Mark Ryan
Mark Ryan
Talent Development Director

The changing nature of the relationships with our end users and customers requires a workforce able to engage with customers in different ways, to think outside the box, collaborate, experiment and test ideas as well as challenge workflows and adapt to changing business models. As data, coding and analysis requirements start to define the capabilities required for the future, digital project management is becoming increasingly complex. To this end, we have seen an increase in business development, technology, design, change, and process roles within publishing, alongside changing expectations of individuals in traditional publishing roles.shutterstock_132690116_258483277_258483278_256224451 (1).jpg


A recent panel debate at London Book Fair explored how publishers were altering their recruitment processes and developing employees skills in response to consumer wants and market developments. The panelists, John Athanasiou, Director of People at Harper Collins, Sanne Vliegnethart, Digital and Social Media Manager at Hot Key Books and myself were asked By Emma House, Director of Publisher Relations at The Publishers Association whether publishers were doing enough to promote publishing as a career to students, who may have the skills we need for the future, but may not necessarily have an understanding of what publishing now involves.


While there may be opportunities to present the broad range of roles and activities within our organizations, how well are companies reaching new graduates from non-traditional routes? It is clearly not enough to post job vacancies in social networks; companies must present individuals with a sense of their organization’s culture, its activities and people. Employers have to show up and participate in the online groups and communities that these individuals inhabit, in addition to reviewingtheir engagement strategies with universities and schools. If publishers are serious about attracting new talent and capturing the interest of the graduate population, then this requires investment, acknowledging that ‘unpaid’ work experience, for example, can be a turn off for the very individuals we need for the future. With renewed focus on diversity within our sector, our organizations need a visible position on diversity, to demonstrate where we are taking positive action and to present the opportunities available.


So how might students demonstrate the required skills in application as well as stand out from the crowd? The response from our panel was to think creatively and experiment with different approaches. Sanne Vliegnethart offered a prime example when she spoke of her own experience sending potential employers a video of herself talking to her resume, rather than submitting a traditional paper-based copy. While there is onus on employers to support development of skills once individuals are through the door, prospective students should consider how they can demonstrate they have the necessary aptitude and ability. If there is an expectation for publishing professionals to be more ‘commercially aware’, an applicant can at least be expected to present an understanding of the industry and the current context through their own research.


Content remains at the heart of what we do as publishers, but it was interesting to hear from some of our audience that students with a desire to work with content may be intimidated by the continual reference to technology. A familiarity with digital technology doesn’t necessarily mean an understanding of it and publishers have a role in helping individuals navigate through the various technologies, functionalities and the opportunities that they bring. If Publishers are now expecting a workforce to be innovative, to challenge the status quo and to find new ways to engage with our audiences, they too have a role in creating environments which are conducive to experimentation and risk, for example, and allow individuals to realize their potential.


With a publishing industry in transformation, and the landscape shifting with more and more speed and complexity, it’s clear that publishing professionals can no longer limit their focus to their own functional areas of expertise. They must be agile, comfortable with complexity and able to respond quickly to apply solutions. In return publishing organizations need to ensure they are not getting in their way.


Image Credit/Source:Maxx-Studio/Shutterstock

How to find an academic mentor

Posted Apr 30, 2015
    Lynda Tait 
Lynda Tait
Researcher, Nottingham University 

Early career researchers face a steep learning curve to become academics. Often working in isolation, and typically within a competitive academic culture, research, teaching, service and governance need to be understood.

In short, developing an academic career is challenging!

Finding a good academic mentor is one of the best things you can do to achieve success in academia.


Source: Lynda Tait
Source: Lynda Tait

The Value of an Academic Mentor

A mentor can share their understanding and experiences of the academy. They can share with you their institutional knowledge and area of expertise, as well as offering support and guidance when needed. They can teach you about academic life, unlocking the secrets to developing a successful academic career.

A good mentor will find time for you to discuss important issues with them, often acting as a sounding board. Although success can be outside of personal control, guidance from a good mentor can give you a sense of direction, improve your skills and confidence, and advance your academic career.

What could be more valuable than that?

1. Find an Academic Mentor via an Institutional Scheme

Research intensive universities usually have a formal list of faculty members willing to be mentors. But it’s your responsibility to be proactive. Invest time in finding a good mentor who can show you the most effective ways to build a successful academic career.

The following are useful ways to help you find a good mentor:

• Clarify why you want a mentor

• Seek information from potential mentors

• Seek information about a potential mentor

• Seek information about a mentor’s research profile

2. Clarify Why You Want a Mentor

First, ask yourself questions to clarify what you need from a mentor. This sets up a “real purpose” for the mentor relationship.

For example:

• What are your short and long-term goals?

• What are your most important values?

• What specific skills do you want to learn?

• What would a successful outcome look like?

Setting priorities and clarifying your goals and expectations can help find the right mentor for you.

When you know the answers to your questions, you can discuss relevant issues with a potential mentor that will ensure you get the best information to make the best choice.

3. Seek information from potential mentors

Invite a potential mentor for a brief chat; you want to be able to choose someone with similar values. Be open about the need to find out if you are a good match to each other. Ask a potential mentor questions to confirm the qualities you are looking for. For example:

• Do they seem supportive?

• Do you have anything in common?

• What are their expectations of mentorship?

• How often will they meet with you?

• How will you schedule meetings?

• Will meetings be informal?

Don’t underestimate the importance of finding a good fit between your values and those of a mentor. Not all mentor relationships work out. I’ve heard of experiences where early career researchers have been bullied by a mentor, caught up in pernicious politics, or the mentor relationship was extremely competitive rather than supportive. So be aware of personality and professional reputations, and spend time thinking about what a potential mentor can offer.

4. Seek information about a potential mentor

Have several frank conversations with others about a potential mentor. Seek out previous mentees to ask them about their experiences with a potential mentor.

For example:

• Were they happy with their mentor relationship?

• Did they get the advice they needed, when they wanted it?

• Do they keep in touch with their mentor? If not, why not?

• Is there anything they wished they had known before choosing their mentor?

• Would they choose the same mentor?

Have these conversations face-to-face rather than by email. For obvious reasons; colleagues and mentees are less likely to provide honest opinions via email.

Spot “red flags” such as colleagues or previous mentees having nothing positive to say about a potential mentor. It’s natural to want to talk about good experiences, so look out for what’s unsaid, and use that information to avoid someone on the mentor list.

5. Seek information about a mentor’s research profile

Check out a potential mentor’s career trajectory, publication, and service record. Look for markers of academic esteem, such as first, last and corresponding author of research publications, including editorials; and invitations to speak at national and international conferences.

A research-productive mentor is more likely to be resourceful and well-connected. Someone with a solid reputation will be able to offer developmental opportunities to you, and introduce you to their extensive network.

It is important also to be aware of their expertise and skill set from which you could develop a wider range of skills associated with your research field or professional discipline. Learn from the best!

To recap, being selective, asking questions, and talking to potential mentors as well as to others can help ensure that you find a mentor who is right for you. A good academic mentor can provide institutional knowledge, support, and guidance, beneficial to developing long-range plans for career development. Access to a nurturing relationship within academia can help to drive your motivation and help you achieve a successful academic career.

Good luck with your search for an awesome academic mentor!

What other strategies have you used to find a good academic mentor? Let us know in the comments below or tweet us @WileyExchanges.

Related post:

The 3 Essential Qualities of an Awesome Academic Mentor

    Fiona O'Connor
Fiona O'Connor
Social Sciences and Humanities Journals team
Eric Piper
Eric Piper
Social Sciences and Humanities Journals team

We recently spoke to Dan Mangan, Director of Public Affairs for the International Literacy Association, about the process and challenges of rebranding the International Literacy Association.


Dan Mangan of the International Literacy Association Source: Dan Mangan
Dan Mangan of the International Literacy Association
Source: Dan Mangan

Q. The International Reading Association, founded in 1956, was a leading, well-established name in education. At what point did you realize that the association needed to be rebranded. Was there a specific situation that brought this realization to a head?
Literacy is not just about reading. Literacy is the ability to identify, understand, create, compute and communicate using visual, audible, and digital materials across all disciplines in any context. So calling ourselves the International Literacy Association (ILA) is a much better way to convey the breadth and scope of our programs and advocacy.

ILA has more than 300,000 literacy educators and experts across 75 countries. With 60 years of experience in the field, we have set the standards for how literacy is defined, taught, and evaluated. Today’s literacy professionals are faced with mounting challenges driven by resource issues and policy mandates. Their need for guidance, support, and leadership through an active professional community has never been greater.

By the same token, ILA has always acknowledged the transformative power of literacy to create more dynamic societies, prosperous economies, and meaningful lives. Accordingly, we have now expanded our focus by addressing literacy as a cause as well as a professional field.

This new perspective is what drove our decision to rebrand. As ILA, we are reaching out across sectors to enlist broad based support, financial and otherwise, to advance literacy around the world.

Q. What do you hope to get across to members, as well as non-members, through the rebrand?
We want our members to feel a dramatic new vitality as they engage with us to meet their professional needs. We are revising our website, enhancing our communications channels, developing new content resources, and reimagining our annual conference to provide better value and a more personalized experience.

What’s more we want them to see themselves at the core of a great cause. We want them and others to see ILA as the leading organization that advocates for literacy as a basic civil right, and that catalyzes leaders, teachers, government officials, and the general public to bring about a more literate world.

Illiteracy is solvable, but getting there requires joint action at every level. We want to leverage the professionalism and expertise of our members to create opportunities for all interested persons to join, partner with, or donate to ILA as a means of supporting our cause.

Q. Did you consult with outside help on the rebranding?
Yes, rebranding is a complex task that requires the utilization of specific skill sets and expertise that we simply didn’t have. We also understood that fresh eyes would be needed to overcome the natural habit of management teams to think and plan within the confines of the familiar.

Engaging external expertise of any kind presents a cluster of critical issues from costs and timelines to deliverables and quality control. Project process and communication will also loom large. We addressed these concerns right up front by crafting a detailed and tightly organized RFP:

  • We identified the deliverables we were seeking with as much specificity as possible.
  • We set a strict deadline for completion of the rebranding .
  • We required projected charges to be at a sustainable margin to our total operating budget.
  • We also required all costs to be itemized.
  • We required strict adherence to the proposal format we provided.

After careful deliberation of the proposals we received, we selected IDEON as our partner on the rebranding.


Q. How did you implement the rebrand? What were the key steps?
First we conducted extensive brand equity surveys with members and non-members. Next, we created a stakeholder team drawn from our past presidents and board members, councils and affiliates, members at large, and senior staff managers. This team, representing a cross-section our constituencies, informed the new brand development every step of the way.


Through a series of onsite workshops and regular conference calls, we began to build the new brand. Our starting point was to translate what we learned from the survey data into branding objectives. We then identified our branding goals for key audiences and crafted an internal brand position statement.


Thereafter, the hard work of creating brand verbals and visuals began. In a series of exercises we worked back from our brand values to forge a conscious brand identity and give it a unique tone of voice, which now governs all of our messaging. Using words and images snipped from magazines, we then created a series of mood boards to arrive at an initial, crude graphical expression of the new brand. From these mood boards, the development of our logo and color palette commenced, with various stages of review along the way.


One might think that creating and approving brand verbals and visuals finishes the job. In fact, it simply gives you a toolkit and puts you at a new starting line. Implementing the new brand is the most complex step of the entire process. It requires planning a transition, setting a migration sequence, and choreographing the new brand launch for maximum impact.


Q. What was your biggest challenge in rebranding the International Literacy Association, and how did you address this?
Actually, the name change turned out not to be controversial. A number of our councils and affiliates had already substituted literacy for reading in their own names for the same reason that we did. The harder task was driving the culture change that rebranding requires. Rebranding teams continually find themselves disrupting the inertial pull of this year’s operating agenda and “the way we’ve always done things.”


Successful rebranding requires total commitment and a complete openness to put everything on the table as the effort proceeds. Getting comfortable with dramatic change, elevating the brand above all else, thriving on new possibilities and opportunities—these attitudinal shifts presented the biggest challenge.


Q. How have members reacted to the rebranding so far? How do you hope it will affect the relationship between ILA and its members?
So far the reaction has been overwhelmingly positive. We want the rebranding to mean something very personal to our members, to inspire them. We hope to raise their profile as the first responders and front line of spreading literacy, and in so doing, we want to inspire all persons of social conscience and public spirit to support them by helping to advance the cause of literacy through collaborative effort.


Q. If you could recommend three steps to other organizations considering a rebrand, what would they be?
First, be clear about what rebranding is. Discerning accurately what your members and key audiences most value in your organization’s operating history, and then leveraging that value—that’s the real work of rebranding.


Second, pay careful attention to those you select for membership on the rebranding stakeholder team. These are the individuals who will eventually become your core brand ambassadors.


Third, accept that there’s no going back once you start. Pervasive change is hard, and the effort to get there is massively time-consuming. You can expect to encounter moments when fatigue and frustration drive down morale, and you’ll need to cheerlead things back on course.

    Clare Cole 
Clare Cole
Corporate Communications Advisor, Wiley 

How do I decide where to publish my research? What do I need to know about Open Access? How does peer review work? And what career options are open to me if I don’t choose to go into research? These are some of the questions Wiley addressed when a party of enthusiastic students from Leiden University, The Netherlands, came to our Oxford offices on April 9th.


Students participate in a feedback session Source: Clare Cole
Students participate in a feedback session
Source: Clare Cole

The visit was designed as an introduction to Wiley and to the wider publishing industry for these undergraduates, in their final year of science degrees, who may one day become Wiley authors or opt for careers in STM publishing. They showed their enthusiasm and appreciation, both in the attention they gave the speakers and the traditional Dutch cookies and candies they handed out as a thank you after each session!

Hello to Health Sciences publishing

The day was comprised of a series of individual sessions focused on health sciences publishing in particular. The aim was to help inform future decisions – how to select the right journals to publish in, for example – and to give broad insights into the mechanics of academic publishing – peer review, open access vs subscription, the role of editorial offices, content management, metrics and marketing, etc. A break for lunch gave students the chance to quiz Wiley employees from different areas of the business about their career paths, which was acknowledged by Professor Bob Van de Water, who accompanied the students on their trip, as being really valuable. “This enables the group to see the different job opportunities open to them as students of science,” he said. “By showing them all of these different disciplines, they can see a variety of career paths.”

Any questions?

Many of the points raised were new to the students, and generated lively questions throughout. One such example is the ORCID system of digital identification, which provides researchers with a unique author reference that can help combat plagiarism and overcome the confusion that may result from having a common surname, or name change.

Another topic that generated a lot of interest was the Impact Factor. One student posed the question: “If an article is cited in a negative context, does it still drive up its impact factor?”” “Is citation often debated, asked another?” (Yes and yes.)

While younger authors are generally aware of the need to publish – the maxim ‘Publish or Perish’ was repeated for the benefit of any student yet to hear it – marketing and promotion are less familiar. A session on marketing illustrated the promotional support Wiley gives to its authors, while a metrics session outlined how that promotion might be usefully evaluated.

Wiley Advisors

In the last session of the day, the students were introduced to the Wiley Advisors, an early career researchers group facilitated by the company. Open to those who are in their first years of a Masters degree, until up to ten years after their degree, it has over 400 members. Advisors benefit from access to conferences and other networking and profile-building opportunities (including the opportunity to publish in Exchanges) as well as opportunities to participate in product testing and other feedback sessions. Interestingly, we learned that 2015 is the first year in which Millenials – the age group served by Wiley Advisors – make up the biggest group in the workforce, above Baby Boomers and Generation X.


Students pose for a photo at Wiley's Oxford office Source: Clare Cole
Students pose for a photo at Wiley's Oxford office
Source: Clare Cole

A mutual exchange

The visit was as beneficial to us as it was to the students, providing a real opportunity to engage with a young audience. This exchange also extended to a product testing session, in which the group was divided into two teams and invited to give feedback on Wiley products – a mobile app and WileyPlus Learning Space.

Wiley’s Society Relationship Consultant, Elizabeth Whelan, was responsible for organizing the day, along with Director of Society Marketing, Lorna Berrett. Elizabeth was struck by the engagement of the students, addressing them in her closing remarks of the day, “We’ve got so much from you today, you have been so enthusiastic and asked so many really good questions.”

The trip came about through Wiley’s relationship with the British Pharmacological Society (BPS), which owns the British Journal of Pharmacology and the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, with a suggestion from Professor Adam Cohen that we host a visit to show the students how a big publisher works. It follows a similar visit by students from Saint Peter's University in New Jersey to Wiley’s Singapore offices earlier this year. This was designed to give Saint Peter's, a long-standing Wiley customer and close neighbour to our Hoboken office, an insight into doing business in the different Asian countries.


The students were happy to talk about their experiences of the day:

Laura Paardekooper is studying Biopharmaceutical Sciences and is thinking of eventually going on to do a PHD. She said, “The most useful thing for me has been getting an overview of the publishing industry. It’s the first time I’ve had this, and I’ve really learned a lot.”

Arian Khoshchin, who plans to embark on a Masters degree in Pharmacology next year, said, “I would recommend a visit to a publishing house to every scholar. I’ve found all of the talks interesting, and the overview of open access publishing was especially useful, since like every scholar I think science should be accessible to everyone.”

Maxime Heezen, who coordinated the event from the University’s side, said, “Students don’t learn about publishing as part of their studies, so it has been a really useful experience. Unless you know these opportunities are there, then you won’t be able to go out and get involved in them.”

The visit formed part of a week-long visit to the UK for the Leiden University students, in which they also toured the research and clinical facilities of major healthcare companies, as well as fitting in time to visit the famous Oxford and Cambridge boat race! And, who knows, this may be the beginning of a long and fruitful relationship…

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

Sense About Science, an independent trust founded in the UK to demand evidence behind scientific claims, has recently launched a US presence.  We learned more from new US director, and former journalist, Trevor Butterworth.


Sense About Science USA director, Trevor Butterworth Source: Trevor Butterworth
Sense About Science USA director, Trevor Butterworth
Source: Trevor Butterworth

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

A. I’m Director of Sense About Science USA. I’ve lived in the US for 22 years—I came here from Ireland on a graduate scholarship to study history and philosophy at Georgetown University. Oddly enough, I won the Green Card lottery two weeks before I left for Washington DC, and my journalism break in the US turned out to be a piece for WGBH in Boston on what it was like to win the Green Card lottery.  After journalism school at Columbia, I ended up launching a daily media criticism website in the early, heady days of the Internet. I suppose you could say I was fascinated by how and why the media got the news wrong as a specific problem of knowledge, and what the ethical implications of this were with respect to journalism. It was very much a practical, “real world” problem of my academic interests. This is not to say I didn’t write widely: the Boston Globe once credited me with changing discussions in American punctuation from the comma to the semicolon (something for my tombstone), but I was increasingly sustained by writing about the way statistics and science were reported and misreported in the media and public policy—something I did with the mathematician Rebecca Goldin at a small think tank called STATS.org, which was affiliated with George Mason University. By extension, that led to a deep immersion in the problems of communicating science through journalism and to the media.

Q. Can you tell us more about Sense About Science and why it's important that you expand its activities in the US?

A. We’ve all heard the phrases “we live in an information society,” or “we work in a knowledge economy,” but how much of that information is accurate and how much of that knowledge is true (or probably true, to be more exact)? We know from the growth of what has been described as meta research that a considerable amount of information isn’t accurate and that many things taken as true are probably wrong. We know from the National Institutes of Health that a considerable amount of scientific research cannot be replicated. And we know that marketing departments, journalists, politicians, and advocacy groups make many claims that have the aura of scientificity.

But in order to find out whether there is good science behind these claims—or any science at all, we have to ask for evidence. We have to demand that those with a purchase on our decision-making provide us the evidence. We have to demand that those who make decisions on our behalf—politicians, government officials—show us the evidence for their decisions. Evidence is the foundation of democratic accountability, the means by which we are able to reason pro and contra. What impressed me about Sense About Science in the UK was that they saw this problem from both ends: scientists had to speak up for science; but the public had to be empowered to ask for evidence. It was a two way street, or “expert fed rather than expert led” as they put it.

Sense about Science seemed to me to be a 21st century version of the kinds of societies that sprung up during the Enlightenment to advance knowledge for the public good. After speaking at a panel they organized for the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 2014, and learning that they were trying to launch in the US, I was keen to help. They were creating and—to use that slightly worn buzzword of contemporary culture—“curating” the kinds of conversations that were both valuable and, for me personally, deeply enjoyable.

Q. Do you find any regional differences in how people react to reports on science in the media?

A. People react to science based on their beliefs and cultural and political affiliations. Given the massive amount of information produced in our “information society,” we tend to look for cognitive shortcuts by outsourcing decisions on what information we believe to people we trust. That can be problematic when it comes to scientific controversies—but that’s the subject of a much longer piece.

Q. Can you tell us about stats.org? How did it get started and what is its mission?

A. STATS launched in the early nineties as a reaction to the problem identified by the research Tankard and Ryan did on the media coverage of science in the 1970s: “Most journalists seem unable to judge whether numbers are really meaningful or accurate. Consequently, they either trust all figures or they trust none; and they tend to focus exclusively on a report writer's conclusions, while ignoring specific numbers and data collection techniques.”

STATS.org is now a joint project between Sense About Science USA and the American Statistical Association. It has two objectives: the first is to get journalists thinking about the importance of statistical understanding in terms of the stories they cover, which will involve enlarging something we were already doing: providing free statistical analysis and advice for journalists on deadline. When I say “we,” I mean my brilliant colleague Rebecca Goldin, who holds undergraduate and graduate degrees in Math from Harvard and MIT. Rebecca has helped journalists for the past decade with problems large and small. She has proofed the methodology on a major global investigative project conducted by the Associated Press, helped journalists from the New York Times and Wired with analyzing studies on deadline, and, more generally, she offers a mathematician’s perspective on story ideas to journalists. Sometimes these conversations can go on for hours, and I think that shows several important things: a mathematical or statistical perspective is, generally, not part of the typical journalist’s toolkit, but it is a vital one to getting the story right. As we stumble through a data-drenched society, an increasingly important part of journalism is going to have to be collaborative in order to be accurate. So, we’re supersizing this “help-desk” feature by creating an editorial board of statisticians who have agreed to help journalists. The only thing we ask from journalists is a reasonable deadline!

The second objective is to write about statistics in a way that looks at its power to transform scientific research and knowledge—to see it as a key driving force of intellectual history, and to create critically-infused journalism around that.

Q. What other initiatives is SAS launching in the US?

A. The other big initiative is the AllTrials campaign. Sense About Science has been the steering group for a coalition of scientific organizations and individuals—for example, The Cochrane Library and Ben Goldacre, author of Bad Pharma—who are pushing the pharmaceutical industry to register all their clinical trials and report all their clinical trial data. Currently, fifty percent of all clinical trials conducted have never been registered or reported. Data transparency is the logical counterpart of asking for evidence—and the progress the UK Sense team has made is amazing. Lots of exciting developments are coming down the transparency turnpike on this!

We’ve also just started running media workshop for early career researchers in the US. These have been really popular in the UK, and it seems they have had the same effect on scientists here. They give young scientists the opportunity to engage both with fellow scientists more experienced in dealing with the media as well as science journalists.. We’ve also started LinkedIn groups for each workshop to keep the discussion on science communication going.

Thanks Trevor, and best of luck!

    Natasha White
Natasha White
Associate Marketing Director  Author Engagement

With more and more funding agencies establishing policies and mandates for open access publishing, we know that navigating the various requirements can be difficult and time consuming for authors. Every funding agency seems to have slightly different specifics to their open access policies and each paper has multiple authors with multiple funding agencies supporting their research. The following three steps will help you comply with your funder mandates when publishing your research:


Step 1: Learn the details of the open access policies of the funders supporting the research in your paper.


Authors can use funders’ policy listings such as SHERPA/JULIET or publisher versions; for example Wiley, Nature Publishing Group and BioMed Central have similar listings.


115407-CT-Icon+Text-Solid-Purple-RGBWiley has recently launched a new institution and funder Open Access Policy Finder*, searchable by Funder and Institution. This includes:


• Information on 96 funders, searchable by country
• Information on 158 institutions, searchable by region
• Direct links to the funder and institutions’ open access policies and article processing charge funding/payment information
• Information on whether or not your funder or institution has a Wiley Open Access Account





Here are some of the typical details within the open access policies that you will need to understand before publishing your work:

1. Preference for Gold (pay-to-publish) or Green (self-archiving) open access
2. Time to open access: Funders may stipulate that your paper is published open access immediately or after a certain embargo period
3. Where you make it open: Funders may ask that you or your publisher makes your article available in a public repository such as PubMed Central or in your institutional repository
4. License requirement: Funders may require that your article is published with a specific Creative Commons license
5. Availability of funds: Funders may or may not provide money to cover open access charges
6. Open data: You may need to ensure that any underlying data is also made publicly available
7. Acknowledgements: You will need to acknowledge all funders who have supported the research in your paper


Step 2: Work out the best route to comply with your funder mandate(s).


Now that you understand the specific requirements needed to comply with your funder’s policies, you need to work out which route to take in order to comply. This might be either through gold open access (payment of an open access fee to make your article fully open access immediately upon publication) – or through green open access, (self-archiving your paper in a repository after an embargo period).
With Wiley you can take either route:


Pay-to-Publish (Gold) Open Access
Wiley Open Access


Wiley Open Access is our program of fully open access journals. Every article is published open access.



Online OpenOnlineOpen is our program of subscription journals which offer authors the option to make their articles open access.



Self-Archiving (Green) Open Access


Self-archivingSelf-archiving allows peer-reviewed (but not final) versions of a paper to be hosted on a personal website or an institutional website after an embargo period.



Before making your final choice, you need to find out the open access policy for the journal you wish to publish in to learn what is permissible to ensure you comply with your funder(s) requirements. A few things to look out for:


Gold Open Access:
Copyright/license type
Open access fee
Deposition to PubMed Central


Green Open Access:
Embargo length
Allowed Article version
Repository (institutional or public)


Authors can use SHERPA/RoMEO which is a listing of publisher copyright policies and self-archiving or go direct to a journal’s website to read the author instructions.


But with so many different funders and journals with so many policy combinations and permutations, authors struggle to find the right route. Authors need a simple guide to compliance helping them to interpret publisher policy and funder policy data. For authors funded by UK researchers there is SHERPA/FACT Funders & Author Compliance Tool. This is a tool that combines both 1) UK funder policy and 2) journal policy to help authors comply with UK research funders’ policies on open access. It uses data from SHERPA/RoMEO which is database of Publisher copyright policies & self-archiving and SHERPA/Juliet which is a funder policy listing.


Step 3: Follow the proper workflow when submitting your work to a journal to ensure you comply with your funder’s mandates.


Now that you’ve chosen which route you’ll take, you need to navigate your open access journey. Many publishers ask authors during the submission process who has funded their research and give them further information and guidance about how to comply with their funder’s policy. Wiley has a number of tools to help authors, including:


Open Access Navigation Maps:




Gold Open Access Map














Green map


Green Open Access Map













Wiley's Understanding Open Access Video:





For more information on Wiley’s Open Access program, please visit: www.wileyopenaccess.com


*We are regularly updating our Institution & Funder Open Access Policy Finder Tool and not all institutions/funders may be represented at this time. We strive to ensure that all information is correct and up-to-date, so if you notice anything is missing or incorrect, please contact us at openaccess@wiley.com.

    Trina Cody 
Trina Cody
Strategic Market Analysis Manager, Wiley 

"The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there."

This almost proverbial opening line to L. P. Hartley’s The Go Between sums up rather nicely the reality of generational change.


Students working together
Source: Shutterstock

While it is dangerous to assume anything about an individual, how newer generations work, play and learn is very different from previous eras. Compared to other groupings, Generation Y, also known as Millennials (anyone born between the early 1980s and 2000), now represent the majority of the workforce* and are forging a distinctive path into adulthood. They are politically independent, relatively unattached to organized religion, more liberal in their views on relationships (yet in no rush to marry), and less trustful of people than previous generations.

How does Generation Y learn?

The millennials are the best-educated cohort of young adults in history – a third of Americans aged 26 to 33 have a four-year college degree or more. But perhaps of more significance to societies is the fact that this group has taken the lead in seizing on the new platforms of the digital era. They maximize the internet, mobile technology and social media, to construct personalized networks of friends, colleagues and affinity groups. Millennials are ‘digital natives’, and, unlike previous generations, these technologies are inherent in everything they do; they have not had to adapt like previous generations.

It should come as no surprise that web-based learning has become the fastest growing education segment, and it is currently estimated that more than 46% of college students are taking at least one course online. Learning opportunities need to reflect this shift, and scholarly and professional societies need to take note.

What motivates Generation Y?

Millennials have different values, needs and expectations to any previous generation. In order to make the necessary commitment to join or retain interest in an organization they need to feel involved and have an emotional attachment to what the organization represents. Consequently, the actual values of a particular membership society will have a massive impact on whether Millennials choose to actually join or maintain membership.

Generation Y values leadership, learning and making a difference. While all society members need a sense of belonging, trust is particularly important for this segment. Empty promises will certainly not be tolerated, and it is imperative that Millennials feel involved from day one.

The recent recession has personally impacted millennials at a critical point in their coming of age, not only limiting their own job opportunities, but presenting huge social and economic repercussions for their parents. This means they place even more value on professional development and career services than older generations.

How can societies better engage Generation Y?

Societies and membership organizations need to ensure they are meeting the needs of this cohort. Generation Y want to feel a sense of ownership for anything to which they are signed up. They need to feel involved from day one, and to feel that they are of equal value to a membership organization as elder generations.. They don’t expect to wait five years before they have a voice, and they want to use their skills immediately in partnership with society colleagues, no matter what the age gap.

Their biggest turn off is not being listened to. So, societies need to ask them how they actually want to be involved, and, most importantly, to act on it – instant feedback is high on the expectation list of Millennials. And it won’t work to limit involvement to a few. Generation Y are all about collaboration and what their peers think, so societies will quickly be found out if they ignore the whole group

Communication should come via mobile devices, and social media. Societies that focus on marketing on these platforms will reach more members of younger generations.

So, what are the implications for eLearning?

In terms of learning solutions, it is obviously worth acting via Generation Y’s preferred media. Digital fora would not be out of place, and it’s worth considering providing different options to engage your audience at events, whether in the flesh or online. Above all, efficient technology is a must. They want to be able to learn anywhere, anytime, and with no excuses.

It’s worth focusing on other millennial traits: provide a structured environment in which they can easily see results and be rewarded, develop self-assessment activities, and include ways learners can customize their learning.

With the right eLearning solutions, societies can certainly better engage with Millennials. You’ll be genuinely providing something they need in a manner to which they have not only become accustomed, but actually expect. A robust curriculum, multimedia activities delivered on an easily accessible platform, engaging webinars and customized learning all go a long way to reaching Millennials. These are worthwhile developments that can only be good for recruiting and retaining more members, while enhancing a society’s reputation.

Our suite of eLearning products is designed to reflect the eLearning revolution inherent in Generation Y, but we would like to know your thoughts. Let us know what you are doing to reach out to younger members of your society in the comments section below or tweet us @WileySocieties.

*Based on the US Bureau and Bureau of Labor’s findings

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

Today, Wiley presents a comprehensive guide to reviewing, in a new area of our author resources platform. Our aim for this guide is to support reviewers by providing a summary of best practice and how-to guidance with contributions from editors and experienced reviewers around the world. This is an evolving resource which we will continue to develop.

Below are our top 10 tips for reviewers:

1. Respond Promptly to Invitations

When you receive an invitation to review, the article’s abstract will help you decide whether it’s within your area of interest and expertise. Remember to respond promptly or else you might delay the process.

2. Show Integrity

Keep the contents of any manuscripts you’re reviewing confidential. You would expect the same of others reviewing your own work. What’s more, if you’ve submitted similar research of your own, or if you’ve reviewed the article for a different journal, let the editor know there’s a conflict of interest. Agreeing to a review for personal gain is not ethical practice.

3. Stay Within Scope

When commenting, make sure your remarks stay within the scope of the paper and don’t veer off subject. If you’re unclear of the scope, editorial policy, presentation and submission requirements, speak to the editor or read the Author Guidelines.

4. Be Constructive

Your review should ultimately help the author improve the paper. Be sure to offer some constructive feedback, even if your recommendation ends up being to reject.

5. Allocate Enough Time

Carefully analyzing and commenting on a manuscript can take a good chunk of time. Make sure you have enough time available when taking on a review.

6. Be Consistent

Structure your comments by numbering them. It makes the editor’s life a lot easier. You can also divide them into major and minor issues to help authors prioritize corrections. Keep comments to authors separate from the confidential ones to editors. But make sure your comments to authors correspond to your assessment on the confidential review and checklists.

7. Focus on the Research

If you’re reviewing a paper that’s in English but wasn’t written by a native speaker, it’s good to be tolerant and point out elements that change the meaning, rather than commenting on the quality of their English.

8. Look at the Conclusion First

The conclusion will give you a good idea whether the research is an exciting development within its own field.

9. Check Robustness of Facts

Editors find it useful if you comment on the number of replicates, controls and statistical analyses. Strong statistics are crucial to determining whether the outcome is robust.

10. Give Credit Where It’s Due

If a paper you’re reviewing is really good and an excellent addition to the existing literature, don’t be afraid to say so.

Which aspects of reviewing do you find most challenging, and which resources would you find helpful? Let us know by leaving a comment below or tweet us @WileyExchanges.

review principles infographic April 2015.jpg

    Morgan Kubelka 
Morgan Kubelka
Associate Marketing Manager, Wiley 
Source: Charlcie Pettway Vann
Source: Charlcie Pettway Vann

It is a great honor and privilege to announce Ms. Charlcie Pettway Vann of Jacksonville State University (JSU) as this year’s winner of our National Library Week contest: Librarians Creating Communities of Kindness.

The nominations we received on behalf of Ms. Vann greatly touched and inspired us. Her tireless, selfless commitment to promoting diversity and inclusion on campus has clearly made a tremendous positive impact on the academic community. Below are a few quotes from her nominations.

“[Charlcie] organized a luncheon to bring an ethnically, racially, and culturally diverse faculty and staff together for sharing and exchanging ideas in a social environment. She continually highlights diversity in her displays in the library…”

“[Charlcie] recently shared how important it is for students of color to have mentors on campus who may have shared similar backgrounds and can provide support and guidance. I can tell she really cared about students she knows here. She described librarians as the 'bartenders of the university,' and explained how students will come up to her in odd places and pour out their hearts. We need more of this in brick and mortar higher education, or else online degrees will supplant us. Hats off to Charlcie and others like her!”

“Charlcie Vann is a powerful and dedicated woman. She is constantly extending herself to the students at Jacksonville State University to assist in providing programs, research materials, and continual assistance in their many endeavors.”

“Charlcie is there for our needs at all times. If she does not immediately know where to get the information, she finds out. I can always depend on her for my library needs.”

Although I’ve only gotten to know Ms. Vann in small part through the nominations of her colleagues and our correspondence the last few days, I can honestly say that her enthusiasm for her work and her understated humility are self-evident. Ms. Vann expressed to me her “amazement” at winning a contest for something that comes so naturally to her. “Kindness was never an option in my family,” Ms. Vann explained to me, “it is a commandment.” She continued:

“…If it were not for great mentors, so many I cannot name them all, in my life, it would have been difficult to pass the kindness forward.  I want to thank all of my colleagues from Jacksonville State University and various universities and community leaders that thought enough of me to nominate me for the contest.  I have some of the best colleagues in academia.  I am the only African-American librarian at the Houston Cole Library, and I appreciate the freedom I feel to share some of my culture through the various displays.  I want to thank my Dean, Mr. John-Bauer Graham, for encouraging all of the librarians to seek avenues to serve.”

Additionally, Ms. Vann provided us with a compelling personal statement below. Feel free to share it with your colleagues and students so that the academic community can continue to be inspired by the kindness Ms. Vann so effortlessly represents. As our winner, she receives a paid registration to the Charleston Conference this November-we're looking forward to seeing her there!

Ubuntu is an African humanitarian philosophy which means “I am what I am because of who we all are.” I am what I am because of the love, encouragement and sacrifice of my parents and ancestors. Therefore, I am extremely grateful to God, my parents, Mr. and Mrs. Charley and Patricia Pettway, and my brother and sister-in-law, Mr. L. William and Shawanda Pettway, for always supporting me. My grandmother, Willie-Louise Kimmons, used to say, “Baby, kindness will take you places where your education cannot.” She would add, “It [Kindness] costs you nothing but it is valuable.” These are the words I have tried to live. As you can probably surmise; my greatest joy in life is my family.   I have been blessed for nearly 13 years to be married to a wonderful husband Romontey L. Vann. We have two amazing daughters, Trinity Malca, 11 years old and Miniya-Grace, 8 years old.

Learning and sharing information has always been my passion. I cannot imagine life without libraries. I began volunteering in libraries as a child in my hometown of Plainfield, New Jersey. I volunteered as a teenager at a small library called Fairchilde Research Institute, directed by one of my early mentors, Mrs. Chitty. My professional career in librarianship spans over 25 years. In 1996 I earned my MLS degree from North Carolina Central University. I had the pleasure of being selected as an intern at SAS Institute in the research and development library in Cary, North Carolina. After graduation I began working part-time at the Air Resources Research Consortium of North Carolina State University Raleigh, North Carolina. Later, I landed a full time position at Cato Research in the Research Triangle area in Durham, North Carolina. The next position was at Valdosta State University (VSU) in Valdosta, Georgia. I learned the nature and structure of academic librarianship at VSU and will be forever thankful to for the experience. Currently, I am the Psychology/Philosophy and General Reference Librarian as well as an Associate Professor at Jacksonville State University (JSU). I joined the Houston Cole Library (HCL) staff at JSU in 2006.   In 2008, as the chair of the HCL Instruction Committee, I was inspired to start the Houston Cole Library Lunchtime Lecture series. Nearly 20 speakers from the JSU campus and community have visited the library to share their expertise on various topics. This is truly a labor of love. None of the speakers were paid, yet they were eager to come to the library and share valuable information for students and the general public.

Please join us in congratulating Ms. Vann on her outstanding efforts to promote kindness in her community. This National Library Week, we proudly honor Ms. Vann and all librarians like her for their tireless dedication to bettering the world through the cultivation of knowledge and scholarship.

    William Rasmussen
William Rasmussen
Medical student, Western Michigan University

“As you work through the research and publishing process, what do you actually enjoy?”practice picture.jpg

(Without hesitation) – “Seeing my name on it”.

The above paraphrases part of a conversation I had with a resident physician recently. He publishes prodigiously for someone at such an early point in his medical career, and his valuable insights and experience came across fluidly when speaking to him. His quote doesn’t nearly encompass what research-oriented medical students should know, but it illustrates two themes that crop up in any conversation on the subject:


    • It’s a slog. A (mostly) boring, procedural slog.


    • It’s an effective tool to make yourself and your talents known.


Here’s the perspective I’m writing this from: I’m six months into my first year of medical school at the Western Michigan University Homer Stryker M.D. School of Medicine. It’s where I want to be, and it’s hard, and I’m tired. Still, despite those demands I want to have a publication record by the time I graduate – so I took a short course on the topic through my institution.

What I learned, in a nutshell (details to follow), was: pick a research topic you actually care about, keep up with the current literature, research a question that is answerable, find a mentor, keep a publication plan, pick your journal carefully, cultivate humility, don’t get retracted, don’t get retracted, know yourself, and know your enemy.

I promised details.

Pick a topic and keep up with the literature

Your first task, picking a subject is fairly simple and mostly an effort of introspection. Passion for a subject is important – if it’s bound to bore the bejeezus out of you within a few months, reconsider. Make sure the field is active, and follow it – set up search alerts using your account with the database you use. Keywords, journals, subjects, etc. will ping when any new relevant publications appear. Check regularly, and hope your research doesn’t get scooped.

Pick an answerable question

Your research can change the face of the field you choose to study. This is, however, statistically very unlikely. Your time and resources are limited; you need to keep the scope of your study manageable. Don’t balk at thinking small, if you think someone out there can use the answers you obtain. Keep the questions in your research focused, and likely to produce unambiguous data.

Find a mentor and keep a publication plan

Neither of these are absolutely necessary to succeed in publishing, but unless you’re a robot-person who foresees all eventualities, do both of them. A good mentor will be your guide and collaborator, with valuable experience concerning the ins and outs of the process. Recruit them by building professional rapport, and negotiating a common agenda. This may mean accepting second-authorship on research that is your brainchild. Publication plans are even more helpful – they’ll allow you to arrange for the time and money you’ll need to wrangle grants, get projects approved (an additional 6-8 weeks), produce results, review those results, pay to submit your hard-won scientific truth to the peer-review process, and, above all, not miss deadlines.

Select a journal carefully and cultivate humility

Research should only be submitted to one journal at a time, there is a fee to do so, and competition can be stiff at more prestigious publications. Long response time is no excuse to submit to multiple journals at once. Doing so is the scientific equivalent of ordering two different pizzas from two different chains, and only intending to pay for the first that arrives. Be patient, and be prepared for a refusal or two before you succeed; be humble. Pre-submission review should be from someone you trust, and who is informed enough to evaluate your brand-new paper, your baby. Take their input in good faith, and be prepared to make the reasonable changes they suggest with good grace, even though your research is perfect just as it is. After this your writing should be free of grammatical errors, and as well-groomed as a southern gentleman– it should be ready for peer-review by total strangers who don’t care about your feelings. A peer-reviewer’s job is to vet your work for validity and relevance; their critiques should be taken seriously. Take their input with a grain of salt, but take it: even the comments of a hypercritical red-pen samurai can be actionable, to your benefit.

Don’t get retracted and don’t get retracted

The mark of retraction on your record will be permanent, if you allow it to happen. There are multiple reasons for a paper to get retracted; strive to avoid the accidental ones (unintended mistakes, irreproducible results), and for the love of Pete don’t commit the deliberate ones (lying, stealing credit, and other shenanigans). Make sure the research you cite hasn’t been retracted – despite being discredited, these works can linger in databases for years – it’s boring work, but background-check your references and the people behind them.

Know yourself, and know your enemy

Knowing yourself boils down to not expecting yourself to magically change into a more hardworking, more competent person as you move forward. Plan on being limited, and recruit people and resources to fill the roles you can’t. Knowing the enemy requires an understanding of the cultural dimensions of publishing: dogma, celebrity, lawyers, money, and the proverbial X-factor among others. People often don’t want to hear evidence that refutes ideas that careers have been built on. Lawyers and money can get involved when business interests or reputations are challenged by new data. Finally, research is more likely to be published if it can draw attention and hold it.


If you get published, your name will be permanently attached to a small part of the body of human scientific knowledge.. At the time of this writing, there are more medical school graduates than there are national residency slots, and even now your application stands a decent chance of being evaluated by a computer before it’s even seen by a human. Over the next few years at least, this disheartening situation probably won’t be getting better. Having a publication to your name is not necessary, but it is a way to meaningfully improve your chances.

Honestly, my feelings are pretty tepid as to how badly I actually want to publish – I’m not driven to be a star in medical research, I want to graduate medical school and be just a doctor first. My heart, at the end of the day, is in clinic. And yet, I’m a nerd – I’m almost happier with questions than I am with answers; facts and processes are my playground. I’ll want to experiment and see what I can make work better (or at all), and I’ll want to share any actionable findings. So I’m planning to publish.

That’s it. Here’s to asking questions, changing the world, and seeing your name on it.

Image Credit: iStockphoto

Leading the way with HINARI

Posted Apr 15, 2015
    Ylann Schemm
Ylann Schemm
Communications Chair, Research4Life

To mark National Libraries Week, we continue our focus on librarians with this next installment from the Research4Life publication, "Unsung Heroes: Stories from the Library", featuring Dr. Grace Ada Ajuwon, Senior Librarian of Reference and Information Services at the E. Latunde Odeku Medical Library, College of Medicine, University of Ibadan, Nigeria.


Grace Ajuwon
Grace Ada Ajuwon (right) giving Research4Life trainings at the University of Ibadan. Source: Research4Life

When the World Health Organization held its first HINARI training programs in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania, in 2002, librarian Grace Ada Ajuwon was there. “I was among the first group of librarians in Africa to be trained in the use of HINARI,” says Grace, Senior Librarian of Reference and Information Services at the E. Latunde Odeku Medical Library, College of Medicine, University of Ibadan, Nigeria.

Since that training program, more than a decade ago, Grace has used HINARI to conduct her own research and taught faculty, students, doctors and other healthcare providers to become proficient in the use of Research4Life programs. In 2003, Grace wrote a research paper, published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, which concluded that first year clinical and nursing students in Ibadan, Nigeria were not taking full advantage of the opportunities computers and the Internet offered to enhance their medical education.

She recommended the inclusion of computer education in medical and nursing curricula and the installation of computer laboratories to increase students’ access. Turning her words into action, Grace has organized about 30 Research4Life workshops attended by an estimated 4,820 medical and research staff and students from her institution, as well as visitors from other parts of Nigeria and other regions of Africa.

Using HINARI, she has also continued her research on the role of the Internet in health information and patient care, with a number of additional papers published in peer-reviewed journals.

Using the institution’s Research4Life user names and passwords, researchers and students can access up-to-date, quality information electronically from their computers in the comfort of their homes, offices, classrooms, residence halls, computer laboratories and other locations where they have internet access. The library’s sessions empower them to conduct their literature searches without assistance from a librarian, as was customary in the past, “This enables them to write better literaturereviews for their dissertations and manuscripts,” Grace explains.

Challenges remain. Power outages plague the country, often making access to the Internet difficult. The installation of inverters in the library, paid for by donors, has helped mitigate the problem. Funds are needed for more training programs and additional bandwidth. Access to full-text articles is sometimes denied to researchers even though Nigeria is on the list of countries entitled to such access, and librarians need to report the problem to get the issue resolved. Despite all this, however, the continuing improvements brought to access to Research4Life programs have transformed the work of librarians and researchers.

The days of carrying out tedious, time-consuming and often fruitless manual searches are over. Access to electronic journals, e-books, databases and other relevant resources enable Grace to promptly retrieve information and send it on request to the library users, while also giving them skills to access information themselves. These successes have increased Grace’s visibility as an academic, given her more self-confidence, and brought her the joy of sharing her knowledge with students, faculty members and medical professionals.

“I feel fulfilled because, from the personal testimonies I receive from the researchers I have trained, I am meeting an important need,” she declares.

    Morgan Kubelka
Morgan Kubelka
Associate Marketing Manager, Wiley

It’s one o’clock in the morning on a Friday night in the dead of winter and I’m fixed in my unofficial “assigned” seat on the fourth floor of our campus’s undergraduate library. Head in hands, I resort to weeping in quiet frustration. I’ve been sitting in this seat reading and re-reading for eight hours already, I lament to myself: "How does Toni Morrison’s embedded message continue to evade me?" For several minutes I allow myself to cry it all out before I begin to read again.182030142_232949690_232949694_256224451 (1).jpg

DING! The sound startles me amidst the silence that characterizes the undergraduate library in the wee hours of a weekend night. Alas, it’s just a new message in my campus inbox. Probably another crime alert, I think to myself as I open the message:

Morgan, I know you don’t know me but I’m a librarian here at our undergraduate library. I saw you here working late tonight, as I do many nights. Keep your head up and stay strong! The answers will come eventually. We’re here to help if you need anything.

How can I say what this message meant to me? This librarian, this community fixture I probably saw every day without noticing, went out of her way to find my name, my email and reach out to me, to let me know I wasn’t alone? I suppose I can’t really say—but the least I can do is share the story.

And to mark the American Library Association’s National Library Week, that’s exactly what we’re doing—recognizing and celebrating the communities of kindness librarians create every day—in ways much bigger and smaller than the story I’ve shared with you.

Amidst a fast moving, technologically driven world, the Library has transcended its original purpose of a place where information is organized and stored. It’s become a critical campus staple; a safe space for collaboration, contemplation, and learning. It’s here that librarians often perform quiet, unacknowledged acts of kindness every day.

Inspired by Rachel’s Challenge, a non-profit organization that champions compassion in academic communities, we’ve recently asked librarians and faculty based in the US and Canada to nominate a specific librarian colleague who has demonstrated the unlimited possibilities of kindness on campus. This Friday, we will announce one outstanding librarian nominee to be the recipient of one paid registration to this year’s Charleston Library Conference, along with a donation to Rachel’s Challenge made in the nominator and nominee’s names.

As we continue to read through all of the inspiring nominations, it’s clear that our suspicion was right all along: librarians continue to consistently go above and beyond what their job descriptions require.

Here are just a few examples:

“…Patrick Tomlin’s contributions exemplify kindness. He always stops what he is doing to address whatever minor crisis I may be experiencing, whether it be accessing an e-book for a 100-person lecture class, ordering a text I desperately need, or simply finding something in the stacks when I throw up my hands. For the last six years, he has graciously volunteered his time to give a focused talk to my Environmental Design Research students, who are starting their graduate programs and have often entered Blacksburg, and the United States, only days before. He works individually with them to navigate the complex database systems that will enable them to begin their proposals […] In addition, Patrick is simply a nice person to talk to. We have shared stories about dealing with sick kids on days full of commitments, our apprehension at teaching large lecture classes for the first time, and our struggles to balance our family, teaching, and research obligations. His consistently and genuinely positive attitude at our every interaction make my job a little easier.”

-On Patrick Tomlin, Head, Art & Architecture Library, Virginia Tech

Nominated by Elizabeth Grant, Assistant Professor, Virginia Tech

“ [Adeane Bregman] tirelessly updates and solicits the faculty about potential purchases as well as about key aspects of operations at Bapst. She makes sure, as much as is humanly possible, that the faculty have all the resources they require for teaching and research. Ms. Bregman also helps the faculty master the new tools for doing research electronically by offering orientation sessions, as well as visiting faculty in their own offices and working with them on an individual basis. To say that my research has been enhanced by her assistance would be an understatement of immense proportions. It would not be an exaggeration to go so far as to say that her assistance has been equivalent to that of a valued research assistant, not just a librarian. In fact, I have acknowledged Ms. Bregman in all of my publications, so much is my scholarship in her debt. […] In addition, Ms. Bregman has visited my classes to relay this new information to my students, who are always intimidated by, and often lack even the most rudimentary critical skills for, doing scholarly research. Many have thanked me for inviting her to my classes because, were it not for what she brought to their attention, they confessed to knowing not even the existence, let alone the use, of numerous key research tools. […] On the basis of her help, many of my students have conducted highly innovative and original research, quite a feat for undergraduates, and an invaluable service for their continued success in the field. […] But for all she does, Ms. Bregman never makes you feel as though you are imposing or asking too much. In fact, it is she, more often than not, who initiates the generation of help or assistance. She is a truly kind and generous soul and I enthusiastically nominate her for this award.”

-On Adeane Bregman, Bapst Librarian, Boston College

Nominated anonymously

“Julia Tryon has displayed an uncommon level of kindness through her profession. […] For several years, I have been shipping books to school and community libraries in Ghana. Julia (and so many of her fellow librarians) here and throughout the state have played key roles in organizing the collection of used books from texts and reference works to books for children and adult readers. Nearly 200,000 books have helped develop over 100 school libraries and a number of village libraries in Ghana. Julia has been especially kind to me personally. When I need a particular reference that requires interlibrary loan intervention, she always volunteers to facilitate that intervention. It used to take weeks with lots of paperwork to acquire these research/reference materials; now it takes hours to days for an always cheerful Julia to get her hands on the piece and put it in my hands. […] Julia Tryon's kindness overwhelms...”

-On Julia Tryon, Commons Librarian for Research and Education, Providence College

Nominated by Stephen Mecca, Professor, Providence College

Choosing just one librarian to honor will be no easy feat. Don’t forget to check back here on Friday when we’ll announce our winner.

Image Credit/Source:Vesnaandjic/iStockphoto

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

Next Friday, April 17th, the Wiley Prize in Biomedical Sciences will be awarded to Evelyn Witkin and Stephen Elledge for their studies of the DNA Damage Response. At that time, they will be giving an honorary lecture at The Rockefeller University, which will be live-streamed as a part of the free Current Protocols webinar series. We spoke to them recently about their contributions to their field and what the Wiley Prize means to them.

Q. How and why did you enter this area of research?



Source: Evelyn Witkin
Source: Evelyn Witkin

Evelyn Witkin: Early in my graduate work at Columbia, I read two articles that determined my decision to study induced mutations in bacteria. The first was by Hermann J. Muller, the Nobel laureate who discovered that X-rays induce mutations in fruit flies. Muller believed that one way to understand the nature of the gene (which was totally unknown in the early 1940s) was to study the mechanism of mutagenesis. I decided to focus on ultraviolet light-induced mutations in Drosophila.

Then I read the 1943 paper by Luria and Delbruck, which essentially proved, unexpectedly, that bacteria have genes like other organisms. It seemed to me that bacteria would be ideal material for the study of genetics, as they divide every 20 minutes and produce a billion individuals overnight in a single test tube. With the approval of my advisor at Columbia, I chose to investigate ultraviolet light–induced mutations in Escherichia coli.


Source: Stephen Elledge
Source: Stephen Elledge

Stephen Elledge: I was trained as a chemist as an undergraduate but became fascinated, like so many others, with DNA, so I enrolled in the biology department at MIT for grad school. After MIT, I did post-doctoral work at Stanford in 1984 where I initially intended to work on plants, but eventually I decided to work on gene targeting in human cells. My plan was to clone the key recombination enzymes from mammals and use them to coat recombinant DNA and reintroduce them into cells to allow them to disrupt the chromosomal gene by homologous recombination. This would allow us to perform genetics in mammalian cells, a lifelong goal of mine. To find the recombinase I first decided to isolate it from a model eukaryote using knowledge about the pathway from bacteria and then use this gene to identify the homolog from human cells. I thought that I had isolated the yeast gene but it turned out to instead be a gene for making dNTPS, ribonucleotide reductase. This was a disappointment. However, before I dropped the project completely, I noticed this gene was turned on very strongly if I interfered with DNA replication. While I wasn’t intending to work on this area, I realized there must be a pathway that sensed the replication problem and transmitted that information to my gene. This gave me the idea that a signal transduction pathway exists for reporting information about the status of DNA to the cell to coordinate a response and I decided to work on this area as part of my research program.

Q. What has been the most challenging aspect of your research?

EW: The lack of direct biochemical approaches to the study of mutagenesis at the time I was doing most of my experiments, between the 1940s and 1980s, was the biggest challenge. We had to infer the molecular events that took place between the exposure to the radiation and the establishment of a mutation during the first postirradiation DNA replication. It was difficult, but very satisfying when our indirect methods succeeded in illuminating that particular black box.

SE: While I thoroughly enjoy working in new fields, it is a challenge to keep up. In addition to working on the DNA damage response, my group has worked on developing genetic technology, yeast and human cell cycle research, cancer research, virology and now immunology. Sometimes I think not knowing exactly what everyone thinks is actually a good thing, because it encourages independent and creative thought.

Q. What has been the most rewarding part of your research?

EW: Without doubt, the most rewarding part was the joy of being part of a community of scientists who shared my passion for understanding the gene, and who regarded science as a cooperative, rather than a competitive, venture. The small international field of mutagenesis and DNA repair was a close-knit group of researchers who freely exchanged information, ideas, and mutant stocks; who cheered each other’s successes and who often became close friends.

SE: My answer to that is three-fold. First, it is a great pleasure to try to solve biological puzzles. And when the right idea appears and all the disparate pieces fall into place and everything makes sense, it is an incredible feeling. The second truly rewarding part of my work is the ability to interact with bright young scientists and to help them develop critical thinking skills. I watch them grow both scientifically and personally and it is a great source of pride to watch them go on to develop their careers. Finally, I find rewarding the fact that our work might help others.

Q. What are the biomedical implications of your findings?

EW: Although we worked with bacteria, I often told my students that we were actually doing cancer research. Cancer often starts with DNA damage and the mutations that may follow. The understanding we achieved in bacterial genetics has certainly informed our current understanding of carcinogenesis. Higher organisms have evolved their own ways of coping with DNA damage, yet we still share with E. coli some of the same genes, enzymes, and strategies that were first revealed in bacteria.

SE: In addition to its significance in cancer research, our work also has implications for aging. Not only do mutations in the genes I have discovered cause cancer, but these same pathways help chemotherapies cure cancers. One gene I discovered, Chk1, has been a drug target for pharmaceutical companies and is in clinical trials.

Q. What are you currently working on?

EW: I retired from active research in genetics in 1991, and haven’t done any laboratory work since then. However, I am doing active research in a new (for me) field: Victorian literature. I am looking for (and finding) connections between my two favorite Victorians, poet Robert Browning and his contemporary Charles Darwin. At the same time, I am trying to keep up with the break-neck pace of advances in genetics. You never fall out of love with genes.

SE: I am now working on the physiological significance of activation of the DNA damage response pathway. Activation of our pathway can result in cellular senescence which is another tumor suppressor pathway. However, senescent cells also accumulate in our bodies as we age and contribute to an overall inflammatory environment which promotes age-related diseases including cancer, it is a two edged sword. We are currently working out how this inflammatory state is activated in response to DNA damage. We are also working on understanding how aneuploidy promotes cancer and we’ve developed a new theory to explain this and show that aneuploidy is a strong predictor of survival in cancer patients. On the immunology side of my lab, we have developed new methods to identify autoantigens in autoimmune diseases and an assay that can detect antibodies to all human viruses.

Q. What does winning the Wiley Prize mean to you?

EW: Winning the Wiley Prize is a great surprise, as well as a great pleasure. It is also a welcome excuse to look back on some of my nearly forgotten papers, and to relive the excitement of discovery after nearly forty years. It is gratifying to have one’s work recognized, although any temptation toward self-congratulation is tempered by thinking of all those I could mention who deserve it more.

SE: It is a great honor, especially to win it with Evelyn Witkin, who has done so much to first bring this field to the attention of science. She is a true pioneer to whom we all owe a debt of gratitude. This prize is also a testament to the great people I have worked with over the years. To have your work honored like this is very fulfilling and is an honor for all of these great students and post-docs who have made it all possible.

Thanks to you both and congratulations!

    Jenny Neophytou 
Jenny Neophytou
Bibliometrics Analyst, Wiley 

Many of you know the letters; I see copies of them several times a year:

metrics letter

In recent weeks, two articles have been published drawing attention to the proliferation of fake, spurious and counterfeit journal metrics. The first paper, published in the Wiley journal Bioessays, attributes this phenomenon to the rise of ‘predatory’ journals with questionable scientific practices, which nevertheless require strong rankings in order to appear reputable. The authors identify a total of 21 websites that provide such metrics – websites that, they claim, thereby ‘exploit the desperation of some publishers and authors to show some kind of scholarly metric’ (Gutierrez, Beall, & Forero, 2015, p. 2). Independent analyst and publishing consultant Phil Davis likewise acknowledges the problem in a recent post on The Scholarly Kitchen, and claims that the use of such metrics erodes faith in all metrics, reputable and predatory alike. Both articles outline the potential causes and consequences of spurious metrics within the academic publishing industry – but how do you spot them? On receiving a letter (such as the above), how do you know whether it’s time to celebrate, or whether you have been targeted by a scam?

For those of you affiliated with a publishing house (such as Wiley), your first step should be to refer the letter to your editorial team. Most publishers will have procedures in place to handle data feeds to the many abstracting and indexing websites, and will have experience in identifying fraudulent services. However, there are also some steps you can take to sense-check your invitation:

1. Research the company

A simple web search will often pull up questions raised by other editors or analysts regarding a particular metric source. Failing that, explore their website. What is their history? Do they give an office address, or a contact for data corrections?

2. Are they asking for an upfront payment?

Very few reputable metrics will ask you for a fee in return for indexing (and providing metrics) for your journal; after all, indexing quality content enhances the value of their database, and publicizing the metric on your website will direct traffic back to them. If they’re asking for a payment, be wary.

3. Do they outline the mathematical formula for their metric?

It’s all very well to know that your Impacting Factoid is 3.662, but without knowing the calculation of the metric (or what that means in the context of other indexed journals), it is a pretty useless number. So, do they tell you what the calculation is – and if so, does the calculation make sense?

4. What is their data source?

In Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, J.K Rowling reminds us never to ‘trust anything that can think for itself if you can't see where it keeps its brain’. In the context of metrics, you should never trust a metric if you can’t identify (and validate) the underlying dataset. A citation metric in particular must draw data from a robust citation database. Unlike a normal abstracting and indexing database, a citation database needs to index the article reference lists. It then counts citations by forming links between the references and other indexed articles. Accurate citation metrics rely on a citation database that is carefully curated, avoiding issues such as the inaccurate or duplicate indexing of articles. The most reliable citation databases are Thomson Reuters’ Web of Science and Elsevier’s Scopus database, which power metrics such as the Impact Factor, the SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) and the Source Normalised Impact per Publication (SNIP). Google Scholar is another popular (and free) database, although the data quality is less robust.

5. If they cite their own datasource – how has it been compiled, and what is its scope?

So, the website tells you that they calculate their citation data from their own in-house database of indexed journals. That’s all well and good. However, remember that a citation database can only count citations to and from the papers indexed in the database. Therefore, it is important to know:


    • How many journals are indexed?


    • What are their indexing criteria?


    • Can you search the database (at the article level) – i.e., can you validate their data?


This list is, of course, far from exhaustive, and some valid services will not meet all points – however, if you are suspicious of a service, and they fall short on these criteria, my advice is to avoid them. The encroachment of fake metrics into the journals market, as Phil Davis notes, does damage to faith in all journal metrics, and it is firmly in our best interests to limit their growth.


Davis, P. (2015, March 10). Knockoffs Erode Trust in Metrics Market. Retrieved March 10, 2015, from Scholarly Kitchen

Gutierrez, F., Beall, J., & Forero, D. (2015). Spurious alternative impact factors: The scale of the problem from an academic perspective. Bioessays.

Rowling, J. (1999). Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. New York: Arthur A. Levine Books.

    Allister Crowley
Allister Crowley
Business Development Manager, Wiley

So what is a career center network?

Essentially it is a large pool of candidates and job ads ‘owned’ by a third party vendor which can be plugged into a society website with a ‘career center’ interface. As the members of that society start applying for jobs via this system, their details become the property of the external vendor and can then be used to provide other ‘network affiliated sites’ (and in some cases a central network job board) with applications to ads. As the network grows, so does the pool of candidates and reach into the employer market.

These networks generally take a cut of 30-50% of all revenue generated from advertisers and the remainder goes back to the society.

On the surface you can see why this solution has its appeal.

Many of these career center network providers entered the market place in the very late nineties/early noughts when most organizations were still trying to make sense of how to move their traditional business models online. Print advertising was declining rapidly and advertisers were moving to online solutions. With no expertise or experience in this area, small online audiences and no database of candidates many societies and associations were unable to provide a credible online solution. Those that failed were ultimately unable to satisfy the return their advertisers expected and faced exorbitant costs from career center developers (only to find them obsolete in the space of a few years).

In this context, career center network providers promised off the shelf technology, nominal set up costs, a database of relevant candidates and access to thousands of potential employers. It is easy to understand why so many people said ‘Yes please!’. In this scenario the revenue share agreement was more than offset by the cost savings that societies would have incurred going it alone.

But here’s the thing…

Though it may have seemed a perfectly sensible solution at the time – networks capitalize on an organization’s membership and are actively counterproductive when it comes to building and engaging an audience.

Why do people join a professional society or association?

Members told us. Respondents to our recent membership survey cited professional development and networking among the top five reasons for joining a society or association. Organizations that went down the long hard road of developing their own unique career centers should be in a much better situation now than their network affiliated counterparts. These organizations will have captured information from every applicant, increased their online audiences and (most likely) seen the knock-on effect of increased membership applications.

By contrast, those societies that affiliated with networks have missed out on these opportunities.

Networks are interested in gaining access to an existing audience; they have little motivation in growing it.

A career center is one of the most compelling member benefit and engagement tools at a society’s disposal. Not only should it be a great development tool for members – it should be at the forefront of a society’s online presence and mission.

The image below demonstrates how a career center should be benefiting a society and its members:


Source: Allister Crowley
Source: Allister Crowley














Source: Allister Crowley
Source: Allister Crowley














career center.PNG

By contrast, this is how the dynamic works for network-affiliated societies and associations:

The graphic above shows how networks act as an obstacle to engaging and building an audience of potential new members. Networks capitalize on the affiliate’s existing audiences in exchange for applications to keep advertisers happy. As a result, the affiliated society loses out on the opportunity grow its audience and forge a direct and lasting relationship with potential new members.

I believe societies should be seeing the full benefit from their career offerings.

With the advent of specialist recruitment platform providers, organizations now have the option to move away from the network model without having to take the risks associated with developing a platform from scratch. Some of these providers offer great career center websites that offer a far more engaging user experience – and a number of large societies and associations are already taking this route.

Unfortunately building the website has always been the easiest part of launching a Career Center.

The major challenges are how to provide comprehensive content, build a qualified audience and develop relationships with advertisers. Without considerable experience or in-house expertise accomplishing this can be a long and arduous process with no guarantee of success.

The image below demonstrates some of the essentials in achieving an engaging and successful career center:


Source: Allister Crowley
Source: Allister Crowley













By taking control of their careers audience, societies can grow their memberships, introduce new products and services, and provide a truly unique audience to employers and recruiters.

At a basic level this will result in an increase in revenues, but also (and perhaps more importantly) maintain an organization’s relevance and engage a new generation of early stage professionals who will ideally go on to form a lasting loyalty to the society or association in question.

Networks provide a good service for their clients. They continue to provide their affiliates with applications and advertiser relationships – but a modern career center can offer so much more than this.

I think it’s time for societies to reclaim this audience and take their career offerings to the next level.

At Wiley we have begun working with our society partners to ‘publish’ their job boards. Find out more or take a look at our Career Center FAQs.

    Charlie Rapple
Charlie Rapple
Co-founder, Kudos

184829767_294659813_294659814_256224451.jpgAlmost 18 months ago, I wrote a post for this blog about Kudos, then a pilot service to help researchers and their publishers increase the reach and impact of publications. The pilot was a success, with basic analysis indicating that downloads of full text were 19% higher for publications explained and shared using the Kudos toolkit. The service launched fully in April 2014, and to date has attracted over 35,000 researchers and 35 publisher partners – including Wiley, whose own experimentation with Kudos in 2014 resulted in encouraging indications of the effect that Kudos can have on reach and impact.

A number of developments have helped to improve the service since launch, for example, our integration with ORCID , which makes registration and claiming easier for authors that already have ORCIDs. We’re also now piloting an institutional service, which will give staff in roles such as research development planning and communications insight into which research and researchers are attracting attention, and which activities and channels are proving effective.

The Kudos workflow for researchers involves 4 basic steps:


    • Explaining: adding plain language descriptions of what the work is about and why it is important. This makes it easier for readers to quickly evaluate its relevance to their own work, and also makes it more accessible to non-specialist readers, or readers of a different native language.


    • Enriching: adding links to related resources that support the work or set it in context. These bring the work to life (for example, with links to multimedia, or ongoing studies) and demonstrate the impact the research has already had.


    • Sharing: using the Kudos toolkit to generate trackable links for sharing via email, social media, websites, blogs etc. These enable us to show researchers the extent to which explaining, enriching and sharing are increasing the reach and impact of their work.


    • Measuring: Kudos’ dashboards and charts map the activities above against a range of metrics including page views, click-thrus, full text downloads, citation counts, and altmetric scores.


Kudos image

Towards the end of 2014, we announced an exciting partnership with Thomson Reuters which means ‘Times Cited’ counts from Web of Science are now included in our publication dashboards (see the right-hand column in the example dashboard above) – these figures too are linked back to richer datasets in Web of Science, which enable researchers to review and link to the citing publications.

Citations continue to be a critical measure of the impact of a researcher’s work, even while other kinds of measures grow up around them, and the Web of Science is widely acknowledged as the authoritative source. Like many, we’re fascinated to see the extent to which citation counts relate to more immediate indications of impact, such as downloads and altmetrics. We’re also interested in how this varies by subject area, or geography, or career level, and whether there is variation between different forms of explanation (e.g. short titles vs lay summaries), or different channels for sharing (e.g. email vs social media).

Another aspect we’re considering is publication age; much has been written about citation half-life, and many researchers are using Kudos to build new audiences for older publications – for example, by adding explanatory text and resource links that demonstrate how the work has influenced later developments. Ultimately, our goal is to compile data over time that will help authors, and their institutions, publishers and funders, understand which activities and channels correlate to better metrics across the board and throughout the ‘impact lifecycle’.

It is this last step that I want to focus on here. One of the driving principles of Kudos is that it is independent – cross-publisher, cross-platform, cross-metric. For researchers, it is a unique one-stop shop for checking lots of different performance measures across all your publications, which saves time and enables more immediate analysis of which types of communication have proven most effective. From the outset, we have included Altmetric data, with links through to the comprehensive datasets for each article on Altmetric.com. We also track usage into and out of the Kudos site (click-thrus from shared links, page views on Kudos, and click-thrus from our article pages to the full text on the publisher website). Several of our publisher partners provide us with usage data so that authors can also see the figures for abstract views and full text downloads on the publisher site.

More information about Wiley’s partnership with Kudos, and a video introduction, is available here.

Image Credit/Source: Folio Images RF/Getty Images

Anne Rauh
Anne Rauh
Librarian, Syracuse University Libraries  
Linda Galloway
Linda Galloway
Librarian, Syracuse University Libraries

Google Scholar Citations is one of many scholarly profiling services available,  allowing researchers to easily and conveniently profile their scholarly products, promote their work, connect with potential collaborators and view scholarly metrics. It’s also a great way to keep your scholarly record up to date.

Once you are set up with a Google Scholar Citations profile, you can choose how to maintain your page. Maintenance and updates to profiles are simple and can be automated or mediated. While you can choose to approve all updates to your profile, we would recommend automatic updates and periodic checking for accuracy and completeness. You are in control of privacy settings and can choose to make your profile public and searchable (or not). Google Scholar Citations will display your work in a clean, elegant interface and provides important metrics such as the i10-index, h-index, and total number of citations to a work.

Highlighting your research with Google Scholar Citations

Highlighting your research via Google Scholar Citations is really straightforward and requires little effort. Google Scholar links to your works (it doesn’t store copies) so all scholarly products must be discoverable on some platform. These platforms range from scholarly journals to personal web sites. Using Google Scholar in conjunction with Slideshare, publisher websites, academic open-access repositories, ORCiD, academic networking tools, or other storage sites ensures that your scholarly products will be correctly identified.

Now you are convinced that you need a Google Scholar Citations profile, let’s run through how to set it up.

1. Always publish under precisely the same name and use your ORCiD.

2. Make sure your work is discoverable on the web – use the tools we described above.

3. Choose a photo that you want associated with your works.

4. Login to Google, and claim your profile; adding and editing works is easy!

5. Create an alert to learn when your documents are cited.

6. Check your profile routinely for new additions, errors, and missing data.

For more information on Google Scholar Citations, see our recent paper in Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, “Using Google Scholar Citations to Profile Scholars' Work.”

    Leah Alaani
Leah Alaani
Marketing Manager, History, Wiley

The Bones of a KingThe dramatic story of Richard III, one of England’s most notorious and enigmatic monarchs, captured the world’s attention in February 2013 when the Grey Friars Research Team, led by the University of Leicester, identified “Skeleton 1” as Richard, a King whose remains had been lost for over 500 years. Last week, to coincide with King Richard’s reinternment at Leicester Cathedral, Wiley released the only official book by the team of experts who uncovered these remains: The Bones of a King: Richard III Rediscovered., which provides an in-depth, behind-the-scenes look at how the bones were discovered.

I have been part of this book’s publishing journey since the proposal first crossed my editor’s desk in early 2013. Although I’m based in our US office, by that time it seemed like everyone in the world was talking about the amazing discovery beneath a Leicester parking lot: a story that brought together disciplines across the sciences and humanities in a breathtaking, interdisciplinary project to find and identify the remains of a long-lost king of England.

In the world of academic research, there are often debates about the value of the Humanities in a world where STEM appears to reign supreme. That narrative is part of what makes The Bones of a King so close to my heart and such a remarkable story.This isn’t just the story of how we found a lost monarch. This is the story of how the Humanities and the Sciences worked together to make an incredible discovery.


Portrait of Richard III Source: The Dean and Chapter of Leicester
Portrait of Richard III
Source: The Dean and Chapter of Leicester

None of this would have been possible without historians and archaeologists, who identified the most likely location where Richard III might have been buried – not only in what building, but where that building would have stood, and how that mapped to the Leicester of the 21st century. Likewise, it would not have been possible without the geneticists and osteologists who identified and studied the remains and the DNA contained therein. Nor would it have been possible without genealogists to trace the Plantagenet family tree to present-day descendants in order to compare the DNA for shared lineage.

There are so many other experts, scholars, and scientists who played pivotal roles in this discovery that there isn’t space to list them all here. But what’s so incredible about this discovery, beyond its cultural impact, is the way it shows us that there isn’t some vast chasm between the Humanities and the Sciences. It demonstrates the way these different disciplines and skill sets can support and strengthen each other, and how, when all of these specializations come to bear on a single project, it can lead to unprecedented opportunities to share their work with the world.

And for the Grey Friars Research Team, share they have: The Bones of a King was launched on March 21st for Leicester University’s King Richard III Day, a celebration of the history, scholarship, and science that went into this discovery. The day opened up a wide span of faculty departments involved in Richard’s discovery and analysis, to provide a series of events that included public lectures, hands-on activities, 3-D skeletal printing demonstrations and medieval music and food. The intention was to bring the people of Leicester and international visitors, young and old, closer to the reality of the discovery, rather than just a removed news story on the TV, firing the imagination and making academia approachable.

We are proud to be the publisher of a book that shows how we can tear down the walls that are so often perceived between the Humanities and the Sciences – and not only that, but to bring researchers, scholars, and scientists’ daily work into a public forum, to show the general public how interdisciplinary collaboration is key to furthering knowledge and discovery.

Filter Blog

By date:
By tag: