Morgan Kubelka
Morgan Kubelka
Library Services, Wiley

The history of medicine.  It sounds like a “Final Jeopardy” category, doesn’t it?Print of a physician wearing a mask at the time of the plague 17th century small.jpg


The subject is almost existential. How do you pinpoint the origin of something as essential as medicine? Of doctors, surgeons, and other medical practitioners? How do you get to the beginning of the story and how did we get to where we are today?


I figured one reasonable way to get there is to ask the people that were there at the time of its evolution. Since I can’t exactly get Galen on the phone, I took advantage of the archives of the Royal College of Physicians (RCP), one of the oldest medical colleges in England.


Celebrating its 500th anniversary this year, the RCP is inextricably tied to both the history of medicine and modern science as a whole. As the Wiley Digital Archives team is currently in the process of digitizing the RCP’s archives, I had the luxury of supplementing my crude research with “the truth”—or the authentic firsthand accounts of those that lived it.


Check out some of the most surprising and interesting things you probably didn’t know about the history of medicine and the Royal College of Physicians.


Captain, the doctor has no experience!


Charter of Incorporation for the College by Henry VIII under the Great Seal, 1518 .jpg

I guess it’s not entirely surprising that the medical landscape looked different in the 16th century than it does today, but it’s shocking to learn just how different.


With little to no regulation, medical practice often consisted of “physicians” with no formal training or knowledge. Malpractice in England was rampant and unnecessary deaths abundant as unqualified impersonators took advantage of the wild west of practicing medicine.


As a result, the College of Physicians formed in 1518 with a royal charter from King Henry VIII in order to separate the “real” doctors from the quacks by granting licenses to qualified people and punishing imposters. The number of fellows was very small and consisted of only the well-educated elite.


You can’t sit with us


In the 16th century, there was a defined social hierarchy when it came to different members of the medical field.  Physicians, for instance, were considered the most educated and elite, enjoying command and superiority over surgeons and apothecaries.


At the time, apothecaries dispensed drugs at the physician’s instruction (think pharmacist), while surgeons performed a ‘practical’ trade that could be learned by apprenticeship. The lack of formal education required not only informed their place in the medical hierarchy, but also left their qualifications up to inconsistent methods and quality of training.



When barbers and surgeons were one in the same


Barbers and surgeons-small.jpgFrom the 16th century to the 18th century, barbers and surgeons in London belonged to the same guild, known as the Company of Barber-Surgeons.  With a perceived overlap in skills, barbers were allowed to perform a wide variety of both cosmetic and surgical functions, from cutting hair to amputating limbs, for instance.


As you can imagine, the amount of people who died from these surgeries rivaled the number cured. Not only that, there remained an elite subset of surgeons who resented being lumped into the same category as the lowly barber. Instead, ‘pure’ surgeons wanted to be more like the physicians—respected and esteemed.


Yet, it wasn’t until 1745 that surgeons would officially separate from the Company and begin establishing the formal educational standards which would enable them to rise to the same standard as their long-time rivals, the physicians


Scope creep and blurred lines


Try as they might, the physicians struggled to maintain sole control of practicing medicine. As the general population rapidly exceeded the number of licensed doctors, the apothecaries stepped into the role of de facto physicians to the country’s poor. Still, the RCP ardently fought for the physician’s position at the top of the medical tree.


The ongoing battle between the apothecaries and physicians persisted for centuries and was even the subject of a popular satirical poem at the time. Published in 1699, The Dispensary, written by RCP member Sir Samuel Garth, captured the spirit of the time as the elite “medical authority” tried to undercut the growing legitimacy of the apothecaries.


By the early 18th century, the conflict came to a head. In what would be a landmark case that would define the role and legal status of those providing care to the sick, the Royal College of Physicians sued a Liveryman of the Society of Apothecaries for malpractice. Ultimately, the Rose Case (1701-1704) ruled in the apothecaries’ favor, granting them legal recognition as doctors and marking the beginning of the general practice of medicine.



What’s your sign?

Illustration of the 'zodiac man' in Fasciculus medicinae, Johannes de Ketham, published Venice, 1500.jpg


While nowadays you might flip to the back of a magazine to read your horoscope for fun, in Renaissance Europe astrology was actually a part of everyday medical practice. Physicians combined medical knowledge with careful studies of the stars and often carried special almanacs containing star charts which were said to rule each part of the body.


In fact, in the books of one of Tudor England’s most enigmatic figures, John Dee, a table illustration links the different signs of the zodiac with the four humors of the body: yellow bile, black bile, phlegm and blood.  It wasn’t until the 18th century that emergent scientific disciplines led to the breakdown of astrology as part of the medical realm.



William Harvey: physician and witch detector?


Witches apprehended, examined and executed. Published London, 1613. Wellcome Collection..jpg


One of the most famous fellows of the RCP is William Harvey, a physician most notable for his discovery of the systematic circulation of the blood pumped around the body by the heart and for his propagation of the empirical pillars of observation and experimentation to understand “the secrets of nature.”  De Motu Cordis (‘on the motion of the heart’) was published in 1628, controversially challenging over 1,500 years of established scientific and medical belief.


What many aren’t aware of was Harvey’s role in applying his pragmatic skillset to investigating the legitimacy of so-called “witches”. As RCP fellows were often called upon to advise on a variety of public matters, it wasn’t all that surprising when King Charles I came to Harvey, his own physician, with a request.


After 17 women were found guilty of witchcraft as a result of the Pendle Witch Trials of 1634, a skeptical King Charles I requested four of the convicted women be brought to London to be inspected by a selection of midwives and surgeons, under Harvey’s guidance. And so it was that Harvey found himself examining the women for “physical signs of witchcraft.” As a figure known for his high regard for reason and rationality, it’s unsurprising that Harvey was left unconvinced of the charges made against them. (read more)


A man’s world

Letter from Elizabeth Anderson to Mr Hutchinson asking permission to attend his lectures on lupus at the Harveian Society, 1887.jpg


While it’s hardly shocking that women weren’t originally admitted into the medical field, letters in the RCP archives demonstrate that this didn’t deter them.


Elizabeth Garrett Anderson, a pioneering feminist and physician, applied to the RCP in 1864 to take the exam for the LRCP medical diploma.


“I have been registered as a medical student at the Apothecaries Hall, where I have also passed the preliminary examination in Arts and the first professional exam for the license … I can produce all necessary certificates of study from recognized teachers in acknowledged schools of medicine…”


Though she was refused, she continued to practice medicine and to be an advocate for education and careers for women. She even continued to rather boldly request permission to attend lectures at medical societies associated with RCP.


Dear Mr Hutchinson, I wonder if I might be admitted to some dark obscure corner to hear y[ou]r lectures on Lupus? The good Charing X people are admitting women to their post graduate course so it w[oul]d not be quite novel if the Harveian Soc were disposed to be gracious. Do not trouble to answer unless you can say ‘yes’.


Despite her persistence, it wouldn’t be until 1909 that a by-law allowing women to take RCP exams was passed and another 16 years until women could become full members.


The evolution of science and medicine


Since the days of relying on zodiac charts to understand human health and employing barbers to perform surgeries, it’s clear times have changed. But luckily so has society and our intellectual frameworks, which directly impact science’s evolution.


For one thing, the concept of “scientific disciplines” as we know them today didn’t really come up until the 19th century. Before then, there were broader units of knowledge that overlapped and existed to be built on—preserving the philosophical ideas of the past and adding on to them like an encyclopedia.  This is almost the direct opposite of what we see today, where research fundamentally relies on the questioning of what is known as “the truth” and constantly pushes toward new discoveries.


Despite this shift from a “encyclopedic” orientation to specific and specialized areas of interest, the fact remains that modern science is still interdisciplinary; as each field evolves, it somehow comments on the others—offering new ideas, methods and concepts that indelibly impact the rest. For instance, without the technology advancements of the 19th century and government funding that enabled clinical research in real hospital and lab settings, our understanding of the body and its various conditions could still be limited to a zodiac chart.


The RCP’s own evolution reflects the impact of historical context and the shift toward a more “open” scientific community. Not only did its members grow from an elite set of male physicians from England, to a diverse community of medical practitioners from all over the world, the RCP also embraced its ability to actively impact public health policy on a range of issues. From its 1962 report on the impact of smoking, to its 2016 report on the impact of air pollution, the RCP demonstrates how human health is understood and advanced in relation to the historical, societal and environmental context that surrounds it.


So the question is, what will the next 500 years bring?


To learn more about the Royal College of Physicians: a Wiley Digital Archives collection, visit here.



1. Print of a physician wearing a mask at the time of the plague, 17th century. Credit: Royal College of Physicians

2. Charter of incorporation for the College of Henry VIII under the Great Seal 1518, Credit: Royal College of Physicians

3. Barber-surgeons working on a boil on a man's forehead. Credit: Wellcome Library, London

4. Illustration of the 'zodiac man' in Fasciculus medicinae, Johannes de Ketham, published Venice, 1500. Credit: Royal College of Physicians
5. Witches apprehended, examined, and executed, Published London, 1613. Credit: Wellcome Collection

6. Letter from Elizabeth Anderson to Mr. Hutchinson asking permission to attend his lectures on Lupus at the Harveian Society, 1887.

Credit: Royal College of Physicians





    Samantha Green
Samantha Green
Society Marketing, Wiley

We often hear examples of how societies across the research spectrum run into difficulties when it comes to growing membership from outside academia. These potential members might be teachers or social workers, they might work in healthcare or industrial fields. Each of these potential members works in a field that is directly influenced by the research that these societies publish. And in many of these fields, the connections between researchers and practitioners vary widely.


From our Society Member Survey, we learned that those who work at universities or colleges are more likely to be current society members, and they are also more likely to join a society in the next year. So how can we reach potential members who work in adjacent fields?


Explore diverse member benefits


M1W1RH.JPGMember benefits need to be tailored to your current community and any community spaces that you’re trying to grow. When it comes to applied or practice-based fields, member benefits need to offer a variety of networking and career opportunities that will have a positive impact on the professional lives of these individuals.


Networking and community-building is consistently a top reason why members join societies. This remains true for professional members. They want to connect with other professionals in their industry, and many will also be motivated by fostering connections with researchers in their fields. Global community and career advancement are still important to those in fields outside of academia. Societies offer opportunities to bridge the research and practice gap, where the two can connect on shared concerns and come together to solve problems. These networking activities can also lead to professional opportunities later.


Members need to see the professional value of society membership, as well as feel that they are part of something bigger than themselves in terms of a society’s community and mission. Benefits  like certifications, or learning tools such as  podcasts and webinars offer tangible professional development and incentivize potential members to join.


Show the relevance of your research


Based on our Society Member Survey, there is a strong correlation between engaging frequently with research content and joining a society. Those outside of academia are less likely to produce their own research. But they are still very interested in attending meetings, using research to help inform their jobs and staying at the cutting edge of their fields.


Those who don’t work in academia are still very interested in content, but they engage with it less frequently than those in academia. They have a greater need for other content formats such as  professional practice publications or magazines, however. In lieu of practice-focused publications, there may be opportunities to explore blogs that focus on research applications to help attract professional members.


The value of your publications for potential members in applied fields should be clear. These potential members may not always have time to search extensively for what they need or have the time to devote to long literature reviews. Diverse types of content will help readers understand the value of research to their professional lives, in turn encouraging membership.


Overall, members outside of academia are attracted to societies for some of the same key reasons: access to the publications and the opportunity to attend the conference. Potential members won’t join if they have a sense of feeling unwelcome or not invited to a society. Actively encouraging the diverse perspectives of professional members to your society can go a long way in making them feel that they’re not only welcome, but also an integral part of the society’s future.


How do you feel societies should encourage professionals to join? Let us know in the comments below.


Image Credit: Marine Construction Photos/Alamy Stock Photos

    Fiona O'Connor
Fiona O'Connor
Society Marketing, Wiley

Alice Wood, a Senior Publishing Development Editor at Wiley, recently sat down with Allen Moore, Editor-in-Chief of the Open Access journal, Ecology and Evolution, to hear his perspective on everything from impact factor to recent challenges facing the journal. Below, we share one part of this conversation, where we ask, “What changes do you see happening in the next five years?”.












    Fiona O'Connor
Fiona O'Connor
Society Marketing, Wiley

To reach the right researchers about a special issue, alert authors of journal activity, and share a society’s new initiative, messages need to be targeted accurately. According to a study done by the Radicati Group, an estimated 269 billion emails were sent and received each day in 2017, and this is expected to increase to over 333 billion daily emails in 2022.


Smarketing App_image.jpg

As a publishing partner, the goal of our marketing service is to inform communities of research that can change the world and share the wonderful work that our societies do every day. When working with so many diverse and unique communities, one of our biggest challenges is identifying the right groups to share information with. To address this issue, we’ve started to use the Smarketing app, which allows us to create more innovative, agile, and targeted campaigns, and will in turn drive greater impact for societies and their journals. The tool can search for researchers and authors working in specific fields and defined subjects. It then cross references those names with our email subscribers, and sends the most relevant message to the right people.

When we first discovered the Smarketing app, we saw plenty of potential: this seemed like something that would save us time and help make journal communications feel personal and meaningful for the authors on the receiving end of the email. To make sure it was a tool that could work for our communities, we decided to test it on a campaign to drive submissions for a journal’s special issue.


Our goal was to drive submissions by sending a targeted Call for Papers email to authors who have published research on “plant stress” over the past 5 years – those who would be most interested in learning about the upcoming Special Issue. We identified these authors and shared the Call for Papers with them. By combining the new targeting technology in the Smarketing app with our understanding of the journal’s needs, we were able to approach our goal with precision and focus. 


When compared with a general ‘entomology’’ call for papers campaign for the journal, this campaign had an open rate that was 50% higher, and our click-through rates were more than twice what we normally see when using a subject list without additional targeting.


We’re able to use these lists for targeted social media advertising campaigns too – meaning we’re able to reach only those people who are most likely to engage and react to them. Targeting our message helps us in multiple ways: it means the money spent on advertising is more likely to reach the right authors at the right time, and it means that whatever message we’re communicating feels meaningful, relevant, and personal to the selected audience..


This targeting approach can be applied to other initiatives in the future and create greater impact and results for organizations. The Smarketing app is a powerful tool to better reach your communities, to share the mission of your organization, and to engage in a meaningful and thoughtful way.


Do you have any experience using other tools to refine your target audience? Let us know in the comments below.


Image credit: Getty Images

    Josh Robertson
Josh Robertson
Co-founder, Conservation Conversation

We're in the middle of our #inspiredbywildlife campaign where we've asked for people to vote on one of six conservation causes. As part of a partnership with Act for Wildlife, we'll donate $1 for every vote received by July 1!


We're fortunate to have had conservation scientist Josh Robertson, co-founder of Conservation Conversation participate. Read on to learn more about Josh and his view on these amazing projects sponsored by Act for Wildlife.


If there's one thing you do today, it should be to vote for free in the #inspiredbywildlife campaign! Cast your vote for one of these 6 conservation projects and, as part of a partnership with Act for Wildlife, Wiley will donate $1 to that project for each vote! I was originally going to tell you what I voted for and why, but I wouldn't want to sway you to a particular project and so thought I'd rather go into detail on your contenders! Click here to ignore my advice & vote!



The Assam project in India has been an incredible model for mitigating human-wildlife conflicts worldwide! Putting local communities at the heart of human-elephant conflict solutions, which include practical mitigation measures and education programmes, this project is working wonders to improve the lives of local people and help save the endangered Asian Elephant (Elephas maximus).



Needless to say that if you're a fan of our not-so-distant relatives then this is the project for you! Chester Zoo have been involved in Gashaka Gumpti National Park in Nigeria since 1991, and using the endangered Nigeria-Cameroon chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes ssp. ellioti) as an umbrella species for wider conservation efforts, the Gashaka Biodiversity Project trains local park rangers and works to protect the incredibly unique wilderness areas found between Nigeria and Cameroon! This chimp species has both the smallest geographic range and population size of all the Chimpanzee subspecies, so they need your vote!



I couldn't bear it if the gardeners of the Andes went extinct.They have an uncertain future with only ~3,000 individuals left in Bolivia. As we continue to fragment their homes and push them closer to our boundaries, human-bear conflict is on the up! By supporting this project you're not just helping to protect the endangered Andean/Spectacled Bear (Tremarctos ornatus) and reduce conflict with people, your saving huge areas of forest and everything in them.



Rhino horn is more valuable than gold As a result, Africa's answer to the unicorn went through a population decline of 97.6% since 1960 and is currently critically endangered. However, thanks to conservation projects like this, the black rhino (Diceros bicornis) population has recovered slightly and now sits between 5,042-5,455. So, let's help keep this recovery going!



So, giraffes are great, they look funny when they drink at waterholes and just like all species they play important roles in food webs!   ️ But for me, despite the fact their population has dropped from 140,000 to 80,000 in 15yrs, this project shouldn't get your vote. With limited resources for conservation we need to focus our efforts wisely; the other projects either protect more endangered species or will have more far reaching conservation outcomes. But if you love giraffes go for it!



Okay, I know I said I didn't want to lead anyone into a project, but this one gets my vote. And I know tigers get lots of attention already but hear me out. Anti-poaching efforts led to a 63% rise in Nepals endangered tiger (Panthera tigris) population!  But this success isn't all it seems. There's still only around 200 in Nepal and mo' tigers is leading to mo' problems. Nearly 50% of Nepal’s people live in poverty and depend on the forests and natural resources for survival, putting them in direct competition with tigers   . As both the human and tiger populations grow and compete for these resources, human-tiger conflict is having a devastating impact on communities and wildlife – even leading to the deaths of villagers and tigers. By voting for the Living With Tigers Project your creating new livelihoods and saving the lives of tigers and people.


There we have it! 6 projects you can support for free from the comfort of your home! Voting closes July 1st so what are you waiting for?! Click here and let's help change the world!


Read the original post on the Conservation Conversation website.


About Josh:


As I believe all kids do, I grew up with an innate curiosity for the natural world. That’s not to say I always knew I wanted to be a conservationist – far from it! My aspirations were initially to be either a footballer, a doctor, or an artist! But my lifelong infatuation with natural history caught up with me, and eventually led me to study for a BSc in International Wildlife Biology at the University of South Wales, where I graduated with a First-Class Honours degree and was awarded the Departmental Prize for Outstanding Achievement. Filling the following year with fieldwork in the Caribbean and lab work in the US, I missed the challenge of academia, and went on to complete the MSc Conservation Science course at Imperial College London with a Distinction. This course opened my eyes to the complexities of global environmental issues, and it was in those intricacies that I saw where I could best serve the conservation cause: the public-science interface. I think in life you need to not only find a job doing what you love, but also one in which you utilise your best skills – I’m a naturally optimistic and easy-going person with good people skills, and I like to think I have some creative flare, so why not use this for conservation? This is what led me to start Conservation Conversation (ConCon) with my good friend Stefan Hunt.


At ConCon we believe in a world where people and wildlife go together like peanut butter and jam! We use our storytelling skills to not only inform people about the world's biggest issues, but to inspire action and create an online community that develops solutions to these problems. With a splash of comedy and optimism, and the perfect blend of science and media, we create easily digestible videos, photo-stories, and forums on the natural world and the people trying to save it!


When I heard about the #inspiredbywildlife campaign I couldn’t wait to get involved! I looked over the campaign with some colleagues of mine where I’m currently working in Croatia, and the #iwasinspiredvideo of how ‘Rose’ used her research to create educational opportunities for young girls in Africa had us in tears. Despite feeling slightly foolish at the end when we saw it was a fictional story, the points stood – the power of a well told story is immeasurable, never give up, and research can change the world. After volunteering for Chester Zoo over the past year, I know first-hand how incredible their conservation research and Act For Wildlife campaigns are. So I’m delighted that we can use our growing following at ConCon to help support these projects and the researchers dedicating their lives to saving wildlife all over the world.


Image Credits: Andean Bear: Act for Wildlife, Tigers: Shutterstock, Chimpanzee:Shutterstock,  Giraffes:Shutterstock, Rhino: Act for Wildlife, Elephants : incamerastock/Alamy

    Debbie Chachra
Debbie Chachra
Professor, Olin College of Engineering


My academic background is in science and engineering, and double-blind peer review is the norm for my academic papers. It’s rightly regarded as the gold standard, and is a key element in the global enterprise that is scientific and scholarly research. But journals are only a small part of the ecosystem of scholarly research.


It’s well understood that women have historically been excluded from scholarly endeavors (together with many other groups, including indigenous people, people of color, and people who don’t fit neatly into the standard boxes for gender and orientation). This exclusion has been exacerbated by erasure, where their contributions have been written out of the scholarly record. For every Marie Curie, there are an unknown number of women whose scientific contributions were subsumed into their husbands’ work. Jocelyn Bell (Burnell) discovered pulsars as a graduate student; her male advisor and another astronomer received the Nobel Prize.


The repercussions of this exclusion and erasure are carried through to the present day, manifesting as implicit bias in many areas of professional life, not just in science. While few structural barriers exist for women, these unconsidered biases have marked effects on their career trajectories, as detailed by Virginia Valian in her book Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women. Women are less likely to give colloquia talks. They often need to do more work to be considered as successful as their male peers. And while much of the data concerns binary gender, there is every reason to expect that members of other underrepresented groups are facing similar challenges. Erasure, exclusion, and implicit bias mutually reinforce each other. And this doesn’t even consider the effects of gender-based harassment and its impact, including how it affects women engaged in scientific fieldwork.


What’s more, peer review is not a panacea. There’s evidence that women are held to higher standards in their writing and so their papers spend longer in peer review. And, women are given less professional credit for multiauthor papers, including papers being attributed solely to male co-authors by the media.


The National Science Foundation (NSF) provides guidance to grant proposal reviewers on overcoming implicit bias, and they note that it’s exacerbated by lack of information, stress from competing tasks, or time pressure. It shouldn’t be surprising that it takes significant conscious effort to overcome centuries of exclusion and its consequences. This is not just an issue of fairness for the scholars (although that is certainly a serious issue). We are involved in research and scholarship because we want to contribute to the tremendous edifice that is shared human knowledge. This means we need to confront our own implicit biases and do the active work of engaging with this history, and the people most affected by it.


In line with those NSF guidelines, the first step in doing better is to allot appropriate time and care to reviewing papers, especially those by groups that have been historically underrepresented in science and the academy. Help counter ongoing bias by inviting more women to referee journal articles. Consider instituting a code of conduct for authors. For scientific research on humans, consider the research subjects: is the effect of gender properly assessed? And finally, consciously work to create a welcoming research environment wherever you are.


Initialized names in black and white on the printed page appear neutral and objective. But those names reflect centuries of history. It’s the responsibility of all of us to change the future.


On June 22, 2018 Debbie Chachra spoke about combatting bias in publishing at the Wiley Society Executive Seminar in Washington DC. You can learn more about Society Executive Seminars and request an invitation to future events at www.wileyexecutiveseminar.com.


About the author:


Debbie Chachra is a professor at Olin College of Engineering, where she was one of the early faculty. The first class at Olin College graduated in 2006; the college was founded to catalyze change in undergraduate engineering education, and is distinguished by its experimental student-centered teaching approaches and by a commitment to gender equity (by design, the college has gender parity in each class). Dr. Chachra researches the engineering student experience, and she speaks, writes, and consults for engineering educators worldwide. Her research has been funded by an NSF CAREER grant and recognized with other awards. She also writes and speaks more broadly at intersections of design, technology, and culture, including credits at The Atlantic and Nature. Her disciplinary background is in materials science and engineering, with a focus on biological systems; prior to joining Olin College, she held a postdoctoral fellowship at MIT. She holds undergraduate and graduate degrees from the University of Toronto. On Twitter, she is @debcha.

    Elizabeth Brophy
Elizabeth Brophy
Journal Publishing Manager, Wiley

Questions are what drive academic publishing, and in the ever-evolving publishing landscape, questions surrounding the presence, use, and impact of research online are becoming more prominent.


These are questions Altmetric can help answer. Editors, authors, and publishers all use Altmetric to track research outputs online, and relative to journal publishing, there are three main areas to investigate:


  1. How am I doing?
  2. How are they doing?
  3. What should I be doing?


1.     Informing, or How am I doing?


A key question for any research output is: How many citations, downloads, and mentions is it receiving? These are measurable statistics that can be understood and shared with colleagues, departments, and funding bodies.


Altmetric can answer this question by showing how an article is performing in the online world; in both an immediate and long-term context.


First, there are the real-time scores on article pages, acting as an easy way for authors to track their online attention. For editors and publishers, there are regular alerts which flag when an article is experiencing a lot of attention, allowing them to react to what is being said; whether positive or negative.


For a longer term perspective, Altmetric’s reporting tool provides monthly (or more) reports for journal editors so they can track article performance (by research topic, type and location of attention). For many this broadens the understanding of how their social media promotion fits into the wider picture. The new visualizations also make it much easier to show the way attention is gathered, and to pull out patterns.


These reports are produced by the Wiley journal team after consultation with the editors.


2.     Comparing, or How are they doing?


The next question after ‘How am I doing?’ is invariably ‘How is everyone else doing?’


Altmetric doesn’t have a clear ranking system, but the data it collects provide an idea of how a group of journals are performing relative to each other. Comparing specific journals requires some manual work, but it can be done, as can:


Comparing attention across several journals, including and excluding Twitter.


Comparisons of specific articles within a subject area.


It’s important to keep in mind that the data are never perfect –the pool is large, often out of date, has self-determined parameters, and can produce errors. But it provides a basic idea of what is happening on a larger scale, and contextualizes journals and their articles within related research in the online world.


3.     Strategizing, or What should I be doing?


Using Altmetric for reporting is easy,  but data for data’s sake is pointless. These reports need to provide not only information, but also answers and ideas. For editors, the key question when thinking about strategy is “what should I be doing/what do I want to achieve?”


What most editors want to achieve is a high number of online mentions leading to increases in readership. This serves as another  way to promote research, and demonstrate impact. And this is where using Altmetric data for strategy comes in. There are some obvious ways we can use this information to think strategically about journal or article promotion. By observing what content gains attention, how, and from whom, and having measurable figures and examples rather than anecdotal evidence, we can identify appropriate articles and channels for promotion.


Altmetric insights can also improve your own social media strategy by tracking articles and providing better understanding into social media communities.


Social media accounts are difficult to maintain, and the measures of success are not static. Altmetric provide insights that inform and enhance  your social strategy by identifying key influencers and hot topics, and measuring the impact of an image or a hashtag. Essentially, it offers the tools for a better online presence.


While online presence is important, downloads and citations remain two of the most important measures for articles. But with research beginning to demonstrate a link between the social media sphere and these metrics, it’s becoming increasingly important to consider the relationship between all three elements and to focus  on each individually. Altmetric is only one tool within a range of data analytics, but it contributes to a picture of multidimensional usage which answers - and often leads to even more - important questions about journal performance.

    Anna Ehler
Anna Ehler
Society Marketing, Wiley    

In a time when many learned societies are questioning their futures, the Royal Statistical Society is working hard to stay relevant. Listen to this episode of the Wiley Society Podcast to hear from Hetan Shah, Executive Director of the Royal Statistical Society, about how the RSS is changing their mindset and their strategy to succeed in a changing landscape.



Listen to the previous podcast episode: Why Sharing Research Needs to Get Easier (or Else)


You can listen to this episode and others – including episodes on the origin of fake news and how to get the most out of your social media strategy – by going to iTunes and subscribing to the Wiley Society Podcast.

How one society3.jpg

    Jen Cheng
Jen Cheng
Content Marketing Strategist, Wiley

When Librarian Caroline Pang was presented with the opportunity to build a medical library for the Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, NTU  she rose to the challenge and began the 2-year long journey of creating a modern space for her library users. In the video below she shares some of the story behind the library’s creation.


Hear more from Caroline at our upcoming webinar: Configuring Library Spaces for the Future


She started with the vision of creating a highly accessible and welcoming space, and that vision is now reflected in every corner of the library. Huge windows fill the library with light creating an atmosphere that is bright and open, with stunning views of the Singapore skyline. Bespoke furniture is upcycled from trees cut down for the campus and gives the library an extra touch of uniqueness and modernity.


The library offers spaces categorized into four functions for its users:



Users can gather in small groups with moderate levels of noise at the Collaboration space. The space was set up with flexibility in mind and can accommodate group discussions of various sizes, with movable furniture.

Quiet and General Collections

For users who prefer an unobtrusive space – the Quiet and General Collections is nestled beside a few bookshelves and offers a conducive environment in which to work. Caroline shared the approach the library takes towards building physical collections – the content simply has to appreciate in value over time.


Special print editions that her library collects are the Singapore Doctors collection and the Medical Humanity collection.

Café Area and Flexi-Space

For a livelier ambiance, the library accommodates a Café Area which doubles as a study or discussion space. By designating a space for eating and drinking the library doesn’t have the burden of operating a café, yet users can still enjoy the convenience of having food and drinks within the compound.


Last but not least, the Flexi-Space is an area designed for hosting events and community gatherings. As its name implies, the space is used for a variety of functions, from MOU signings, to workshops, to formal dinners or a study hall for students during exam periods.


The way these spaces are set up today can be configured for different purposes tomorrow, Caroline told us.  “If you would really like to future proof your library, you should consider furniture that is easy to configure and move around for future intents, such as an increase or decrease in student population.”


The library is also open 24 hours a day, seven days a week. With that said, security is an issue as it continues to operate after office hours, unmanned. To ensure a safe atmosphere and environment for users through the wee hours, lighting plays an important part and security measures are in place.


A special hotline allows users to reach out to security personnel should they observe any suspicious activity. The immense amount of trust the library has in its users, and the adequate security measures are reflected in the low pilferage rate the library has recorded so far.


When asked about her thoughts on the future library, Caroline shared that it will continue to be a space for its users. The sense of community is a feeling that cannot be replicated anywhere else on campus.


The role of the library and the librarian may have changed, but the bond between the library and its users remains the same.


Special thanks to Caroline and the Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University for sharing their library’s story.


Do you have a special story about your library? Contact me at jcheng@wiley.com to share your library’s journey.


    Kerys Martin
Kerys Martin
Society Acquisitions Coordinator, Wiley

This was the question posed by Catriona Fennell as we sat in the banks of the Willow lecture theatre at Oxford Brookes University. 2018 has been a tumultuous year so far – fake news, the Cambridge Analytica scandal, the list goes on – and now more than ever we really need an answer to this question, not just to protect our authors, partners and integrity, but to preserve our faith in all kinds of published content. In this vein, myself and around 40 other scholarly communications enthusiasts sat ready to thresh out the question with three key advocates of the issue: Pippa Smart, Editor-in-Chief of Learned Publishing, Catriona Fennell, Elsevier’s Director of Publishing Services, and Chris Graf, Director of Research Integrity and Publishing Ethics at Wiley.


Science and the Quest for Truth


Like Catriona, I’d consider myself a science fan nerd. I believe in its power to search for truth. And yet, based on Catriona’s experience, a typical director of publishing services will find ~200 team working together.jpgretraction emails per year in their inbox, suggesting that scholarly research is not in fact as rigorous and trustworthy as we thought. Worse, the consequences can be cumulative: too much fraudulent research makes research a fraudulent endeavor and makes science untrustworthy. Why? How do we explain this conundrum, this tension of opposites?


Human Fallibility and Accountability


For Catriona, the answer is in fact quite simple. We are humans. We make mistakes. In reality, retractions make up only a very small proportion (around 0.1%) of the world’s research output annually. The trouble is that humans are inherently creative, and wherever there is a pen (or a keyboard), our narrative voice slips through. Of course, researchers’ primary concern is with method, rigor and evidence, but to get attention there is also the need for a hook – a story, particularly when publication contributes to career development as well as to a quest for understanding. Researchers shouldn’t feel bad about this, it’s the state of play in all fields of work and it is natural to be concerned with one’s career. It’s our job as publishers to keep the narrative in realistic proportion.


The trick, Chris elucidated, is for researchers to feel comfortable in being honest when things go wrong, and correct or retract. This shouldn’t be seen as a bad thing, but as a genuine and necessary contribution to the scientific record. This might make a researcher laugh in equal parts amusement and fear, but in fact we have some real success stories of groups retracting work with careers and reputations left intact. As Chris put it, “being a brilliant scientist isn’t just about being top of the class, it’s about doing it properly.” Our responsibility here, as part of the scholarly communications community, is to help shift the perception and empower researchers to embrace retractions. When a researcher retracts an article, this could connote honesty and reliability rather than fraud and obscurity, and a clear explanation of the underlying reasons in retraction notices is the key to highlighting the difference. As Chris advocates, our focus in resolving the quality control crisis should be about integrity first, and impact last. We can’t control the behavior of “free-riders”, but as a collective community we can and do put systems and best practices in place to minimize their effects on the scientific record. As the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) describe it, this is a “wicked problem”, one with many moving parts and conflicting agendas. In this light, the idea of a collective community and common ground is even more important in finding a way to ensure our content is trusted.


Revisiting Integrity


This brings us to integrity. Catriona made the point that integrity is one of three terms often used to define “expertise”. The expectation is that peer review (both the process and the systems that facilitate it) will safeguard the integrity of a research article, but again the fact remains true that retractions occur and predatory journals exist. “You didn’t have to prove it so intensely back in the day” argued Catriona; this suggests to me that technology, combined with population growth, have complicated our trust in scientific articles. How can I be sure this has been peer reviewed by genuine experts, that this is a reliable journal, that these images haven’t been improperly manipulated? The tech revolution may have provided a new platform for the manipulation of research data, but it has also ushered in an age of openness, transparency and a potential for systems that can help re-establish integrity as the primary trait of the scientific record (if it was ever truly lost). There are initiatives already addressing this, such as the Peer Review Blockchain Initiative (read more in a recent interview published on The Scholarly Kitchen). Dr Wen Hwa Lee and his team at the Structural Genomics Consortium are championing extreme open science.  As a result, the impact on rates of research into new drugs and of their successful clinical trials has been astounding, making a powerful argument for embracing open collaboration (learn more about their work by watching Dr Lee’s recent talk at Wiley here).


At the same time, all of us sitting in the Willow bank were likely employed by Western, well-established publishers, with a common understanding of our expectations. But as Pippa highlighted, this is not the case everywhere. It is both a problem and a great opportunity that science is a global endeavor, and Pippa wants to see us embrace the latter. International collaboration in any field or industry can cause tension and difficulties, but it can also create wonderful synergies and innovations. Again, the notion that this is a wicked problem, one convoluted by the labyrinth of people and steps in the process of publishing a research article, was at the heart of Pippa’s argument. Yes, readers need to trust authors – but they need to be able to trust those in the middle too. There are many reasons not to trust those in the middle – commercial publishers need to make profit to pay staff and shareholders, universities have a vested interest in showcasing their institution, reviewers may be influenced by affiliation with a high-profile institute, and editors may be inclined to accept articles primarily for the promise of citations.


Looking at Publishing Ethics Through a Circumstantial Lens


All of this might seem somewhat cynical and in contrast to my earlier optimism (or naivete) but we’re all subject to the influence of decision-makers at times. We all know that there are things to be cynical about in research: long-running jokes about professors adding their name to the author list of every paper coming out of their department, spin editors employed to reduce hyperbole, acceptance-accreditation-remuneration ploys, and hard-earned impact factors and reputations of esteemed journals being exploited by predatory journals. But with a global perspective, some behaviors considered plagiaristic in Western publishing have altogether different causes. The proverbial “copy and paste” will typically result in instant rejection by Western journals, but if English is your second or even seventh language there are other reasons, beyond “stealing”, to use this computer and language shortcut. In some countries, Pippa reminds us, it is considered impolite and disrespectful to cite someone; it suggests that the referred work is not well-known in its own right. We’ve already touched on the influence of career development over researcher behavior and it’s clear that some cheat because they are under such pressures. But for researchers in some parts of the world, the pressure comes from not only the desire to advance, but to merely keep your current job.


So there are some relatively easy and intuitive things we can be aware of as we figure out this wicked problem, such as the nature of one’s research field. A small field might have a number of researchers publishing excellent research, but there aren’t enough reviewers available or with enough expertise to recognize the nuances and significance of the work. In this case we can use technology and collaboration to build better reviewer pools and tools. For the early career engineering researcher who is concerned about peer review reports, we can find ways to make these publicly available. Then there are some more pressing things to keep top-of-mind in any discussion of integrity in scholarly publishing – that expectations of best practice can depend on the discipline and individual’s post, but also significantly on location and personal background.  We need to raise awareness of these circumstances.


Finally, in the bigger picture, there are sometimes sociopolitical contexts that need to be considered. A question arose about censorship post-publication. Censorship itself conveys a lack of trust between power and people and inevitably it has found its way into the wicked problem we face in scholarly communication. Consider Cambridge University Press, which received criticism over censorship of China Quarterly. The publication was censored in China at the request of the Beijing government and subsequently reversed after international protest. Both actions resulted in publisher criticism. An audience member asked if this was an isolated incident or if other publishers have experienced this kind of pressure. Springer certainly have, and Catriona agreed that it’s a case of “when”, not “if”. As publishers she suggests that the best thing we can do is work with the International Publisher's Association (IPA), being clear and concise about our positions now (whatever they are) so that any future action needed around censorship will be uncontroversial. Other examples include the requested censorship of names of researchers who had become political prisoners in Turkey and with whom institutions no longer wished to be associated. Another case involved a Wiley toxicology journal publishing content about terrorism – in the aftermath of 9/11, the decision-makers had to try to view the consequences of publication without bias. There are even examples of author pseudonyms requested to protect incriminating interests. The onus is often on the publisher to make an ethical judgement on whether to publish the article.


Clearly there is a lot to say, and even more to do, to improve trust and integrity in scholarly communications. Our panelists did a great job of spotlighting some of the most important factors in this wicked problem, but there is no simple roadmap to resolution. Solving it might feel like a large and onerous task for any one person but as Chris said, “although there is only one of me or you, there are thousands of us”.

    Anne-Marie Green
Anne-Marie Green
Content and Communications, Wiley

Sometimes a conference theme exists in name alone. With all that can be explored in any given industry, it’s tough to apply a theme that neatly scoops the topics of discussion into one net.


The theme of this year’s Society for Scholarly Publishing Annual Meeting however: “Scholarly Publishing at the Crossroads: What’s working, what’s holding us back, where do we go from here?” was indelible and pervasive. This was a meeting where the scholarly communications community had to reckon with not only how to advance as an industry, but our place in the context of the wider culture.


Safiyah Noble1.jpg

Keynote speaker Dr. Safiya Umoja Noble


Safiya Noble’s opening keynote: "Toward an Ethic of Social Justice in Information" set the stage for the meeting. Author of Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism, Noble prompted us to reflect on how we serve as gatekeepers of information. While our industry publishes research that uncovers bias or promotes social justice, at the same time there remain questions our community has not sufficiently considered.  Are we an industry with a diverse workforce that is actively inviting everyone to the table? Are we looking for ways to reduce bias as information providers? Are we offering access to content to those who have previously been shut out? These questions can be uncomfortable, but they’re timely. As Dr. Noble put it “…social responsibility has frequently been reframed as an individual responsibility rather than an institutional or collective commitment.”


Other sessions at the meeting seemed to indicate the seeds of a collective commitment. A pre-meeting session discussed ways toward “Building an Inclusive Culture in Scholarly Publishing” and Wiley Editor Emma Brink reflected on a related session, “One of the most eye-opening sessions covered the results of the Workplace Equity Project survey, which revealed how much work still needs to be done to make our industry an inclusive one that allows equal opportunity to people of all backgrounds.” Yet another session looked at: “SSP at 50: Envisioning a Diverse and Thriving Organization”. With the Society for Scholarly Publishing celebrating its 40th anniversary this year, the panel shared ideas on how to foster a more diverse and welcoming community and industry over the next ten years.


The ”Crossroads” theme captured the emergence of trends in research communications as well. Artificial Intelligence can’t be ignored and one session looked at how publishers can harness it as a discovery tool or for content development, among other purposes. As workflows and the nature of the scholarly record changes, open data and the quest for research reproducibility were also widely discussed, as was the increasing onus on research to have real world impact.


Alison Labbate at SSP.jpg

Wiley Editorial Director Alison Labbate (left) speaks as a panelist for the session “Leadership development in scholarly publishing: A practical conversation”


Perennial challenges of recent years were also featured in the program: establishing a sustainable open access program, addressing the activities of SciHub through legal and other means, and tackling the increase in research output from the world’s emerging economies, among others.


Wiley Strategic Market Analyst Bobby Vocile shared his impressions of the meeting. “The sessions I attended addressed everything from new tools and services to help researchers and authors continue to move science forward all the way through to the disruptors that can stand in the way. It was completely refreshing to see industry peers come together to present on the issues we all face in the scholarly publishing industry and truly show that we can overcome these challenges by working together, rather than apart.”



There’s little doubt we’re at a crossroads, and there’s no shortage of work ahead, but it’s exciting to see the scholarly publishing community’s willingness to start the journey.


Image credits: 1. Anne-Marie Green 2. Emma Brink


    Jen Cheng
Li Zhen Neo
Library Services, Wiley

Taiwan may be a small country, but its potential to support and grow a conducive environment for the research community is irrefutable. Wiley Taiwan’s first-ever research conference was held this past April, “Taiwan as a Hub of Research and Learning: Present & Future”. The theme reverberated among local and international thought leaders in research communications. Held in partnership with the Science & Technology Policy Research and Information Center (STPI), the conference was also a part of Wiley Taiwan’s 25th anniversary celebrations.

Jean Lu Taiwan.JPG


Mr. Liang-gee Chen, Minister of Science and Technology, Taiwan joined esteemed speakers from Taiwan’s academic and research institutions to discuss the way forward. Wiley’s speakers included Peter Wiley, Chairman Emeritus of the Board, Ben Townsend, VP Global Library Sales and Deborah Wyatt, VP, Research, Asia-Pacific Society Publishing. Experts in the field shared their thoughts on the country’s current research landscape and the key factors that will influence a more robust output. Below are a few of the key challenges and opportunities discussed.


1. The challenge of recruiting talent


Andrew Lin, Associate Professor from the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering in Chang Gung University, shared his view on the current situation, “Right now, we are facing some challenges in recruiting quality research personnel. In particular, many universities have professors who have big projects, but they are looking for post-starters or research fellows… the professors need a team to do it.”


Besides having the government’s support in research funding, Andrew believes that another way to increase the future standards of research personnel is to build a good (PhD) training program for post-graduates.


2. Paving the way for more original research


Jean Lu from Academia Sinica mentioned the number of great research projects that have emerged in recent years, and highlighted the importance of originality in sustaining the standards of Taiwan’s research work. “It is imperative for the leaders of research departments to encourage and support original research, so that young researchers will be spurred to go beyond their comfort zones...This will result in better research outcomes.”


To Jean, the right mindset and quality education of the younger generation are what influence a more robust research landscape for the nation.


3. Growing the rate of international co-authorship


Another promising outlook for Taiwan lies in its high rate of co-authorship. Deborah Wyatt from Wiley shared that Taiwan saw a higher rate of researchers collaborating with overseas authors (at 36%, in 2017) as compared to their neighbors in Asia, such as Japan, South Korea and China. One of the trends supporting this surge in collaboration is the growth of digital technology.


Ben Townsend from Wiley added that this fantastic trend is something that libraries should leverage “…Libraries should recognize themselves as part of an international network. Librarians have a great opportunity to reconnect with their researchers and help them expand even further with their international networks." He also emphasized the opportunity for Wiley to work in partnership with librarians to help authors through the publishing process. 


Peter Wiley commended Taiwan’s targeted approach to international collaboration which focuses resources on ”…the highest quality research in select disciplines, so you are not trying to compete in a large variety of areas which you do not have adequate resources for. But, they (Taiwan) do have the resources to do that in the context of an international collaboration.”


Wiley has been consistent in the quality of papers it publishes around the globe. Peter credits this to Wiley’s long-standing experience in research publishing and our relationship with quality researchers. “As the largest society publisher, we have the ability to not only support the individual societies we work with, but all the issues that science faces across the disciplines. We bring together people from different societies across the disciplines to work on them.”


What are the research trends that you see in your region? Share your thoughts with us in the comments below.


    Jackie Jones
Jackie Jones
Journals Publisher, Wiley
Amanda Amen
Amanda Amen
Assistant Editor, Wiley

At the end of last year, we interviewed David Mellor about how Registered Reports support the “open research” agenda.


Following on from that we asked Jörg Schulz, Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Neurochemistry (JNC) and Sendil Ethiraj, Alfonso Gambardella, and Constance Helfat, Co-Editors of the Strategic Management Journal (SMJ) how the Center for Open Sciences Open Science Badges might more broadly help connect research with the peer reviewed manuscript – in David’s words, helping to “demonstrate reproducible work by pointing to a body of work that contains all of the essential parts: preregistered plans, materials identified with persistent and unique IDs, datasets with clear descriptors, and code for running tests on those data”.


Q. Why Open Science Badges and why now? jellyfish.jpg


SMJ We think it is part of a package of initiatives designed to increase confidence in the data and methods used in research. It complements other initiatives such as encouraging replications of prior studies. In addition, by making unique data sets more widely available, Open Practice initiatives promote the reuse and augmentation of datasets in new research.

JNC The overall quality of data reporting is poor, which leads to the current “reproducibility crisis” –the outcome in a survey conducted by Nature, in which more than half of the interviewees agreed that there is indeed a crisis, represented by 70% of the interviewees failing to reproduce another scientist’s experiments. To improve the quality and trustworthiness of published data, thorough data reporting is essential and the availability of materials is a fundamental requirement. The open science badges, visual icons placed on publications, certify that an open practice was followed and signal to readers that an author has shared the corresponding research evidence, thus, allowing an independent researcher to understand how to reproduce the procedure.


The open data badge is awarded for making publicly available the digitally shareable data necessary to reproduce the reported results.  All raw data and a data dictionary (for example, a codebook or metadata describing the data) with sufficient details and descriptions for an independent researcher to reproduce the reported analyses and results are stored in a repository.


The open material badge is earned by making publicly available the components of the research methodology needed to reproduce the reported procedure and analysis. Commercially available materials/animals/technique/software/equipment need to be described by persistent identifiers (Research Resource Identifiers (RRIDs) for example). Custom-made materials like antibodies or genetically manipulated animals have to be provided upon request.


Lastly the pre-registration badge is earned for having a preregistered study design. A pre-registered study indicates that research design, study material, planned sample size, outcome variables and predictor variables are pre-determined and stored in a public date-time stamped registration, like http://www.clinicaltrials.gov or http://www.osf.io/registries/.


Q. Why should researchers bother pursuing an Open Science badge?


JNC Researchers should be interested in the best quality and reproducibility of their research. Reproducibility leads to follow-up studies and consequently to citations and increased conspicuousness. Furthermore, funders and the public are questioning the value of research if there is low reproducibility and if the research results are rarely translated into clinical success. Badges are an incentive and a quality award, which will drive trustworthiness again.


SMJ The Open Data badge [GA-B3] recognizes researchers who make their data publicly available, providing sufficient description of the data to allow researchers to reproduce research findings of published research studies. Qualifying public, open-access repositories are committed to preserving data and keeping them publicly accessible via the web into perpetuity. SMJ is making the FIVES Project data repository (http://five.dartmouth.edu) available to either store the data and documentation or provide links on the FIVES website to the data and documentation on other open access websites.


Q. Isn’t it just another chore for researchers? What’s in it for them?


JNC No, it’s not a chore. Of course, applying for the open science badges requires the authors to spend extra time; however, this extra work helps certify that an open practice was followed.  Researchers must upload all raw data and constructed data along with a clear description of the analysis. However, these materials and data are already available for the researcher at the time of submission and, thus, extra work is required only to upload the files to a repository. The identification of catalogue numbers and persistent identifiers for materials is time consuming as well. However, every researcher benefits from a detailed description of data and materials in each manuscript, because it saves a lot of time to search for the correct materials or protocols. The authors should put themselves in the position of the reader (and they are readers in return) to see and understand the benefits.


SMJ The badges provide an incentive for researchers to publicly disclose their data. Providing data in a form that is usable by others entails time and effort, and the badges provide public recognition of this effort. As we start out the practice, the incentives for researchers to adopt open practice initiatives are perhaps modest. However, over time, we expect that norms around Open Data practices will get established and there will be greater sharing of data.


Q.  OK, so what are some of the other benefits?


SMJ Badges are likely to benefit journals in driving reputation. With time, more journals are likely to embrace such practices and it is possible that metrics such as the percentage of articles published in a journal that have the Open Data badge could assume importance. In the near term, it will help signal to stakeholders that the journal takes transparency in data and methods seriously, and the journal values availability of data for future research.


JNC Open Science Policies bring a lot of benefits for researchers. As mentioned above the immediate benefit is a badge award for the quality of the paper. In addition, making data, techniques and materials available helps to boost the researcher’s own research field, recognition and citation. However, it provides the authors with advantages as well: preparing research materials for sharing during the active phase of the study helps them  keep track during the experiments and it eases the work for follow-up studies within the same laboratory. If the leading researcher of a certain study leaves the laboratory, all the knowledge about data and materials is stored and the risk of losing essential knowledge is decreased. At the same time, it is much easier for the leading researcher to respond to requests by other researchers. The accessibility of data and materials reflects the confidence of authors in their own research and this will drive other researchers to develop follow-up studies and cite the study. The recognition of institutions of open science practices is increasing. Sharing articles and data is increasingly becoming an expectation and in some cases, open science practice is an obligation to receive grants or even a new job. The pre-registration of studies especially helps the authors to protect themselves from flexible interpretation of results and from “cherry picking” to publish only positive results.


Q. So how did you implement open science badges for your journals?


JNC The Journal of Neurochemistry implemented the open science badges in January 2018. The authors can indicate during the submission process if they are interested in applying for the open science badges. For detailed information, we provide a summarizing info document. The authors have to fill and upload a disclosure form and the editorial office will evaluate the disclosure before issuing the badge, but does not do more than a cursory evaluation of the data, materials, or registration. Such a review might include: confirming that the provided link leads to the data, materials, or registration on a public, open access repository, and that the linked materials are related to the report. The authors are accountable to the community for disclosure accuracy. Regarding the open data badge, authors continue to avoid the extra work of uploading the raw data. If the practice of preparing the data for sharing is established during the study and the consciousness of the importance is part of the training of young researchers, the application for the badges will increase because it does not lead to extra work during the revision process. The open materials badge does not lead to extra work than what the Journal of Neurochemistry is already expecting from the authors.  Therefore, we plan to persuade authors to apply for the open materials badge and hope that this will boost the interest to apply for the other badges as well. You can see here an example.


SMJ Recognizing the importance of research transparency and data sharing to cumulative research, SMJ encourages authors to share the data supporting the results in their study by archiving them in an appropriate public repository. In partnership with the non-profit Center for Open Science (COS), SMJ awards qualifying authors an Open Practice badge recognizing their contributions to the open science movement. As of October 2017, SMJ authors have an opportunity at the time of manuscript submission and again at the time of acceptance to inform themselves of this initiative and to determine whether they wish to participate. Applying and qualifying for the Open Data badge is not a requirement for publishing with SMJ, but this badge is further incentive for authors to participate in the open science movement and thus to increase the visibility and transparency of their research. Participating authors will be asked to complete a disclosure form after their manuscript is accepted.


Why Open Science Badges at Wiley?


Let’s start with three assumptions: #1 that transparency in research and its publication is a good thing; #2 that changing to new transparent practices is hard for us all whether we are researchers, peer reviewers, editors, or publishers; and #3 that we would all feel rewarded for that hard work if we were to celebrate transparent practices, no matter how small or large, when we see them. For example, we could celebrate researchers who take advantage of the new transparent choices our journals offer them, like data sharing and citation, and Registered Reports. This is where Open Science Badges come in. They give researchers a small but visible reward when they adopt a transparent practice, with a badge actually on their article. Open Science Badges signal to researchers that journals care about transparency and openness. We hope to encourage researchers to publish research with us that’s more transparent, and for Wiley to lead cultural change in research publishing.


And for Wiley journal editors, here’s our closing message. We have a toolkit to help you launch Open Science Badges quickly and easily. Please speak with your publisher and we’ll get things organized. Thank you.

Image Credit/Source: Cytonn Photography/Pexels

Filter Blog

By date:
By tag: