{"objectType":14,"id":2014,"valid":true}
2015
    Lluis Anglada
Lluis Anglada
Director, Consortium of University Services of Catalonia

Wiley Library Advisory Board member Lluís Anglada – Director of the Department of Libraries, Information and Documentation of the Consortium of University Services of Catalonia (CSUC) – recently published an article about the sustainability of libraries in a world where information is increasingly digital, networked, and free, based on a speech he gave at the 22nd Bobcatsss conference in Barcelona, January 21-24 2014. This brief summary of the full article (originally published in El Profesional de la Información vol. 23 (2014) núm.6, and available open access here  is published to coincide with the 2015 American Library Association Midwinter Conference.

 

Source: PeterMFisher/Fuse/Thinkstock
Source: PeterMFisher/Fuse/Thinkstock

Libraries have survived for centuries, but the great technological changes in recent years – most notably, the advent of the internet and the digitization of information – have led to speculation about their future relevance and sustainability. When today’s users are more likely to seek information on their own than to use the library to meet their information needs, what does this mean for the future sustainability of libraries?

This paper proposes a mathematical formula to determine library sustainability, defined as demonstrating whether their social value exceeds their cost, and applies this formula to libraries during three major phases over the past 50 years. The first, Mechanization, is characterized by the construction of new buildings and the mechanization of processes. Next came Automation, where networks of libraries were established, the OPAC was introduced and union catalogues were created. And now we are in a period of Digitization, which has seen the introduction of electronic journals and books and the digitization of documents stored in libraries.

Public perception during the Mechanization phase was highly positive and operating costs were relatively low, meaning that – according to the proposed algorithm – the sustainability of the mechanized library was high. Under Automation, user perception was still good due to the technological improvements, and even though this also increased the costs, sustainability was still acceptably high. During the Digitization phase, however, despite librarians’ ability to adapt (both in terms of their own roles and how the library space is used), the speed of change has been so great that dysfunctions (defined as the difference between expectations and realities) have continued to increase. For example, duplication in catalogs as a result of one book being catalogued more than once; the ‘Googlization’ of information, while library catalogues – once so innovative – have failed to keep up with; and the failure of libraries to sufficiently adapt their services to meet users’ changing expectations. As a result, applying the formula to the Digitized library shows a clear downward trend in terms of its sustainability.

To ensure future library sustainability, changes in what Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman terms ‘perception’ (decision-making based on cognitive biases or prejudices rather than on probability calculation or reason), as well as better adaptation to the new paradigm are essential. Basically, libraries are suffering from the fact that the public perception of them remains attached to the printed book, which – with the advent of the Internet and digitization of information – is no longer valued as much as it was. Among other things, this has led to the steady decline in library budgets – both in real terms and as a proportion of the overall university budget. Some classic library services are also experiencing significant declines – loan transactions, reference inquiries, and displacement of the starting point for literature searches from the library catalogue to and A&I service or the internet, for example.

Looking to an imaginary future, what would a librarian say in 2030 about the value of the library in 2010? Probably that the sustainability formula was low. And in their own time (2030)? Perhaps open access is now a complete reality in the scientific world, that many services provide access to a range of publications for an acceptable flat fee, and that Google’s successor finds the documents people need with almost no margin of error. That could be the point at which, according to the formula, most libraries would become unsustainable.

So, what is to be done? How can we change public opinion so that, rather than seeing librarians as confined to what the name suggests – the four walls of the library – they will continue to be sustained by people through institutions and society in general because they believe that libraries are important to them, because they have a positive perception of them. We need to establish a new stereotype of ‘library’ in people’s minds, one that is not based on physical elements – buildings and books – but on the role of providing support and assistance in the difficult process of using information and transforming it into knowledge.

The creation of this new perception must be performed by the current generation of young librarians – “those who are inheriting renovated libraries but also a mental image that is associated with becoming less powerful for society. This is the challenge and responsibility for young librarians: to create a new perception of our profession.”

    Chris Graf
Chris Graf
New Business Director, Professional Innovations, Wiley

As we often discuss here, the support and engagement that an association provides to its members throughout the lifecycle of their professional development and careers is extremely important. This week we look through the lens of online recruitment and the benefits this invaluable solution offers to both associations and their members. In this short video we learn  from Allister Crowley how this rapidly growing industry can be utilized by associations to engage their member communities and support their career paths.

Allister has worked in the recruitment industry for over 10 years and has a great deal of experience of the digital transformation its been through - from purely print-based job advertising models to multi-channel digital career nurturing solutions. With an in-depth knowledge of the ever changing online recruitment landscape, Allister is eager to share his insights on how associations can satisfy their goals, their member needs and the global recruitment industry.

    Jonathan Foster
Jonathan Foster
PhD, Materials Science, University of Cambridge

What do Early Career Researchers (ECRs) think of Open Access? Following on from Daniel Amund’s post on the topic for OA Week 2014, another Wiley Advisor Jonathan Foster, winner of last year’s essay competition, shares his perspective.

“If I have seen further, it is because I am standing on the shoulders of giants”. This famous quote, attributed to Isaac Newton, highlights the importance of a reliable and accessible literature to the scientific method. Scientists must build on the latest research in their fields, new discoveries must be effectively scrutinized and research must be communicated to peers and beyond if science is to make progress. This role has traditionally been filled by publishers who facilitate the peer review process and curate the literature into relevant and graded segments in the form of subscription print journals. In an age where the internet means we expect content to be available at the touch of a button for free, it is unsurprising that traditional publication models have come under scrutiny as changes in technology and expectation take effect.med226056_243812759_243812760_256224451.jpg

Gold open access, which requires an upfront fee paid to publishers to allow articles to be made freely available, is increasingly becoming the favored model by UK research councils. The argument that publically funded research should be publically available is a compelling one and pay walls represent a barrier to innovation and scientific progress. However, the sheer scale of the literature and rate at which it is growing means that identifying relevant and reliable research is a challenging one. Free access to something you don’t know exists and can’t trust is of no value to anyone. If publishers can add value to the scientific process by creating innovative platforms to search and access content, efficient mechanisms to scrutinize, administer and promote worthwhile and groundbreaking research, then surely this is a service worth paying for. The danger of this model is that upfront fees provide short term incentives for journals to accept papers from anyone who has the money to pay, regardless of their scientific value or accuracy.  In the longer term, damage to the reputation of journals, and researchers, that take this approach will mean such papers are not worth the silicon they are encoded in and the market should correct itself. Opening up science to a larger audience by removing pay walls is a good idea but reputable publishers still have an important role to play in ensuring the public have easy access to the high quality science they paid for.

However, shifting the costs of publishing from the reader to the authors brings access problems of its own. Having always worked in institutions with good access to subscription journals and in a field where open access journals aren’t well recognized, the cost of publication has never factored into my decision of where to publish. For well-established academics with access to the considerable funds required to make publications open access in the best journals this is unlikely to change. However, where funds are limited, the question of whether you can afford to publish may become an increasing factor alongside the quality of your science. Funding for positions is often scraped together from multiple grants meaning some researchers won’t have access to a pot of money assigned for publishing open access. Research is often published years after a thesis has been written or a grant has run out. Many early career fellowships have fixed stipends which often scarcely cover salary and consumables let alone publishing costs meaning fellows will be more dependent on PI’s and departments. With publications being such a vital metric for individual students and post-docs (as well as their supervisors) it is important that group politics doesn’t become the determining factor of whose research gets published. If we are to go down the gold open access route and ensure the best research is brought to the widest possible audience, we need a fair funding process that provides open access for authors as well as readers.

Do you agree with Jonathan’s viewpoint? Let us know in the comments below or Tweet us @WileyExchanges.

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

Image Credit/Source:Medioimages/Photodisc/Getty Images

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

Vanessa Lafaye is Associate Director of Professional Innovations at Wiley and a newly published author of a historical fiction novel set in post WWI Florida.  She spoke to us recently about how she came to write Summertime and what it's like to be on the flip side of publishing. 

 

Source: Vanessa Lafaye
Source: Vanessa Lafaye

Q. Can you tell us about your background and your current position at Wiley?

A. I’ve worked in academic publishing for my whole career, starting in journals production in 1987 for IRL Press in Eynsham. The company was acquired by OUP and I stayed there until 1999, commissioning science books, and then moved to Blackwell. I started there as a social sciences Journals Publishing Manager but proved fantastically unsuited to it, and swiftly moved into online innovation. I’ve been doing that ever since. My current role is focused on innovations that solve problems for societies and associations.

Q. When did you start writing and how do you find the time with a full-time career?

A. I wrote my first story at age 6 and haven’t really stopped, but this is my first published novel. I’ve written others over the years which weren’t good enough!  It takes powerful motivation to write alongside a career, and the rest of life. You have to really want it. The thing that drove me was wanting to raise awareness of the real events behind the book. I’m a good multi-tasker, but even so, it was a challenge (I also run a community choir one day a week). I basically had to snatch whatever bits of time I could: evenings, weekends, and holidays. It didn’t make me much fun to be with, but luckily my husband is low-maintenance. He read four drafts for me.

SummertmeNEWQ. Your novel Summertime is a work of historical fiction set in depression-era Florida. How did you decide to write about that particular time and place?

A. I stumbled on the story while researching the idea for another book, and was instantly captivated. The story is based on the Labor Day hurricane of 1935 which struck Islamorada in the Keys. Although I grew up in Florida, I was ignorant of the events. But once I learned the story, which is barely a footnote in the historical record, I felt compelled to dramatize it. I also wanted to explore what happens when people are tested to their absolute limits. I feel very privileged to bring this story to life.

Q. Can you introduce us to the story?

A. The story opens with the locals in fictional Heron Key getting ready for the Fourth of July beach barbecue, which sounds idyllic but behind the scene lurks massive tensions: between black and white people, between husbands and wives, and between the townspeople and a group of disturbed and damaged WWI veterans, who have been drawn to a government works project. When a white woman is attacked, suspicion falls on Henry, one of the veterans who grew up in the town. He’s struggling with his past, and with his feelings for his old friend, Missy, who works as a nanny and domestic help. The investigations proceeds, but is soon overshadowed by the arrival of the most powerful hurricane in history. A huge natural disaster unfolds. There’s heroism, and shocking inhumanity. When it’s over, everyone has been changed. Here is a video trailer made by the publisher.

Q. Summertime touches upon race relations in the South in the 1930s. Are there parallels to be drawn from events in the book and the current protests sparked by the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO, USA?

A. I didn’t anticipate that there would be such topical events coinciding with publication of the book. Neither did I expect it to be published during the WWI centenary commemorations. These things just happen. 1935 was a particularly brutal time in American’s history, especially in the South. Florida was the lynching capital of the South that year, which was shocking to me. Jim Crow laws segregated every aspect of life then. The striking thing is all that has changed, and all that hasn’t.

Q. As you’ve been working in scholarly publishing for a number of years, did your experience offer any advantages or perspective as you sought to publish your first novel?

A. It was definitely an advantage to have an understanding of how things work, in terms of production, marketing, sales. And because I’ve worked as an editor in some capacity all this time, the copy-editor’s job was easier. I’ve dealt with hundreds of authors over the years, and it was very interesting to be on the other side. I didn’t like the original US cover design, but was over-ruled. Then the editorial team presented it to the sales/marketing team, who also disliked it. So the design was changed to something which I’m much happier with. I also ended up writing the cover copy for them. Basically, I was a pain in the neck.

Q. You’ve been living in the UK for 30 years. Did that make it harder or easier to write a novel rooted in American history?

A. Both harder and easier. I don’t think that I would have written the book had I not lived in England for a long time. It gave me distance and perspective on US history and culture, plus a deep understanding of WWI. The war was a much bigger event in Europe, while it has almost vanished from American consciousness, although over 100,000 US soldiers died and 200,000 were wounded. But the hardest thing was to remove British spelling from the draft for the US publisher! I’ve absorbed so much of it that I missed things like ‘favourite’ and ‘neighbour’! I never expected that my first published novel would be set in FL, but with hindsight it makes perfect sense. It was very nostalgic for me.

Q. When will Summertime be released in the UK and the US and what’s next for you?

A. UK publication of the hardback was January 15th. The UK and US paperbacks will come out at around the same time, in June. The title in the US is Under a Dark Summer Sky. I’d be grateful for reviews on Amazon! The Norwegian edition (called ‘Sommerstorm’ for all you Norwegian speakers) comes out in Feb., and the Dutch, German, Italian, and French editions will be out later in the year, or early 2016. I’m under contract to the UK publisher for another book, which will be a prequel to ‘Summertime’, showing the same characters at an earlier stage in their lives. It will probably focus on the time of America’s entry into WWI.

Thanks Vanessa!

    Richard Threlfall
Richard Threlfall
Editor, Asian Journal of Organic Chemistry, Wiley

Some of the most difficult people to convince about new ideas, especially unusual or controversial ones, are experts. In other words, the reviewers who are likely to be peer-reviewing your paper are also those who are likely to be the most skeptical about it. Whether this is an advantage or disadvantage of the peer-review system in general is another matter, but whatever the case, there are a few things that you can do to help convince referees of the merits of your work and improve your chances of getting your paper accepted.177514334_292811753_292811755_256224451.jpg

Avoid an adversarial approach

First and foremost, it’s critical to avoid the combative “I’m right and you’re wrong and that’s the end of the story” approach. This will create an enemy out of a referee, when what you really need is an ally who can help get your paper accepted. Therefore, the least productive strategy is to set up an adversarial “author versus referees” battle in which you become more and more defensive to repel the “enemy” reviewers’ “attacks”. This will likely only bring increased resistance from both sides, which helps no-one. Your aim should be to create a cooperative atmosphere between you and the reviewers. A big part of doing this is to make it obvious that you appreciate the referees’ input into the peer review “conversation” about your work, even if you don’t agree with all of what they have to say. Thank them explicitly in your response to reviewers for their time and effort.

Don’t ignore referee comments

Ignoring referee comments that you don’t agree with without even attempting to reply to them is also a bad idea. If you don’t engage with the referee in a discussion, they are unlikely to reciprocate and engage helpfully with you to approve your paper for publication. Don’t forget that referees volunteer their time to assess your paper, so put yourself in their place and think how you would feel if you had volunteered your time to give someone advice that they then completely ignored. At best, you would feel severely demotivated to help out the next time and at worst you might feel downright angry. Just imagine what would then happen the next time you saw a paper from the same person! This is not a recipe for a good author-reviewer relationship, but it is a quick way to get yourself a bad reputation. When you also consider that a referee may review several more of your papers in the future, you can appreciate what a disastrous strategy ignoring comments can turn out to be.

Invite an open and honest discussion

One of the best ways to create a spirit of cooperation with referees is to discuss the limitations of your paper in the paper itself. It might sound like a strange thing to do to actively talk about the weakness of your work at a time when you want to present it in the most positive way, but don’t forget that science is never perfect in the real world and the referees already know this. Simply put, an honest assessment of the pros and cons of your work gives referees less to criticize about your paper because you’ll have already answered some of their questions before they’ve had a chance to ask them. An open discussion of the drawbacks of your methods will also convince referees that you’re interested in a proper scientific discussion, rather than making them feel suspicious that you’re trying to hide something.

 

Be convincing, not confrontational

If you get comments from a referee that you think are simply wrong or not consistent with what your results have shown, you can still effectively convince them of your position without creating a conflict. The key here is to acknowledge that the referee’s ideas are valid and that you understand their point of view. Where possible, you need to guide the referee to see how their ideas and yours are fundamentally quite compatible, but that the experimental evidence shows that your ideas are right. A simplified way to present your case might be like this: “We initially had the same idea as the referee because we too thought X, but this idea was incorrect because the data then showed Y. Then we went back to the lab and tested idea Z, which proved to be the right one”.

Whatever type of experience you have during the peer-review process, there are two important aspects to bear in mind. One is that everyone involved is human, and the second is that peer review should be regarded as a discussion of your paper, rather than an examination that needs to be passed, although more often than not it feels very much like the latter. Like every other discussion you have in which you try to persuade someone about something, the way you present your arguments during peer review will have a big effect on how your work is judged by others. Therefore, you should take every opportunity to pave the way to acceptance. It will be well worth it!

Image credit/Source:michaeljung/Getty Images

    Martin Davies
Martin Davies
eLearning Director, Wiley

In yesterday's post we looked at three major considerations when building a new curriculum. It’s clear that proper planning and needs mapping, combined with excellent project management skills make a recipe for success. In this second post, we focus on another four essential ingredients in the curriculum mix. 525409417_294685286_294685288_256224451.jpg

The Content

The logistical challenges of weaving existing, and commissioning new, content into a new curriculum can be overwhelming, but done properly it makes best use of time and resources, without reinventing the wheel. The primary considerations for content should include:

    

    • Migrating physical content into a digital offering

    

    • Navigating licensing complications

    

    • Commissioning new content to bridge gaps identified in the analysis stage

 

These are all questions that can be solved by appointing the right experts with deep knowledge of the membership community you serve.

Peer review

As well as ensuring the components of the content are up-to-date and meet member requirements, it’s essential to make sure the actual content is accurate, relevant and high-quality. Like other professional content, the best people to review quality are the people who are experts in that field, much like the journal world where reviewers are also authors, readers, and editors within a given subject area. All ideas, designs and plans for curriculum development, as well as the resulting content itself, should be passed through this critical filter to ensure it offers the most value to the eventual users of the content.

Be user-centric

Monitoring user feedback to ensure that course materials are being used, are received positively, and continue to have beneficial impact on the audience is important to the ongoing success of the program. Depending on the results of measurements you are taking, either from analytics tools to capture online behavior, or by surveying actively learning members (and perhaps also your inactive members), small adjustments might be required to the curriculum or the way content is delivered. Options might include:

    

    • Shifting to new types of media

    

    • Making the program more interactive

    

    • Using a technique known as micro-learning, where the learning content is broken down into much smaller chunks to focus attention and improve the learning impact.

 

Leave room for new information and revisions

Where curricula are aimed at helping society members reach industry accreditations, certifications or other essential professional learning, being up-to-date is essential. It is vital to include in the development process a mechanism where changes, updates and new certification rules are filtered into the content efficiently and with minimum disruption to the curriculum as a whole. This constant review process will ensure that only the most relevant and timely information is included in the program, increasing its overall value to the society members.

So, are you ready for a new curriculum?  Download the Critical Success Factors for Curriculum Development infographic.

Image Credit/Source:Chris Ryan/Caiaimage/Getty Images

    Martin Davies
Martin Davies
eLearning Director, Wiley

eLearning programs are a great way for a society or association to improve its membership benefits by contributing to the continued education of its members or open up new sources of potential revenue, as we wrote about in the last post on eLearning. But once the decision is made to optimize an existing program, or develop a brand new one, the first hurdle may well be the development of an inspiring, relevant and high-quality curriculum. Other organizations may not develop a curriculum specifically for eLearning, but rather to define a body of knowledge that is expected to be an exemplary knowledge base for their members.shutterstock_185622287_253777246_253777247_256224451.jpg

There are certain parts of the curriculum development process which should be considered both before the project to mitigate any unnecessary problems along the way, but also at the end to be able to evaluate success. So what are the critical success factors for curriculum development and implementation?

Choosing the right curriculum designer

Societies often have extensive and valuable networks of experts in their fields, but they often miss the precise specialist skills required to build a curriculum or entire eLearning program. This is where networking and professional connections are so important, as is finding a designer with the subject matter and curriculum design expertise, plus availability. Once selected, the curriculum designer not only sets up the initial processes, but manages the project and keeps stakeholders aligned throughout.

Start and end with needs analysis

Making sure the curriculum is relevant, appropriate and in line with any professional standards ensures the educational benefit to members is targeted at the right level. The best way to achieve this is through a structured needs mapping exercise, where extensive research is carried out before any curriculum designs are created. By doing this, the society and development team will be able to work according to a clear blueprint of where core competencies for the learning outcome lie and where gaps might exist that may not have been considered before.

Effective Project Management

Project management skill is a core capability for any organization wanting to design and build a functioning curriculum. Curricula should be developed according to an agreed methodology which demonstrates the following:

  

    • Buy-in from all stakeholders

  

    • Thoroughly researched

  

    • Developed according to an overarching project plan.

  

    • Prioritization of core and non-core elements

  

    • Development cut into sequential stages

 

Resource allocation is also an essential part of the project management strategy, as well as defining roles and responsibilities for stakeholders, and managing commitment to those throughout the project.

Check back tomorrow for the second post in this series on curriculum design  - we’ve collated our full list of critical success factors into an infographic for you.

Image Credit/Source:Andrey_Popov/Shutterstock

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

We recently spoke to Susan Spilka, Marketing and Communications Director for CHORUS, to learn more about how it works and why it's worthwhile for publishers and societies to join.

Currently, Wiley supports collection of funding information from the author via our Wiley Author Licensing Service (WALS). This information is fed to CrossRef and CHORUS, allowing them to populate their funder database. The CHORUS project team is now looking into enhancing that workflow, which will enable Wiley to comply with additional federal mandates including public access to funded papers following publication. We are anticipating that this will be in place by fall of 2015. We will be communicating with the wider Wiley publishing community to keep everyone up to date with CHORUS progress and any impacts to Wiley's journals.

You can follow Susan on Twitter @sspilka or @CHORUSaccess

 

Susan Spilka
Susan Spilka of CHORUS
Source: Susan Spilka

Q. Can you tell us about CHORUS and what it does?

CHORUS is part of the transformative wave sweeping through the scholarly communications landscape. We offer a suite of services and best practices to advance public access by automating compliance and enabling transparency on:

 

    • What, when and where journal articles and associated data are publicly accessible

 

    • Where and how they are preserved

 

    • How the content and data may be used

 

    • Who funded the underlying research

 

Q. What is unique about CHORUS?

A. CHORUS is a non-profit 501(c)(3) membership organization founded on the proposition that government and funder objectives can best be met by building on -- rather than dismantling -- existing publishing infrastructure. Because CHORUS uses CrossRef’s widespread open technology, we are able to provide a unified framework to cover multiple agencies, automating a process that has, up until now, been time-consuming, expensive, and labor-intensive for authors, university administrators, funding agency personnel, and publishers alike. CHORUS’ distributed-access approach avoids unnecessary duplication of effort and expense by directing search results to content in context with valuable tools and information on the original publication site.

Q. So CHORUS provides a way for publishers and societies to help researchers meet government and funder requirements?

A. Yes, but there’s more to it than that. CHORUS provides a path to sustainable and scalable public access that balances diverse stakeholder needs. It works across the spectrum of public-access policies (which are likely to be as varied as the organizations involved) and in concert with diverse proprietary and public access license terms – and it does so with no potential disruptive and duplicative consequences. CHORUS has a “seat at the table” among researchers, publishers, funders, and policy makers. We don’t lobby or take positions on policy issues; instead, we add value through collaboration, innovation, and broadening the dialogue to support public access in a way that is beneficial for all.

Q. How does CHORUS balance the diverse needs of stakeholders?

A. Using CHORUS spares publishers and funders the considerable effort and expense involved in creating, maintaining, and monitoring independent compliance infrastructure, while enabling interoperability, text and data mining, and dashboard monitoring.

CHORUS’ core services – available at no cost to funders, researchers, academic institutions, libraries, and the public – begin with a simplified automated workflow that doesn't entail any additional significant time or effort for researchers. With more than 20 major federal funding agencies in the US alone, keeping track of, let alone meeting, the varied requirements is daunting for researchers and university research officers, especially when research is funded by more than one agency, as often is the case.

CHORUS’ distributed-access approach is policy-neutral and promotes member content via commonly used search engines and new discovery tools, yielding search results that point to the Version of Record (the final published article, including any post-publication corrections) or the Accepted Author Manuscript (the version of an article that has been accepted for publication in a journal) in context with valuable tools and information on the original publication sites. Librarians, researchers, and the public benefit from optimized discovery. Importantly, by directing traffic in this way, CHORUS helps to consolidate article-level metrics and enable more accurate tracking to demonstrate the reach of published research, a benefit for researchers, funders, and publishers alike.

Q. Is CHORUS up and running?

A. Yes! 2014 was a groundbreaking year. CHORUS is in production, working with and recognized by a major US funding agency (Department of Energy) and conducting active discussions with other US and global funders. Member publishers are now routinely and systematically identifying content with CrossRef’s FundRef tags, adding license information and making content publicly available on their platforms. CHORUS already monitors more than 60,000 CrossRef DOIs (digital object identifiers) associating Publisher Members’ content to funding agencies — a number which is growing daily and will increase dramatically later in 2015 when the DOE requirements take effect.

An agreement is in place with Portico to enable public access in case previously publicly accessible Portico member content goes dark, and we expect a similar arrangement with CLOCKSS in the coming months. We recently kicked off our initial membership drive, signing on American Chemical Society, American Institute of Physics Publishing, American Physical Society, American Society of Plant Biologists, Association of Computing Machinery, Elsevier, Hindawi, IEEE, IOP Publishing, The Optical Society, The Royal Society, and Wiley as members in the first few months.

Q. How does it all work?

A. CHORUS audits member articles for public-access availability; upcoming plans include flagging the status and date of public accessibility on search results. The information is also reported on CHORUS agency dashboards, which monitor a variety of compliance metrics. Plans include developing customized dashboard services for publishers and if there’s enough interest, academic institutions.

CHORUS dashboards also report on preservation and archiving arrangements, a benefit for all. Institutional and government repositories can be subject to budget cuts and shifting priorities, but CHORUS ensures permanent accessibility, through the program we’ve developed with Portico (CLOCKSS agreement pending) to enable our members to establish permanent and perpetual access for their content.

Q. What about data?

A. Among the projects in development, CHORUS is exploring connections to data repositories and collaborating with a wide array of innovative, cooperative data initiatives. Executive Director Howard Ratner is involved with the CrossRef–DataCite Pilot, SHARE, and the RDA-WDS Publishing Data Services Working Group, and is talking with the RMap Project, Dataverse, figshare, and Dryad.

Q. Why should societies join CHORUS?

A. Unbudgeted funds are hard to find no matter the amount, but a modest investment in membership (starting at a reasonable $1,000 annually) represents good value. Membership yields an array of benefits including promoting the long-term viability of scholarly communications. CHORUS’s automated compliance workflow can save considerable effort and expense for organizations, large and small, that don’t have staff time/bandwidth to spare.

Societies and smaller publishers, even those published by Publisher Members (such as Wiley) or supported by grant money, can make a big impact. Because our by-laws require that non-profit publishers comprise the majority on our Board, a diverse and inclusive group governs CHORUS. You can guide CHORUS’ and the industry’s future if you join our Board or working groups.

CHORUS offers Technical Implementation Workshops and webinars to share best practices in public-access content management, enabling publishers to streamline their efforts and build efficiencies by learning from the best in the industry. The next one is scheduled for February 3rd in Washington, D.C., coinciding with the AAP/PSP meeting and you can register online here.

Thanks Susan!

    Christine Thomsen
Christine Thomsen
Marketing Manager, Author Marketing, Wiley

Let’s face it; whether you love it or love to hate it, for now, Facebook is here to stay. With 71% of online adults using Facebook, the channel presents a real opportunity for authors and researchers like you, to promote their work, assuming you have the bandwidth to maintain it. However, before you jump headfirst into using Facebook as a marketing tool, we have some tips for maximizing the potential of the channel.

1) Determine if you will post from your personal account, or create a separate Author PageCW0X4A_252130119_252130121_256224451.jpg

There are several reasons why we recommend creating an Author Page. First, it allows you to create a separate presence, this way, you can avoid spamming your family and friends with the constant promotion of your work, while also refraining from accidentally sharing your daily cat video with your professional audience. Other reasons that make creating a separate page more attractive include, access to analytics that personal profiles do not offer, unlimited friend count and the ability to advertise.

However, a separate page is not for everyone. It does take time and resources to maintain and Facebook’s algorithm typically limits the number of newsfeeds your posts show up in to just a fraction of your fan base. So in order to really get your content noticed, you will need to establish a large fan base, or support your page with advertising. If you opt not to create a separate page and use your personal page to promote your work, you can manage the privacy settings for each post and allow Facebook users to subscribe to your page, rather than becoming friends.

2) Present yourself visually

Facebook gives you the option to add both a profile photo and cover photo – use it! Don’t let your page sit blank. Choose an image of yourself, or one that represents the research you are doing and make sure your brand and personality shine through. This is especially important for your profile photo, as this will be the first photo Facebook users see while searching for you, or pages like yours. One thing to remember is that Facebook makes frequent updates to the sizes and requirements for photos on their channel. Be sure to monitor your page and update your photos when necessary. The current requirements are:

Profile Photo – 180x180 (displays 160x160)

Cover Photo – 851x315

3) Create a content schedule

Before you jump in and begin promoting your work, map out a plan for your content, including defining your social voice. Determine how you are going to talk to your fans and what you are going to say to them. Consider posting content about your latest and past research publications with links so fans can read your work, share other publications you’re reading or using in your research, update readers on upcoming events you’ll be attending and wherever possible, your posts should contain interesting and engaging images and video interviews. Once you decide on a schedule that is manageable for you, stick to it. Consistency is key. Finally, don’t forget to monitor your page! This includes responding to any questions or comments left on your page. You should aim to respond within 24 hours.

4) Join groups

Facebook groups are a great way to engage in discussions with those who have similar interests to yours and with influencers in your particular research community. Being active in these groups will help drive people to your Facebook page. Remember to be genuine and helpful. Although you want to promote your work, you do not want this to appear to be the only reason you’ve joined the group.

5) Consistently promote, promote, promote

If you build it, they won’t necessarily come. Make sure you are consistently promoting your page to bring in new fans. Cross promote your Facebook page through any of your other social media accounts, like LinkedIn, or Twitter, ask your network to promote the page, add a link to your page on your business cards, share it on a blog, or add it to any marketing promotions you are doing to promote your work.

So there it is! Good luck, enjoy yourself and don’t forget to tweet us at @WileyExchanges to let us know how it’s going.

Image Credit/Source:Erkan Mehmet/Alamy

    Ryan Watkins
Ryan Watkins
George Washington University

You can now enter your completed or in-progress research in the 5-Minute Science Fair for 2015.   The Science Fair is an opportunity to share your research with the world, and potentially win prizes. For 2015 there will be over $10k in prizes awarded for videos that summarize research in varied disciplines. Currently, discipline-specific prizes are in the fields of cyber-security, sociology, and gender-based violence; and more prizes should be announced soon. There are also Best-of-Fair prizes, which can go to research in any discipline or field.shutterstock_79429900_253789708_253789709_256224451.jpg

The 5-Minute Science Fair is hosted by WeShareScience to promote the global sharing of scientific research through short video abstracts. Videos, up to 5 minutes long, can be entered by anyone conducting social or physical science research. In 2014, winners included a high school student, a non-profit organization, and a university professor. A video abstract about your research should not ‘dumb it down’. Rather, it should describe your research in a way that helps a diverse international audience understand the value of your work.

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

Albert Einstein

To support the 2015 Science Fair, WeShareScience has added several new features. WeShareScience aggregates videos from many disciplines, and you can now add tags to submitted videos. Tags give users more tools for searching, finding, and sharing videos on related topics. There is also a new Advanced Search tool. Videos can now be transcribed (at no cost), giving users the power to search within the content of your video (a service provided by SpokenData.com). Lastly, WeShareScience is teaming up with Thinkable.org to link your research abstract with their innovative tools for crowdfunding research. If you choose, you can use Thinkable.org to bolster financial support for your research.

Published and unpublished research can be entered into the Science Fair, and all intellectual property rights remain with you, the researcher. Learn more about the Science Fair here.

Below is last year's Grand Prize winner Karen McDonnell, Project VOCES: Listening and Learning from the Community.

 

Looking forward to your entry.

Image Credit/Source:Andy Dean Photography/Shutterstock

Our favorite tweets from ACUK

Posted Jan 12, 2015
    Lorna Berrett 
Lorna Berrett
Director  Society & Association Marketing, Wiley 

In December, we attended the Associations Congress in London, following a successful trip to the European version of this event in Paris earlier in the year.

With six streams over two days there was a lot to cover and we made use of social media to pass on the most interesting anecdotes. In this post we have picked up some of the key themes as illustrated in tweets from our accounts and other favorites.

Do you know your “special purpose”?

Lee Davies of the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys opened the conference with the story of his battle to define CIPA’s “special purpose” after their regulatory status was lost and with it the primary reason for joining. His challenge was first to persuade the executive that there was a need for change and then to involve all stakeholders in the process.

DavTweet

 

 

 

 

The Chartered Institute of Marketing also had to rethink their purpose and value proposition. Thomas Brown, Director of Strategy and Insights at CIM, told us how they conducted a brand health survey to discover awareness and understanding of their role among the marketing community – members and non-members. They are now in the process of engaging all stakeholders to redefine the role of the association to meet needs of marketers at a time of huge change for both the CIM and the marketing profession.

In the Digital Strategy session Lindsey Herbert, Head of Digital at Precedent, challenged associations to say why they exist:

Wileysocietiestweet

 

 

 

 

 

Lindsey’s focus was on Customer Experience and her example of how Blockbuster ignored the changing demands of the customer experience to the advantage of Netflix was a warning to us all. Her advice was to start with culture, include cx in your strategic plan, tie it to staff appraisals and invest in ways to solve cx issues.

Segmentation, personas, community:

A number of presenters talked about how they are segmenting their membership, building personas to work from, and designing benefits for different membership categories:

 

Chrisgraftweet

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LBtweet

 

 

 

 

The power of content:

There was also much discussion of content to communicate with and engage members and communities. John Scarriott, Membership Director for Design Business Association, helped us think about where to find content – it’s all around us:

Wileysocieties2

 

 

 

While Wiley’s own Davina Quarterman reminded delegates they don’t have to create all the content themselves, curation and collation are important parts of content strategy, but remember always to fit the content to the audience needs:

Wileysocietiestweet3rev

 

 

Paul Bradley, Senior Social Media Adviser at the National Farmers Union talked about the different content formats they used for their various objectives and showed us an example of the power of video:

LBtweet2

 

 

 

precedenttweet

 

 

 

 

 

Generation gap:

With an eye to the present and the future, there was of course much discussion of Generations X, Y and Z and what membership means for them and for associations. The live polling showed the make-up of the audience:

 

LBtweetacuk

 

 

And the debate focused on how to reach Gen Y and Gen Z in recruitment and retention.

LBtweetacuk2

 

 

I’m looking forward to seeing more Societies and Associations creating content and benefits for this next generation.

If you have feedback from ACUK14 we’d love to hear from you

    Anne-Marie Green  
Anne-Marie Green
Communication Manager  

Ivan Oransky is a medical journalist, global editorial director of MedPage Today and co-founder of Retraction Watch, a site that tracks and reports on retractions in research journals. In light of the release of Wiley's Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics, we were eager to hear more from Ivan on the uptick in retractions, publishing ethics.and more.

 

 

Source: Ivan Oransky
Source: Ivan Oransky

 

 

Q. Can you tell us about your background and your current position?
A.
I’m a doctor-turned journalist. I’ve been reporting and writing since high school, and was executive editor of the Harvard Crimson in college, but went to medical school – as many in my family do – and decided to choose journalism after my medical internship. Since leaving medicine 15 years ago, I’ve held positions at The Scientist, Scientific American, and Reuters. I co-founded Retraction Watch in 2010, and in 2013 I became vice president and executive director of MedPage Today. I also teach medical journalism at New York University’s Science, Health, and Environmental Reporting Program, and serve as vice president of the Association of Health Care Journalists.

 

Q. How and why did you decide to start Retraction Watch?
A.
Adam Marcus – he’s the other co-founder of the site – and I had both reported on retractions over the years. Adam, for example, broke the story of Scott Reuben, an anesthesiology researcher who eventually went to prison after it was discovered that he had made up the patients in more than 20 published studies. We frequently found that there were much bigger stories behind many retractions notices, often involving fraud and misconduct, but always providing a glimpse into how good science is at correcting itself. So we decided to tell those stories, and a blog seemed like a perfect medium for it.

 

Q. What do you see as Retraction Watch’s biggest success?
A.
We’ve been amazed by the response to Retraction Watch. We average more than 100,000 unique visitors and 600,000 pageviews per month. Not a week seems to go by without a reference to our coverage in major media outlets around the world. The MacArthur Foundation just awarded us $400,000 to expand our efforts and build a retraction database. But if I had to choose a single example of our success, it’s been the community of scientists and others interested in research integrity that has coalesced around our work. It’s that community that has supported us, given us constructive criticism, and offered us tips that turn into illuminating stories.

 

Q. What is your take on why retractions have steadily increased?
A.
This is sort of the $64,000 question. On the one hand, there’s clear evidence that online publishing has meant more eyeballs on papers, including the “eyeballs” of plagiarism detection software, and readers are picking up problems that may have gone undetected in the past. You might think of that as a screening effect. But there is also some evidence that the amount of fraud is on the rise, because of increased pressures on researchers to obtain funding.

 

Q. Do you feel that publishing ethics have gotten stronger or weaker in recent years? Why?
A.
There is some evidence that the spotlight we and others have been shining on scientific publishing ethics has had an effect. Conversations about scientific integrity are happening all over the world, not just in scientific publications but in the mass media, funding agencies, and elsewhere. Publishers are taking notice, too: The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, which publishes the Journal of Biological Chemistry, hired a manager of publication ethics to handle critiques in a more robust way, and to bolster some of their retraction notices. So we’re optimistic about the future.

 

Q. How has the emergence of social media impacted retractions and ethics in publishing?
A.
In addition to making it easier to examine papers, the Internet makes it easier for readers to publish their critiques. PubPeer is a great example of this. The site has already led to a number of corrections and retractions. PubMed Commons has done the same. And of course Twitter and Facebook can give critics a bigger platform than they had in the past.

 

Q. What one change would you most like to see in how ethical issues (including retractions) are handled?
A.
Too many retraction notices are still opaque, thanks in large part to lawyers, as Nature recently admitted. We’d like to see this improve further. Clear retraction notices can reduce the stigma of retraction. There’s even an incentive for scientists to do so: Researchers who retract papers for honest error may see a bump in their citations, or at the very least not see a decrease, as you’d expect given the stigma. And while it’s not an ethical issue per se, funding agencies and universities need to stop relying so heavily on the published paper for decisions about grants, tenure, and promotion. That warps the scientific record and makes scientists less likely to correct it.

 

Q. Retraction Watch has a whole line of merchandise (including T-shirts for dogs!) – which is your personal favorite?
A.
Oh, that’s a tough one. Everyone needs a Retraction Watchdog T-shirt, don’t you think? One day, however, we’ll develop a Retraction Watch.

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

In 2013, more than 1.4 million scholarly articles were published in peer reviewed journals. As the rate of scholarly articles published each year increases, so does the pressure on peer review. In the 2009 Sense About Science peer review survey , 67% of respondents felt that formal training of reviewers would improve the quality of reviews. While we know that Principal Investigators may ask Early Career Researchers to undertake reviews, the same survey reported that few established reviewers train younger colleagues as part of the review process itself – just 3.2%.  So, researchers are telling us that despite the importance of peer review, and the amount of review activity most researchers undertake, there is a lack of guidance about how to perform a good review, and reviewers are expected to learn on the job.457207757_285437071_285437076_256224451.jpg

In December, we held a webinar aimed at Early Career Researchers called Getting Peer Review Right.  The 3rd in our series of webinars aimed at ECRs, this topic clearly hit a chord, with a high turn-out – despite taking place during the hectic holiday season.

The recording of the session is available here.

For those still busy writing New Year’s resolutions, here are some of the takeaways that emerged from the session:

Why be a reviewer?

Michael Willis (president elect of ISMTE) highlighted the personal benefits to ECRs of becoming a reviewer – namely, the ‘virtuous circle’ of peer review and engagement by the research community. Review activity is reflected back into the way the reviewer undertakes his or her own work. It improves the reviewer’s work, as well as that of the authors whose work is being reviewed:  “You conduct your own research and, alongside this, you review the research output of others. This enables you to find out what others are doing in your particular field, as well as to critique that research – not just the articles you formally peer review but also the broader research being undertaken in the area. That in turn will inform the way you conduct your own research – the methods you use, the approaches you take, the ideas you pursue – and it will eventually lead to you adapting or even continuing firmly in the way you conduct your own research.”

 

What do editors want from reviewers?

Matthias Starck (Editor in Chief of Journal of Morphology) emphasized honesty and best ethical practice as the foundations of good peer review. He also highlighted the importance of detailed feedback in order to help editors make decision judgments. While decision recommendations from reviewers are helpful, the editor’s final decision will be made based on the full referee report.  For Professor Starck, a critical reviewer is preferable to a lenient one. “It is easier to handle excessive critique than false positive reviews.”

How do I write a good peer review?

Dr John Langley (Head of Characterisation and Analytics, Chemistry, University of Southampton), and Paul Trevorrow (Executive Journals Editor, Wiley) provided a detailed, highly-practical walk-through of the reviewer report,  typically compiled of a referee’s questionnaire, narrative report for the author and comments to the editor – top tips include:

• Look at the questionnaire first to remind yourself of the questions to be considered. Then undertake the narrative report and reflect on the questionnaire subsequently.

• Use simple, clear language throughout the report, bearing in mind that not all authors/editors are native English language speakers. Language should be adequately technical but avoid verbosity and any claims should be substantiated.

• Reviewers sometimes struggle with whether to label specific types of feedback as major or minor issues – generally speaking any comments requiring extra work for the researcher (re-drawing of figures, new experiments) count as major issues.  Minor issues tend to hinge around text issues and use of language, however there are plenty of grey areas within this category. Ultimately the reviewer’s role is to highlight the need for revisions and as long as they are flagged somewhere, the editor can decide how to classify them.

The ethics of peer review: Emily Jesper from Sense About Science raised the following key points:

• Keep it confidential.  Destroy submitted manuscripts after you have completed the review.

• If you plan to ask a colleague to do the review, ask the journal first and make sure they receive the credit.

• Provide a timely review (reviewers shouldn’t slow down publication to enable them to get a paper out first!).

• Declare conflict of interest, either real or perceived.

• Don’t make hostile, insulting or defamatory remarks. Rather, support your points with evidence.

• Don’t request that the author cite your own papers, (unless there is a strong scholarly rationale for this).

• Was the research ethical? Has there been any misconduct? Is it clear to the reader who funded the study? (If there is no specific funding, then this should be stated.) Raise suspicions of plagiarism or redundant publication (self-plagiarism).

The following delegate questions were not answered during the webinar, so our presenters have provided responses below:

 

How do I build confidence in my peer reviewing skills?

Like most aspects of life, confidence is often a function of experience, however we all have to start somewhere! Much like learning to drive, enlisting the support of an experienced mentor and/or familiarizing yourself with the theoretical and mechanical aspects of peer review should help with confidence building.

I strongly suggest Wiley includes a mandatory authorship contribution section. This would aid in preventing gift-ghost authorship by providing upfront guidelines.

Our Publishing Ethics guidelines strongly encourage editors to adopt the ICMJE guidelines on contributorship, and we recommend the following in Section 5.1, ‘Authorship’: ‘Journals should consider requesting that authors provide a short description of each author's contribution in an Acknowledgment.’

Usually, we check plagiarism with the help of different softwares. I have noticed different scientific plagiarism softwares give us different values of uniqueness, what should be done in those cases? Moreover, some software packages are very sensitive and even report from various unrelated sources like newspapers and government policies of related and unrelated fields, should we consider those as general terms and ignore percentage of uniqueness?

Plagiarism checking software is a useful tool for checking against published text. The more published text you can check against, the better. The purpose of the software is not to give you a definitive answer as to whether something has been plagiarized or not, and you should always check the results carefully rather than rely on a percentage match threshold. Also, bear in mind that plagiarism can consist of unattributed replication of ideas, as well as unattributed copying of verbatim text.

A review questionnaire for a paper I’m reviewing includes a box for answering: "Which figures should be reproduced?" How do you answer this question?

This question appears to ask the referee to highlight the figures that are essential for the understanding of the manuscript. In other words, those images that must be reproduced in the final version of record. That said, if you have any doubts about any of the elements of the questionnaire, you should ask the journal’s editor(s) for clarity. Not only will this help you answer the questionnaire accurately, but it will provide the editors the opportunity to improve the clarity of their referee questionnaire.

Image Credit/Source:Abel Mitja Varela/Getty Images

    Alice Meadows
Alice Meadows
Director of Communications

Following a lively discussion on the challenges of finding peer reviewers and journal editors at a Best Practice Journal Publishing seminar in our Melbourne office earlier this year a group of 40+ Australian Wiley editors recently wrote an open letter to their universities, funders, and other research institutions and organizations in Australia. Highlighting both the benefits that the work of peer reviewers and journal editors bring to the scholarly community and the increasing problems of recruiting academics to undertake this important work, the letter calls for Australian funders and institutions to recognize peer review and journal editing as important contributions to research, as well as to reward them - initially via the ERA (Excellence in Research for Australia) framework.

The letter, which is reproduced below, was also the subject of a recent commentary in Spectrum by Cherry Agustin, Editor-in-chief of the Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences. We'd be interested to know what you think - do you agree that reviewing and editing should be officially recognized as contributing to research? Please let us know by commenting below or tweeting us  @WileyExchanges.

Journal Reviewing and Editing: Institutional Support is Essential

This submission to institutions relevant to the Higher Education Sector in Australia has been coordinated by Associate Professor Martha Macintyre at the University of Melbourne on behalf of Australian editors of academic journals

September, 2014

The focus of this submission is on the perverse incentives in the higher education sector in Australia that are limiting the voluntary inputs of reviewing and editorial services to academic journals at the same time that there is an increased requirement for academic publications. Among the measures that can be taken to address this are more direct recognition of reviewing and editing services as a part of academic roles.

We maintain that the professional service contributions of academics to journal production, notably in the form of editing and reviewing, should be more explicitly recognized and rewarded within the professional service requirements of academics across Australian universities. To help maintain the publication quality that Universities and the ARC expect and rely upon, research-active academic staff must be involved peer-review or editorial activities: Universities need to establish meaningful incentives to develop and maintain these kinds of professional service requirements. Inclusion of professional services to journals within the ERA framework is a key option to achieve this.shutterstock_74248840_318150596_318150600_256224451.jpg

At a meeting of editors of Australian academic journals published by Wiley earlier this year, many people in attendance observed the increasing difficulty in finding people willing to undertake the tasks of journal editing and the peer review of submitted articles.

It is ironic that so much weight is given to peer-reviewed publication in prestigious journals when assessing academic performance, while the essential ‘backroom’ tasks of editing journals and reviewing articles are rarely acknowledged as aspects of academic performance. These functions are crucial to the dissemination of Australian research.

There are several reasons for this trend in Australia – increased academic workloads and the casualisation of academic staff are two obvious ones.

But there is one overarching factor for this trend – the exclusion of editing and assessing from the Excellence in Research in Australia assessment system. The critical issue here is the fact that (to quote from the website):

‘ERA outcomes inform the performance-based block funding that universities receive from Government to sustain excellence in research. This funding provides all our universities with a direct financial incentive to encourage and support world class research. ERA outcomes directly inform university funding under the Sustainable Research Excellence scheme.’

The ERA procedures effectively mean that certain research activities are rewarded while other academic activities are not; and that universities suffer financial consequences if their academic staff do not privilege the winning of large grants and publication of articles in prestigious, high quality journals over all other work. These journals have of course become prestigious precisely because of the hard work of successive editors, associate editors and reviewers which, for the most part, is unpaid.

The need to boost research outputs has, in most universities, been factored in to ‘Workload’ models that place a value upon work attributed to the institution, with little value allocated to other academic work. Increasingly teaching has been casualised and/or shifted to online systems that increase the time tenured and senior academics can spend on research and publication.

For some journals the submission rate from Australian authors has doubled since the introduction of the ERA – and with it the amount of time editors spend dealing with them. A higher rejection rate ‘counts’ in the international ranking of journals. For academics the publication of a Special Issue on a particular theme – especially if it reflects research output for an ARC grant, is deemed an achievement – while for editors the escalating difficulty of finding one reader who is prepared to evaluate the collection as a whole to see that it has integrity and thematic coherence is ignored. Special Issue submissions have escalated.

Most editors receive little or no personal remuneration and very little institutional support. They labour as editors because of their commitment to their discipline and in the spirit of collegiality. But this altruistic disposition is in decline in Australian universities as careers are almost exclusively dependent on a candidate’s ability to gain grants and publish (in peer reviewed journals).

As a result, it is becoming more difficult to enlist well-qualified reviewers. This problem both increases the time spent by editors on such tasks and it often means that the reviewers selected are not those most qualified to judge the value and originality of a submission.

It is harder to get people to take on the job of editing journals. We believe that this will reach crisis point if there is no value placed on this work within tertiary institutions and in the ERA assessment. Indeed two Australian-based journals that are considered extremely prestigious are already having great difficulty recruiting new editors.

Universities are unwilling to acknowledge this activity as part of ‘academic workload’ unless there is some acknowledgement within the ERA that this is an essential aspect of the production of high-quality research. Whereas in the past some departments funded disciplinary journals and relieved editors of some other academic duties, institutions have increasingly narrowed the range of endeavours they support. Editing journals and reviewing manuscripts are critical components of the process of producing ‘outputs’ that are excellent and internationally recognised as such.

In the ERA evaluation of disciplines there is allowance for recognition and esteem associated with specific individual achievements – membership of learned academies, conferral of Nobel Prizes and the like. This sort of peer recognition is appropriate, but no Nobel Prize was won by an unpublished research work and the peers who reviewed, published and judged the work had to be people whose opinions mattered within the discipline. Some of the problems that editors face could be overcome if the ERA were to establish another criterion that recognised the standing of those involved in maintaining the standards of prestigious journals.

To address these issues, we make two key recommendations. First, there should be much more explicit requirement and recognition within Universities of the professional service requirements of academics. All academics engaged in publishing should also be involved in reviewing or similar activities, and Universities requiring staff to meet publication targets should also be setting professional service targets. Second, Universities need incentives to develop and maintain these professional service requirements. Inclusion of professional services to journals within the ERA framework is a key option to achieve this.

Signatories:

Professor Stewart Jones, University of Sydney, Abacus, Professor Mark Bartold, Colgate Australian Clinical Dental Research Centre, Australian Dental Journal, Associate Professor Lionel Frost, Monash University, Australian Economic History Review, Dr Martin Shanahan, University of South Australia Australian Economic History Review, Associate Professor Mark Weder, The University of Adelaide, Australian Economic Papers, Professor Paul Jensen, The University of Melbourne, Australian Economic Review, Professor Ian McDonald, The University of Melbourne, Australian Economic Review, Professor Ross Williams, The University of Melbourne, Australian Economic Review, Professor Lynne Parkinson, Central Queensland University Australasian Journal on Ageing, Professor John Rolfe, Central Queensland University, Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Professor Lin Crase, La Trobe University, Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Professor John Tisdell, University of Tasmania, Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Associate Professor Martha Macintyre, The University of Melbourne, The Australian Journal of Anthropology, Associate Professor Tamara Kohn, The University of Melbourne, The Australian Journal of Anthropology, Professor Stephen Shumack, The Australasian College of Dermatologists, Australasian Journal of Dermatology, Dr Andrew Bonnell, The University of Queensland, Australian Journal of Politics & History, Professor John Lowe, University of the Sunshine Coast, The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, Dr Emiko Kashima, La Trobe University, Asian Journal of Social Psychology, Ms Elspeth Froude, Australian Catholic University Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, Associate Professor Graham Tyson, Charles Sturt University, Australian Psychologist, Clinical Psychologist, Australian Journal of Psychology, Professor Simon Crowe, La Trobe University, Australian Psychologist, Clinical Psychologist, Australian Journal of Psychology, Professor Tracey Wade, Flinders University, Australian Psychologist, Clinical Psychologist, Australian Journal of Psychology, Professor Prema-chandra Athukorala, The Australian National University Asian-Pacific Economic Literature, Dr Timothy Bartram, La Trobe University, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, Professor Fang-Lee Cooke, Monash University, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, Dr Andrew McGregor, Macquarie University, Asia-Pacific Viewpoint, Dr Peter White, University of Sydney, Archaeology in Oceania, Professor Tyrone Carlin, University of Sydney, Australian Accounting Review, Professor Salmaan Hayat Qureshi, University of Auckland, Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, Professor Hal Hill, The Australian National University, Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies , Professor Jeffrey Sheen, Macquarie University, The Economic Record, Professor Iain Hay, Flinders University, Geographical Research, Professor Wayne Stephenson, University of Melbourne, Geographical Research, Professor Brian Finlayson, The University of Melbourne, Geographical Research, Dr Amanda Davies, Curtin University, Geographical Research, Professor Lakshman Samaranayake, The University of Queensland, Journal of Investigative and Clinical Dentistry, Dr Carole M. Cusack, The University of Sydney, Journal of Religious History, Dr Jadran Mimica, University of Sydney, Oceania, Dr Nancy Williams, University of Queensland, Oceania, Ms Cherry Agustin, Newcastle University, Journal of Medical Radiation Services, Ms Glenda McLean, Australasian Sonographers Association, Sonography, Professor Kathryn Robinson, The Australian National University, The Asia- Pacific Journal of Anthropology, Dr Katie Glaskin, The University of Western Australia, Anthropological Forum

Image Credit/Source:Taras Vyshnya/ Shutterstock

    Natasha White
Natasha White
Associate Marketing Director  Author Engagement, Wiley

Since April 2013, when RCUK and the Wellcome Trust introduced policies and funds for open access, concern has risen that the UK will end up paying twice  for research, and even footing the bill for larger contributors of research output such as the US and China. In an op-ed for The Guardian David Willetts, Minister of State for Universities and Science, argued that publicly-funded research findings should not be published “behind paywalls that individuals and small companies cannot afford, even though they have paid for the research through their taxes”. So instead of paying for journal subscriptions, which make research accessible mainly to their staff and students only, universities will pay to make the research they have supported publicly accessible to everybody. Willetts goes on to say: “[The cost of gold open access] will be partly met by the research councils and also institutions, which should gradually see their library costs reduce in return.” This last point is only possible if everyone does the same thing at the same time (i.e. pays for open access). The total cost of publishing research does not change. Whether the author pays at the beginning of the process or the reader pays at the end, the total costs are the same. However, as more content is published through open access fees, there would be a decrease in subscription prices.shutterstock_98440781_292162878_292162879_256224451.jpg

A number of publishers, including Wiley, have introduced policies to adjust subscription prices for any shift from subscription-funded articles to pay-to-publish open access articles. Journals publishing more open access articles will see price decreases because the publication costs for those articles have already been met. Since non-UK authors don’t have the same type and level of funding to pay open access fees, the majority continue to choose to publish under the subscription model, keeping this the predominant publishing model. This means subscription prices haven’t decreased significantly and UK institutions continue to pay for journal subscriptions to obtain international research. So the UK is seeing an increase in publishing costs as they pay for both open access and subscription fees.

In order to address this, UK library consortium, Jisc Collections have partnered with publishers, including Wiley and Taylor and Francis to pilot offsetting agreements for articles published on an open access basis. The pilot agreement between Wiley and Jisc gives institutions funding both subscription and open access publication charges credits to be used on article publication charges for open access. The amount of the credit is based on the total spend the previous year. Institutions need to have a Wiley Open Access Account set up to be eligible to receive their APC credits.

It’s estimated that the UK budget for pay-to-publish open access fees from RCUK, the Wellcome Trust and COAF amounts to  33 million. Institutions are, as a result, under increasing pressure from funders to manage and report on open access payments. To help authors with funder compliance and payments when publishing open access, a number of institutions are leading the way by setting up open access funds and allowing their authors to use these funds when publishing in open access journals. However, not much help is available to institutions for managing these ‘open access funds’. Typically, it’s librarians armed with nothing more than excel sheets and a familiarity with publishers and journal collections who are given the task of managing their institution’s open access fund.

In an OA world librarians care about fee management, reporting, funder compliance, archiving, not paying twice and increasing, easy administration. To aid customers with funding pressures, Wiley Open Access Accounts provide transparent payment options and an account management tool. These accounts provide discounts to institutions and reduce the administrative burden on librarians.  And now, the APC credits for UK Universities address the problem of paying for both open access and subscription journal content.

So until everybody in the world does the same thing at the same time, and joins the UK in funding open access charges, the need to pay for journal subscriptions will not go away. In the meantime, the offsetting agreement between Jisc and Wiley can help keep institutions from paying twice for published research.

Image Credit/Source:skyearth/Shutterstock

Filter Blog

By date:
By tag: