Jill Yablonski-Crepeau
Jill Yablonski-Crepeau
Author Marketing Manager, Wiley

What advice would you give to early career researchers who are new to peer review?  When we asked individuals from around the globe this question, their answers ranged from reading other reviews, to seeing how others interpret the paper, to review, review, review!  Take a look at all the responses in the video below and share your tips with us in the comments below or tweet @WileyExchanges.


top tips for early career pr.JPG


Related posts:

  1. Peer review around the world
  2. Are we refereeing ourselves to death? The peer-review system at its limit
  3. Wiley Pilots Transferable Peer Review
  4. Peer review: fundamentals and the future
    Helen Eassom
Helen Eassom
Author Marketing

mag glass and computer.jpgAs a researcher, you want to be sure that you always receive the correct credit and recognition for your work. Launched in 2010, ORCID provides a unique and persistent identifier to researchers, so that your research output is always linked to you, no matter how your name is expressed. This carries huge advantages for the discovery process, making it much easier for others to find and read your work. Now ORCID has further simplified the process of connecting your ORCID iD with your research, with the launch of Auto-Update functionality in collaboration with CrossRef and DataCite.


How does the Auto-Update functionality work?


Up until the launch of this update, researchers have had to manually maintain and manage their scholarly record, making sure to connect new activities as soon as they are public. With this new functionality, if a researcher includes their ORCID iD when they submit a manuscript or dataset, their ORCID record is automatically updated when the work is published. The Auto-Update tool has been developed in collaboration with CrossRef, which has generated well over 75 million DOIs for journal articles and book chapters, and DataCite, who work with nearly 600 data centers worldwide. Both CrossRef and DataCite have already received almost half a million works from publishers and data centers that include an ORCID iD validated by the author. Now, information about these articles can be added straight to the author’s ORCID record.


Should I authorize the Auto-Update functionality?


The ORCID Auto-Update feature aims to make managing your scholarly record much simpler and less-time consuming. It will mean information can move easily and quickly across systems, and you won’t need to spend any more of your valuable time manually maintaining your record of research output. If you choose to authorize the Auto-Update functionality, you can revoke this permission at any time. You can also choose the privacy settings for the information posted to your record, so you never have to worry about losing control of your ORCID record. When you grant permission, basic information about your article (such as the title, journal name and publisher) or dataset will be posted to your record, together with a DOI that enables users to navigate to the source paper or dataset landing page.


How do I make Auto-Update happen?


You can authorize the Auto-Update functionality by doing the following two things:


  1. Use your ORCID iD when submitting your paper or dataset.
  2. Grant permission to CrossRef and DataCite to post information to your ORCID record by using the Search and Link wizard for DataCite. This is available through the ORCID Registry or the DataCite Metadata Search page. If CrossRef or DataCite receive a datafile with your iD, you will receive a message in your ORCID inbox and you can grant permission directly.


Just remember to be on the lookout for an email from CrossRef on behalf of ORCID, asking you to agree to the autopopulation of your ORCID record. Once you actively agree to this, the process will then work automatically.


For more information on ORCID, please visit our website.


Image credit: Pamela Moore/iStockPhoto


    Casandra Laskowski
Casandra Laskowski
Law Library Fellow, The University of Arizona

conference mic.jpgWhen I was told about ER&L by a colleague, I knew it was something I needed to attend. I am still a graduate student and my part time job in the law library does not give me control of digital resources, but every class in library school referenced the changes technology was ushering into the field. The law school I work at has an entire lunchtime program dedicated to technology in the legal field. Two library directors speaking to my class expressed that their next hire would likely be an electronic services librarian. I believed ER&L to be my best chance to really see what people were actually using and decide what training I should undertake. Fortunately the Wiley scholarship for the conference afforded me this opportunity.


Luckily, a gracious colleague helped me pick sessions to attend, as conference schedule was littered with names of programs I’d never worked with and tools I never realized existed. It was my first conference. I was excited and a bit terrified. I shyly walked into the welcome reception. While I am terrible at random ‘”Hello’s,” I quieted my introversion and began a conversation with two other solo wanderers at the reception. One had been a librarian for years and the other was newly minted. But both were new to the conference, and each one had different expectations of what they wanted from it.


The sessions were a blend of real world experiments, efforts, and projects and explorations of new and upcoming tools and software. Even the individuals that asked questions at the end of sessions all seemed to be working on distinctive projects, looking to apply what they learned in a variety of situations. It made the information in the sessions feel so much more malleable and potentially useful.


NISO presented on privacy guidelines created as a joint venture between libraries and publishers. At D4D, the information architecture workshop fascinated me with how ubiquitous the issues of information architecture were, and how useful this session would be in a range of practical situations. I attended a session on using E-books as textbooks to reduce costs for students, and the EBSCO lunchtime talk about their collaboration with librarians and developers to create a modular, open source ILS. I listened to librarians tell of their creative solutions to a range of problems. I learned about EZProxy and Altmetrics.


I sat, took notes, and witnessed how different every librarian’s job is, but also how similar. I observed the strength and ingenuity to adapt to changing pressures and demands that underlie each talk. I saw all the things that captivated me about being a librarian embodied in the speakers. The experience reaffirmed my choice to be a librarian and made me fall in love a second time with librarianship.


Image credit: hxdzbzxy/Shutterstock

    Martha Rundell
Martha Rundell
EEO Manager, Wiley

ISMTE Asia2.jpgLast month the ISMTE (International Society of Managing and Technical Editors) held its first conference in Asia. Singapore’s Novotel Clarke Quay played host to over 100 delegates from 16 different countries. Managing editors, editors, publishing professionals and representatives from a number of various service providers had the chance to interact and network in a very relaxed and conducive environment, sharing experiences and their plans on tackling some of the publishing world’s biggest issues.

The first keynote covered the ethical issues surrounding the management of all journals which seemed to set the tone for the remaining meeting. Helen Atkins (Director, PLOS) and Sarah Tegan (Vice President, American Chemical Society) both clearly articulated the ethical concerns faced by their suite of large journals. The added challenge caused by the sheer volume of submissions received yearly seems to have multiplied and exacerbated the problem. Vigilance is required and both publishers have recognized and implemented policies and procedures to tackle and address each case. Irene Hames provided a stirring speech which rattled many attendees. She stressed that our environment is always changing and that we need to be proactive. The fake reviewer scandal seems to be common knowledge now, but how do we handle dubious third party service providers who not only suggest fake reviewers but also now write papers, conduct experiments, create false data and ask for payment for authorship? Irene suggested a number of ways we can be proactive and stay ethical revolving around education beginning with the PhD student, and creating easily accessible policies.

The day progressed with a presentation from Michael Wise, a council member for COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) who reiterated the resources available to all COPE members. There were breakout workshops either with Michael who provided examples of cases that COPE has advised on or a great session with Jason Roberts of Origin Editorial who provided a detailed presentation on the best way to use and present your data properly. This was hugely beneficial to those of us who provide reports in any capacity.
Open Access publishing is no longer a new concept to most of us. However, we were treated to a very interesting session that looked at the ever changing landscape of Open Access. Together with SPARC and OASPA, PLOS have created How Open Is it? It is a guide of standardized terminology that enables users to effectively compare publications and policies. As part of this session, many of us were introduced to two major projects conducted by INASP, an international charity that aims to improve and strengthen the sharing and research information of developing countries. The AuthorAid project provides resources and training to developing researchers assisting them to achieve publication. The Journals Online project provides a cost effective and secure platform for online journals along with assistance through resources, hosting options and promotion for greater discoverability. As an example of this, Vasanthi Thevanesam, Editor of the Sri Lankan Journal of Infectious Diseases, gave a heartfelt talk on the challenges faced by researchers in Sri Lanka.  She discussed  how the Journals Online project helped her create a journal in an expanding field that disseminated necessary information ion for the management and prevention of infectious disease in Sri Lanka.


Much of the remaining sessions then focused on the resources and tools available to authors, editors and publishers. Katherine Christian from Altmetric looked at Altmetrics as a complement to ISMTE Asia.jpgtraditional metrics that allows you to include different parts of the article and types of output. With the increasing issues surrounding authorship, Amy Brand (MIT Press) spoke of the CRediT Taxonomy of transparency, using 14 terms to classify an author’s contribution. Rachael Lammey from CrossRef explained that CrossRef provided the infrastructure to allow the linking or connection of metadata through the allocation of DOI’s and the CrossRef Funding Data. Nobuko Miyairi from ORCID spoke of the importance of an ORCID identifier and their efforts to increase awareness and support of this initiative.

The audience was led through a number of resources that are provided by pre-submission service providers and those also available by membership. Technica Editorial provided a detailed presentation on best practices for the management of an editorial office and this included communication, clear guidelines and building relationships as the key to success.

It was clear that an event such as this was well-received in this region as seen by the great affinity everyone had to one another and their willingness to listen, learn and hopefully bring new ideas back to their workplace. Delegates left the conference looking forward to meeting up again at the 2017 Asian ISMTE conference in Beijing!


Images credit: Michael Willis


    Ania Gruszczynska
Ania Gruszczynska
Academic Career Coach

writing pen and paper.jpgGiven that the unofficial motto of academia is “publish or perish," it is probably unsurprising that a lot of my coaching work revolves around writing and helping people become more productive writers. After all, success in the academic rat race is contingent on the ability to churn out research articles in an environment where carving out the time to write can be quite tricky, regardless of whether you are in an academic job or not.


Those in academic jobs often find that writing time is the first thing to go amidst teaching, pastoral, and administrative responsibilities. Those struggling to find academic jobs have to squeeze in academic writing somewhere in between their day job(s) and intensive job hunting. Even those on a decidedly non-academic career path may discover that their desired job does involve a substantial amount of writing. For instance, I never suspected that as project manager so much of my time would be spent generating text in the form of reports, briefings, and project documentation.

So I will often hear from my coachees that they want to use the sessions to develop better writing habits to help them progress in their careers or to finally get that monkey, otherwise known as the post-PhD article, off their backs, the same one that they’ve been meaning to get around to for the past six years. Then, invariably, they will mention guilt for not writing enough and not having enough time to write, and will often argue that the only thing standing between them and the finished piece of text is lack of large chunks of uninterrupted time. Funnily enough, they often forget that last time they did have large uninterrupted chunks of time, they used that time primarily to procrastinate and feel guilty about not writing enough. That is, if they were lucky enough to do their PhDs as full-time, funded students with relatively few personal commitments, which obviously doesn’t apply to everyone!

There are obviously no magic fixes to writing productivity, but if I was to name “the one belief that stops you from writing” it would be the perception that academic writing cannot happen in short, structured chunks of time. Somehow, the writing fairy does not visit those who only have half an hour to spare in their busy lives and so the only option is to wait for that magical time, maybe in December when things calm down, and a golden window of opportunity will present itself. Except ... it doesn’t have to be that way! This is where insights from enquiry into habits of productive academic writers come in handy.

Robert Boice looked at writing habits of new academics and noticed that the ones that managed to produce the most articles did it in brief but regular sessions. He discovered that it was enough for people to commit to regular 30-minute morning writing sessions to boost their academic productivity and produce at least 2-3 papers per year, considerably more than their colleagues who stalled their writing until they could find a free block of at least 3-4 hours, which in academia is probably rarer than hen’s teeth. There is also some interesting work by Brian Martin, who writes about strategies for shifting from a binge-writing to more of a snack-based approach, and I would recommend it to everyone to try committing to a regular writing practice (half an hour per day is enough, preferably first thing in the morning) to see if it makes a difference and removes some of the procrastination-induced guilt.

Obviously, it is only through trial and error that you will be able to determine what works best for you, but the key things to take away might be the following three tips:

1. There is no need to  “save” your writing for large blocks of uninterrupted time.

2. Making a commitment to a regular working practice can help you boost your productivity and meet your writing goals, one short session at a time.

3. Guilt is unproductive and will not make you a better writer!

How do you find the time to write? Feel free to share in the comments below.


Image Credit: Guido Mieth/Getty Images


The Costs of Research Misconduct

Posted May 11, 2016
    Helen Eassom
Helen Eassom
Author Marketing, Wiley

Plagiarism is an ongoing problem in the world of scientific publishing and a topic we’ve addressed here before. Last year we shared an infographic from iThenticate showing 10 types of plagiarism and perceived levels of seriousness, as identified through a survey of scientific researchers. The following infographic (also used with permission from iThenticate) demonstrates just how serious a problem research misconduct can be in terms of human and monetary costs.


Wiley is committed to targeting plagiarism in all its forms. For each manuscript submitted to a Wiley Open Access journal using the ScholarOne submission system, an automatic report is generated using the iThenticate anti-plagiarism software, a process that benefits authors and editors alike by ensuring high ethical standards across the open access programme. In this way, we hope to mitigate some of the costs outlined below.


Costs of research misconduct infographic.jpg

Welcome To The Wiley Network

Posted May 11, 2016

bengali lights.jpgWe're really pleased to welcome you here to The Wiley Network. This new content community not only offers a fresh look and new features, we've also expanded the scope of content topics to better serve you as you pursue your academic or professional goals.


Discover The Future of Research is the new hub for our content focused on scholarly communications, libraries, academic and professional societies and research innovation.


Educate Through Innovative Technology features the latest advice and resources on teaching and learning challenges, trends in education, and learning technology.


Develop Your Skills is where you’ll find resources to aid you in your professional development at all career stages, from getting your first job to becoming a stronger leader.


If you haven't already, be sure to register for our email newsletter in order to stay on top of the content of greatest interest to you. You can also customize your experience on the site by registering for The Wiley Network here.


We hope you enjoy exploring the site. Thanks for being a part of The Wiley Network Community!


Image credit: Wooden Owl/Shutterstock

    Gail Davies
Gail Davies
Professor, University of Exeter

windows.jpgGeography is a diverse subject; as others have pointed out, it's something of an "undisciplined discipline." As an academic geographer, I am used to working across disciplinary divides, with both quantitative and qualitative methods, and engaging the objects of both physical and social worlds. This is one appeal of the discipline: It is a good place to cultivate a restless curiosity about different knowledge practices and a commitment to working at the political and ethical implications of different ways of thinking about and knowing about non-human nature. Yet, there are challenges in processes of peer review in interdisciplinary research and cross-disciplinary journals. These are manifest in different ways in my work as an author, as reviewer, and as co-editor of Geo: Geography and Environment.


Expanding possibilities


Publishing is fundamentally a communication process, and to engage in cross-disciplinary publishing is to be reminded of how much community norms shape, facilitate or transform the relay of information and meanings. At times, switching roles between author, reviewer, or editor, can feel like traversing the squares of a JoHari window. The different aspects of our research practice, and the methods known to us and others, move in and out of focus, leaving blind spots and potential unknowns. If disciplinary research is when publication norms are known to self and others, then cross-disciplinary research is characterized through contexts and conventions which may be only partially visible to authors and reviewers: Situations known to the author may not be understood by all reviewers, and contexts recognized by reviewers may not be fully appreciated by authors. There is also the intriguing possibility of interdisciplinary research in which genuine unknowns can be considered or uncovered. In all interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary research there is the demand for rigor in new knowledge production and the need to be open to new possibilities. Authors, reviewers and editors all have obligations to responsible knowledge production, through good peer review, but also to attend to what Stengers calls the "care for the possible." This translates into some straightforward advice for peer review, but also leaves open the potential for careful experiments with emerging practices.


Taking care of the possible


As an author writing for an interdisciplinary or cross-disciplinary journal, the responsibilities are to arguments and materials, journal audiences and disciplinary fields, but also to the community of scholars already engaging the networks of thought, practice and materials connecting across disciplines. Interdisciplinarity is no longer new and, I would argue, authors cannot remain unknowing of existing practices. As Callard and Fitzgerald reflect in their interdisciplinary entanglements, disciplinary divides are often promoted, even in the process of overcoming them, by those with a particular bureaucratic imagination of the place and encounter between humanities, social sciences, and science. Care for knowledge production and the "care for the possible," for authors, means both engaging with established fields of enquiry, but also critically with the existing literature on interdisciplinarity in your field.


As a reviewer for an academic journal, you are already making a considerable and valued contribution to academic debate. The injunctions for reviewing cross-disciplinary research need not be additionally arduous. To be a good reviewer of interdisciplinary work involves:


  • curiosity
  • honesty – in applying your expertise to evaluating arguments and evidence, whilst acknowledging the limits to this expertise
  • clarity – in communicating constructively on both of these with editors and authors


As a reviewer, if you are not curious about a paper and cannot be honest in the review of it, there is probably limited value in proceeding further anyway.


As an editor situated in a changing field of knowledge production, the demands are possibly greater, but there is one advantage for editors in processes of cross-disciplinary review. Of all participants, you get to see through more boxes of the JoHari window. For Stengers, care for the possible means learning to examine situations from the point of view of their possibilities.


Pragmatically, for Geo, the journal I co-edit with Anson Mackay, this means commissioning multiple reviews for cross-disciplinary and interdisciplinary work. This involves two or three reviewers often one recommended by the author, one or two working in related fields, and, for interdisciplinary research, one working within interdisciplinary networks. Our preference is for blind peer review, where the names of authors and reviewers are not known to each other, but where, as editors, we get to see the names of all involved in the process. While for authors, reviewer anonymity helps remove considerations of personal status or institutional standing from reviewers’ assessment of content, for editors, knowing the names of authors and reviewers informs judgements about which aspects of the work should be known by different constituencies, to address gaps, shape arguments, test evidence, as well as create new lines of communication in a cross-disciplinary field.


Unlocking unknown possibilities


As an editor, I am also excited about the possibilities of high quality, peer-reviewed and open access data sets to be made available via journals (Geo will be publishing data articles), as well as through data repositories and archives. Even as journals still play a key role in shaping fields of enquiry, they can never exhaust the possibilities that come with interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary research, and careful experiments with data play a key role here. It is in the unknown possibilities unknown to authors and us as editors which still reside in data where we might find the most radical future possibilities for new forms of enquiry.


Image credit: zhu difeng/Shutterstock




    Helen Eassom
Helen Eassom
Author Marketing, Wiley

The work you do is incredible.becauseofyou.JPG

Here at Wiley, we’re celebrating the remarkable work carried out every day by you - our authors, researchers, reviewers and editors. We want to know what drives you to make new discoveries, overcome challenges and make a difference. That’s why we’ve launched our ‘#becauseofyou’ campaign, and we’d love to hear your story.

Below we reflect on what inspired a few famous people, and share some of your stories as well. Why do you do what you do?

Perhaps you were inspired by your family and friends?

Microsoft founder Bill Gates credits his mom with inspiring his philanthropic spirit: "My mom was very involved in the community, always gave a lot of time in non-profit activities more than anything else. And she thought that given the success, which was just starting then, that responsibility was commensurate with that." Today the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation donates millions to improving the lives of others worldwide.

Malala Yousafzai, the schoolgirl shot by the Taliban when she was 14 for campaigning for women’s education, was encouraged in her activism by her father, also an educational activist. Her father encouraged Malala to become a politician and allowed her to stay up at night and talk about politics. In 2014, Malala became the youngest ever Nobel Prize laureate when she won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg says her group of friends were the inspiration for the Lean-In Circles initiative, and helped her get through one of the most difficult periods of her life- "My Lean-In Circle will help me stick to my resolution and I will help them stick to theirs. Together, we are stronger than we are individually. And because of them, I know I am never alone."

This story from our #becauseofyou campaign shows that many of you are also inspired by family:

"I came from a poor family and my late father passed away a few years ago due to terminal stage of lung cancer when I was pursuing my undergraduate degree. My mother is the breadwinner yet she is illiterate. She works hard to support me for my higher education yet I am the only son in the family. Undergoing a PhD is challenging and I wish not to disappoint my late father and mother as I believed they want to witness my success in completing my PhD as well as being a successful person in the future."

Chuck Chuan Ng

Or a great teacher?

Professor Stephen Hawking has spoken of the former teacher who opened his eyes to mathematics: ‘His classes were lively and exciting. Everything could be debated. Together we built my first computer, it was made with electro-mechanical switches,’ said Prof Hawking. "Thanks to Mr Tahta, I became a professor of mathematics at Cambridge, a position once held by Isaac Newton."

Former President Bill Clinton cites one of his high school teachers as a great support and influence, instilling in him the belief that he ‘could organize and run things’, doing whatever he wanted to in life.

Maybe it’s been the work of others that you’ve been inspired by?

Marie Curie was inspired to make radioactivity the subject of her thesis and subsequent further study by the discovery of X-rays by Wilhelm Roentgen and Henri Becquerel in 1896.

The work of Charles Darwin was also heavily influenced by other scientists, including geologist Charles Lyell. By building on Lyell’s ideas, Darwin made important discoveries about the geology of South America and the formation of coral reefs during the Beagle voyage.[ii]

This story from our campaign highlights how we can be inspired from an early age:

‘I first fell in love with science when I was 7 years old. I read my first Chemistry book and I was amazed that anything could be so beautiful and, at the same time, so useful. I now work in corrosion science which, although not as high profile as the medical sciences, does work to save countless lives. Think of all the accidents that can be avoided by preventing corrosion in aircraft, automobiles and bridges. This is what inspires me.’

Ruth Bingham

Or perhaps you’re inspired by the people you meet through your work?

President Obama has spoken about the inspiration he gets from the people he meets on his travels-"...hearing their stories, seeing the hardships they overcome, their fundamental optimism and decency."

Another example from the #becauseofyou campaign:

‘Before working in emergency medicine for 20 years, I was a ‘kitchen girl’, a nurse’s aide, and then an RN for 20 years. I am inspired by my mother (a social worker), other physicians, nurses, hospital staff, my patients and their families. In this challenging service, there is no greater privilege or blessing than to see the smile return to people’s faces after illness or injury and to be in the presence of families at time of serious illness or death.’

Safia Rubaii MD RN, Emergency Physician Indian Health Services

Inspiration can come from anywhere- from the people we know and love, the difficulties we face in life, music and art, education, or simply the desire to make the world a better place. Now you’ve seen what motivates others, we’d love to hear what inspires you.

Visit our website, watch our video and then share your story for a chance to win $200 worth of Wiley books.

Your work is changing the world, and we do what we do #becauseofyou.


    Andrew Tein
Andrew Tein
Vice President, Global Government Affairs, Wiley

machu pichu.jpgMany of our most pressing global challenges can only be solved through international collaboration. Threats to food security are not confined by borders and demand attention from experts around the world. Climate change effects are felt across every continent and cannot be mitigated by a single nation. Sustainable ocean development requires international partnership to ensure food security and protect this critical environmental resource. As a publisher of leading researchers in every discipline, Wiley has seen firsthand how scientists collaborating across borders are achieving the scientific breakthroughs that will solve these challenges. What better way to encourage such research by honoring those scientists with an international award and prize?

In this spirit, Wiley helped to launch and co-sponsor the ASPIRE Prize (the APEC Science Prize for Innovation, Research and Education) in 2011. ASPIRE is an official initiative of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), the leading forum in the Asia Pacific that facilitates cooperation among the 21 governments (Australia; Brunei Darussalam; Canada; Chile; China; Hong Kong, China; Indonesia; Japan; Malaysia; Mexico; New Zealand; Papua New Guinea; Peru; The Philippines; Russia; Singapore; Republic of Korea; Chinese Taipei; Thailand; and Viet Nam). You may know it from the iconic group photo where leaders from all 21 APEC member economies line up in the host member’s national attire. APEC serves as the premier platform to promote economic growth, cooperation, trade and investment as well as science and innovation across the 21 governments.

Each year, the APEC member economies nominate young scientists for ASPIRE consideration who have published groundbreaking research in the theme of the year and, most importantly, demonstrate a commitment to cross-border cooperation with scientists from other APEC member economies. Since 2011, the Prize has been awarded to young scientists from Australia, Hong Kong, the United States, and Korea. The Prize is now entering its sixth year, and the theme for 2016 is “Technologies for Food Security.” Wiley President and CEO of Wiley Mark Allin noted earlier this year, “The ASPIRE Prize honors those who work across the APEC region to help solve the grand challenges of our time, and food security is one of the most urgent and multi-faceted problems the world is confronting today.”

In order to recognize more young scientists and celebrate their work in this field, the U.S. State Department, with co-sponsorship from both Wiley and Elsevier, is hosting a U.S. ASPIRE Competition to identify leading young scientists working in the fields of food security, agricultural and environmental studies, sustainable development, agri-business management, nutrition, satellite imagery to monitor foods, aquaculture, water management, humanitarian aid, food distribution networks, adaptations to climate change, and other relevant disciplines to the theme.

If you are under 40, a U.S. citizen or permanent resident have conducted multi-disciplinary research in food security, and have partnered with international scientists, this is an opportunity for you. Six finalists will be selected and invited to an award ceremony to Washington, D.C. with the White House and State Department scientific community. The winner will receive $3,000, go on to be the U.S. nominee for this year’s APEC-wide ASPIRE Prize and be eligible to win a trip to Peru to share his or her research with 21 other governments and a grand prize of US $25,000.

Interested? The U.S. ASPIRE Competition closes its application on May 10. For more information on the application process, visit the US ASPIRE website.

Image source: Jarno Gonzalez Zarraonandia/Shutterstock

    Helen Eassom
Helen Eassom
Author Marketing

lab scientist.jpgMost researchers working in the UK will know that the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) open access policy took effect from April 1st of this year, but what does that mean for you, and how can you make sure you are fully compliant?


What is the HEFCE open access policy?

Around £1.7 billion of public money is allocated for research through the Research Excellence Framework (REF) each year, and HEFCE believe that the outputs of this funding should be as widely available as possible. This is why, after extensive consultation, the four higher education funding authorities that make up HEFCE have introduced an open access requirement in the next REF. In order to be eligible for submission to the next REF, authors must deposit their final peer-reviewed manuscript in an institutional or subject repository. All material deposited should be discoverable, and free to read and download, by anyone.


The HEFCE policy should mean that research findings are disseminated as widely as available channels allow. The consensus is that the new policy will bring huge benefits to the efficiency of the scientific research process and increase public understanding of, and interest in, research output.


The policy applies to all journal articles and conference proceedings with an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) accepted for publication after April 1st 2016. If you’ve published monographs, book chapters, other long-form publications, working papers, creative or practice-based research outputs, or data, then the HEFCE policy doesn’t apply. Authors can comply with the policy via the Green or Gold open access route. When publishing via the Green open access route, the only basic policy requirement is that papers are deposited in a repository. If publishing via Gold open access, it isn’t a requirement of the policy that papers are deposited, although this is encouraged by HEFCE.


Are Wiley journals compliant?
In short, yes, Wiley journals are fully compliant with the HEFCE policy. Authors can choose to publish their papers via the Green open access route, by publishing in a subscription journal and self-archiving their paper, or making their article open access by publishing OnlineOpen. Alternatively, they can publish in one of Wiley’s Gold open access journals; both routes allow authors to fully comply with the HEFCE and REF requirements.


The accepted (peer-reviewed) version of an article can be deposited into repositories upon acceptance, but access to the article will be subject to an embargo period (12 months for STM journals, 24 months for social science and humanities journals). This doesn’t affect compliance with HEFCE- authors can still deposit the full text of the accepted version of their article in a repository within 3 months of publication, with restricted access. Following the end of the embargo period, the full-text of the article must then be made open access in order to comply with the policy.


HEFCE screen shot.pngIf you’d like more information on Wiley’s self-archiving policy, take a look at our self-archiving pages on Wiley Online Library.


How can I check if a journal is compliant?
Want to publish in a journal but not sure whether it’s compliant with the REF requirements? You can use the SHERPA REF tool to check compliance quickly and easily. Enter either the name of the journal or the ISSN and click ‘Check’ and the tool will tell you if your journal is compliant, as well as listing the requirements you must satisfy to meet the open access requirements for REF.


1st Image source: Westend61/Getty Images

2nd Image source: HEFCE

Filter Blog

By date:
By tag: