed Zakaria
Fareed Zakaria delivering opening remarks
Source: Dennis Velasco, Wiley

CNN anchor Fareed Zakaria asserted in his opening remarks that in a connected world, positive social trends on a global scale are driven by a convergence of economic interests; more specifically, we are now seeing technological connectivity and the innovators behind it as major drivers of social change.  This sentiment was echoed and amplified by keynote speaker Lawrence Lessig of Harvard Law School, who delivered an extremely compelling, by-the-numbers presentation of the state of democracy around the world and the undeniable role of digital connectivity in empowering citizens in the Arab Spring and more recently in Hong Kong.  The lesson: even the most stubborn barriers can no longer hold back the power of connected individuals on a mission.  Your organization’s best leadership will occur on the front lines of connection advocacy.

Empower your constituents

If ‘connectedness’ was the main theme of the conference, ‘empowerment’ was a close (and closely related) second.  Whether in our social or professional lives, the connected world empowers us to contextualize and act upon trends that improve our own circumstances as well as better serve the needs of others.  As an example of empowerment in a business context, Mike Abbott of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers discussed his firm’s use of “big data” (a term he admitted is as overused as it is misunderstood) to assess the online landscape to advise their customers on how to achieve success with their digital business models.  His remark that companies and other organizations are constantly snapping up data without an actionable plan for how to use it rang very true.  Any organization that depends on member or customer insights can benefit from Abbot’s advice to remember that even the most comprehensive data set is merely an artifact of humanity, and to carefully consider what information you choose to collect based on its potential to deliver real human intelligence and empathy.

 

John Donovan, The Next Billion Conference
John Donovan (AT&T) and Dan Frommer (Quartz journalist)
Source: Dennis Velasco, Wiley

Make room for innovation

A discussion that felt particularly close to home was on the topic of connecting people to ideas, led by John Donovan of AT&T.  Like Wiley, and like many of our society and association partners, AT&T has been around for a long time—long enough to be accustomed to adapting to new technologies and societal trends.  But never has the pace of change been so disruptive as today; and while Donovan admitted to some significant challenges in updating the public perception of their brand, he was optimistic of the company’s future as a global leader of innovation.  AT&T’s new Foundry centers are dedicated to investing in startups and individuals with big ideas, thereby creating within the larger organization a dedicated space for agile innovation and minimal bureaucracy.  Donovan asserted that organizations with a “traditional” reputation should focus on fostering innovation from the inside out, and that re-branding exercises may be necessary but the focus should stay primarily on convincing your core community that your brand’s message resonates with their values.

The Next Billion conference had no shortage of excellent speakers from highly respected organizations, delivering what were essentially short-form, TED-style talks on a range of topics from digital youth culture to the future of urban planning.  To attend and absorb the presence of so much creative energy was a truly illuminating experience, and if it’s possible to briefly sum up the relevant takeaways for societies and associations I would do so as follows:

     

    • We are quickly and irrevocably moving from the Communication Age to the Participation Age. What’s the difference, you may ask? Perceptions on who gets to “lead” a conversation and who can engage in it, and how, have been fundamentally disrupted. This trend applies to your members, your professional community, the general public; the groups you aspire to reach with your message are no longer passive receivers, but active participants in the discussion.

     

    • In a world where constant connectivity is increasingly taken for granted, the need for meaningful alliances is increasingly crucial. Don’t let your stakeholder relationships get lost in the online proliferation of weak connections and anonymous noise.  Think beyond the mission statement and formulate a call to action—then act on it.

     

    • Effective immediately, your digital engagement strategy must anticipate the online behavior of young people and the Next Billion.  Extending far beyond “millennial” trends like social media and technology adoption, the next wave of internet users will experience the online universe in a way that scarcely resembles the internet most of us first encountered in the 1990s.  For these users there are no presumed limitations on how connectivity and engagement can work in the digital world; this can be treated as a blank slate for your community of the future.

     

    • “Think Global” should be the status quo by now. There’s no longer any excuse for “globally focused” to be just a buzzword in your mission statement.  Your future international member communities are easier to reach than ever, and they are eager for opportunities to connect and make their voices heard.

 

We have always been living in a connected world; this is simply a part of being human.  But what allows us to move forward as a global society is our limitless curiosity to explore this world, and our relentless pursuit of new ways to interpret our place in it.  What do you want your place to be?

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

With the ever-increasing number of journals out there, it can be tough to determine where to submit your research.  Ben Mudrak, scientist and Strategic Accounts Manager at Research Square, spoke to us recently about how JournalGuide may be able to help. 

 

Ben Mudrak of Research Square Source:  Ben Mudrak
Ben Mudrak of Research Square
Source: Ben Mudrak

Q. Can you tell us about JournalGuide?  When, how and why did it come about?

A. JournalGuide is a free tool that helps researchers match their manuscripts with relevant target journals. Users enter search terms into JournalGuide (either a title and abstract from a manuscript draft or a set of keywords of their choosing), and the site compares the input to text from recently published manuscripts. This process produces a ranked list of potential target journals that have published similar papers. JournalGuide was initially created in response to feedback from customers of our other Research Square brands, American Journal Experts and Rubriq. As we were assisting these researchers with preparing or evaluating their manuscripts, we continually received requests to help choose a journal for submission. At the same time, we were building an internal journal database to support our services, and it made sense to make that resource public so we could assist all researchers, not just those who purchase Research Square services. The site was soft launched in the fall of 2013, with marketing efforts beginning in March 2014.

Q. What problems does JournalGuide solve for users?

A. The main problem JournalGuide is designed to solve is the difficulty in discovering the best journal matches for a new research manuscript. This process is becoming increasingly difficult as more and more journals are launched. Early career researchers may be searching for new options related to their primary research focus, but even highly experienced researchers sometimes want help finding a good journal for a manuscript that diverges from their typical work. While a number of article search systems are well known to researchers, JournalGuide organizes results by journal so users can easily identify journals that have published similar work, not just similar articles. Each JournalGuide profile page also presents important information (publisher, journal website, contact information, aims & scope, cost, acceptance rate, timeliness, etc.) in a standardized layout, helping authors avoid scouring journal web pages to find what they need.

Another major issue that JournalGuide is tackling relates to the existence of questionable publishers and journals. With thousands and thousands of journals, and many with similar names, no individual author can be expected to keep track of them all. We’ve introduced a new designation called “Verified” for journals that have been accepted into internationally renowned indexes with rigorous acceptance criteria (such as PubMed or Web of Science). We are not evaluating journals ourselves, but we are assembling the hard work done by other groups in a central location to help authors identify established journals. There’s much more about this feature on our blog.

Q. How do you feel authors typically find journals to publish in?

A. Based on our conversations with researchers (and the experience of many of us at Research Square who came from the bench), many authors simply submit to journals that are familiar to them. In many cases, a researcher’s former advisor focused on a handful of journals that fit his/her line of research, and these journals become the main targets for the researcher as she begins her own career. Unfortunately, such a cycle can lead to tunnel vision when it comes to potential journals, even as a large number of new journals are launched each month. In addition to prior experience, researchers find journals from articles they discover in search tools like PubMed or Google Scholar and from learned societies that they are members of. Many also look at where their colleagues publish and find new potential journals in the references of papers they are reading.

Q. JournalGuide allows users to rate journals based on their publishing experiences.  Does this make JournalGuide somewhat akin to a Yelp or Tripadvisor for journals?

A. We had initially described JournalGuide as having the potential to be a Tripadvisor or Consumer Reports for journals, and this was met with mixed feelings. While many recognize the value in collecting feedback about journals, others feared that the ratings would devolve into complaining, potentially tarnishing a journal’s reputation based on a few bad experiences. In addition, many researchers have expressed little interest in taking the time to rate their experience, having so little time on their hands already. We’re still in the process of figuring out what form the community feedback will take, but it’s important to note that the feedback will be displayed in an anonymous and aggregated manner, making it quite different from Yelp, for example. Of course, we will ensure that journal representatives can respond to any rating information that is posted publicly. We believe that features such as the “Verified” status can help users evaluate journals in ways besides reading reviews or ratings.

Q. What has been the response to JournalGuide thus far?

A. Overall, the response from researchers has been very positive. While there is always room to improve our coverage and journal list, the vast majority of users report discovering a new journal that would be good for their work alongside a handful of journals that they expected to find. The second most common response is curiosity about the business model. One of my colleagues just returned from the Charleston Conference and said that she kept being asked, “What’s the catch?”  No catch – JournalGuide is free to authors and journals, and we intend to keep it that way. We have also received a lot of helpful feedback from publishers and the scholarly publishing industry as a whole. In particular, we are honored to have been selected as the recipient of the 2014 ALPSP Bronze Award for Innovation in Scholarly Publishing, with the committee citing JournalGuide’s potential to help all researchers make informed decisions about where to submit their work.

Q. JournalGuide is in beta at the moment.  What’s next for JournalGuide and when will it launch officially?

A. We have a long list of new features that we’d like to roll out on JournalGuide, but first up is an infrastructure overhaul that will ensure the future stability of the site and the underlying database. Along with upgrading behind the scenes, we will be allowing users to follow journals and rolling out a new layout to make the user interface cleaner and easier to use. We expect this new version of JournalGuide to roll out by the end of the year. Journal editors will also be able to edit their profile data in place as part of this re-launch (instead of visiting a separate site), along with making announcements on their journal profile pages. We’re constantly working to expand our sources of metadata and other information as well, with a growing list of new publisher feeds and more open access policy details on the way. Finally, we’re looking to add more of our own metrics and designations like the Verified status. We know that researchers value the discoverability of journals and the strength of their reputations, so we’ll be tackling those topics in the coming months.

Thanks Ben.

    Allyn Molina 
Allyn Molina
Publisher, Life Sciences, Wiley 
peer review sessions
Source: Michael Blann / Thinkstock

Peer review is at the heart of scientific publishing. It provides the opportunity to discuss and improve upon a manuscript before publication and helps to ensure quality standards of articles published. But current complexities in the academic landscape, variations in the approach to assessing research, and difficulty securing reviewers due to demands on time are pulling at the seams of the peer review structure. Journal editors often complain that reviews are not useful and don’t offer appropriate direction for authors to develop their papers.  Reviewers say they are uncertain of what the editor expects. This is true for even seasoned researchers, but is particularly the case for the young research community, many of whom desire practice at reviewing manuscripts and seek feedback from the editors on the relevance of their comments.

While discussing the pain points around peer review, Matthias Starck, Editor in Chief of Journal of Morphology, wanted a new approach to cultivating good reviews. With  help from a few very devoted editorial board members and colleagues at Wiley, we set out to trial a Peer Review Mentorship program sponsored by the journal.  With the aim of educating and identifying the next generation of researchers and engaging with the community, the journal held its first workshop at the International Congress of Invertebrate Morphologists in Berlin on August 6, 2014. The 20 attendees were comprised of Editorial board members from the journal who agreed to become “mentors,” and enterprising young researchers who were nominated to attend the workshop and take part in the live reviewing setting that would continue on for the next 12 months.

Starck, who has been Editor in Chief of the journal since 2008, believes there is a strong need to develop young reviewers, saying:“Recent years have seen peer reviewing deteriorating, the worst being false positive reviews that always end in frustrating experience for authors, reviewers and editors.”

The format of a Peer Review Workshop:

     

    • A one day workshop was held in Berlin on August 6, 2014

     

    • Journal Editorial board members nominated promising young researchers who have both the interest and the potential to become reviewers on the journal.

     

    • Invitations were then sent to these researchers

     

    • The workshop included a lecture and interactive discussion with the well known Editor in Chief and board members with topics including “Current Challenges and Innovations in Peer Review”,  “History of Peer Review”, “What makes a great reviewer” and “How to know what the editor wants”

 

Following the workshops, trainees were paired with mentors in their areas of expertise, with whom they will work to discuss and deliver a reviewer report for a paper in a live setting. With the completion of at least 2 successful reviews, trainees then “graduate” to fully-fledged reviewers and will be eligible for appointments as junior members of the editorial board. Thus far, the pilot has been met with wide enthusiasm, even from authors who are notified upon submission that their papers may be subject to the program (and given the chance to opt out).  We will consider the event a success if we have 5 or more trainees who fully pass the reviewing setting, though it was clear from the post-workshop survey that attendees found the initiative insightful- 100% of those who responded found the event “Extremely or somewhat useful”. One attendee commented that “The workshop gained from the many anecdotes regarding the peer review process”. A highlight seemed to be the personal interaction with the editors, with one attendee expressing appreciation that “The organizers took the time to answer all questions and engage in discussion with the audience.

Apart from outreach into the community, there are practical advantages to addressing this gap as it eases the burden on editorial boards and offers access to talented researchers coming up through the system, perhaps cultivating the next generation of strong journal editors.

    Helen Eassom
Helen Eassom
Author Marketing, Wiley
Commemorative medal of German chemist Karl Bosch.  Source: Getty Images
Commemorative medal of German chemist Karl Bosch. Source: Getty Images

The winners of this year’s Nobel Prize have recently been announced, and Wiley is proud to have published work by nine of the laureates.

“I would like to congratulate each of the 2014 Nobel laureates on their remarkable achievements,” said Steven Miron, Executive Vice President, Global Research. “We are honored that the laureates are a part of our author community and have chosen to publish their research with Wiley and the societies and organizations we serve.”

To celebrate the achievements of the laureates Wiley has made a selection of content (see below) from the 2014 winners free to access until the end of the year.

The Nobel Prize in Chemistry

This year’s Chemistry Prize, awarded by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, was given jointly to Eric Betzig, Stefan W. Hell and William E. Moerner for the development of super-resolved fluorescence microscopy.

Eric Betzig first published with Wiley in 1986 with an article in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, and more recently has published in Angewandte Chemie International Edition and Current Protocols in Cell Biology. Stefan W. Hell serves on the Editorial Boards of ChemPhysChem, Annalen der Physik, Journal of Biophotonics and Journal of Microscopy, with his latest research appearing in September as a cover story in Chemistry-A European Journal. William E. Moerner has published with Wiley throughout his career and serves on the Editorial Board of ChemPhysChem.

The Nobel Prize in Physics

The Nobel Prize in Physics, also awarded by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, was given to Isamu Akasaki, Hiroshi Amano and Shuji Nakamura for ‘the invention of efficient blue light-emitting diodes which has enabled bright and energy-saving white light sources’.

Shuki Nakamura first published with Wiley in 1996 with an article in Advanced Materials, and more recently, his letter in physica status solidi attracted over 100 citations. Hiroshi Amano guest edited three issues of physica status solidi, with his most recent edition published this year. All three Nobel Prize winners authored chapters in the book Nitrades with Non-Polar Surfaces: Growth, Properties and Devices (Wiley-VCH, 2008).

The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine

The Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institutet have awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine to John O’Keefe, May-Britt Moser, and Edvard I. Moser, for ‘their discoveries of cells that constitute a positioning system in the brain’. All three prize recipients are members of the Editorial Board of the Wiley journal Hippocampus, and have all published with Wiley.

May-Britt Moser and Edvard I. Moser have published their work in EMBO Molecular Medicine, Hippocampus, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology and European Journal of Neuroscience. John O’Keefe has published two chapters in Wiley’s Encyclopaedia of Cognitive Science as well as the CIBA Foundation Symposium series.

To access free content from this year’s Nobel Prize winners please visit the individual announcements in the Wiley Press Room:

•            Wiley Authors Awarded 2014 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine

•            Wiley Authors Awarded 2014 Nobel Prize in Physics

•            Wiley Authors Awarded 2014 Nobel Prize in Chemistry

•            Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2014 Awarded to Wiley Authors

    Liz Ferguson
Liz Ferguson
Publishing Solutions Director, Wiley

I am pleased to present here results from a survey Wiley conducted into researcher views of data sharing.  Earlier this year, we contacted 90,000 researchers across a wide array of disciplines and received more than 2,250 responses from individuals engaged in active research programs. Leading up to the survey, we conducted a series of interviews with researchers to ensure a representative list of views about data sharing was provided in the survey questionnaire. The results therefore reflect the breadth of ways in which researchers say they share their data publicly rather than a formal community or publisher-driven definition.

The headline results are clearly displayed in the infographic below created by my colleague, Laura Fedoryk, so I will comment on just a few.

First, of the 52% of respondents who said they had made their data publicly available, the largest proportion (67%) did so via supplementary material in journals.  That subset more or less tallies with the average take-up we see at Wiley of the supporting information facility (c. 30%), but this varies considerably by discipline, and of course not everything in supporting information is data. Other ways in which researchers reported making data publicly available, such as in repositories (which are better suited to long term data management and preservation), are dwarfed by this proportion.

A second area of interest is the factors that most strongly motivated researchers to make their data publicly available. I am particularly encouraged to see the emerging impact of journal requirements in increasing public access to data. One outstanding example of this is the successful introduction and enforcement of a data sharing policy at Molecular Ecology, which has seen more than 1,000 data packages deposited in Dryad alone since 2011.  Our publishing partners in the American Geophysical Union, the British Ecological Society, the Society for the Study of Evolution, the European Society for Evolutionary Biology, and others have also taken leadership positions in this respect. There is also more work we can all do (and which you will see Wiley doing) to help meet another primary motivation behind data sharing– increasing the impact and visbility of one’s research.

Last, the reasons researchers gave for not making their data publicly available are familiar. More than 40% of respondents told us there were IP or confidentiality concerns around their data that prevented sharing. In some cases this is undoubtedly true (this response was more marked in clinical medicine, for example), but in others it may reflect an individual sense of ownership of data rather than true IP or confidentiality issues. That is not to diminish those concerns, but opportunities remain to demonstrate the positive impact of data sharing to address this as well as fears of being scooped; to make it easier for researchers to archive their data in appropriate places; and for all involved in the scholarly ecosystem, including publishers, to drive a culture of data sharing. A Perspective just published in PLoS Biology provides a series of recommendations for publishers, and there will be future posts here about both the survey and how we intend to encourage more public sharing and archiving of research data.Researcher Data Insights -- Infographic FINAL REVISED (2)

Filter Blog

By date:
By tag: