Desirée Zicko
Desirée Zicko
Senior Marketing Manager, Wiley

Looking for a book? Internet giant Amazon is often the first place people turn to for the latest titles, or to browse the bestseller lists in search of their next read. But as the author of a book, how do you make sure you’re getting the most out of the opportunities Amazon offers in promoting and selling your title? The following infographic offers some helpful tips.




Visit our Book Authors page for more helpful resources.


    Laura Goldsberry
Laura Goldsberry
Marketing Manager, Wiley

Building a marketing and PR plan can seem overwhelming, but by asking a few important questions, you can figure out how best to target and approach your customers.


Capture (52).PNG

How to Create the Perfect Podcast

Posted May 25, 2017
    Helen Eassom
Helen Eassom
Author Marketing, Wiley

Want to get your work noticed? Podcasts are an increasingly popular way of sharing and promoting research, allowing authors to extend their reach beyond the academic community. A short podcast summarizing your latest research paper can be an effective way to drive engagement and interest in your work. To help, we’ve put together this infographic offering five top tips on creating the perfect podcast.


Plan the perfect Podcast.jpg


    Anna Ehler
Anna Ehler
Society Marketing

In our latest podcast, journal editors Professor Mike Ritchie and Dr. Andrew Beckerman talk about their experiences with peer review and how portable cascade review can benefit societies, publishers, authors, and editors.



Listen to the previous episode: The Impact Factor Still Reigns Supreme-Should it?


You can listen to this episode and others – including strategies to help protect research integrity and how to get the most out of your member surveys – by going to iTunes and subscribing to the Wiley Society Podcast.


    Samantha Green
Samantha Green
Society Marketing, Wiley

Our inaugural Women in Research Travel Grant has been awarded to Jody McBrien, Professor of Education at the University of Florida, Sarasota-Manatee. The judges thought that her work “demonstrates the power and potential of research to effect real change.”


We chatted with Dr. McBrien about what drives her and what she hopes to accomplish in the future.



Q. First of all, let me start by saying congratulations. Can you share what got you started on your current research path?

A. Thank you so much for this award. I was humbled to receive it when I know there were many very capable scholars who also applied.


I was drawn to my work with resettled refugees when I began my doctoral work at Emory University. Just down the road is Clarkston, Georgia, a place often called “the most diverse square mile in America.” It has been a refugee resettlement community since the Vietnam War. My mentor and dissertation chair, Dr. Carole Hahn, encouraged me to volunteer at a refugee agency as a homework tutor early in my time at Emory. That became the impetus for my academic career. As I got to know the children and families, I was so moved by all the hardship they overcame and the gratitude they held for the US to give them an opportunity to remake their lives. They work so hard, and they have lived through horrors no one should ever have to experience.


Obviously, they are seriously misunderstood and misjudged by many native US citizens, even more so in these recent years. In spite of the negative attitudes they may have to endure once resettled, they remain firm in their desire to work hard and respect their country of resettlement. They just need encouragement. At least two of the refugees I first met now have their Master’s degrees – one in education and the other in a medical field at Vanderbilt where she is a medical researcher.


Q. How do you plan to use your travel grant?

A. I was searching through upcoming international conferences and found one in Thessaloniki, Greece in July 2018 hosted by the International Association for the Study of Forced Migration. The theme of the conference is Refugees. I will submit a proposal to speak at it and use my award to travel for the conference. I also hope to stay an extra week or two to volunteer my help with the refugees in Greece.


Q. The judges were particularly impressed with your commitment to putting research into practice for real-world results. Can you talk a little bit about the motivation for that, and what you find most challenging and most rewarding about working with that goal?

A. Most of my research has been qualitative work, and most has been with people who are considered marginalized populations. Ethically, it simply is not right to ask them to give of their time and of their lives without doing something in return. I have seen this happen, and I have seen resident populations turn away from future researchers as a result. I had it happen to me in Africa, when a local NGO worker said to me, “I have seen many researchers come to me for help. What are you going to do for us?” He was correct to ask that question. There should be reciprocity. One way to achieve this is through putting research into practice.


Working with communities to put our research into practice is enriching not only for the communities, but also for myself and for my continuing research. I learn more as I work together with people I meet in communities I research. So, for example, in Uganda, co-researchers and I have held art workshops for students and meetings with teachers. We wrote a book together with the women we came to know through our numerous trips to Lira, entitled: Cold Water: Women and Girls of Lira, Uganda. All of the book sales return to the Ugandan authors to help support their organizations and girls’ scholarships.


This work is not about me. It is about the community members who are generous in sharing their life experiences with me. And if we can use those to build something helpful – to support a community organization, to keep one more child in school – then the research becomes truly meaningful.


Q. Personally, I was struck by how collaborative and internationally-focused your work is. What in your experience are the challenges or benefits of working closely with collaborators from other parts of the world? 

A. My primary research topic, refugee resettlement, is by nature international.  As I have studied the topic extensively in the US and New Zealand, working closely with colleagues in Canada, Australia, and the UK, I find cultural differences to be important in terms of learning best practices. My international colleagues add many insights to the research and make the research experience highly satisfying, with stronger results and conclusions. Just last week I flew to Hong Kong to consult with a colleague doing a comparative study on global education in three countries. Talking together about the data helped us to find more than the team found previously. I guess my current challenge is language, as I am not fluent in Japanese. But we are finding ways to overcome that, as my colleagues and participants here are better at English than I am at Japanese. Between all of us, we come to agreed understandings.


Image Credit: Jody McBrien


Why Do Reviewers Review?

Posted May 18, 2017
    Kim Barrett
Kim Barrett
Editor in Chief, Journal of Physiology

As an Editor-in-Chief (for The Journal of Physiology), I am acutely aware that ensuring the quality of our content rests heavily not only on our hard-working editorial board, but also on the anonymous reviewers who supply recommendations on the quality and likely impact of submitted manuscripts.  In the current climate, when the very importance of peer review as a gatekeeper for scientific quality is being questioned, one well might ask why reviewers review, and what they hope to get out of the process.  I think these are questions that all editors must consider to make sure that this critical work is recognized and rewarded.


Emerging issues with peer review

Why do reviewers review.jpg

When editors get together to discuss their challenges, it’s a fair bet that at least some will tell you that it is getting harder to secure quality reviews.  I previously served as an Editor-in-Chief for another journal around 20 years ago, and it is certainly my impression that we often now need to invite more people in order to secure an adequate number of reviews for each manuscript, and that there are also occasional concerns with quality and/or timeliness. In part, this may be due to the massive proliferation of both manuscripts and journals, without a commensurate increase in the number of reviewers.  Reviewers are also sometimes confused about the status of journals with ostensibly familiar names, some of which may have lax peer review standards or may even be predatory.  As a result, they may decide to forego reviewing for any journals, including those that are clearly legitimate.  There is also a burgeoning conversation about the scholarly publishing model, encompassing comments that reviewers are providing “free” labor for “wealthy” publishers.  Some are even espousing the “publish everything model”, with peer review relegated to post-publication comments.


What are the rewards?

The foregoing notwithstanding, I believe most scientists, including me, still wish to participate in peer review for a variety of reasons.  At a prosaic level, it is difficult to expect others to review your own work if you are not willing to reciprocate.  Serving as a peer reviewer is also intellectually stimulating, and an opportunity to have an insider’s view of new directions in one’s field.  Reviewing also provides academic/reputational credibility– it is an external validation of your expertise that not only satisfies expectations for engagement with University and public service at the time of tenure review, but also allows you to demonstrate to your colleagues that you are part of the club.  There is also the opportunity to sharpen your own skills as a writer and researcher by seeing what works well (and what doesn’t) – this is particularly valuable for early career researchers.  Finally, some journals have experimented with providing tangible rewards -- such as CDs or making a charitable contribution on the reviewer’s behalf – although it is my personal belief that these are not particularly effective in motivating those who would not already be predisposed to reviewing.


What recognition are reviewers seeking?

Consistent with comments above, many reviewers are seeking academic currency, particularly with respect to recognition of their expertise, and perhaps even leading to tangible input to a journal’s editorial direction.  However, there may be issues both with tracking and validation of service actually provided.  I myself have often forgotten to list many of the journals for which I provided service at the time of academic review; conversely, there is little to prevent the unscrupulous from claiming service that never actually took place. Researchers are also a competitive bunch, by nature, and like to be singled out if they have made particularly meritorious and/or consistently timely contributions.  Early career researchers may also especially value feedback on their performance, benchmarking and even training in peer review.


Recognizing reviewers in ways that serve them

I believe all editors should publicly recognize their reviewers on a regular basis.  In some journals, this may extend to publication of the reviewers’ names along with the final article, although there may be some risk in this approach and personally I continue to favor preservation of the anonymity of the process. Nevertheless, an annual or quarterly thank you, listing all who have reviewed perhaps with a league table of total reviews and timeliness, is a small investment that pays dividends. This listing, moreover, deserves better than being buried where it can be stumbled upon only by those who flip to the end of a print copy.  Rather, in the current era, it should be promoted actively via the journal’s website, e-newsletter and/or social media channels.  Reviewers also appreciate receipt of all reviewer comments as well as the final decision letter for manuscripts they have reviewed, preferably without having to jump through any additional hoops (signing in) to get them. Increasingly, reviewers are looking for a pain-free mechanism to track their reviews, which can assist at the time of tenure and promotion.  No wonder, therefore, that the relatively new Publons service already boasts that more than 150,000 researchers have signed up and posted more than 800,000 reviews (at the time of writing).  This will only grow as publishers, including Wiley, directly transmit completed reviews to Publons (subject to the reviewer’s approval) to be filed in the reviewer’s account.  Reviewers may also be wooed with discounts/waivers of charges to facilitate publishing their own work, further building journal loyalty.


Considerations for early-career researchers

No-one comes out of the womb knowing how to review a manuscript, but as demands have grown on faculty members’ time, some are less able than before to induct their graduate students and post-docs into the peer review process via the apprenticeship model. Journals and their editors can fill this gap by providing webinars and live workshops at scientific meetings, as well as editorials that supply reviewer guidance.  Templates, clearly-stated expectations, and feedback are also greatly valued by those who are just beginning their reviewing career.  There are also some broader efforts emerging around training.  The American Physiological Society has long hosted both live and on-line Professional Skills Training courses on the topic of Writing and Reviewing for Scientific Journals.  Similarly, Publons will shortly launch its virtual “Academy”, aimed at teaching early career researchers the art of peer review and, importantly, connecting them with editors so their new skills can be put to use.  Others are experimenting with engaging junior investigators as observers or even junior partners in the editorial decision-making process.  These investments will help to ensure a steady flow of expert reviewers for editors to call on as manuscript submissions continue to rise.


Closing thoughts

In my opinion, the key reasons for reviewers to review, therefore, are to provide service to their discipline that is valued for advancement, and to be recognized as a respected member of that discipline.  To ensure that reviewing remains attractive to those most qualified to provide expert advice, editors should pay particular attention to efforts designed to recognize and reward these key individuals.  I also believe we have a special responsibility to develop the skills of the next generation of peer reviewers, as well as finding innovative ways to acquaint them with the nuts and bolts of the editorial process. The future of our journals depends on our success in these goals.


Why do you review? Let us know in the comments below


Image credit: Nomad_Soul/Shutterstock


    Jason Markos
Jason Markos
Director, Content Enrichment, Wiley

What is the role of the publisher in the developing knowledge economy, where launching a journal – traditionally a three-year cycle – can be achieved by anyone with the capacity to put up a website and solicit open access submissions?


Credibility is certainly vital; while predatory startups may do little more than collect author fees, established publishers have a vested interest in maintaining quality and ethical standards. But publishers are also finding ways to advance research through increased discoverability and usability of their content, by revealing and tapping the implicit connections within it. At the heart of these developments is content enrichment, the transformation of text and figures into linkable items identified according to in-depth knowledge of a topic, yielding a dynamic resource instead of a “flat” article pdf. It’s not magic, but it requires skills and infrastructure, and it’s changing the way people are thinking about publishing. Where previously the focus had been on reducing the time to publication from manuscript acceptance, there’s been a shift towards taking the time to add value.


Taking fingerprints, following threads


We’re all familiar with the use of keywords in articles, but through content enrichment we can go far beyond that to generate a “fingerprint” of an article that represents its focus and scope in a fairly nuanced way, providing a kind of “index on steroids.” This can be done automatically as an article is published, making several things possible that benefit researchers, authors, editors, and societies.


A life scientist accessing a Wiley Online Library article about the interaction of specific proteins and genes, for example, will see a list of related articles on the abstract page. And with a service like the pilot project SmartFigures Lab, a reader could navigate through journal content via related images.


For editors, it can be a challenge to find reviewers outside their usual pools to provide fresh perspectives within a discipline. With article fingerprints in place, we’re able to build a service that can identify relevant authors from their highly similar, previous works and present them for consideration. By the same token, a researcher working on, say, diabetes in children with healthy lifestyles and no genetic predisposition to the disease, could easily find a collaborator this way.


The traditional journal issue paradigm offers no ready way to survey related content across the various titles in a society’s portfolio. Content enrichment is powering society “hubs” that allow researchers to do just that.  In many cases these hubs are bringing researchers’ attention to titles they may not have explored. By way of example, this results page from a search on “history of geophysics” reveals content published across all the AGU journals. Similarly, a publisher can create a cross-society hub, delivering a rich collection of material within a subject area.


In all these scenarios – some actual, some potential – it will be important to establish industry standards so that the knowledge models for topics are shared across the scientific and research community to enhance the discovery and evolution of knowledge.


A foundation for the future


Content enrichment isn’t a silver bullet, but it’s driving an iterative process that is changing the conversations we can have with our audiences. Where in the past we might limit our conversation with a society to how we’ll host their content on Wiley Online Library, we can now have a dialogue beyond that, and go on a journey together to make their content richer and more useful, and give them a foundation so that five years down the road they’ll be able to do things they don’t yet know they want to do.


color coded wiley journals.gif

A visual representation of related articles in color-coded Wiley journals


source data.png

SmartFigures Lab allows readers to navigate through journal content via related images


     Charlotte Mathieson
Charlotte Mathieson
Lecturer, University of Surrey

Researchers at all stages of their career face many of the same challenges, but when it comes to progressing from PhD study into their first academic jobs, early career researchers encounter some unique obstacles. The ECR academic job market is highly competitive, and a period of precarity – often involving multiple, short-term contracts– is typical and increasingly longer. Many ECRs are also trying to negotiate the competing demands of long-term goals needed to secure a permanent job, while meeting short-term, immediate needs such as staying employed from contract to contract. Below I highlight three common career priorities for ECRs and offer some suggestions for how scholarly and scientific societies (and publishers) can help the next generation of researchers to succeed:


1. Publishing


In the UK, one of the key factors influencing ECRs’ publishing decisions is the connection between employability and the Research Excellence Framework: the need to be “REFable” in order to get a permanent job, and then to meet expected REF targets in the early years of employment. My work on the impact of the REF 2014 on early career researchers shows that ECRs’ publishing decisions in the context of the REF largely come down to:


  • quality of publication output (standard of peer-review; journal impact factor / comparable book publisher impact);
  • speed of publication (publisher’s response times; peer-review turnaround; length of production process);
  • timing within the REF cycle (ensuring that work is out in time for the submission dates or “holding back” work for the next cycle);
  • overall publication profile (balance between different types of output, e.g. articles/ monograph).


How can publishers and societies help with this? Providing clear, accessible information about the publishing process is one way of enabling ECRs to make informed decisions. There are some excellent examples of this already: Wiley’s Author Services pages take authors through information about various processes; Palgrave Macmillan also has a dedicated ECR hub with similar guides. Societies can also provide advice tailored specifically to their field: the Royal Historical Society has an excellent resource center for Early Career Historians with advice on choosing a journal, publishing a monograph, and the REF. Outside of the UK, the pressures to publish vary, but providing information relevant to national higher education contexts remains a valuable means of supporting ECRs in publishing.


2. Funding

Producing publications is often dependent upon a second factor: having the time and money to undertake the research and writing required. Funding carries weight for employability, too, as many job specifications will ask for evidence of research grants. Applying for funding can also be a way for ECRs to develop their networks– for example, working on a postdoctoral fellowship application with a department different to that in which PhD study was carried out can build new professional relationships.


While big postdoctoral fellowship grants are hard to come by, even smaller amounts of funding can be useful in progressing an ECR’s career.  A grant may provide a bridge between job contracts, or enable international research that wouldn’t otherwise be possible. It also helps to build up the track-record that can provide a stepping-stone to larger awards.


For societies and publishers, providing an ECR research grant or short-term fellowship is a highly valuable way to give practical support to ECRs; this might be to undertake research for a defined length of time, or to work towards publishing the doctoral thesis (the University of Oxford’s Women in the Humanities program offers a Postdoctoral Writing Fellowship, while in the US Barbara Thom Postdoctoral Fellowships at The Huntington supports thesis-to-monograph work related to the Library’s collections).


3. Networking

Establishing professional relationships is another key way in which there is scope for societies and publishers to offer support. Networking is vital for ECRs to become known in their respective fields, and to increase the visibility and potential impact of publications, both of which help employability. It can also be a valuable way of getting career development support, whether that’s through more senior mentors or peer-support from ECRs. However, access to networking is often inhibited by the realities of ECR life, i.e. having the time and money to travel to events.


Societies have strong potential to offer support on this: providing opportunities for networking might involve hosting events that bring together ECRs and established academics to discuss issues such as publishing and employability (see this example run by The History Lab at the Institute of Historical Research). Online resources can also be helpful, for example hosting an online webinar or discussion forum, or by setting up a members-only website section for mentoring opportunities.


These are just a few suggestions as to how societies and publishers can support early career researchers, and getting in touch with your early career authors and members to find out what is most relevant to their needs is a useful way for any organization to get started. While early career academia is likely to remain challenging, societies and publishers can play a crucial role in building up initiatives to support and advance the next generation of researchers in years to come.


Dr Charlotte Mathieson is a Lecturer in Nineteenth-Century English Literature in the School of English and Languages at the University of Surrey. Dr Mathieson has focused on early career researcher support for several years, you can learn more about her work at charlottemathieson.wordpress.com or see the presentation she gave at the 2017 London Wiley Society Executive Seminar on supporting ECRs at www.wileyexecutiveseminar.com.


Image Credit: Directphoto Collection/Alamy Stock Photo


How to Proofread Your Thesis

Posted May 11, 2017
    Helen Eassom
Helen Eassom
Author Marketing, Wiley

BraunS Getty Images.jpg

You just finished writing a 300-page master's thesis or PhD dissertation. It took you two years of late-night researching, organizing citations, and coming up with mountains of data to support your thesis.


Before you impress the committee with your text, you have to proofread this massive tome several times. The journalist's aphorism, "Edit, edit again, and edit some more" is an absolute truth when your professional future is on the line.


With this in mind, here are some practical tips on how to proofread your thesis or dissertation.


Review the Rules
Before you set out to write your thesis, the committee laid out the rules. Review the style set forth by your academic institution. Depending on your department, your thesis or dissertation may follow American Psychological Association (APA), Modern Language Association (MLA), or Chicago/Turabian style.

Review the style for your thesis and go over the major guidelines. Make sure you didn't miss any key elements you must include in your thesis or dissertation. After you re-familiarize yourself with the rules, read through your work once to see if anything seems out of place. After that, go through your text more carefully.

Determine Your Method
You didn't write your thesis or dissertation overnight, nor can you proofread this work in one sitting. Go through your work
methodically in little chunks at a time. Eventually, you come to the last page.

Some people prefer to sit in front of a computer screen and edit, while others print a copy to physically write proofreading marks. Whichever works better for you, that's what you employ. Remember where you leave off in the proofreading process by making a mark on the paper or the screen.

You must create an index for your text anyway, so take advantage of this effort and proofread your paper at the same time. Start with the first page and work through the first 10 pages or whatever small portion works well for you. Then, it's time to note errors in your text and your organizational structure.

Know What to Watch For
When proofreading your thesis or dissertation, you already know to watch for errors such as misspellings, grammatical mistakes, and punctuation. However, you must also examine your paper's
organizational structure.

Look over each paragraph to see if every detail is essential to your writing. When you discover something you don't need, remove it. Add any omitted information into your thesis or dissertation at the appropriate point.

Each paragraph should flow into the next, and each paragraph has its own topic sentence and conclusion before moving onto the next one. Does each paragraph fit into the overall scope of your thesis or dissertation? Does each detail support what you write? Proofreading lets you narrow your focus to get rid of extraneous information.

By the time you reach the end of proofreading your thesis or dissertation, every paragraph should fit into your work. Don't forget to use every tool at your disposal to help analyze your text.

Utilize Tools
Online tools or computer software look for various problems in your work. Some tools are free to use once or twice, while others require a subscription for premium access.
  • Grammarly contains free tools through its website or a Google Chrome extension.
  • Readable.io counts the words in your text, examines your readability level, and gives you a score that correlates to a particular reading level. Your thesis or dissertation should have a college reading level for academic work.
  • Slick Write represents another online tool that critiques your writing, analyzes for passive voice, and even judges the flow of your writing.
  • Proofread Bot lets you paste text to check for errors.
  • Ginger receives high marks from users for its thoroughness and user-friendly interface.

If writing isn't your strong point, you can have someone else proofread your thesis or dissertation. The caveat with this tool is that
some universities may view third-party proofreading as academic dishonesty. Check with your university's policy first before hiring someone to examine your text.

Remember a Few General Tips
Sometimes, it pays to step back and take some time away from proofreading your thesis or dissertation. Give yourself a break for a few days to recharge before looking at your text again. Examine your text at least three times while looking for grammar, flow, style, and structure.

Find a quiet corner to proofread. Consider your university library, an empty lecture hall or some noise-cancelling headphones with classical music at home.

Don't rush through your proofreading process. Give yourself plenty of time before your deadline to proofread your thesis or dissertation, and budget your days and weeks accordingly. Eventually, your hard work pays off with an accepted text and your brand-new degree!

What advice do you have to share on proofreading your thesis? Let us know in the comments below.
Image Credit: BraunS / Getty Images
    Charlotte Walton
Charlotte Walton
Library Services, Wiley

We recently interviewed 10 Early Career Librarians to hear about their experiences of Librarianship so far, and to share their advice for anyone considering a career as a Librarian.


Each of the Early Career Librarians has been in the role for less than five years and they represent a variety of roles across academic, public, and health care libraries.


Q. Why did you choose a career in Librarianship?



Katie, Knowledge Officer - I fell into library and knowledge services really, but I'm glad I did! I was a volunteer in special collections as an undergraduate student and really enjoyed it. I was finishing my undergraduate course in English Literature and contemplating starting an MA when I saw a job in an NHS library service. I applied, and got the job, and I really enjoyed the post. I like helping people find the information and resources they need to answer questions or meet a need, and library based roles seemed to really complement this.


Arthur, Library and Information Specialist - I naively thought that working in a library would be quiet and I could just sit around and read books all day. However, my experience as a Library Assistant in a central public library showed me how wrong I was, but also how much I enjoyed helping people find what they needed. I also noticed that the LIS sector was changing, and there was a need for librarians to be familiar with technology, another one of my interests. So I came for the books and stayed for the tech.


Jessie, Partnership Licensing and Management Information Librarian - I started my career in librarianship as the result of a maternity cover position as a Library Assistant that I applied for just after I had finished my undergraduate degree in German Studies. While at that time I hadn't necessarily planned on a career in librarianship, I found it to be a great and supportive environment in which to work and it opened my eyes to the many different opportunities that are available in the field - I toyed with the idea of being a conservator or working with rare books for a while but in the end I found that my interests lay in systems, data and electronic resources so I was encouraged to do a masters in Information Science. And although I didn't go back to work in libraries after my masters, I have found my way back to them eventually and am pleased to find that they remain one of the more rewarding and supportive environments in which to work.


Q. What advice would you give to someone thinking about a career in Librarianship?


Joe, Collections Librarians - I would tell them to not be afraid of the more tech based side of things.  When I went into the MLIS I deliberately avoided as many of the coding or programming aspects of the course as possible.  However, as I have gained experience from a few different library environments since graduating, I have found that this kind of knowledge is becoming more and more integral to LIS and isn't as daunting as it may seem.  A little knowledge and familiarity with it can really go a long way.


James, eResources and Serials Specialist - Try and gain a variety of experience at para-professional level to try and gauge if librarianship is for you, and if it is, this will help define the area of library work you want to pursue. At that stage you can then consider doing a professional qualification. It isn't always necessary to gain a librarianship qualification to pursue a library career, but it is worth considering if time and money allow. It is only subjective to me, but I have gained so much out of doing the MA because I had a good grounding in the profession through having worked in various library roles before pursuing the qualification itself.  You bring more experience to bear on what you are studying, and likewise you can take what you are learning into the day job.


Danny, Open Access Assistant - Try to get as much experience of as many different libraries as possible, ideally through shadowing other librarians, to see which aspects of the job appeal most to you, as the range of roles can be surprising and keeps the work interesting. Also, librarians, by nature, are happy to help and provide information so reach out and speak to current professionals.


Q. Thinking of someone in their first LIS job, what do you think is the most important skill for them to have?


James, eResources and Serials Specialist - The ability to communicate with a diverse range of people in a diverse range of formats and settings. This might sound funny given the 'traditional' stereotype of librarians being bookish gatekeepers saying 'shhh' all the time, but the effective communication skills of librarians are often the glue binding a good library service together. A lot of library roles involve communicating via: advocacy (selling the library and its services to end users); instruction (teaching research skills); problem-solving (good customer service, particularly around technical issues); or mediation (negotiating with stakeholders and managing expectations). If you were to build a model librarian, good communication skills would be the basic ingredient, I think.


Shona, IReL Officer - I think that flexibility is very important for someone in their first LIS role. This will ensure they are open to new opportunities, will gain a variety of experience, and set them up for a career that is likely to evolve over time alongside technological and industry developments.


Siobhan, Systems and acquisitions Librarian - There is sometimes a misconception that being a librarian is about being knowledgeable about resources, but I think that having good people skills is much more important. As a librarian or library assistant, you are always working to help your users so it is important that you can communicate effectively with them. Most librarians/library assistants will be dealing with different stakeholders on a daily basis, which can be challenging if you do not have good communication skills.


Q. What do you think will be the biggest challenge facing librarianship in the next five years?


Arthur, Library and Information Specialist - Public perception. Ask customers what a library is and they will always mention a building and books. Most libraries are now hybrid, and have a comprehensive suite of digital resources, however people don't know about them and always come back to buildings and books. Over the next 5 years there will be increased cuts and library closures, certainly for public libraries, and they need to change the public perception from an archaic Victorian idea to a modern information service, a Google you can trust, a place you go virtually as well as physically. If librarians don't work to shift this public perception then I think library services will suffer.


Kinga, Scholarly Communications Assistant - I think that managing Open Access Data will be a big challenge in librarianship which will convert LIS specialist into data specialist with technical knowledge. We will need to work closely with academics to identify data that is worth archiving and setting up metadata correctly to ensure discoverability. It will require a lot of additional training and incorporating new software and technologies.


Ingrid, Enquiry Services Librarian - I think it has been and continues to be advocating for libraries and librarianship as a profession, and what makes librarians so valuable to library users. If we cannot effectively communicate this to our funders, cuts will continue to impair our service and staffing and we will inevitably lose value.


Image Credit: Steve Debenport/Getty Images


    Samantha Green
Samantha Green
Society Marketing, Wiley

157199026.jpgThe results from our Society Membership Survey told us that early career researchers continue to find relevance in society membership. But what are their expectations? How do they make the decision to join and renew?


We looked at how early career researchers (those with less than 2 years’ experience in their fields) compared to the overall research community when it comes to reasons for joining and renewing.


Reasons for Joining

More than any other demographic, those just beginning their careers value employment and professional development-related opportunities when they are deciding whether or not to join a society. The opportunity to receive funding and access expert advice is also more appealing to early career members than to the full research community.


Overall, the most commonly selected reasons for joining a society were opportunities to continue learning (78%), access to research journals (72%), and to be a part of a community (73%). On each of these, early career members scored just higher than average, indicating a consistency across the experience spectrum.


One of the most striking findings from our research is that early career members were more likely to select virtually all of the reasons we offered as possible motivation for joining, as shown in the chart below. In addition, our survey indicated that early career researchers are more likely to join a society in the next 12 months than the average respondent.


Reasons for Renewing

Early career members are far more likely than the average to be in their first year of membership. As such, many haven’t yet made the decision to renew.


For those early career members that have renewed their society memberships, they are less likely to do so for some of the most common reasons identified by the wider researcher community. Attending the society’s conference was one of the top reasons for renewing across the research community (59%), but only 42% of early career members cited it as a motivation.


Receiving the society’s journals was also a less common factor in the decision to renew for early career members than the average member (36% compared to 49%). For those who’d been members longer than early career members (3-10 years), journals were only slightly more of a factor (42% compared to 49%)


society membership.png


What does this information mean for your society?

When it comes to reasons for joining and renewing, conferences are less likely to motivate early career members. Ensuring that there are opportunities for early career researchers to network and access other professional development activities at conferences may help engage them.


One of the key takeaways from this data is how highly motivated early career researchers are to join societies. They see it as a key step in their career, which shows the continued relevance of society membership in the research community.


What membership trends to you see from ECRs in your society? Let us know in the comments below.


Image Credit: Chris Schmidt/iStockphoto


    Jen Cheng
Jen Cheng
Content Marketing Strategist, Wiley

Recently, we spoke with Hannah Russell, Library Manager of National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research and asked her to share her thoughts on the transformation that took place in her organization.


(Wiley colleagues and Hannah at the ALIA Information Online 2017 conference)




Q. Can you tell us a bit about your background?

A. I’ve been with NIWA for eleven years now. I started at NIWA as Document Supply & Reference Librarian back in 2006, and have had numerous titles over the years. In 2015 I was thrilled to be appointed Library Manager. Previous to NIWA I worked in a law library and a university library.


Q. Please tell us about your organization.

A. The NIWA library, short for National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, is a major New Zealand research collection, specializing in fisheries, marine, freshwater and atmospheric sciences. The library is fundamental to support the successful operation of our scientific research institute, to deliver technical services and advice, which is our mandate. We have a fairly large collection, both in print and electronic. But in some ways we are a small operation, with only three library staff. We are primarily here to support NIWA staff in their work (currently around 650 FTE), although we do get enquiries from the public and help where we can. The mission of the NIWA library is to support NIWA’s scientific and business strategic directions through the provision of access to appropriate scholarly research literature, and the responsible management, arrangement and storage of its research resources. We value collaboration with other libraries, and have a strong network with the other Crown Research Institute libraries.


Q. The NIWA library went through a drastic change in 2011 to consolidate three libraries into one centralized library service. What were the drivers of this huge transformation?

A. The whole of NIWA went through an organizational fit for purpose review in 2011. The review aimed for efficiency-focused changes throughout the organization to allow continual improvement of our already highly productive institute. The substantial transformation to electronic and online had reduced the need for face-to-face and on-site library services, and the advances in searching capability meant that researchers were well equipped to carry out what were previously specialist librarian activities. The concentration in one central core led to the expected synergies and increase in operational efficiency.


Q: What was the biggest obstacle, and how did the library cope with it?

A. There was definitely some resistance from staff to the changes, particularly at sites that had previously had a librarian. This resistance wasn’t aimed at the library staff, who received particularly strong support during the restructure, and we were able to move forward as we needed to. There have been no issues with the delivery of library services since the review and research staff understood the rationale behind the proposal, which was communicated to them by management during the process.


Q: What was the impact of the change, and how did you measure the outcome of it? Is the library still operating in the same model that it set out to since then?

A. We did have to do some things differently, and do fewer of some things. These days we do less direct research for staff, and focus more on training staff on the use of our subscribed databases and bibliographic management software. We also do less direct alerting for staff, but instead help them get their own alerts set up. Centralizing the physical collections in Wellington has been a long, slow process, and is still not quite complete. We have made some small tweaks along the way, but the library is still operating the same model, and providing NIWA researchers and corporate staff with the professional, highly responsive delivery a world class research institute needs.


How do you handle the challenge of limited resources as a library team? Share your thoughts in the comments below.


Image Credit: Sadira Campbell


    Samantha Green
Samantha Green
Society Marketing, Wiley

Our panel of judges is pleased to announce the inaugural winner of the Women in Research Travel Grant Competition. After much deliberation, and the daunting task of reviewing more than 200 insightful responses on improving gender parity, Jody McBrien of the University of South Florida Sarasota-Manatee will be awarded the travel grant.


In her winning response, Dr. McBrien writes:


JodyLynnMcBrien_crop.jpgAs an international researcher who works with women and girls affected by war (refugees and displaced people), my answer may be more simple than others. The girls I work with in Uganda - and resettled refugee girls in the US - want to work in science and technical fields. They face cultural discrimination in both settings: favoritism of boys in rural Africa, and prejudice against their religion, race, or accents in the US. In Uganda, I work with women leaders to raise school fees for girls and to educate families about the importance of girls' education. In the US, I have raised money for organizations supporting girls' education in Uganda; and I both encourage refugee girls through projects and mentoring, and I educate future teachers in my courses about supporting the educational aspirations of these resilient young women. I find my university students have no previous awareness about these challenges.

The judges feel that this essay stands out because it focuses on innovation and solution-focused activities. They write:


“This essay demonstrates the power and potential of research to effect real change.  The author admirably blends a commitment to research with the principles and practice of leadership to provide a new generation of women leaders the tools they will need to contribute meaningfully to the global research community.


The author’s essay provides insight into the multifaceted nuances of cultural, gender, and racial bias and how it can be combatted by raising awareness and providing leadership. Supporting the education and growth of these women can have long-lasting effects on them and on future generations.


This approach goes well beyond the effort of increasing the representation at all career levels of women in STEM. It faces bias from different angles and holds the potential to make sensitive changes from the beginning of the educational path for girls in a extremely difficult environment.


Importantly, the proposal also clearly articulates the usefulness of a travel grant and the power of transnational connections in research. The travel grant will certainly help in further connecting different realities and allows outreach to populations in need. We believe it will provide support in bringing the project to the next step to have a lasting impact.”


Congratulations to Dr. McBrien, and thank you to everyone who participated in this travel grant competition. Your words and your work are inspiring to us, and selecting a winner was a daunting and difficult task.


2017 Women in Research Travel Grant Judges:


Kim E. Barrett,
Editor-in-Chief, The Journal of Physiology


Elissa Chesler,
President, International Behavioural and Neural Genetics Society


Monica Di Luca,
Past President, Federation of European Neuroscience Societies


Eileen De Guire,
Director of Communications and Marketing, American Ceramics Society


Frances Hughes,
RN, DNurs, ONZM, FACMHN, FNZCMHN, CEO, International Council of Nurses


Sally Johnstone,
President, National Center for Higher Education Management Systems, Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Competency-Based Education


Vicki McConnell,
Executive Director, Geological Society of America


Chris McEntee

Executive Director/CEO, American Geophysical Union


Pamela McGrath,
President Emeritus, Australian Anthropological Society


Rebecca Rinehart,
Publisher, American Psychiatric Association


Kim Ryan,
CEO, Australian College of Mental Health


Sally Scholz,
Editor, Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy


Susan Wray,
Editor-in-Chief, Physiological Reports



Image Credit:University of South Florida Sarasota-Manatee


    Sarah Higginbotham
Sarah Higginbotham
Commissioning Editor, Wiley

serggn Getty Images.jpgAs a Commissioning Editor for the chemistry book program at Wiley, my role, first and foremost, is to support our authors and editors through the process of developing a successful new book, from initial concept through to publication. I spend much of my time immersed in the chemistry community, talking with researchers, lecturers and students to establish how we can best support their studies and professional needs, and to discuss new publications and projects. These conversations directly inform my commissioning activities, helping me to identify suitable topics and authors, and ultimately informing decisions about what to publish.


For many Wiley authors the process of developing and publishing a book will be unfamiliar territory, but as Commissioning Editors we are on hand to provide support and guidance, particularly in the crucial early stages as you develop your book concept and proposal.


Developing the concept

All successful books originate with a clear and engaging concept. Whether you have in mind a student textbook or reference volume inspired by your research, the first step is to identify why the book will be useful and what makes it unique. Perhaps it will be the first book on an emerging new research topic, or maybe you have been teaching for many years with no suitable textbook to recommend to your students. Whatever your motivation for writing or editing a book, it is important to consider why the book should be published and how it will benefit the reader. As Commissioning Editors, we are always delighted to discuss new book ideas and help our authors to refine their initial concepts based on our publishing expertise and detailed knowledge of the market and subject community.


What makes a good book proposal?

Once you are happy with your concept, the next stage is to outline your plans in the form of a book proposal. Your Commissioning Editor will provide a book proposal form to guide you. The proposal should clearly describe your vision for the book, including a detailed content outline, together with information on the intended readership, any competing titles, and why you are the ideal person to write or edit the book. The proposal is your opportunity to highlight the unique aspects and value of your book; think of this as a sales pitch to your Wiley Editor and peers. The more information you can provide at this stage, the more constructive the review process will be.


What to expect from the review process

Your Commissioning Editor will send your book proposal out for external review, with the aim of gathering feedback from several international experts in the field. We ask reviewers to comment on your proposed content, the potential market for the book, and the contribution it would make to the current literature in the area. The reviews will be shared with you and you will have an opportunity to discuss any suggestions or concerns with your Editor. You will also be offered the opportunity to prepare a formal response and revised proposal, as appropriate. The review process is a valuable opportunity to refine your plans, but it is important to remember that you can’t always keep a tight focus for the book and keep everybody happy!


How do we decide what to publish?

If feedback from the reviewers is positive, your Commissioning Editor will present your final proposal, the review summary and an accompanying business plan to a committee of representatives from editorial and marketing departments within the company. We discuss each book project in detail, considering various factors such as the contribution your book will make to the subject community, the likely readership, what publication format will be most appropriate, and where the book will fit in the current Wiley portfolio. We also review the business plan to confirm that the project will be profitable for Wiley. Taking all of this into consideration, the committee makes a decision about whether to proceed with publication.


What happens next?

If your book proposal is approved, your Commissioning Editor will offer you a contract for publication. At this stage we agree a provisional schedule for the project and discuss the terms of publication such as the all-important issue of author royalties! Your editor will be pleased to discuss the contractual terms and talk you through your contract if you have any queries.


Once the book contract has been signed, you will work with other Wiley colleagues who will provide specialist support on manuscript development and production. Your Commissioning Editor will continue to be responsible for all editorial aspects such as book content, contractual matters, publishing decisions, liaising with our marketing and sales teams, and ultimately ensuring that your book sells successfully.


Have you ever considered publishing a book, but not sure where to start? Your Commissioning Editor will be pleased to discuss your ideas and support you through the process. You can find a list of our subject specialists on the Wiley author services site here.


Image credit: serggn/Getty Images


     Rachael Lammey
Rachael Lammey
Member & Community Outreach, Crossref


The Challenge

Crossref is a not-for profit membership organization, working with over 7,500 member publishers to make content easy to find, cite, link, and assess. Our member organizations are from a range of countries, vary greatly in size, have differing business models, provide different types of content hosted on different websites, and publish in a whole host of subject areas. In short, it’s a really interesting and diverse landscape to be part of.


However, if you’re a researcher interested in text mining content from a selection of these publishers, that kind of diversity is something that causes issues.


Say I’m interested in mining content in a specific subject area. How do I go to even 100 of these publishers to get the specific selection of papers I’m interested in so that I can extract just a particular type of fact? Going to each publisher individually to ask for the content didn’t seem like a solution for either the researcher or the publisher, who in turn might be dealing with lots of different requests from researchers asking for similar feeds of content. That’s what our pilot tried to solve back in 2012 - we worked with a group of researchers, publishers and hosting platforms to try to figure out how to bridge this gap and bring more automation to the process.


How to solve it

We launched our support for TDM in May 2014 to try to solve this problem. Crossref already collects metadata from its member publishers – they register it with us when assigning Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) to their journal articles, books, datasets, components such as figures, preprints, and lots of other publication types. The metadata collected for these has been expanding to collect useful information like abstracts, funding data, and ORCID iDs.


To support researchers who need to mine full-text content, we added two extra pieces to the metadata we collect: links directly to the full-text content on the publisher sites (so that researchers know where the content is located) and license information in the form of a URL (so that researchers know what they can do with the content). When publishers give Crossref that information, it’s made available via our REST API (Application Programming Interface). That way, anyone who is interested can find it, use it, and even build tools on top of it.


How does that work for content mining?

Researchers can query the REST API to ask if the DOIs they’re interested in mining have those full text links and the license information. If that’s the case, they can look at the license and decide if it suits their needs (they may have a whitelist of licenses that they know serve their purposes already) and they can actively agree to some specific publisher licenses via the Crossref click-through service which hosts these. Once they’ve done that, they can then request the full-text content from the publisher websites, provided they have access to the content. This is all done programmatically, which makes transactions regarding a large volume of documents from different publishers possible.


What’s next?

The service already supports over 20 million items from over 700 different publishers, including Wiley, Elsevier, and Hindawi so the range of content researchers can access is really starting to expand. We’re keen to see it grow further and to see the outcomes from the researchers using it to streamline their text mining workflows or to start exploring this promising field.


Editor’s note: Wiley works with Crossref metadata to facilitate mining, for more information, read our policy.


    Alexandra Cury
Alexandra Cury
Associate Editor, Wiley

As a journal manager at Wiley, I work closely with Academic Journal Editors who are responsible for managing the peer review process for the manuscripts submitted to their respective journals.shutterstock_280298972_385791136_385791141_256224451.jpg Based on my numerous discussions with them, it is clear they have one common challenge: finding qualified and available peer reviewers. To facilitate the process of finding suitable reviewers, many journals allow authors the possibility to nominate reviewers at the submission stage.  This makes it easier for our Editors to identify experts in a particular subject area which can lead to a faster editorial decision for our authors.


We are keen to support Editors in the effective use of what can be a valuable tool. This is especially important as we hear of increasing numbers of authors trying to manipulate the peer review process by nominating “fake” reviewers. With notifications of mass retractions due to reviewer fraud becoming more common, it is important for Publishers to work with Editors on preventative measures they can take to prevent reviewer fraud.


For those unfamiliar with peer review manipulation, the author typically nominates as a reviewer the name of a real, qualified scientist but provides a fabricated email address, which sometimes belong to the author himself/herself or a close collaborator. The ways in which this is being done are manifold. For instance, The Committee of Publishing Ethics has recently recorded numerous incidents where third party agencies which offer manuscript editing services provide authors with the names of the suggested reviewers with the fictitious email address as part of their publishing services. The author then naively provides these recommended reviewers with a falsified email address to the Editors at the submission stage. In these cases, the employees of the third party agencies have access to the fraudulent email account and can provide positive reviews of the paper they edited, facilitating the acceptance of the manuscript and the
satisfaction of the author with their service.


Although these instances can make it difficult for our Editors to decipher the real reviewers from the fraudulent ones, there are best practices Editors should follow to help minimize the likelihood of using a fraudulent account. The most obvious indicator of a possible falsified reviewer is the use of a personal Gmail, Yahoo, or other free webmail service account. Anyone who has set up a personal email account knows how easy it is to create a new profile under any name. Using recommended reviewers linked to an institutional email address will increase the chances that the account is valid (I note here that such institutional email accounts are unfortunately still not commonplace in some countries with emerging or developing economies).


However, although an institutional email is harder to fabricate, Editors should still perform a web search to check that the email address as well as the reviewer’s qualifications, are accurate. Some electronic submission systems are set up to help facilitate this. For instance, an external search function is available in the editorial platform ScholarOne, which links out to Web of Science, PubMed, and Google, allowing Editors to check previous articles published by a reviewer and the email address associated with those publications, as explained in a related post by Taylor & Francis.


When in doubt, Editors should also consider requiring an ORCiD for recommended reviewers. ORCiD is an online digital identifier that distinguishes researchers from one another and can be a great way to verify a reviewer’s identity. Wiley, and many other major publishers, have already committed to requiring an ORCiD for corresponding authors upon submission.


While introducing the best practices detailed above and in the checklist below should significantly decrease the possibility for Editors falling prey to reviewer fraud, there are signs to look for in the instance that a  fraudulent reviewer has “slipped through the cracks”. It is also understood that many genuine reviewers use personal email accounts for convenience. Therefore, Editors should look out for the following signs when assessing reviews, especially those via personal email addresses from a previously unverified reviewer. Nature relates one instance where an Editor became suspicious after reviews for the same author were being completed within 24 hours. Of course, returning a review quickly could simply be the sign of a dedicated reviewer, but coupled with a favorable
review -especially if a recommendation of acceptance is given for the first draft - a quick turnaround should raise a red flag. More recently, we have also seen cases where fraudulent reviewers may occasionally offer a minor revision recommendation, so as not to alert suspicion. The suggested revisions tend to be very superficial, detailing small grammatical changes or text additions. If
in doubt about an author’s suggested reviewers, Editors should opt to use a verified reviewer and flag suspicious reviewer accounts to the Editorial Office/Publisher in the first instance.


It is important for Editors to stay vigilant and diligent with respect to how they select their reviewer and following these guidelines should be a step in the right direction. I hope this post will help continue this important conversation and I look forward to hearing about your experiences and receiving further suggestions in the comments below. Here’s a helpful checklist you can keep
on hand when selecting recommended reviewers which we will keep updated based on further suggestions.


5 Things to Consider When Using Recommended Reviewers: A Checklist

  1. Use recommended reviewers with institutional email addresses
  2. Perform a web search to verify reviewer names, emails, and qualifications
  3. Request, or consider requiring, an ORCiD from reviewers
  4. Check the turnaround time of the review. Was it returned unusually fast?
  5. Consider if the reviews are superficial and overly favorable

Filter Blog

By date:
By tag: