Catherine Bowley
Catherine Bowley
Author Marketing, Wiley

You've just completed a read through of the article you've been invited to review. Hopefully this will give you a good idea of what recommendations to make before it can be accepted for publication.


But some sections of the article may be stronger than others, making it hard to decide what feedback you should give. Broadly speaking, the following questions should be addressed within your review and recommendations:

Capture (18).PNG

There are four possible outcomes based on your assessment and here are some example scenarios for each:


  1. Accept with minor revisions
    Minor revisions may include changes or clarification to any points that have not been made clear in the presentation of the research or it might indicate that some citations are missing. It could also mean that there may be too much or too little information in the presentation of the data or that slight amendments need to be made so that the conclusion correlates with the data.
  2. Accept with major revisions
    This means that more significant edits need to be made before the article can be accepted. These could include rectifying a flaw in the methodology, addressing an ethical concern, or further consideration of a past study. The presentation of the article could also poorly represent the results leading to flaws in the interpretation or conclusion.
  3. Re-submit to another journal or reject
    An outright rejection of an article is an unfortunate scenario for an author to be in, but in some cases it may be because the article would be better suited to another journal and should be resubmitted there. However, sometimes research can be substantially flawed. The inclusion of unoriginal ideas, inappropriate methodology, and questionable results can mean that rejection is justified.
  4. Accept without revisions
    The dream scenario! But, one that is in fact quite rare, especially after only one review. For an article to be accepted for publication its methodology must be detailed, replicable and adhere to strict compliance guidelines that raise no ethical concerns. The discussion and presentation of the data will flow logically, have all the citations present, and correct and offer a solid conclusion.


Learn more about the peer review process at wileypeerreview.com


     Bill Deluise
Bill Deluise
Vice President, Society Strategy and Marketing, Wiley


shutterstock_210042937_391355707_391355708_256224451.jpgA couple of days after the release of the executive order banning travel to the US from people living in seven Muslim-majority countries, I was sitting in a meeting with some society leaders. We were talking about publication strategy for the society’s journals, and, while the agenda didn’t directly address the political landscape, it was impossible to have a conversation about the future of the society’s research communication efforts without touching on it. At one point in the meeting, one of the participants said something like, “We just need to spend some time thinking through how to respond.  It does feel like there is an attack on science that’s sharpening, and we need to find our voice to defend it.”


In a remarkably short amount of time, the scholarly and scientific society community clearly found its voice. And the community’s defense of science has been full-throated.


Fast forward another couple of days, and my colleagues and I were losing hours of our work day swapping links to some of our society partners’ public statements in support of science and talking about the points they were making.  We have been so energized by their efforts and so proud of the work that we do to help them spread knowledge, advance science and scholarship, and expand the community of people committed to science and scholarship.


Here is a small sample of the things we’ve heard from our partners and other members of the scholarly and scientific society community: “The study of the Earth and space sciences has no borders,”  “[we are] dedicated to making the world safe for cultural differences,” “science benefits from the free expression and exchange of ideas,” “the US enjoys its leadership role in science and technology in part because the world’s best and brightest bring their talents here to be a part of US scholarship and innovation,” and “inclusion and respect for diverse people, religions, cultures, and ideas are at the very core of our work.”


The leadership of the scientific and scholarly society community in defense of science inspires all of us. Last week, our CEO, Mark Allin, added Wiley’s voice to the discussion: “At Wiley, we remain committed to working alongside our partners to explore all avenues to truth and to protect global interconnectedness, robust independent science and diversity in all forms.”


My colleagues and I are planning a number of initiatives and resources that we hope will be useful to the community in supporting our shared values.  We thought one simple way to do that in the meantime is to begin a thread that brings together all of the statements that we can find from the society community in defense of science and scholarship.


If you’re still finding your voice, the list below might provide some inspiration.  If you’ve already made a statement and we don’t have it below, please do add it in the comments field.  And, whatever approach you’re adopting to communicating your views, thank you for everything you’re doing.  Your work makes the world better, and we all appreciate it.


Scholarly and scientific societies’ statements:


American Anthropological Association

American Ethnological Association

American Geophysical Union

American Statistical Association

Computing Research Association

American Philosophical Association

American Historical Association

International Association of Cryptologic Research

American Academy of Religion

Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry

American Society for Bone and Mineral Research


Image credit: 06photo/Shutterstock


    Anna Ehler
Anna Ehler
Society Marketing

In June of 2016 Brian Nosek, the Executive Director of the Center for Open Science, spoke at the Wiley Society Executive Seminar in Washington DC about the challenges of research reproducibility, and how professional incentives can sometimes be at odds with scientific values of openness and transparency.


In this episode, Brian gives some ideas for what you and others in the research community can do to close the gaps between research values and practice.




Be sure to listen to our  previous episode: Making Sense of Science for the Public.


You can also listen to this episode and others – including how governments are driving open science and evolutions in publishing technology – by going to iTunes and subscribing to the Wiley Society Podcast.

Scientist, greenhouse.jpg



    David Nygren
David Nygren
Vice President, Research Insights, Wiley

147456329.jpgWiley aims to provide our society partners with an excellent service that includes both strategy development and success management. We want to help our partners achieve their goals and, just as importantly, we want to help them track their progress along the way.  A meaningful partnership, however, must be built upon trust, and trust requires transparency.


We identified journal analytics as one key area where transparency could be greatly improved. There has always been a high demand for sales, usage and bibliometrics data, and Wiley frequently provides many megabytes of data to our society partners, both in annual publisher reports and on an ad hoc basis. But we had a sneaking suspicion that we weren’t providing the best possible service. Data, of course, is not the same thing as insight, and looking at data infrequently just doesn’t make sense in today’s fast-changing world.  Societies own their journals, and the data associated with their journals is their data. But we wanted to go beyond simply providing data and create a tool that gives society executives meaningful insights that could inform their decision-making.


Rather than assuming we understood their needs, we undertook a multi-month discovery phase where we spoke with numerous society executives about the types of decisions they need to make and their vision for an analytics tool that might inform those decisions.  These society executives told us that journal performance is a proxy for how well a society is meeting its overall mission. Revenue, usage and bibliometrics data are at the top of the priority list, but for those metrics to be useful, our partners said they need context and visibility into long-term trends.  They need data not only at the journal level, but also at the article level.  They need to be able to slice by geography, particularly when there’s a strategic imperative to grow in key markets.  Seeing the numbers is great, but they also want a graphic interface to facilitate understanding and illuminate insights.  Finally, our partners said that they need these insights on demand.  They want a tool that’s continually updated and that’s there for them to use when they need it.


Based upon all of that feedback, we developed Wiley Journal Insights, a dashboard and insights tool for the executives of our partner societies.  The dashboard provides users with anytime access to their journals’ title and article-level usage and citation metrics, as well as title-level income and article output data. The beta product was rolled out to 20 societies in mid-2016, and then to an additional 60 societies a few months later.  We’ve taken their feedback and have improved the product accordingly. We’re now preparing to rollout Wiley Journal Insights to all of our society partners by mid-2017.


Participants in the beta phase told us that this kind of access allowed them to have continual understanding of their journals’ performance, and this in turn allowed for improved decision-making.  Similarly, having the tool allowed more time for strategic thinking and strategic collaboration with Wiley.


As we introduce Wiley Journal Insights to all of our partners, we’ll be paying very close attention to our own success metrics and evaluating how well the tool:

  • Improves access to and transparency of key data
  • Enables better planning and decision-making by our society partners
  • Improves journal performance


Impact metrics in scholarly communications are changing rapidly, and we have a pipeline of potential enhancements for Wiley Journal Insights.  We’ll continue to be guided by society needs, so please let us know what you think of the tool and what changes or additional features might enhance its role in your decision-making process.


Image Credit: Baran zdemir/Getty Images


Values Have No Borders

Posted Feb 16, 2017
    Mark Allin
Mark Allin
President and CEO, Wiley

The past few months have been a time of reflection for all at Wiley on not only the outcome of elections and referenda but also many of the larger challenges we face as global citizens: government Wiley storefront.jpgrestrictions on immigration; opposition to evidence-based science; fear of globalization; access to quality education and employment. The changes that we are witnessing provide all of us with an important opportunity to think about our own values and what it means to be a global citizen. In the three weeks since the U.S. Presidential Executive Order on immigration was issued, we have been in discussions with the communities we serve: our researchers, our authors and our partners in learning. These conversations have reaffirmed our core values—ones that have inspired us at Wiley since our founding.


Over two centuries ago, Charles Wiley opened a print shop in Manhattan. Soon after, his first bookstore became a meeting place for writers, artists, and inventors to discuss and debate issues of the day, and his publications reflected his interest in everything from literature to science and technology. We are proud that this rich heritage of sharing knowledge is still alive today at Wiley and has been extended to every corner of the world where we now operate. We continue to work with our partners to advance knowledge and progress in science and education, whether it is bringing together experts in their field to share meaningful insights, creating new tools for researchers to speed up discovery or helping institutions and faculty move online to reach students no matter where they are.


We thrive when our authors and partners are free to work and travel across borders, and our colleagues are free to do the same at our offices around the world. We oppose any ban that restricts access to the United States on the basis of race, religion, gender or country of national origin. We oppose restrictions on the activities of government employed scientists and the use of their data. We support evidence-based science as the bedrock of public policy solutions to our most urgent problems, from protecting public health to mitigating climate change. As a global community of citizens, we are all fundamentally stronger through diversity and a free exchange of ideas.  These values are widely held across the globe by billions of people: enlightenment – the search for truth through reason, the spread of knowledge as the basis for human progress, the importance of debate and tolerance and the belief in human liberty.


Now more than ever, science and education have no borders. Knowledge has no borders. Values have no borders. Global interconnectedness, education, independent, evidence-based science and diversity of all kinds—heritage, sexuality, citizenship, religion, thought—are critical to continued progress. This truth is all around us. One in five scholarly publications is written by coauthors from different countries sharing their latest discoveries with their communities and the world. A recent paper in a Wiley journal by researchers from Iran, Turkey, France, Morocco and the US is helping to advance the fight against tuberculosis, which kills more than a million people a year. There are countless examples of the same kind of collaboration; from the 1 million international students who call American colleges and universities home to the 100 American Nobel Prize winners who were immigrants to this land and represent diversity, inclusiveness and freedom of thought.


In the coming weeks and months, we will be in touch here on Wiley Exchanges to continue this conversation in support of our communities and address the current attacks on our values. At Wiley, we remain committed to working alongside our partners to explore all avenues to truth and to protect global interconnectedness, robust independent science and diversity in all forms.


Image: John Wiley & Sons, 15 Astor Place, 1870. Credit: Wiley Archives

    Samantha Green
Samantha Green
Society Marketing, Wiley



We often talk about the potential of research to change the world for the better, but how do we make sure that research actually creates change?


At its center, research impact relies on successful communication. This communication can happen between a scientist and a journalist, within the scientific community, to relevant policy-makers or practitioners, or even between two neighbors, one of whom happens to be a researcher at the local university.


We spoke to several experts in science communication on the challenges and opportunities for research impact.


ARosenberg.jpgAndrew Rosenberg, Director of the Center for Science and Democracy, Union of Concerned Scientists shared the need for scientists to get the tools they need to with the media.


“I think a lot of good investigative journalism is basically public accountability. And so we view journalists as a megaphone. There have been quite a lot of efforts to teach scientists to talk to reporters. And that’s a good thing, but you still hear routinely that scientists can’t present their findings to non-technical audiences. Those communication efforts are great things, but they weren’t coupled with practical advice. How do you get a reporter to call you? What works and what doesn’t work? Where do you get the resources to help you to do this? We need long-term engagement tools.

You really have to feel for journalists. They’re responsible for knowing everything! Back when I worked at NOAA Fisheries we reversed the view that talking to journalists would hurt you. We spoke to journalists. Whether you’re quoted is immaterial. You’re impacting the scope of their understanding.”


DScheufele.jpgDietram Scheufele, Vice Chair, the Committee on the Science of Science Communication, shared his perspective on the need to change how we approach the science of science communication.


“The big irony of scientific communication is that it’s one area where we don’t rely on data much. I think there’s a level of urgency here for the scientific community, but there are a couple of things that are complicated. First, fake news isn’t new. People have always held onto beliefs that aren’t true. We’ve seen it for a long time with cable and social media going from “broadcasting” to “narrow casting.” One can always find information that fits one’s beliefs. Second, what the scientific community very often doesn’t understand is that a lot of questions don’t have scientific answers. Is it morally right? That isn’t a scientific question.


So we’re in a highly competitive message environment. The press release on my latest study competes with Beyonce being upset about Jay-Z’s infidelity. Science communication is fighting for mindshare and aligning with readers’ needs and values. Science communication has traditionally stayed away from the marketing literature, but I think we have a lot to learn there.”


RNowak.jpgRachel Nowak, Director, The Brain Dialogue, ARC Centre of Excellence for Integrative Brain Function, reflected on the limitations of general media and how to improve direct science to public accessibility


“There’s been a massive movement around Open Access and a positive feeling about making research more accessible, but we haven’t considered the readability of the papers themselves. If you move things towards plain language (don’t totally eliminate jargon, because it does have uses), the research becomes much more useful to everyone -- the lay public, but also, and this is important, researchers working in other disciplines. In fact there needs to be a package of tools to make papers more accessible – we need to test things like listing the paper’s key points up front, plain language summaries that put the finding into context, or an icon on the paper that shows where it sits on the pyramid of levels of evidence. Some journals are doing some of these things -- but we need to find out what works, and what doesn't.


It’s interesting that no one is really questioning why the scientific communication ecosystem has become so dependent on the general media for disseminating findings. It's an extraordinarily narrow funnel relative to the volume of research being produced. What's more, the serious media's core job has do with the democratic process, not the dissemination of research findings. The values of the popular media are different, and there science is often selected and covered for its entertainment value. It causes problems and researchers get frustrated, but journalists aren’t there to disseminate scientific knowledge. That’s the job of the researcher and the research enterprise.”

IOransky.pngIvan Oransky, Distinguished Writer In Residence, New York University's Arthur Carter Journalism Institute, addressed some of the challenges with comprehension when communicating scientific results.


“I used to think the hardest part was translating the technical terminologies so people would understand. But now, I think the biggest challenge is helping people understand where something fits in—there’s a lot of over-emphasis on single studies. There’s a push-pull between what you need to do to make a living as a journalist and what your readers would benefit from.


There’s also a concern about research being adopted too quickly. It’s much more valuable to help people understand scientific uncertainty, probability. Does this single study actually mean you should change your behavior? Context and an understanding of the scientific process matter. There’s a lot of importance in training the public about knowing what to ask and thinking skeptically about a study. How can we translate research to help readers understand how the whole enterprise works? Belief in conspiracy theories, confirmation bias, etc. won’t be solved by communicating science. Turning your research into a TED talk isn’t an answer. People need to understand the process of science.”

All our experts acknowledged the challenges of public engagement around research, but there are certainly opportunities to collaborate and learn more. Improving research impact begins with understanding that our personal beliefs and experiences around science differ, but our desire to improve our communities is shared.


Image Credit: Oleg Prikhodko/iStockphoto 


    Christine Thomsen
Christine Thomsen
Marketing Manager, Author Marketing, Wiley

In the social media world, Facebook is a giant. With over two-thirds of online adults now using the site, it also provides great opportunity for promotion. We’ve put together this infographic to help you make the most of Facebook to promote your work.




This post was originally published here on Wiley Exchanges as: 5 tips for promoting your research on Facebook.


Feel free to share any tips you have on promoting your research through social media in the comments below.



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

What is the ASPIRE Prize?

Wiley co-founded the ASPIRE Prize (the APEC Science Prize for Innovation, Research and Education) in 2011 in the spirit of fostering international collaboration among scientific researchers. As a Vietnam.jpgleading publisher of scientific research, we deeply understand how encouraging a focus on solving global problems can accelerate scientific breakthroughs and make the world a better place.


The international prize has become an annual celebration at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), the leading forum in the Asia Pacific that facilitates cooperation among the 21 member economies (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; The United States and Viet Nam). APEC serves as the premier platform to promote economic growth, cooperation, trade and investment as well as science and innovation across the 21 governments.

Who is Eligible?

Each year, the APEC member economies nominate young scientists who have published groundbreaking research in the ASPIRE Prize 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, China, Hong Kong, Korea, and the United States.  Last year’s winner was Dr. Hua Kuang of China, who won the prize for for her work in the development of low-cost biosensors that detect food sanitation hazards.


The Prize is now entering its seventh year under the theme “New Material Technologies.” President and CEO of Wiley, Mark Allin, noted that “The field of material sciences holds a rich range of applications in various fields.” We are excited to honor young scientists who are applying material sciences in a broad range of usages – from using novel materials in the field of healthcare to material processing for waste, this diverse field of study has a rich range of applications indeed! In order to recognize more young scientists and celebrate their work in this field, the U.S. State Department, with the co-sponsorship of Wiley and Elsevier, is hosting a U.S. ASPIRE Competition to seek out excellent young scientists working in the fields of new material technologies to become the US ASPIRE nominee. The selected US nominee will receive a $3,000 prize and the opportunity to represent the United States to compete against young scientist from the other APEC economies.  The final winner of the APEC ASPIRE prize will receive a $25,000 prize and be honored at an award ceremony in Viet Nam where the winner will showcase his or her research internationally with science officials from APEC economies.


How to Apply

If you are under 40, have conducted research in the field of material science, and have partnered with international scientists, this is an excellent opportunity. The U.S. ASPIRE Competition closes its application on February 24, 2017.  Learn more about how to apply online here.


Image: Yenbai, Vietnam, Credit: John Bill/Shutterstock

    Elizabeth R. Lorbeer
Elizabeth R. Lorbeer
Library Director, Western Michigan University School of Medicine


Welcome to the Bibliomatrix

How do you promote a service and resource that you can’t physically see, hold or enter? It is a challenge I’ve faced for the last four years in developing an all-digital library for a new medical school. You cannot open the front door to my library, study, nor check out books. Rather the library I work at is what you hold in your hand. It’s accessible through your smartphone, tablet, and laptop. You can be anywhere in our school building, at home, in the coffee shop, or on a medical mission trip and have access to the library’s digital content. As neat as this all sounds, my biggest challenge is marketing the existence of the digital library. What you can’t see in the traditional academy is often forgotten or simply non-existent. That’s dangerous in a world plagued with fake news and impostor journal sites where a simple Internet search can produce misleading information for our learners. I do not manage a library with rows of book stacks, banks of computers or a maker space. I exist in the digital realm, and if I let my imagination get the best of me, I’m the Oracle who manages the Bibliomatrix. So, how do market to Neo, Morpheus, and Trinity so that they’re effective information users within the Bibliomatrix?


Research in the Informationist Age

The medical librarians who we now call Informationists are the most valuable resource I have. Armed with a tablet or laptop, they are unchained from the reference desk to work in the learning environment. They go as ambassadors of information to deliver content, provide expertise in systematic searching of the world's knowledge databases and help answer medical questions. When a medical case piques curiosity, the Informationist will search and appraise the literature as time constraints often limit learners from exploring further. We scribe for our clinicians in morning report, then work quickly to answer their questions later in the day. Our web pages and services are always changing and building upon successes as we meet the daily needs of our students and educators. To make this work seamlessly and in real-time, we collectively created our digital library platform to be agile so that at any time one of us can customize how we deliver content to our users. Some readers might think we’re going to run the digital library amuck, but our shotgun approach has branded us within our institution as problem-solvers who can deliver real-time results. We improve user success by eliminating barriers to information and advocating that we’re here to make our learners, educators, and clinicians successful healthcare providers.

Going “Viral” By Building Trust and Success

Our marketing strategy is simple; to go out within our community and elevate each user’s success. We're passionate about making the world a healthier place, and supply the front line with vetted resources. We believe our success is based on being a good role model and a friend to our learners and making the learning space safe for them to ask a question about the care of a patient in the clinical setting. Crafting our brand is trickier because it is tied to each Informationist and his/her interaction with our users. We are growing our skills and expertise’s organically as our school matures. Each of us brings our unique talents, interests and traits to our workplace. We’re encouraged by our school’s administration to explore, discover and create our success Many of our users have a favorite Informationist, and they know that person will supply them the materials and information they'll need. I fully expect the Informationists to know our users by name and be that trusted friend they can confide in within the academy. We’re fortunate to work with a smaller faculty, and student body, where cultivating relationships is relatively easy, and respect as an equal is a given. The Informationists are part of the healthcare team where we are prized for being innovative problem solvers, working quickly to produce results and noted for being the “nicest people” in the medical school. Word of mouth is powerful, and cultivating library champions is key to success. There always will be naysayers, and disruptors, it's how you handle your brand and positively adapt to each new situation that makes users respect and trust your services.


With any effective marketing plan, communication and listening are key. That can be hard, as you like to think you’re one step ahead of the information consumer and you’ve created a flawless paradise. When I hear, a user say, "I wish the digital library could...," it is an invitation to strategize how we're getting information into the hands of our people. My job as Oracle is to listen, empower, emulate the qualities I admire in our library users, then make it happen in the Bibliomatrix.


What unique challenges do you face as a librarian in marketing your services? Let us know in the comments below.


Image credit: 4774344sean/iStockphoto


    Helen Eassom
Helen Eassom
Author Marketing, Wiley

LinkedIn is the world’s largest professional network, with over 433 million members in over 200 countries. It’s not just business people that use LinkedIn- an increasing number of academics are using it too. LinkedIn can be a great way to expand your network and make sure your work reaches the right people. However, many LinkedIn users aren’t making use of its strongest promotional tool- the profile. This simple infographic outlines why you should complete yours:



Now that you’re convinced of the importance of your LinkedIn profile, here are 5 quick tips on how to make sure yours stands out:

  • Tell your story. List your occupational experiences, education, awards and achievements.
  • Frame your profile. Position your most recent accomplishments first and reposition your publications to the uppermost section of your profile.
  • Be public. Check your profile settings – go to ‘Privacy & Settings’ then ‘Edit your Public Profile’ to make sure that people can see what you want them to.
  • Highlight your work. When you publish a new paper, add it to the publications section of your profile. Title all publications precisely, list authors in contribution order and add a live link to your articles.
  • Add images, videos, presentations and documents. LinkedIn allows you to showcase your work through the upload of different types of media.


The Ultimate LinkedIn Cheat Sheet





    Jen Cheng
Jen Cheng
Content Marketing Strategist, Wiley


There are a few challenges we know for sure that librarians face from our previous posts last year and in 2013. While libraries in different parts of the world share similar challenges, we thought it might be interesting to gather insights on how librarians in Asia Pacific (APAC) fare against their counterparts from the west. Here’s what we heard from over 300 librarians in APAC from a variety of sectors and job roles. Are there any that resonate with you, or does your library face a different set of challenges? Let us know in the comments section below.





    Helen Eassom
Helen Eassom
Author Marketing, Wiley

Want to do more to promote your work but find that often, you just don’t have the time? We’ve put together this infographic to show you 8 quick and simple steps you can take to help get your work noticed.


Promote quick wins infographic.jpg

For more information and guidance on promoting your research, take a look at our Journal Author Promotional Toolkit, which offers 7 tools to help your work get seen, read and cited.


Filter Blog

By date:
By tag: