Anna Sharman
Anna Sharman
Founder, Cofactor

paper cranes.jpgSo, your paper has been accepted in a journal. Now you can just sit back and relax, and wait for it to be published, read and cited, right?


Wrong! A bit of effort can make an enormous difference to the success of your paper.


Why should I publicize my paper?


Publicity increases the number of downloads of your paper, and downloads are necessary for citations, though the correlation isn't perfect. With over a million papers published each year, even with good search tools you can't be sure that the right readers will find your paper.

But might people think you are a shameless self-publicist if you do this? Shouldn't you be spending your time on research rather than publicity?


That's a very old fashioned view. Publicizing your research is the best way to make the most of the resources that your group and funder have put into it. It would be a waste not to do it!


All the tools mentioned below are free -- the only cost is your time.


When should I publicize my paper?

Some journals say that you mustn't talk about your paper before it is published (this is called the 'Ingelfinger rule') and is meant to ensure the paper is 'news' when it comes out). But there is an increasing realization that, in the days of social media, it's impossible to stop authors talking about their work.


If you publicize your paper early, it could build up interest. That way, when it is finally published you will have lots of people talking about it straight away.


A good time for publicity is when you upload a preprint to a server such as arXiv, BioRxiv or PeerJPreprints. Any comments you get on the preprint can be used to improve the paper before you send it to a journal. You may get citations for the paper even before it is formally published!


You can check whether your target journal is OK with preprint publication on this Wikipedia page, and you should also check its instructions for authors for its policy on advance publicity.


How can you publicize your paper?


There are some very simple things you can do first:

  • Add the paper to the list of publications on your lab website
  • Tell your friends and colleagues
  • Email a list of key people in your field telling them (briefly) that it has been published and giving them a link to the full text
  • Add it to your LinkedIn profile




Beyond LinkedIn, there are several online profiles where it is advantageous to list your papers. The most important is your ORCID iD. This is a freely available unique identifier for researchers. This iD is a great way to distinguish yourself from other researchers with the same name, and it also links together publications that use different versions of your name (such as misspellings, variations or previous names should you have happened to change your name).


And, your ORCID iD comes with a profile that lists all your publications. You are able to ensure that the right publications are attributed to you and add any that haven't been found automatically.


An ORCID iD also enables you to have an ImpactStory profile. ImpactStory gives numbers for all your papers, such as how many people have downloaded them or tweeted about them. It is a great way to find out how your papers are doing. Some of the same numbers may also be available from the journal page for your paper.




Some researchers write regular blog posts about their research and related issues. This means that when they have a new paper out they have a ready-made audience for a blog post about it. The blog post can give the story behind the research, the human side of how it was done, and the struggles involved in completing it.


Why not try blogging yourself? You can use it to practice your writing skills as well as to write about your work.


If blogging isn't for you, you can still get publicity for your paper on a blog. Look for bloggers in your field and ask if they might write about your paper. Send them a copy in advance of publication to give them time to write, and be available for their questions.


Social media


One of the best ways to get exposure for your paper is to use social media. Twitter is the most widely used tool in academia, but other networks have their unique advantages (LinkedIn, ResearchGate, Academia.edu, as already mentioned, plus Facebook, Mendeley, Reddit, and publisher-specific networks). Choose whichever platform you feel most comfortable with, and don't worry about using all of them. It is worth learning about networks you aren't familiar with, though, as they could be easy to use and might help your paper make a big impact.


Twitter is a fantastic tool for keeping up with whatever interests you, and that includes academic research. It is also great for following conferences when you can't be there in person. Any tweet can be passed on (retweeted) by others, so you can reach many more people than just your followers.


Twitter does take some getting used to. I recommend setting up an account a few months early, to give you time to learn how it works. Choose a username under 10 characters that includes some part of your name and something about your research. Start by just following people; there is no need to tweet anything initially. Gradually start retweeting content you find interesting, and contributing to conversations.You will gain followers who will be there when you need them.


On the day of publication, write a tweet telling all your followers that your paper is online, and include a link to the full text (or the abstract if it isn't open access). Also, check whether the journal's Twitter account has tweeted about your paper, and be sure to retweet that.


Image credit: Nataliia Romashova/Shutterstock


    Graham Taylor
Graham Taylor
Independent Consultant

As the practices of the academic community evolve, so should a healthy scrutiny of the working of the system of peer review, which remains the principal means to establish confidence in the scholarly literature. As the filtering mechanism that sustains trust and quality assurance, the critical element that sets scholarly literature apart from mere discourse, so its effectiveness, fairness, sustainability, and cost-efficiency merit challenge and debate. We at the Publishing Research Consortium (PRC) see our role as providing evidence to support the debate, and our latest survey into opinions and attitudes to peer review was designed with this in mind. We also wanted to be able to analyze trends in relation to earlier surveys.


Perhaps surprisingly, this survey concludes that satisfaction with, and broad support for, peer review has remained stable from previous surveys. There is a continuing preference for conventional, pre-publication, single or double blind peer review, and this preference applies to both authors and reviewers, with open peer review ranking significantly behind. But the desire to see improvements in specific areas is increasing, with some variability between subject communities in support for alternative types of peer review.


Although the burden on peer reviewers remains significant, participation in peer review is seen as an important contribution to the community and reciprocating the work of others. The effectiveness of peer review is ranked highest for improving the quality of published papers, but the belief is growing that peer review should also be able to detect fraud and plagiarism.


Overall, the degree of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with peer review does not vary predictably with demographic factors like geographic region, subject discipline or age/seniority of researcher. There is no simple pattern that differentiates support, and the survey does not identify criticism of peer review as being significantly greater among younger researchers or those from non-Western countries.


So, although the overall picture has evolved somewhat from earlier surveys, support for conventional peer review has remained remarkably stable. However there are tensions to resolve and clearly further evolution in the system is required. On the one hand there is considerable pressure for peer review to happen faster, but research authors also value quality, constructive review. There is movement to reduce the potential for bias or fraud in the system, but consensus on how best to achieve that has yet to emerge.


The Publishing Research Consortium (PRC) is a group of associations and publishers that support occasional research into issues that impact scholarly communication. Analysis and report on the data from this survey was commissioned by PRC from Mark Ware. The survey instrument was constructed to enable longitudinal comparison with two previous surveys: by Mark Ware for PRC in 2007 and by Sense About Science in 2009. Ware also compares his conclusions with a third survey by Taylor & Francis in 2015. To add context and depth to the quantitative analysis, the survey report includes many verbatim (free text) responses, chosen to be consistent with the overall views of the whole sample but offering some suggestion of where the system might evolve. The Publishing Research Consortium Peer Review Survey 2015 is available from publishingresearchconsortium.com, with a CC-BY-NC-ND license.



attitudes 3.jpg


Related posts:

  1. Top Tips for Early Career Peer Reviewers
  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
    Charles Young
Charles Young
Editor-in-Chief, Clinical Case Reports, Wiley

Good case reports, whether they be from medicine, nursing, veterinary medicine or other disciplines, have the potential to make a positive contribution to global health outcomes and clinical understanding. In this infographic, Dr Charles Young, Editor-in-Chief of open access journal Clinical Case Reports, gives an overview of what makes a good case report, and offers his three top tips to think about when writing a case report.


Clinical Case Reports.jpg

    Marcel Knochelmann
Marcel Knochelmann
Business Development, Wiley
Jenna Pope
Jenna Pope
Journals Editorial, Wiley

Jenna Pope, Associate Developmental Editor and Marcel Knöchelmann, currently interning as Consultant in the Editorial Development team, were awarded Fellowships of the Society for Scholarly Publishing. As part of this, they attended the SSP Annual Meeting 2016 in Vancouver and took part in a mentorship program. Below are perspectives on how the conference reflects the industry from two different early career positions: business development and journals editorial.

Vancouver%2Bforest.png?a=1466541469116Marcel Knöchelmann, Oxford:

Scholarly publishing is in a state of flux. That’s visible in the new processes that change the publishing landscape every day. From arising concepts that want to shift the whole economic system or new paradigms of measuring impact and attention of research to the many tools and services that try to establish a place somewhere between research, writing, publishing, and reading. Everything moves. As an aspiring business developer, I’m particularly interested in trying to find patterns in the various movements. Who actually uses what, why, and how? And then: How do I apply this knowledge to my current work?


The SSP Annual Meeting offered a great deal of insights. Some were quite specific, for instance the use of persistent identifiers, cybersecurity issues in scholarly publishing, or insights into international markets. Yet, the actual learning experience happened in between the seminars and talks. It’s about the growing strength of communities in scholarly publishing and their impact on the fragmentation of the industry.


Communities become visible in the form of sciences which label their interests with certain brands down to individual journals, communities of interest that are advocating or rejecting new paradigms in publishing (whether they be Open Access, impact indicators, peer review processes, or even rigorous reliance on standards), or communities which are formed by the behavior of their individuals (and thus make use of tools and concepts that many others haven’t even heard of before).


These communities are manifold, but proper market segmentation hasn’t always been a strength in scholarly communication. Though, we’re beginning to see that this is shifting. And, discussions at the SSP Annual Meeting made that recognizable. Publishers and service providers follow more differentiated approaches, diversifying the supply in regards to the fragmented demand. This is useful especially in times where revenues shift away from the one core service called publishing towards a bundle of services around providing and analyzing knowledge.


Jenna Pope, Hoboken:

The 2016 SSP Annual Meeting hosted a number of panels of special interest to me in my work as a journals development editor. Some of these themes included: discovering scholarly content in rapidly changing geographic, cultural, and age demographics, collaborating with libraries, facilitating news coverage of content, using altmetrics, and combatting increasingly complex ethical issues.


We heard a number of discussions on new technologies that are being used to strengthen scholarly communications. As authors desire a move past static text alone, new strategies exploring more engaging media are emerging. Visual descriptions of research can be found in video abstracts, infographics, and embedded interactive graphics, such as those on news sites. As content browsing migrates to mobile devices,, user experience is being closely considered. Submission systems are also being updated to handle the ever-increasing number of submissions and reviews.


We also saw an infrastructure of persistent digital identifiers taking shape. In addition to the ubiquitous DOI, authors themselves are being assigned identifiers by ORCID. Researchers will benefit from the identifiers by making themselves more recognizable and their work more discoverable. Submission and review processes will be streamlined, as it will be easier to create a log in over a number of systems, and editors will be able to ensure they are requesting reviews from the correct people. Funding agencies will also benefit from the widespread use of personal identifiers by being able to confirm that their grants are producing usable outputs. Datasets are being published in their entirety, some are being given DOIs and others are assigned identifiers specific to the repository, such as accession numbers in GenBank.


In addition to all of these positive technological advancements, panels also spoke of the drawbacks to new technology. Predatory journals are more present than ever, due to the ease of posting content online and the confusion arising from new open access models. Content theft is also easier than ever and has been on the rise recently.


The meeting showed us that it’s an exciting, but challenging, time to be in scholarly publishing. Change is ever present and if we want to maintain our reputation for excellent scholarly communications, we need to continually adapt to the new challenges and technologies around us.


Image credit: Vancouver forest, Radius/Superstock

    Ed Williamson
Ed Williamson
Society Marketing, Wiley

What makes a person in the research community join a society? That was the central question of a society-focused membership survey we undertook earlier this year. With responses from close to 13,000 participants across 145 countries, the results provide an in-depth picture of current attitudes and challenges for society membership.


In June, we shared a sneak peek of some overarching themes and insights that we’ve gained from the results with Chris Kenneally, Director of Business Development, Copyright Clearance Center. Listen to Wiley’s Bill Deluise, Vice President of Society Strategy and Marketing, and David Nygren, Vice President of Research Insights, as they talk with Chris about the future of membership in the webinar recording below.



CCC webinar.JPG

Presentation Slides:


Webinar Recording:

    Kirsty McFarlane
Kirsty McFarlane
Associate Editor, Wiley

If you run a journal editorial office, you may be considering trying out open peer review. Recently, the British Journal of Surgery conducted a trial of open peer review for 153 manuscripts. Their process and findings are included in the infographic below.



    Nick Dormer
Nick Dormer
Society Strategy and Marketing, Wiley

Vancouver BC.jpgWhen it comes to our impact as researchers, authors, librarians, or publishers, there will always come a time when we have to ask ourselves an all too familiar question: How do I get this information to the widest possible audience?  Although there are often easy or obvious solutions, be it your go-to journal or institutional repository, they may only represent a fraction of what’s out there. And since you’ve done all of this work and want to keep growing your impact, why not try and take it further? Further than your institution, further than your country, further than your continent.  With the right resources the possibilities are vast.


But crossing boundaries isn’t always easy. You have to be thoughtful, you have to have a plan, and that plan needs to succeed. No pressure. This year, the annual meeting of the Society for Scholarly Publishing (SSP) sought to address the very challenge of crossing boundaries. Titled “Crossing Boundaries: New Horizons in Scholarly Communication,” for the first time in its history the Society hosted its annual meeting outside of the United States—in Vancouver, Canada. Keynote speakers included David Kidder, CEO of Bionic, and Dr. Margaret-Ann Armour, the Associate Dean of Science, Diversity, at the University of Alberta. There were 33 concurrent sessions, two plenaries, and a number of networking and extracurricular opportunities. All with one goal in mind: to educate and advocate for progress in our industry.


Although the keynote speakers, Mr. Kidder and Dr. Armour, had notably different objectives in their presentations, both harmonized on an important point regarding impact: To grow you have to push beyond the very norms that you've come to identify as a given. For Mr. Kidder, this meant investing everything on the right idea. For Dr. Armour, this meant challenging systematic assumptions that affect diversity and team dynamics.


As an entrepreneur and Angel Investor, Mr. Kidder spoke to the very challenges that we all face in serving the research community: When growth is slow or flat, what is our obligation to change? Mr. Kidder argues that you have to take chances to achieve a breakthrough, as all too often organizations get too comfortable with their impact, like placing preferential treatment on process over risk. Neglecting to set the necessary resources aside to invest in the next best thing may mean losing out on a critical opportunity or falling behind your competitors.


Dr. Armour spoke to diversity in our industry; that often, despite our best intentions, subconscious biases appear where we least expect them. A notable example of this is gendered Graphic recording SSP16.jpgpresumptions. Our first steps, as institutions and people, should not only be to recognize that these biases exist, actively considering their origin in our everyday activity, but to recognize how they can negatively impact our community. By not correcting our tendencies to be biased, we then promote the disengagement of those who have become marginalized. Harmony and freedom from bias is critically important in growth-dependent communities. Groundbreaking achievements will be made when we become open-minded and inclusive.


Other notable sessions on crossing boundaries included Spring Beyond the Book: Making Research Matter, where participants "write, edit, assemble and publish a book about the future of scholarly publishing on-the-fly in 72 hours"; Previews Session: New and Noteworthy Product Presentations, which was "designed to offer publishers and vendors the chance to showcase their newest and most innovative products, platforms, and/or content"; and Transformative Publishing Platforms for Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, where panelists report on recent project initiatives that were funded by the Andrew W. Melon Foundation to "respond to the shared problem of how publishers can sustainably support digital scholarship in the humanities."


So as you set into the summer months, taking some much needed time off from tending to your professional constituencies, set some time aside to identify the boundaries that you have come to depend on. This could be anything from the makeup or contributions of your team, to the easily achievable goals you've set. What you'll find is that they're fairly easy to point out and the margins are quite obvious. In fact, they're probably part of a pattern. But what if those boundaries weren't boundaries at all, but rather guidelines that were shared with you from an organization that was successful thirty years ago and is no longer around? Today you have an obligation to reexamine the impact that you have on your community. When progress is slow or flat, today you have an opportunity to embrace an initiative that takes you further. No pressure. Really.


Images credit: Anne-Marie Green


    Lucy Whitmarsh
Lucy Whitmarsh
Marketing Manager, Wiley

UKSG Wiley Coloring wall.jpg

The UKSG 39th Annual Conference in Bournemouth this spring proved once again to be a source of insight, inspiration and project updates for the knowledge community. Here are six things we learned from attending.


1. Conversation is key.

Many of the sessions explored market research and how institutions are reaching out to their students to understand what they need from their library space. There was emphasis on the partnerships that can be built between librarian and user to influence change and innovation within academic libraries. One key takeaway for us was around finding students in their own space. Instead of surveying students who are already using the library, go out and about on campus and survey students as they move around.


2. Physical space can be a challenge.

Students and researchers are increasingly comfortable and confident in the digital world, but libraries are finding new challenges in ensuring their users are confident using the physical space. Research at the University of Birmingham showed students reporting experiences such as “used the library twice, got lost both times and left after five minutes”. There is a need to ensure students are confident in the physical as well as the digital. One suggestion for this came from Raymund Pun in his session on gamification, running things such as a ‘Murder in the Stacks’ game or International Games Day to promote the physical space.

UKSG Tweet 1.jpg

3. Libraries are always looking ahead

Who are the users that libraries will need to provide their services to in the future? Emma Mulqueeny’s insights into the digital child were fascinating. She talked about the top 5 things that make the 97ers – those born in 1997 and after – different to the generations before them. As the first generation to have grown up with social media it’s impacted how they learn, join communities and share their data. The knowledge community is looking ahead to what this might mean for the future.


4. Librarians aren't afraid to fail

In many of the sessions there was talk of new projects, pilot schemes and constant trial and error. This isn’t new – we know that the knowledge community is always searching for the next innovation. What stood out for us was the willingness to fail and learn from mistakes. Sarah Pittaway spoke of ‘The Hive’ at the University of Worcester and how student coordinators are encouraged to try new things. An acceptance of possible failure and the foresight to take it as a learning opportunity makes every trial a success.


UKSG tweet 2.jpg

5. The importance of taking a break

With what feels like a full week of sessions packed into two and a half days, we weren’t the only attendees in need of a break. The Wiley mindfulness colouring wall filled up steadily over the first two days and delegates gave us great feedback on being able to switch off and not have to think for five minutes. With such a variety of new information to take on board, the ‘time off’ to process it all was invaluable.


UKSG tWEET 3.jpgUKSG Tweet 4.jpg


UKSG Wiley Coloring wall.jpgUKSG Wiley Coloring wall 2.jpg

6. We definitely need new shoes.

In between all the tweets and chatter about the sessions came pictures of shoes. From boots, to sparkly silver shoes, to bare feet in the sand, #shoetweet attracted (and confused) many delegates. With suggestions that this will be the next big thing at conferences, it’s time we went shopping!

UKSG Tweet 5.jpg

    Kelly Neubeiser
Kelly Neubeiser
Author Marketing, Wiley

The movement towards open access is stronger than ever before. Every day, more funders, institutions and industry stakeholders are supporting free and global access to all research. Just last week, European Union leaders broadened their efforts and announced that from 2020, all scientific articles must be open access.


When you publish open access, your work can be read, seen and cited by everyone around the world, gaining you the visibility and impact your research deserves. But the ability for anyone to access your work doesn’t negate your rights as the author. With a Creative Commons license, you retain full copyright of your work. Each of the six different licenses outline various permissions about attribution, reuse and modification.


Check out our infographic below and see which option is right for your research. All Wiley fully open access journals and most of Wiley’s subscription journals with the OnlineOpen option offer a Creative Commons license. Find more information on the open access agreements available at Wiley.


creative-commons-licenses (3).jpg



    Roger Watson
Roger Watson
Editor, Nursing Open and Journal of Advanced Nursing

smartphone.pngEver wondered about the 'AM' symbol with a number next to it that increasingly appears on the landing page for online articles these days? Ever hovered over it or clicked on it? You should.


The "AM score" symbol is the Altmetric symbol and "altmetrics" meaning alternative metrics is a recent addition to the range of ways we can measure the influence of published work. As opposed to measuring the influence of published work using citations in other published work, Altmetrics is a measure of the influence of published work online and via social media platforms. It is hard to pinpoint the origins of altmetrics, but they have probably been around since the inception of blogs, microblogs, and social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn (a list that has seen sites appear and disappear and which is continually being added to by, for example, Academia.edu and ResearchGate). Altmetric the service, as evidenced by the "AM score," is a systematic way of gathering altmetrics and making them available to publishers and, thereby, to the academic community.


Altmetrics, therefore, are relatively new but the importance of social media in spreading the influence of your work is well-recognized by many academics and is being deliberately exploited by publishers and editors to increase the influence of their publications. Witness the number of leading journals that have blogs, Twitter accounts, and Facebook pages. In addition, many use podcasts and YouTube and ensure that they are visible on sites such as LinkedIn and Wikipedia. Most publishers and journals have a social media strategy and some journals the Journal of Advanced Nursing, for example have appointed editors specifically to deal with their social media strategy and outputs.


With publishers and editors taking such an interest in social media, should you? I have hinted above that you should inspect the "AM score" symbol on article landing pages, and I urge you to take an interest in using social media to promote your work. I cannot say, for sure, that Altmetrics will replace or even equal traditional publication metrics, but they are already being used to augment them and I predict that before too long, promotion committees and appointments committees in universities will begin to pay attention to people who in addition to building favorable traditional citation metrics are able to promote their work (and thereby their employment) using social media. Witness again the rise in university Twitter feeds, Facebook pages, and YouTube sites to reach out to potential students and impress potential research funders. In the UK 2014 Research Excellence Framework, where research impact was formally assessed for the first time, the use of social media by universities was copiously evident in the institutional statements and case studies submitted for assessment.


So, you should pay attention to Altmetrics and you should learn how to make the best use of social media. Develop a strategy to promote your work and influence your own Altmetrics. If you don't "get" social media, don't worry: It's not as hard as it seems and there is plenty of advice available. People who use social media are often enthusiasts and are only too happy to help you. Currently, the minimum requirement is to have a Twitter account and to learn how best to use it. Some benefits of Twitter are that you can easily tweet links to your own publications and also draw attention to your work in particular forums using the hashtag (#) facility. Beyond that, you can use it to tweet other links to your work, such as blog posts. Consequently, your reaction should be "yes!" to any invitations to provide a blog entry, a podcast or a YouTube presentation in relation to your work published in a journal. You can then tweet out the link to the blog.


Finally, a note about the Altmetric value of different social media sites, all of which are not equal. Blog mentions score the highest at six Altmetric points, with Twitter mentions scoring one point and LinkedIn scoring 0.5. It is clear, therefore, where you should focus your efforts, but do not ignore any opportunity, by whatever means, to promote your work on any social media site; it should be a priority and your only other responsibility in this regard is to make the content legal, decent, honest, and truthful.


Image credit: D. Hammonds/Shutterstock


Filter Blog

By date:
By tag: