{"objectType":14,"valid":true,"id":2014}
2017
    Helen Eassom
Helen Eassom
Author Marketing, Wiley

Writing a literature review is often the most daunting part of a thesis or dissertation. With such a vast amount of literature out there, how do you know where to even begin? This infographic, based on a previous blog post, sets out 6 simple steps to set you on your way to writing a successful and well thought out literature review.

 

Writing-a-literature-review-6-steps-to-get-you-from-start-to-finish-v1.jpg

 

    Jennifer Lynch
Jennifer Lynch
Publications Manager, SETAC

42-60222037.jpgIn an earlier post, Alexandra Shultz from the American Geophysical Union reflected on the Wiley-organized D.C. “door-knock,” wherein society representatives were given the opportunity to meet with staffers and elected officials on Capitol Hill. I was fortunate to participate, and after a busy and productive day on the Hill, we took a short drive to the Chinese Embassy where we held our final meeting of the day with Chen Futao, Minister Counselor for Science and Technology, and two of his staff.

 

We spent over an hour discussing various topics, including the way funding is allocated in China and how the instability in the U.S. government is harming scientific collaborations. But what I found most interesting was the discussion around the intense pressure on Chinese researchers to publish. Minister Chen sees this as a major problem that is getting in the way of science. It has made Chinese scientists a target for predatory publishers and undermined interest in long-term, iterative projects. He expressed a desire for scientific societies to help create a new way to evaluate researcher performance. The current method of tying professional growth to publishing output and impact factor can be corruptive.

 

Our organization, the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), and journals, Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (ET&C) and Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management (IEAM) have been working with researchers in China to cultivate a positive publishing experience that not only grows our membership and author pool, but also provides a platform for Chinese scientists that is more focused on the long-term. Since neither of our journals has an impact factor over 3 – though we are close – we have been exploring other ways to entice authors from China, who are still paying close attention to this metric. We have launched a “Global Spotlight” section, which is designed to give prominence to research that has been published in more regionally specific journals. We work extensively with the Asian Journal of Ecotoxicology and have established a reciprocal promotion arrangement. In return for spotlighting their top research in our journal, they translate some of our research into Chinese for promotion to their audience. This arrangement allows authors in both journals to hit exactly the right audiences and has been enthusiastically received. Wiley supports these efforts by maintaining the virtual issue page and promoting the translated articles on Weibo.

 

We are absolutely in agreement with Minister Chen that there is too much emphasis on impact factor. When we consider individuals for SETAC awards, publication output is only one factor among many. We also consider outreach efforts, contributions to scientific meetings and workshops, and professional reputation as evidenced through letters of recommendation or invitations to sit on review boards and advisory committees, among other factors. We would welcome a more holistic approach to judging professional growth, especially if it encourages strong community engagement.

 

Minister Chen’s concerns are a reminder that we must challenge the root cause for the rise of predatory publishers: pressure to publish often and in high impact factor journals. There are other ways to promote research and to evaluate individual contributions to the field.

 

Image Credit: Monty Rakusen/Cultura/Corbis

 

Are Society Members Satisfied?

Posted Aug 25, 2017
    Samantha Green
Samantha Green
Society Marketing, Wiley

Members are at the heart of scientific and scholarly societies. Understanding their needs, knowing how they want to engage, and providing the services they want are essential ingredients for the continued success of member organizations. This desire to understand society members is what drives the Wiley Society Membership survey. Now in its third year, it remains the largest survey of its kind in the research community, attracting an average of more than twelve thousand respondents each year.

 

shutterstock_387029653.jpg

We’re excited to be able to share some of the high-level takeaways from this year’s survey now.

 

Let’s start with satisfaction. Are members of the research community satisfied with what societies offer?

 

In large part, yes.

 

In this year’s survey, 76% of society members said that were satisfied or very satisfied with their membership experience. This figure is up 2% from last year, and the percentage of those who are very satisfied is up 3% (from 17% to 20%).

 

The percentage of satisfied members is powerful confirmation that societies continue to be a cornerstone of the research community.

 

We also asked members how likely they would be to recommend that their colleagues join a society. We know the research community is built on strong networks and professional relationships, making peer recommendation a large part of how trusted information and advice is shared.

 

44% of members were extremely likely to recommend that their colleagues join a society. In other words, these results mean that close to half of the research community are active promoters of society membership. An additional 35% were somewhat likely to recommend.

 

What factors contribute to member satisfaction, or the likelihood of an individual to recommend that a colleague join a society?

 

Respondents were more likely to recommend a society if they actively read the organization’s journals and engaged with them on social media. Further, those who said they didn’t actively read the journal, engage on social, or attend the conference aren’t likely to recommend joining a society. Given that two of the most common reasons for joining a society are to access quality research and to be part of a community—whether in person at a conference or online via a social media platform—this makes sense.

 

Each year, we’ve seen a rise in importance of social media for members. More are engaging with it, and more are commenting on a society’s social platforms each year. As the desire to be a part of a global research community rises, so too might the digital aspects of community that are more accessible regardless of location. In keeping with this, a couple of months ago we asked a few societies how they build communities on social media (read here).

 

As with last year’s survey, members value content, community, and career development opportunities. If they’re satisfied with career development opportunities, then they’re extremely likely to promote society membership. The same holds true for satisfaction with the global community a society provides, and better access to the latest content in their disciplines.

 

Looking at the satisfaction of society members, we start to see a picture of a thriving and highly engaged community. They value their societies and the role that associations play in their professional lives.

 

Societies must continue to meet the needs of current members while reaching out to non-members with an eye toward expansion.  This is what will help build a healthy and sustainable research community.

 

In the coming months, we’ll be producing a series of resources based on survey analysis that will provide you with deep insight into the current state of membership in the research community, and how it’s changed in recent years.

 

For an overview of last year’s survey results, click here, and check back in the coming months for deeper analysis of current and potential members’ needs, values, and goals.

 

Image Credit: Rawpixel.com/Shutterstock

 

    Anna Ehler
Anna Ehler
Society Marketing

Covering science in the news is a balancing act between telling human stories and presenting complex research. This week’s podcast offers an insider perspective from Laura Helmuth, science editor at the Washington Post, on how societies can leverage the news media to raise awareness and foster the public’s understanding of science.

 

 

Listen to the previous episode: The search for reproducibility

 

You can listen to this episode and others – including our two part conversation with Wiley’s Director of Research Integrity and Publishing Ethics – by going to iTunes and subscribing to the Wiley Society Podcast.

 

References from this episode:

 

  1. America now has nearly 5 PR people for every reporter: double the rate from a decade ago Muck Rack Daily. Published online Aug 14, 2016
  2. Science Reddit
  3. How poverty affects children's brains Washington Post. Published online Oct 2, 2015
  4. How to declare war on coal's emissions without declaring war on coal communities Washington Post. Published online Feb 24, 2017
  5. Climate hacking is barking mad Slate. Published online Feb 10, 2015
  6. The 10 types of ER patients Slate. Published online Mar 18, 2014
  7. Measles is horrible Slate. Published online Jan 23, 2015
  8. Felony science Slate. Published online May 3, 2013
  9. The top ten daily consequences of having evolved Smithsonian. Published online Nov 19, 2010
  10. Why I study duck genitalia Slate. Published online Apr 2, 2013

 

Image credit: Microgen/Shutterstock

shutterstock_376505083.jpg

    Helen Eassom
Helen Eassom
Author Marketing, Wiley

Overleaf, is a collaborative cloud-based tool allowing you and your co-authors to work together on and offline to write and edit your paper. In light of Wiley’s recent partnership with Overleaf, we spoke to co-founder John Hammersley about the service and how authors can benefit from this exciting pilot project.

 

Q. What inspired you to start Overleaf?

  1. My co-founder and I were writing research papers together with other scientists based in universities around the world, and we found it extremely hard to collaborate; as mathematicians, we were used to using LaTeX for writing our papers, but many of our co-authors were more familiar with Word. Overleaf was created to solve that problem – it allowed us to collaborate with our co-authors on LaTeX documents, without us all having to email files back and forth, and without them having to worry about installing LaTeX on their own machines.

 

Q. Can you tell us a bit more about what Overleaf is?

  1. Overleaf is a collaborative writing and publishing platform which makes it extremely easy to produce beautifully formatted documents. With a community of over two million authors, it’s the most popular online TeX-based tool for technical writing, and makes the full power of LaTeX available to authors from all disciplines and at all stages of their career s– from college students through to researchers in faculty and in industry.

    In case you were wondering, (La)TeX is a hugely popular programming language that produces high quality typesetting – it is used widely throughout scientific and technical disciplines, with growing adoption in the humanities and social sciences thanks to its excellent support for multilingual typesetting. For a brief history of the many flavors of TeX, see this excellent article by my colleague Graham Douglas.

    Overleaf allows you to create and edit LaTeX documents –e.g.research papers, project reports, grant applications and more – direct from your browser. There’s nothing to install – you just pick a template and start writing, bringing in your collaborators as you need to. When you’ve completed your manuscript, our integrations within the publishing ecosystem allow you to easily submit your files to wherever you need them to go, whether that’s to a repository, a journal, or simply to your supervisor for a quick review!

 

Q. How will authors benefit from Wiley’s partnership with Overleaf?

  1. Overleaf is excited to be working with Wiley in a number of ways. First, in an effort to reduce the amount of time authors need to spend tailoring their submissions to the formatting requirements for different journals, we have worked to produce a simple template which can be used to submit to any of the journals in the pilot. This simple template provides authors with guidance on how to prepare their manuscripts, without asking for any complex formatting – this is all handled automatically. Overleaf’s ‘TeXperts’ are also on hand should authors have any questions as they’re writing – we provide support direct to the authors if they need it.

    All of the templates for journals participating in Wiley’s pilot with Overleaf can be found in this gallery, or see here for a full list of titles.

    Secondly, through our integrations with manuscript management systems Editorial Manager, eJournalPress, and ScholarOne, we are providing direct submission links to allow authors to submit their work directly from Overleaf without the need to download and re-upload files. Where possible, we also pass across selected metadata to help reduce the amount of form-filling required to complete the submission. These direct links will be turned on during the pilot, as they become available.

    Finally, we are also partnering with Wiley to provide discounted Overleaf Pro accounts through a custom
    Wiley portal on Overleaf which give access to all the premium features on Overleaf, such as the full project history mode. The Wiley portal also provides additional help and Q&A on getting started with Overleaf and the Wiley template.

 

Q. Finally, how do you see Overleaf contributing to the future of scientific research?

  1. Our vision is to make science and research faster and more transparent, saving time by eliminating unnecessary tasks in writing up research, and fuelling scientific and technological innovation by letting researchers collaborate more easily and more effectively.

    This all starts by enabling students and early-career researchers to collaborate effectively between themselves and with their supervisors. By providing a platform with a very low barrier to entry – all you need is a web browser – we provide a platform for all users, regardless of their previous levels of experience.

    We have made remarkable progress over the past four and a half years, now serving a community of over two million authors – students, researchers, teachers and more – who use Overleaf for their writing and collaborations. We also recognize the value of collaboration within the industry, and enjoy working with partners such as Wiley to help streamline the publishing process for authors and editorial/production teams alike.

    This has already been our busiest year to date, and we’re excited to have recently expanded our team to continue building great tools to make scientific and scholarly writing easier, more efficient and more open. Exciting times ahead!

 

For more information about the Overleaf pilot, please visit Wiley Author Services.

 

About John Hammersley, Co-Founder & CEO, Overleaf

 

John Hammersley.jpg

John has always been fascinated by science, space, exploration and technology. After completing a PhD in Mathematical Physics at Durham University in 2008, he went on to help launch the world's first driverless taxi system now operating at London's Heathrow Airport. John’s now making it easier for scientists to collaborate and publish online as CEO and co-founder of Overleaf. John was named as one of The Bookseller’s Rising Stars of 2015, is a mentor and alumni of the Bethnal Green Ventures startup accelerator in London, and in his spare time dances (and occasionally teaches) West Coast Swing!

 

Image Credit: John Hammersley

 

    Josh Hendrick
Josh Hendrick
Humanities Marketing, Wiley

There’s no question that research can change the world – and great research can come from scholars from any background and any academic discipline. Last year, Wiley launched the first Wiley Humanities Festival to explore the myriad ways that the Humanities matter and are vital not only to research and academia, but to life.. The infographic below is a snapshot of the success of last year’s festival.

 

The Wiley Humanities Festival is back again this year and we’re focusing on you, the researcher! The main event of this year’s festival is our FREE webinar, Humanities Publishing 101, (September 7 at 10amEST/3pmGMT) which aims to help early career researchers navigate the unwritten rules of publishing in the Humanities.

 

Humanities_info_graphic rev2.jpg

 

Register now and join us on September 7th to learn how to get your research published!

 

If you have any questions regarding the webinar or festival, please contact me, Josh Hendrick, Humanities Research Marketer at jhendrick@wiley.com or leave a comment below.

 

    Helen Eassom
Yukari Arao
Journal Publishing Manager, Wiley

On July 30, 2017, more than fifty journal editors, editorial office administrators, funders, and librarians gathered at the Tokyo International Forum for our annual Tokyo Wiley Executive Seminar. We spent the day reflecting on innovations in publishing for a sustainable future, comparing experiences around the internationalization of journals, and sharing case studies for issues in peer review and publishing ethics.

 

IMGP5192.jpg

In the first session, “Innovation in Publishing for the Future,” Gordon Tibbitts, SVP Corporate Development, Atypon Systems, Inc., spoke about the critical need for societies, publishers, and libraries to adapt in order to weather the rapid rate of change in scholarly communications. According to Gordon, societies in particular are well-placed to thrive amidst market changes. Societies can differentiate themselves, he proposed, by leveraging the quality of their brands and harnessing the power of search technology to make it easier for researchers to discover the research that is most relevant for them.

 

Speaking on behalf of Howard Ratner from CHORUS, Mark Robertson, President for Wiley Japan, shared the results of a recent successful pilot between CHORUS and JST (Japan Science and Technology Agency)-Chiba University. By leveraging existing networks, CHORUS can show institutional funders where the research they fund is being published, which articles are free, and when they became free.

 

Next up Janette Burke, University Librarian at Monash University, described how the role and function of libraries is changing. Monash’s print collection will soon be moved off-site to make more room for students, and in 2017 she expects that the library will spend nearly 90% of its budget on digital resources. Other priorities include making life easier for researchers by helping them comply with funding mandates, find the right journal for their work, and safeguard their intellectual property rights. The final speaker in the morning session was Miwako Doi, Auditor, National Institute of Information and Communications Technology, who shared strategies for open data infrastructure and management based on the recommendations of the Science Council of Japan. 

 

The day’s second session focused on the benefits of internationalizing journals and was facilitated by Yuji Nakajima, Editor-in-Chief of Congenital Anomalies. According to findings from Japan’s Research Output and International Collaboration Trends, more than 85% of the readership for Japan’s research output comes from outside of Japan. Yuji also shared data suggesting that globally authored papers have higher impact - based on average number of citations per article - compared to locally authored papers, suggesting that internationalization could be key to improving the impact of a journal. Editors of Digestive Endoscopy, Cancer Science, Asian Economic Policy Review, and Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience also shared their strategies and experiences with internationalizing journals. This session was the most popular of the day according to the post-seminar survey.

 

The seminar closed with a focus on ethical issues in peer review. Jun Fudano, Professor at the Institute for Liberal Arts, Tokyo Institute of Technology, talked about the challenges caused by the lack of peer reviewer training, the various biases which may arise throughout the peer review process, and the possible solutions to these issues. Trevor Lane, a Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Council Member and Education Director & Senior Publishing Consultant, Edanz Group, presented three COPE case studies for discussion: salami publication, peer reviewer selection policy, and peer review confidentiality. Seminar participants discussed the cases in small groups and then presented back to the room on the ethics problem in the case, actions taken, and preventive measures to avoid similar problems in the future. This session was facilitated by Choitsu Sakamoto, Professor Emeritus of Nippon Medical School and former Editor-in-Chief of Digestive Endoscopy, who was also involved in selection of the three cases.

 

After each session, there were spirited Q&A discussions between the panelists and the room of highly engaged delegates. In the first session on innovation, the discussion revolved around the future roles of societies, funders and governments and their dependences, as well as how data will become as much a part of future dialogue as the journal article itself. On internationalization, finding a solution to the significant problem that Japanese authors have a tendency not to cite the articles they publish in Japanese society journals engaged many editors in attendance. The ethics in peer review session could have continued for hours, as the potential solutions to the cases discussed were complex and open for interpretation. Many of the delegates said that as journal editors they themselves were facing similar ethical challenges, and that COPE’s recommendations would be very useful in their own work.

 

Overall it was a very engaging day, and according to the survey, 99% of attendees said that the seminar met their goals and expectations while 89% said that they would attend the Tokyo Wiley Executive Seminar in the future.

 

Image Credit: Yukari Arao

 

     Rebecca Andrews
Rebecca Andrews
Wiley Intern
Noelle MacDonald
Noelle MacDonald
Wiley Intern
Joseph Pold
Joseph Pold
Wiley Intern
Steven Zieselman
Steven Zieselman
Wiley Intern

As interns at Wiley this summer, instead of the rote Powerpoint presentation on what we’d learned, we were thrown into the Wiley “shark tank.” Like the television show, we were tasked with inventing a new product for the publishing industry, developing our idea, and then pitching it to the “sharks.”

 

Students and researchers ourselves, we decided to focus on increasing research accessibility. Wiley already partners with Research4Life and the International Network for the Availability of Scientific Publications (INASP) to provide philanthropic access to institutions in developing countries. However, many scholars in the developing world still face technological barriers that make accessing Wiley Online Library impossible.

 

To further investigate, we looked to Africa as a case study. 71% of Africans, (869 million people), can’t access the internet. Both limited network coverage and cost prevent Africans from logging on to the World Wide Web. One megabit/second (a standard unit of internet speed) costs $120/month in the United States but $13,000/month in Africa. For an African university to enjoy the same high-speed coverage as its American peers (one Gigabit/second) would cost $13,000,000/month. For already under-resourced institutions, such costs prove a major barrier, translating to overloaded connections and frustratingly slow browsing.

 

For individual scholars, poor internet service is disastrous, causing an availability-accessibility gap. One INASP-funded study at Tanzania’s Sokoine University found that of 25 researchers, 80% tried to access journal content in a given week but 60% couldn’t download the e-resources necessary to read it, 44% faced readability issues, and 40% experienced internet problems. A professor might wait all night to download just one PDF, only to find the article useless and her time wasted as she skims it the next morning. To broaden our scope, we examined download data for three of Wiley’s major health sciences journals, Pediatric Diabetes, Thrombosis and Haemostasis, and the Journal of Viral Hepatitis. Though Wiley provides philanthropic access to 125 institutions in Mozambique, the country’s researchers downloaded just 138 medical articles in 2016, compared to 130,077 in similarly-populous Australia. The disparity is comparable or worse in other African nations, as evident in the chart below.

 

availability vs usage.png


Cellular networks provide faster and better coverage. 54% of the population (557 million people)
is subscribed to mobile services. Furthermore, cell phone usage is growing, according to the Groupe Spéciale Mobile Association (GSMA). In 2002, only 8% of Ghanaians owned a mobile phone, compared to 83% in 2016. They also estimate that the number of unique mobile subscriptions will rise to 725 million by 2020. Utilizing that infrastructure, SMS Bots--simple programs that receive texts and output responses--have already revolutionized the ways Africans interact with traditionally internet-based services such as banking and email. Mobile money in particular has become an important part of many Africans’ lives.  In 2013, 68% of Kenyans used mobile banking compared to the 11% global average, according to the Pew Research Center.

 

textley.pngThus, our innovation idea, which we’ve named Textley, is an SMS Bot for Wiley Online Library. To read a scholarly article, the user would text its DOI to the Textley number, be prompted through the login sequence, and then receive the article’s text, all through mobile rather than internet networks. If his/her article included charts or diagrams, Textley would ask if he/she wants to receive the accompanying images, a measure to avoid overloading phones, before sending them. Though Textley is not a perfect solution, it would allow the same frustrated researcher to read dozens of articles a day, saving him/her invaluable time and effort.

 

Textley also has the potential to deliver high returns. Because the technology is so simple, with low initial and operating costs, developing Textley would only be a small investment. Though the market is immature now, enrollment in and funding of African higher education is expanding. So much so that Research4Life is transitioning some institutions from philanthropic to regular access. Furthermore, though we focused on African scholars, academics in Latin America, the Middle East, and South and Southeast Asia face similar circumstances. For example, in 2014 only 19% of Indians could access the internet while 28% subscribed to mobile services, a difference of hundreds of millions of people.

 

As a leading scholarly publisher, Wiley has both a responsibility and interest in increasing the availability of research to all. Developing Textley or a similar service seems like a logical first step to bridging the accessibility gap around the world.

 

    Helen Eassom
Helen Eassom
Author Marketing, Wiley

Researchers are under more pressure than ever, but if you’re an early to mid-career researcher, you’re probably feeling the strain more than most. Huge workloads, job insecurity and a lack of training are all contributing to a crisis on both a short and long term basis.

 

Anyone working in scientific research knows how important this sector is, and governments and public bodies are also aware that a strong research and innovation ecosystem equates to a stronger economy. A number of studies have looked at the rate of return on public investment in research by examining the links between research and innovation, across a range of industries. In terms of annual rates of return, median values range between 20% and 50%. However, given that so much research is in the hands of those just starting out on their careers, any government strategy aimed at supporting research should take their needs into account.

 

What’s happened so far?

WRA whitepaper 1.jpgIn the developed world, various strategies and programs have been implemented to support scientific research and those undertaking it. In 2007, the UK Government recognized the need for a national framework which would position the country as one of the best places in the world to conduct research, science and innovation. The UK Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers was created to set out clear standards that research staff could expect from their employers, while also encouraging the uptake of training in transferable skills in order to stay competitive in both internal and external markets.

 

More recently, the Research Excellence Framework (REF) was established by UK higher education funding councils, with the ultimate aim of promoting the quality and delivery of research in the UK.

 

“Important at this time is a very supportive environment, both intellectually and fiscally… Pressure on early-stage researchers to publish often militates against their collaborating with business or the public sector and this needs to be addressed urgently through the Research Excellence Framework” (Council for Science and Technology)

 

In Europe, the Lisbon Strategy aimed to make the EU ‘the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010’. Recognizing that early career researchers were central to this plan, the European Commission focused on improved support for them, driven by the need for better career development, transferable skills and collaboration.

 

The US National Science Foundation (the NSF) is also clear in its aim of supporting the next generation of researchers to advance science, arguing that the significant investment costs are justified by the promise of future discoveries and advances.

 

What impact have these strategies actually had on early career researchers?

Despite best intentions, many of the problems experienced by early career researchers remain unresolved, and in some cases, have even been exacerbated by government policies. The REF has resulted in controversy among the scientific community, with many feeling under pressure to focus solely on those areas of research with strategic importance. Researchers have felt like they’ve needed to ‘play the game’, holding back or rushing out publications to fit the REF cycle. Other controversial aspects of the REF include:

  • Academics have been driven towards a short-term approach to research, focusing on ‘safe’ subjects.
  • Institutions recruit staff with certain REF profiles in order to enhance their REF status.
  • Impact is too narrowly interpreted and defined by publication in certain journals.

 

The REF has resulted in additional anxieties for researchers. The constant pressure to publish is a key concern for early career researchers, many of whom are lacking in support and opportunity. A 2015 study by the European Science Foundation (ESF) tracked the careers of PhD holders from five research organizations up to seven years following graduation, and found that only a third ended up in a tenured position. Researchers feel that publishing more will increase their chances of securing a permanent position, but with so many early career researchers finding the publishing process difficult, further support and development is surely needed.

 

What now?

In short, past and current government strategies have not gone far enough in helping early career researchers, and in some cases, have actually had a negative impact. Governments and policy makers can play a crucial role in providing support and training for early career researchers. After all, investing in the future of science is critical to economic growth. However, this support needs to be much more centered on publication and publishing processes such as writing, submission and peer review.

 

Our next blog post on this theme, coming soon to Wiley Exchanges, addresses the specific training needs of early career researchers and what can be done to help.

 

Image Credit: Hero Images/Getty Images

 

    Laura Orchard
Laura Orchard
Marketing Manager, Wiley

Are you an aspiring author? The early stages of your career offer many exciting opportunities. If you’re new to the publishing process however, selecting the right journal for your research or successfully promoting your published article can be challenging prospects.

 

We asked delegates at the European Congress of Psychology to draw on their experiences and share their top tips for early career researchers. We received an overwhelming response of inspirational advice and practical tips, from finding a good mentor to keeping an open mind.

 

See below for a snapshot of conversations from leading psychologists from the British Psychological Society, the International Association of Applied Psychology, the American Counseling Association, the Australian Psychological Society, and the International Union of Psychological Science.

 

ecr (2).jpg

 

“Follow your passion! Work hard and play hard” Abigail Gewirtz, Editor-in-Chief, International Journal of Psychology

 

"The most important thing is to select the right journal for your publications:

  • Not too lengthy in terms of the reviewing process
  • Not too difficult/easy acceptance rate
  • Relevant to your topic!”

 

Christine Roland-Levy, President-Elect, International Association of Applied Psychology

 

ecr (3).jpg

“Be true to yourself” Saths Cooper, President, International Union of Psychological Science

 

“Put passion [into your work], and work to be evidence based, paying attention to people” José Maria Peiro, International Association of Applied Psychology

 

“A career only makes sense looking backwards. Go with what you have to do.” Simon Crowe, Honorary Fellow, Australian Psychological Society

 

“Stay true to your ideas – they will shape the field’s future.” Caroline Clauss-Ehlers, Editor, Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development

 

“Collaborate, collaborate, collaborate” Daryl O’Connor, Chair of Research Board, British Psychological Society

 

“Work hard and network” Janel Gauthier, President, International Association of Applied Psychology

 

  • “Don’t get side-tracked
  • Ignore anyone you don’t rate
  • Pretend to take account of those you do
  • Follow your own route”

 

Pam Maras, President-Elect, International Union of Psychological Science

 

 

What advice do you have to add for researchers just starting out? Share with us in the comments below.

 

    Vicky Kinsman
Vicky Kinsman
Assistant Marketing Manager

Whether you’re a newbie or an experienced reviewer, getting involved in the peer review process can be a highly rewarding experience that improves your own research and furthers your career. Our new peer review quiz puts your reviewing skills to the test to help you discover if you’ve got the strength of Thor, need to boost your reviewing power like the Hulk, or need a little more training to overcome reviewer kryptonite.

 

At the end of the quiz, sign up to tell us more about your peer review experience and we’ll send you tailor-made peer review training and information on our reviewing opportunities.

 

If your article is currently going through the peer review process, find out more about peer review here or keep reading to discover how to become a reviewer yourself.

 

Who can become a reviewer?

Anyone who is an expert in the article’s research field can become a reviewer. Journal editors are often looking to expand their pool of reviewers which means there may be demand for your particular specialist subject area. Editors might ask you to look at a specific aspect of an article, even if the topic is outside of your specialist knowledge.  Their invitation to you will outline exactly what they would like you to assess.

 

How do I become a reviewer?

Peer review is a good opportunity for early career researchers to play a role in the research community and gain valuable experience to help improve their own research writing. There is no one way to become a reviewer, but there are some common routes. These include:

 

  • Asking a colleague who already reviews for a journal to recommend you
  • Networking with editors at professional conferences
  • Becoming a member of a learned society and then networking with other members in your field of study (or does she mean physical location here?)
  • Contacting journals directly to inquire if they are seeking new reviewers
  • Seeking mentorship from senior colleagues
  • Working for senior researchers who may then delegate peer review duties to you

 

How do I build my confidence and learn more?

If you’re new to peer review and feel unsure of yourself, don’t worry, confidence will come with experience! A good place to start is by seeking out the guidance of a more experienced colleague or mentor who can help you build up your track record and gain confidence.

 

From understanding the basics of the peer review process, to overcoming common challenges, and gaining recognition for your reviewing activity, there is a wealth of information available in our peer review training center for you to explore.  The resources are free for you to access and include videos, expert interviews, infographics, and guides to help you understand the review process and improve your skills—you’ll be a reviewing superhero in no time!

 

Are you a reviewing superhero or a super-bad reviewer? Take our fun quiz and test your reviewing skills.

 

peer review quiz.jpg

 

     Tom Griffin
Tom Griffin
Director, Global Communications, Wiley      
Eva Elisabeth Wille
Eva Elisabeth Wille
Vice President, Government Affairs, Wiley

I recently sat down with Professor Wolfram Koch, Executive Director of the German Chemical Society (GDCh), which is celebrating its 150th anniversary this year− to discuss its long and proud history and the importance of intellectual property rights in the digital age.

 

Q. Could you tell us a little about GDCh?

  1. DSC_5074.jpgThe Gesellschaft Deutscher Chemiker, with around 31,000 members, is by far the largest chemical society in continental Europe. The GDCh covers all areas of chemistry (with the exception of Physical Chemistry which is represented by our partner organization, the Deutsche Bunsen-Gesellschaft) with members from academia and industry alike. We are organized in almost 30 technical divisions ranging from food chemistry to chemical education to chemistry and law and even self-employed chemists. In addition, the GDCh's 60 local sections ensure that we are present everywhere in Germany where chemistry is of importance, be it a university, a chemical industry site or a public institution. In order to fulfill our statutory aim of advancing the chemical sciences, we organize conferences and symposia, publish internationally renowned scholarly journals, offer career services and professional education programs and we’re engaged in chemistry teacher training.

 

Q. GDCh celebrates its 150th anniversary this year, a significant achievement. What are you most proud of as an organization?

  1. In the 150 years of our (and our predecessor organizations') existence the GDCh played a decisive role as the most important network of chemists in our country. Our scientific events, our highly successful scholarly journals, foremost Angewandte Chemie, the work and exchange within our divisions and the many contacts across borders of companies and universities are crucial catalysts for the success of the chemical enterprise in Germany and beyond. We’re also proud of our continuous outreach initiatives to the general public in order to increase public awareness of the important role of chemistry to everyday quality of life. In addition to the 150th anniversary, we are also celebrating the 20th anniversary of the foundation of the JungChemikerForum, a highly successful network of younger chemists.

 

Q. The GDCh mission states: "If chemistry is to receive due recognition, it needs to be promoted." How can authors better promote the research that they publish?

  1. On the one hand, a close interaction between the authors and the editorial teams of our journals helps to increase the visibility within the community. In addition, our scientific events offer authors a great opportunity to present their research. Together with our publishing partner Wiley-VCH, we are constantly developing and testing new ways of promotion, such as newsletters, social media, apps and so on.

 

Q. Copyright and, in particular, the online sharing of research articles has been a topic of conversation in the research community recently. Why is copyright important to GDCh?

  1. As Marcelin Berthelot once said: "La chimie creé son objet", i.e. chemists are creators and inventors. This intellectual property needs protection and a crucial part of this protection is the copyright. At the same time, it’s important to strike the right balance between preserving copyright, which is usually transferred to the publisher, and allowing for sharing. For the publisher, copyright is of great importance in order to fight piracy and to secure the financial basis needed for sustaining the high level services being offered. At the end of the day, we need to find solutions which protect the copyright but do not hinder the progress and the teaching of science. The STM Article Sharing Policy is an important step in this direction.

 

Q. In 2013, the GDCh published a position paper on the future of scientific publishing. In particular the statement mentioned that the GDCh "openly welcomes new approaches in publishing as long as these approaches are for the benefit of science and are based on a solid and resilient business model." Why is it important that access to research is supported by a resilient business model?

  1. We need to make sure that scientists do what they do best, and that is conduct research. When it comes to driving visibility and disseminating the results of research the experts are not the scientists, but publishers. Hence, to safeguard their publishing services - which are an integral and highly relevant part of the scientific enterprise - we need business models which remain attractive enough to keep publishers in business.

 

Q. What best practice information do you provide to your members regarding the sharing of research to ensure maximum impact while upholding the principles of copyright?

  1. In its 2013 position paper, the GDCh explicitly answers this question: The recommended and completely legal way of sharing research results is described in section 38 paragraph 4 of the German copyright law. It stipulates that publications from publicly funded research can be deposited in repositories after a 12 months embargo period.

 

To commemorate the 150th Anniversary of the Gesellschaft Deutscher Chemiker (GDCh, German Chemical Society)  ANGEWANDTE FESTSYMPOSIUM will be held on September 11th, 2017.  Visit the website to learn more and to register for the free virtual online event.

 

And to learn more about the impressive history of the GDCh, explore the GDCh facts of the month from ChemistryViews.

 

Image Credit: GDCh

 

     Tom Griffin
Tom Griffin
Director, Global Communications, Wiley

How Can I Share It, launched in 2016 by the International Association of STM Publishers, is a website providing researchers with tools and guidance on sharing research content. As the site celebrates its first anniversary, we sat down with Matt McKay, Director of Communications & Events at STM, to discuss the site.

 

17871f2.jpgQ. For readers who are unaware, first tell us a little about the International Association of STM Publishers.

A. STM is the global trade association representing academic and professional publishers. We have over 120 members across 21 countries who collectively publish around two thirds of all journal articles. STM plays a leading role in promoting industry best practices and developing public policies which support publishers and their authors in disseminating the results of research. Members include learned societies, university presses, private companies, news start-ups and established players – many of whom are not-for-profits. You will often meet STM members at the various publishing industry events which take place annually around the world – including at STM’s two main conferences in the US and at the Frankfurt Book Fair.

 

Q. Can you describe how the ‘voluntary principles for article sharing on scholarly collaboration networks’ came about?

A. Research is by its nature a collaborative process. Scholarly Collaboration Networks (SCNs) have been a part of the scholarly communication landscape for some time now, providing a way for researchers to collaborate and share their results. To gain a better understanding of the current landscape of article sharing through SCNs, STM conducted an open consultation in early 2015. The aim was to facilitate discussion by all stakeholders in order to establish a core set of principles that clarify how content should be shared using SCNs.  Our hope for this initiative is for publishers and SCNs to work together to facilitate the sharing of subscription and licensed content in a manner that is simple and seamless for academic researchers while also consistent with access and usage rights.

 

The consultation generated 50 substantive comments and the resulting feedback was carefully considered and woven into a revised version of the Voluntary principles for article sharing on scholarly collaboration networks. The principles have subsequently been endorsed by over 50 organizations from university presses, learned societies and academic publishers through to industry organizations, publishing service providers and SCNs themselves. Since the posting of the principles, several major publishers have already produced simplified, open and transparent publishing policies that specifically address the sharing of articles, and many more publishers are in the process of adapting their policies as called for by the principles.

 

Q. What was the impetus for How Can I Share It?

A. How Can I Share It was envisaged as a continuation of the project STM started with the creation of the voluntary principles. We wanted to produce a dedicated website which would cover all aspects of scholarly sharing as well as provide a new public home for the Voluntary principles. Since its launch last year we developed additional resources to add to the site, including visualizations (e.g. http://www.howcanishareit.com/pdfs/Infografik160715.pdf) and (http://www.howcanishareit.com/shared-journey) and useful external resources on the current sharing landscape.

 

We’re seeing a good volume of traffic to the site – nearly 8,000 unique visitors last month so we’re hoping that How Can I Share it can continue to be a useful jumping off point for scholarly sharing, and a useful source of tools, information and resources for all interested in the sharing of scholarly research.

 

Q. How does the site make sharing easier for researchers?

A. The site includes practical information and tools to ensure articles can be shared quickly, easily and consistently. A DOI look-up tool provides researchers with an easy way to check where a journal article can be shared in line with its access and usage rights. To date, seven leading publishers have added their policies into this tool and we’re currently working to expand its breadth further. A section outlining publisher policies provides assistance to visitors by linking to the latest versions of a publisher’s license information – many of which have been updated because of this site and the voluntary principles to provide additional clarity around the specific topic of article sharing.

 

Alongside the voluntary principles themselves (offered in seven different languages) we have also included a detailed FAQ and visualization to further clarify how, where and what content should be shared using scholarly collaboration networks. The “Share it Here” section of the site offers a wide selection of recommended SCN sites where researchers can share their articles, as well as a compilation of sharing resources.

 

The latest addition to the site ‘A shared Journey’ is an interactive visualization which follows a paper from conception through to publication to demonstrate how ideas go on to become peer reviewed articles while highlighting how the research might be shared along that journey.

 

Thanks for sharing, Matt!

 

Editor's note:

Wiley recently launched Wiley Content Sharing across its portfolio. Wiley Content Sharing facilitates collaboration by allowing authors and subscribers to share free-to-read full-text articles with non-subscribers. In addition, Wiley Content Sharing provides the public with greater access to research when following links from selected media outlets globally. For more information regarding Wiley Content Sharing please visit our FAQs.

 

Image Credit: STM

 

     Victoria Renigan
Victoria Renigan
Journals Continuing Education       
Deirdre McKlveen
Deirdre McKlveen
Journals Continuing Education        
David Kempe
David Kempe
Journals Continuing Education

When Wiley’s ACCME-accredited providership launched back in 1992, the goal was to  enhance medical knowledge through the dissemination of research and its clinical implications, resulting in improvements in the quality of patient care and professional practice. Beyond this, as a publisher we’re uniquely positioned to offer journal-based learning solutions that may benefit physicians in all stages of the publishing process.

 

The CME for Reviewers program is a new Wiley service that awards AMA PRA Category 1 Credits™ to physician peer reviewers for eligible journals in the health sciences to recognize learning already taking place within their busy schedules that may further their education requirements.

 

We began the pilot in August 2016, starting with three journals after completing a needs assessment to ensure relevance for each target audience. A total of 964 requests for credit were made across 2,932 submitted reviews, demonstrating a 33% participation rate for the pilot (aligning with our initial estimates based on a pre-pilot survey). Of the 531 unique users that have claimed credits, 177 have done so multiple times, reflecting a 33% retention rate over a relatively short time. One of the pilot journals, Transfusion, has published an editorial to promote the service’s availability to its readership.

 

293412•CME-for-Reviewers-Pilot-Results-Design_Final-72dpi.jpg

 

As a result of the successful pilot, the CME for Reviewers service is being made available as part of Wiley’s reviewer recognition offerings for qualified journals in the health sciences field. We plan to continue to develop new and innovative teaching and instructional pathways for CME, to complement our more traditional journal-based activity development and to help authors and physicians achieve their goals.

 

More peer review resources are available at www.wileypeerreview.com.

 

     Victoria Renigan
Victoria Renigan
Journals Continuing Education       
Deirdre McKlveen
Deirdre McKlveen
Journals Continuing Education        
David Kempe
David Kempe
Journals Continuing Education

Physician and scans.jpg

Peer review is the foundation for safeguarding the quality and integrity of scientific and scholarly research. It provides the author with practical advice to improve the quality of his/her manuscript and requires the reviewer to have analytical, specialized, and applied knowledge on the subject matter.  In addition, peer review aids in career development, improves the reviewer’s own writing skills, and increases the reviewer’s knowledge of their field.

 

Often anonymous and voluntary, peer review is vital nonetheless and at Wiley we’re continually seeking ways to recognize and reward the contributions peer reviewers make. For journals in the health sciences, many peer reviewers are practicing physicians with significant demands on their time, including the need to regularly meet continuing education requirements.

 

To recognize learning already taking place in a way that furthers their education requirements and rewards reviewers for their invaluable input, Wiley now offers a Continuing Medical Education (CME) for Reviewers program which awards AMA PRA Category 1 Credits™ to physician peer reviewers, through the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME).  The primary goal of Wiley’s ACCME-accredited providership (established in 1992) is the enhancement of medical knowledge through the dissemination of research and its clinical implications, resulting in improvements toward the quality of patient care and professional practice.  Participating in peer review enhances the reviewer’s medical knowledge by providing reviewers with access to information on the latest research findings.

 

Our initial pilot included Transfusion, the official journal of the AABB. Anne Eder, MD, CME Editor of Transfusion, indicated that reviewers may be “willing to get involved with manuscript review” with the addition of the CME program, as it could alleviate the challenges “to motivate even well-published, but busy professionals as reviewers.” Additionally, Dr. Eder “expects the primary benefit will be in reviewer recruitment and retention,” with the secondary benefit of “contribut[ing] to the quality of reviews—as reviewers realize they are being awarded credit, they might spend a little extra effort on their reviews. Conversely, reviewers who are denied credit might seek to improve their critiques.”

 

Look out for our post tomorrow on the full results of our initial pilot.

 

More peer review resources are available at www.wileypeerreview.com.

 

Image Credit: Fuse/Getty Images

 

Filter Blog

By date:
By tag: