{"objectType":14,"id":2014,"valid":true}
2018
    Melody Lee
Melody Lee
Marketing Specialist, APAC Library Services, Wiley

“Research is almost like going into a dark territory with a torch in your hand.

You don’t know what’s out there, you can’t be ready for it.

You just walk right into the darkness.” – Professor Cafer T. Yavuz

 

Let’s face it. Being an early career researcher is tough. From the hypothesis forming stage to getting your research published – everything always seems to be shrouded in uncertainty and roadblocks.

 

At the inaugural Wiley UniDay held earlier this month at The Auckland University, we brought together a panel of journal editors and publishing experts: Dr Sandar Tin Tin, Dr Susan Carter, Professor Elaine Stratford and Professor James Curran, who tapped into their personal experiences and candidly shared manuscript publishing tips they wish they’d known as Early Career Researchers.

 

Top Tips to Getting Published as an Early Career Researcher (Tips are not in order of priority)

 

1. Write with a specific journal in mind.

 

Dr Susan Carter, Senior Lecturer at The University of Auckland, shares, “I wish I’d known to choose my journal before writing the article - so as to write an article that fits well into my target journal.  I always just began with a brilliant idea

and then had to find a journal that might be interested. It’s not the most effective route to publication. “

 

A one-size-fits-all theory will not increase the publishing chances of your research paper. Instead, targeting the right journal to publish in from the outset could help your research paper have a stronger focus, direction and fit with the chosen journal, increasing its chances of publication.

 

2. Do not take personal offense at reviewers’ feedback. Take the time to understand their perspectives.

 

Always welcome feedback. It is acceptable to disagree with reviewers’ comments, but take note to justify why you disagree. It is always best practice to address all comments from reviewers.

 

As Professor James Curran, Head of Statistics, Department of Science at The University of Auckland puts it, “Getting a PhD isn’t a statement that you know everything – it’s simply a license to practice”.

 

Cultivating an attitude that welcomes feedback and the adaptability to work on that feedback, can make a positive difference in your manuscript publishing journey.

 

If you are looking for mentorship in improving your research writing skills, Wiley Researcher Academy is an e-learning tool that can help you figure out the nuts and bolts of writing a quality research paper. The online modular self-paced, learning program is perfect for early career researchers who wish to develop their expertise and understanding of the scientific publishing process and improve their chances of getting their manuscripts accepted by quality, peer-reviewed journals.

 

3. Once you’ve submitted your manuscript, move on with your work rather than sitting around waiting to hear back.

 

You can contact the journal you have submitted your paper to and ask them about the progress of your paper, but the more important task at hand is to write every day! Move on to work on another research paper, as the publishing process takes time.

 

As panelist Dr Sandar Tin Tin, Editor of the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health advises, “Getting published is not that difficult if you do good work, take the right steps (to publication) and stay persistent.”

 

Are you an early career researcher looking for more insight from prominent journal editors, publishing experts and research publishing professionals? Find out how you can be a part of a community of early career researchers with access to these mentors.

 

“Find mentors; learn from them, treat them well, and pass it on. Compete with no one, and be inspired by others. Forget the metrics – write because it is the right thing to do, and then share it because that is the right thing to do. Have fun.”

 

- Professor Elaine Stratford, Institute for the Study of Change, College of Arts, Law and Education. University of Tasmania

 

This was just some of the wisdom imparted at the event, which was open to all universities in Auckland, and saw a staggering turnout of over 175 early career researchers and university faculty, hungry to learn how to maneuver the daunting manuscript publishing process more adeptly.

 

Julia Ballard, Wiley Senior Manager, Society Marketing shares, “The size of the audience (almost 200!) and quality of the discussion confirmed the need in the research community for more information and a better understanding about the publishing process.”

 

We hear you. Recognizing the need for support for early career researchers in their research publication process, we will be organizing a series of Wiley UniDays, inviting different experts across Australia to share their experiences and advice with you in the coming months.

 

Join us at these upcoming Wiley UniDays for more research publishing tips:

 

 

Want more information on these events? Leave us a comment below.

 

Image Credit: Finn Murphy

 

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

Fostering research that creates positive, real-world impact is something we feel strongly about at Wiley. That’s why we co-founded and continue to sponsor the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Science Prize for Innovation, Research and Education (ASPIRE). ASPIRE is an annual award recognizing young scientists who have demonstrated a commitment to excellence in both scientific research and cooperation with scientists across the 21 economies that make up the APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation) forum. 

 

The theme of this year’s prize is: “Smart Technologies for Healthy Societies” and focuses on how scientists are capitalizing on smart technologies and digital platforms to provide better health care access and services across the APEC region.

 

We thought we’d ask this year’s nominees a couple of questions about what inspires their work and how they’re creating healthier societies in a series of posts leading up to the ASPIRE prize ceremony in August. Check back over the next few weeks to learn more about these inspiring scientists!

 

D Fuller image2.jpg

Nominated by Canada, Dr. Daniel Fuller is Assistant Professor and Canada Research Chair in Population Physical Activity, Memorial University of Newfoundland. His research involves designing healthier cities by using mobile health technologies such as wearable devices, mobile phones, machine learning, and geographic information science to increase physical activity. He works closely with cities and local community organizations to evaluate the impact of existing interventions such as bicycle share programs, bridge construction, and snow clearing on physical activity. Dr. Fuller has published in numerous peer reviewed journals including Journal of Applied Social Psychology and Journal of School Health.

 

Q. What impact are you hoping to make with your work?

A. My ultimate goal is a physically active Canadian population. To achieve this goal my research focuses on two aspects. First, developing methods to improve the measurement of physical activity with a focus on commercial wearable devices. Second, to use data from wearable devices to improve our understanding of how transportation systems and urban planning can increase physical activity.

 

Q.  How and why did you enter this field of research?
A. My interest in this research began when I was undergraduate student riding my bicycle to university. I became interested in how transportation systems and urban planning could encourage people to cycle. As a Kinesiology student, I was also keenly interested in how we measure physical activity. Since that time, we have seen the explosion of commercial wearable devices capable of measuring physical activity. I am now able to combine my passions and conduct innovative research using wearable devices to understand how cities can cause changes in physical activity.

 

PAN Ming-Kai.jpg

Nominated by Chinese Taipei, Dr. Ming Tai Pan is a Physician and Principal investigator at National Taiwan University Hospital. Dr. Pan specializes in human physiology and mouse models of neurological disorders. His work is focused on discovering novel ways to measure brain physiology for movements which have implications for Parkinson’s disease, essential tremor, and cerebellar ataxic disorders. Dr. Pan also has invented smart technology to identify the most common movement disorders affecting 20% of the elderly population. Among his peer-reviewed publications, include articles in Annals of Neurology.

 

Q. What impact are you hoping to make with your work?

A. As a neurologist, I have seen many aging people suffering from movement difficulties in daily activities, such as walking, drinking or writing. Using optical and electromagnetic technologies in
both animal models and clinical settings, I hope to understand how human brains control movements. More importantly, I hope to introduce novel electromagnetic tools to significantly improve the diagnosis and treatment of movement disorders, especially Parkinson’s disease and tremor disorders.

 

Q. Why is creating healthier societies important to you?

A. Aging people frequently lose their quality of life and wiliness to work due to motor dysfunctions such as hand tremor or slow movement, while their minds are still sharp and clear. By treating movement disorders, we could turn disabled people back to productive ones whichwill greatly improve their life quality as well as the global economy. Moreover, degenerative movement disorders, such as Parkinson’s disease and essential tremor together, can affect up to 1/4 of the elderly population. By helping them, we are helping not only the society but also our families, our friends, and eventually ourselves.

 

 

 

 

Siti Hamidah Mohd Setapar1.jpg

Nominated by Malaysia, Dr Siti Hamidah Mohd Setapar is Associate Professor, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia and her research focuses on micellar nanotechnology, a cutting-edge technology used in skincare and cosmetics to improve the effectiveness of the skin cleansing process and enhance the absorption capacity of cosmetic ingredients into the skin. She has commercialized a range of cosmetic and skincare products through her university spin-off company.Dr. Mohd Setapar’s mission is to empower Malaysian women with safer, high-quality cosmetic products and to make available high-value cosmetics combining micellar nanotechnology with local natural extracts at lower prices. Dr. Setapar has published in Asian Pacific Journal of Chemical Engineering, among other research publications.

 

Q. What impact are you hoping to make with your work?
A. I wish to raise awareness among my fellow Malaysians about the risks and effects of toxic ingredients in beauty & cosmetic products and the importance of choosing safer and non-toxic products. I hope to become one of the pioneers in my country who produces research based beauty & cosmetic products that use non-toxic and safer ingredients (avoiding toxicity in cosmetics and beauty products as much as possible). As a researcher in the product development field, my responsibility towards society is to produce safer and better quality beauty & cosmetic products as these are women's needs and
necessities. The market is still saturated with a lot of beauty and cosmetic products that contain alarming levels of harmful ingredients such as mercury, plumbum & hydroquinone.

 

Q. How & why did you enter this field of research?
A.
I am in this field of research because of my concern for Malaysians who are exposed to the toxic ingredients in skin care and cosmetic products that they are using and unaware of. My experience and background in product development and research in plant-based extracts motivates me to further contribute to my society and I will keep continue my research to enable a more sustainable future.

 

Chairul Hudaya2.jpg

Nominated by Indonesia, Dr. Chairul Hudaya is an Assistant Professor of Electrical Engineering at the University of Indonesia and researches affordable smart energy storage technology for healthy societies, especially those living in remote and isolated areas. His two main projects include:  1) a portable energy storage device used with an infant incubator, serving premature infants; and 2) a smart monitoring system installed in a laptop enabling nurses to communicate in remote, off-grid areas.

 

Q. What impact are you hoping to make with your work?

A. I have a motto: “the best of people are those that bring the most benefit to the rest of mankind”. Therefore, any research activities I do should provide benefit to other people. Our research group is devoted to providing affordable and inexpensive energy and electricity for many purposes, including for a healthier society. As an archipelago country with more 17,000 islands, in Indonesia there are still many remote and isolated regions which lack access to electricity.. By utilizing our expertise inelectrical power and energy materials engineering, we have developed the lithium-based portable energy storage system for those isolated areas, called Tabung Listrik (TaLis). In cooperation with other researchers, we are trying to deliver TaLis as the portable power sources for infant incubators and telehealth smart monitoring system. We hope our work helps the societies living in these remote and isolated areas to easily access the healthcare system.

 

Q. Why is creating healthier societies important to you?

A. Health is an essential thing for human beings. A healthy society will lead to a productive society. We can do anything, realizing our personal potential and the potentials of others. A developed country is built by a healthy society.

 

Check back next week to hear from more ASPIRE prize nominees!

    Charlotte Hussein
Charlotte Hussein
Human Resources, Wiley

This past April, thousands of employers in the UK were required to publish their gender pay gap figures for the first time.  In response, Wiley UK published its own report at that time and we want to Gender pay gap meeting-small.jpgshare our progress on a series of actions we’ve taken to demonstrate our commitment to addressing our own gender pay gap.

 

Our findings made it clear that a gender pay gap exists within the organization and we take these results very seriously.  We want to see everyone succeed by focusing on equal opportunity, development and achievement.

 

In addition to bringing in an external consultant to provide guidance on Wiley’s gender balance, our main focus has been to establish a working group of 50 UK based colleagues who volunteered their time to look at the causes of the gender pay gap in Wiley UK and how to resolve them. Six different workstreams were set up under a Steering Group to look at specific areas: Leadership, Supportive Working Practices, Recruitment and Training, Communication, External Engagement and Data Analysis. The steering group will present their recommendations to our Executive Leadership Team in July.

 

By engaging colleagues at a grass roots level, we found a high level of support and enthusiasm among them to become involved and make a difference. We held a series of live panel discussions with all of our UK colleagues to update them on our progress and to allow them to ask questions and share their views and opinions. This was very much a two-way, collaborative process which will help inform our recommendations and will serve as the first step toward remedying this issue.

 

“I believe that Wiley is taking an active and positive approach by engaging the whole of the UK based workforce in suggesting ways we can address the GPG”, said Karen Wootton, VP, Sales, EMEA, co-regional leader, Wiley UK and GPG Steering Group member, “It is not so much about data that has to be submitted as a legal requirement but about making the changes in our working environment that ensure that everyone can work, develop and progress in an inclusive and non-discriminatory workplace”.

 

So, what does change look like?  Although women currently make up 62% of the Wiley UK workforce and Wiley’s two largest global businesses are led by women which, combined, make up 85% of Wiley’s total revenue, we want to ensure that both women and men are fulfilling their potential, regardless of their role.

 

That’s why, over the coming months, we’ll be encouraging colleagues to focus on their personal development and we’ll be implementing a global initiative to enhance the talent pipeline to support and prepare all high performers, regardless of gender, to move up as our pay gap is significant at more senior levels as there’s currently a lack of diversity at the more senior levels.  We’re dedicated to inclusivity and diversity across our global organization and we’re proud of our thriving community groups, such as Generation Wiley (committed to enhancing early career colleagues’ experience), Lean In, and our LGBTQ group, which provide platforms for career and development conversations with peers and foster a rich and open culture at Wiley.

 

As GPG Steering Group member Ben Hall, Digital Marketing Manager, puts it, “Gender Pay Gap is a cultural issue. Culture is the engine oil which drives Wiley forward every day.  The key to culture is making sure your values are clear and actionable. These values must resonate with each colleague and be consistent across the organization.”

 

On a personal level, I’m proud of the way my colleagues have responded to the challenge of helping us close this gap, and it’s been exciting to see how creative and involved they have been in
addressing the issue.

 

Charlotte is a member of the Gender Pay Gap Steering Group, along with six others, representing diverse roles within the business.

    Jen Cheng
Jen Cheng
Content Marketing Strategist, Wiley

There’s little doubt that research impact can be interpreted in a number of ways.

 

But after hearing from eminent researchers and experts at the first ever Wiley Impact Forum in Korea, one thing became clear: research impact is the effect you make on the society and community around you. And, it takes courage and innovative thinking to address complex scientific and social issues.

 

 

Addressing the big problem

“If you are not satisfied with doing routine things, you need to identify a big problem to address and leave your mark by effectively opening a new area in research”, Sir Fraser Stoddart, 2016 Nobel laureate in chemistry told us.

 

He went on to advise researchers to “Draw up a list of twenty issues that you can solve and number them starting from one. Begin the list with the biggest and hardest problem and tell yourself that that’s the one you are going to tackle”.

 

Sir Fraser stressed that while the easy road may be to follow in the footsteps of predecessors, researchers should set the bar higher and try to uncover the answers to the “big problem”. At the same time, he cautions that finding a solution is a high-risk journey and advised researchers to do some routine work in the background to ensure there’s a backup plan.

 

Patience is a virtue

While searching for the big problem to solve, early career researchers also have to face the challenge of getting their first grants. “Almost 90% of grant applications are being rejected globally”, Iain Craig, Director of Market and Publishing Analysis at Wiley, shared.

 

The “quick-results” attitude stemming from the culture in education taught us to demand instant gratification, Prof. Cafer T. Yavuz at KAIST explained. “We’ve been told to study for exams – we took them and received immediate returns. We’ve always gotten results immediately, but research doesn’t work that way.”

 

Most research funds are granted to projects that yield immediate results and that further fuels impatience in young researchers. To break free from this culture, we need the government’s permanent support in fundamental and ground-breaking research, rather than short-term and popular projects, Prof. Yavuz urged. This approach will go to change the course of humanity.

 

“On the Usefulness of Useless Knowledge“ - Helmut Schwartz

“Government and institutions must also be prepared to support people who may not necessarily bring them something that’s very useful right away”, Prof. Soyoung Kim of KAIST expanded on the quotation above by Helmut Schwartz, shared by Sir Fraser at the forum.

 

Funders often look at the “useful” aspects of research and neglect the fact that many of these projects came out of “useless knowledge”. Prof. Kim added that the recent rise in short-term based research funding may impede researchers. The timing of discovery is unknown and researchers need support for the long term.

 

Changing the culture of rating research by numbers

“There is no shortcut to judging the quality of research other than truly judging the quality of it”, Dr. Andrew Moore, Editor-in-Chief at Wiley expressed. Governments and institutions can better support researchers by improving the way they rate and rank them based on outputs.

 

Rather than using numerical metrics as shortcuts to judge the quality of research outputs, funders can substantially contribute to change in the culture of research metrics and make them more qualitative than quantitative.

 

Learning from horses, elephants, and honey bees

Sir Fraser ended his keynote speech at the Impact Forum by reminding us that the path to success can be very long and difficult and offered advice on channelling the qualities of three species in order to succeed:

research impact photo.jpgHave the strength of a horseEat well so you have the strength of a horse, and look after your constitution.

 

Have the hide of an elephantIf you are going to be creative and do new things, you will need the hide of an elephant to be able to take the huge amount of criticisms coming at you.

 

Have the work ethic of a honey bee Once you’ve discovered something, drive home your advantage with the work ethic a honey bee.

 

 

What does research impact mean to you? Share your thoughts with us in the comments below.

    Karen McKee
Karen McKee
Scientist

You remember this scene from the movie Jurassic Park: The Tyrannosaurus rex has escaped from its enclosure and is threatening to devour the movie's protagonists. Fictional paleontologist, Dr. savannah-small.jpgAllan Grant, tells young Lex Murphy not to move because T. rex cannot see them if they remain motionless. This iconic scene illustrates the idea that the dinosaur's vision is based on movement. I often think about this scene whenever I'm planning a presentation. But what on Earth does this movie have to do with giving presentations?

 

Let me explain.

 

I gave a talk a few years ago at a science conference, and afterwards someone remarked to me that they were impressed with how I used animation to introduce elements in a complex slide one at a time instead of showing a complicated diagram all at once. I smiled, happy that someone had noticed how I strive to help the audience understand what I'm talking about. One way to do this is to avoid bombarding them with too much information too fast.

 

Then, this person said, "I would do this in my presentations, but I just don't have time to learn how to do that animation stuff in PowerPoint."

 

I thought to myself, perhaps you would find time if you understood how human attention is affected by movement.

 

Humans have evolved to pay attention to motion

 

Here's where the Jurassic Park scene comes in. Like T. rex, we humans evolved to notice movement. Our ancestors survived by responding quickly to threats or opportunities for food—anything that moved captured their attention. Something flitting through the grass or hopping behind a tree caught their eye. They ignored objects that did not move such as trees or rocks. These prehistoric humans could scan the landscape for signs of motion and rapidly interpret their environment as benign or threatening….or interesting.

 

You see where I'm going with this.

 

Modern humans have changed very little in their visual attentiveness to motion. An audience at a conference is not unlike a band of ancestral humans scanning the horizon for the bit of movement that tells them something of interest is going on. Just like their ancient ancestors, audience members are looking for clues to tell them what they should pay attention to. Moreover, they are often bored and even a little desperate for something that stands out on the screen.

 

When we show a complicated graph or diagram in its entirety, for example, the audience reacts as if they are faced with a complex landscape in which nothing is moving. One glance tells them that no threats or opportunities are present in their immediate surroundings. Their reaction? Time for a nap in the tall grass.

 

Use animation and vivid images to get your audience’s attention

 

You need to show your audience that there is something of interest and where to look for it. Introduce the slightest motion or contrast—an arrow zooms in on a data point, a number is suddenly highlighted in a contrasting color, or a key value increases in size to fill the screen—and you instantly have the audience's attention. Their eyes focus like lasers on that point. If those objects move (appear/disappear, wipe in/out, move across the screen), then it's almost impossible for your audience to ignore it. Not only that, but you have guided their attention to the bit of information that you wish them to understand and remember.

 

Just like their ancient ancestors, your modern audience will pay closer attention to what they are looking at if it moves.

 

If you really want to get people's attention and have them remember your point, illustrate it with a photograph that is introduced by animation or play a video clip. Think about how—after sitting through innumerable text and data slides—you perk up when a speaker shows a photograph of their field site or laboratory setup. A very basic instinct is triggered when we see a scene, especially a landscape or some other natural setting. Suddenly, we are back on the African savannah. Our eyes scan the image looking for something of interest: a predator, an enemy, or a potential mate (subconsciously of course). You will likely remember those photographs longer than the data slides.

 

When I give my summary or list of conclusions at the end of a talk, I don't just provide a bulleted list of items. With each item, I attach a photograph or diagram from earlier in the talk to drive home a visual image that links back to a key piece of information I want the audience to remember. Sometimes, I show the images without text and state my points. However, I always animate these lists so that the items are introduced (or highlighted) one by one.

 

But don’t go overboard adding animation to your presentation

 

Yes, you can carry the animation thing too far. PowerPoint provides a tempting array of entrance and exit motions that you can apply to your objects. Don't be tempted. Stick with the simplest: appear/disappear, dissolve, or wipe—select one and use it consistently throughout your talk. Once in a while, you might use a zoom or spiral motion, especially if it makes sense to the object you are introducing. But don't animate just to be animating something. There must be a reason to add motion to your slides. The same is true of including video footage in your presentation. Use such clips sparingly and to illustrate something that cannot be conveyed well with a still image or text.

 

Going back to my conversation with that colleague, I find that the most effective use of animation is to explain complex concepts or to illustrate conceptual models. Typically, I am trying to show the complex interrelationships among the components of an ecosystem. I start with a photograph of the habitat (in my talks, this is typically a wetland such as a salt marsh or a mangrove forest) to serve as a backdrop, triggering the audience’s impulse to begin looking for something of interest in that setting. Then I overlay a diagram in which each component is introduced in sequence so that the audience is guided along a logical path to eventually see the whole system. Most presenters would simply show the diagram in its full complexity (on a blank background) and then proceed to explain it (usually badly). The audience is turned off long before the presenter gets to the point.

 

As an audience member and a descendant of those perceptive early humans, you already know what gets your attention. The trick is to use PowerPoint and its animation tools wisely and in such a way that sparks the human brain to pay close attention. So, if you are speaking to an audience and want them to be enthralled with your talk, you might want to imagine them as a band of early humans wandering the ancient plains of Africa and looking for signs of movement in the distance.

 

What presentation tips do you have to share? Let us know in the comments below.

 

Image credit: Karen McKee

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

Wiley Editor Academy.jpgEditors play a vital role in the scientific community. Every day, editors make decisions around which research to feature in their journals, influencing what busy readers have access to, and ultimately the direction of future research.

 

The publishing landscape is constantly changing and editors must stay atop of new trends, policies, and best practices to keep a journal relevant and impactful within the research community. Finding time for the day-to-day tasks, as well as building long-term journal strategy can be challenging for any editor, from a seasoned veteran to someone new to the job.

 

We’re here to make things a bit easier. Through a series of free, interactive learning modules, Wiley Editor Academy will enable editors to better understand publishing ethics and best practice principles, learn how to attract high quality content from expert authors and contributors, and grow impact, reputation, and market share. Wiley developed Wiley Editor Academy to support journal editors as they grow the reach and profile of their publications and it will be available exclusively to editors of journals published by Wiley.

 

Written and presented by a global network of subject matter experts, this self-paced, modular, digital learning experience offers rich, interactive media content and continuous assessment, as well as collaboration and networking opportunities.

 

The course enables new and experienced editors to stay up to date with best practices in journal management and development, ethics, peer review, and commissioning, with new tools for measuring success.

 

Currently the course covers six main themes relevant for current or future Editors-in-Chief:

  • Understanding the role of an editor
  • Building a mission and vision for your journal
  • The peer review process and decision making
  • Publishing and research ethics
  • Developing the content and profile of your journal
  • How to measure success

 

To register your interest and learn more about this new resource, which will be launching shortly, please speak to your Wiley journal manager. In the meantime, visit www.wileyeditors.com which offers information and guidance to support editors in providing the best experience for authors and peer reviewers.

 

Image credit: Blend Images/Getty Images

    Anna Ehler
Anna Ehler
Society Marketing, Wiley    

In this episode of the Wiley Society Podcast, Lisa Brodey, Director of the U.S. Office of Science and Technology Cooperation, explains why a strong research community depends on both science diplomacy and diplomacy FOR science.

 

 

Listen to the previous podcast episode: How One Society Is Succeeding Despite Disruption

 

You can listen to this episode and others – including episodes on why research sharing needs to get easier and the origins of fake news – by going to iTunes and subscribing to the Wiley Society Podcast.

Execsemspeaker.JPG

     Josephine Sciortino
Josephine Sciortino
Managing Editor, Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada

In June 2018, I attended my first Wiley Society Executive Seminar in Washington DC. If you haven’t yet attended a Society Executive Seminar and you have the opportunity, plan on doing so. It will be worth your while. Our journal publishing world is small enough that you can get to know your peers well over the course of your career – whatever stage you’re in. I especially appreciated the cocktail hour (or two) at the Seminar. Over a glass of wine, I was chatting away with new peers and learning how they manage their journals. It was nice to hear that we are all in the proverbial “same boat” – our journals and societies are indeed unique, but our professional experiences are shared. Our wins and our challenges are as well!

 

execsem18s.jpgEvery speaker at the Seminar hit home, but Debbie Chachra’s presentation especially, entitled “Bias in Scholarly Research,” gave me a lot to think about. Debbie is a Professor of Engineering at the Olin College of Engineering in Massachusetts.

 

I was completely enthralled by her talk. Not only is she an engaging speaker, but she talked about bias – something I thought I was free of. I didn’t think I operated with any biases. I thought I was pretty enlightened. Well, I’m not, and recognizing this was my first step to becoming closer to bias-free.

 

Bias is not an easy topic to talk about because most of us think we are immune to it. Debbie opened her presentation by saying: “People are at the heart of research.” Sounds obvious enough, right? But it also means that there are inherent biases in research, just as individual people are never immune from their own preconceptions.

 

I like the way Šimundić defines bias as “any trend or deviation from the truth in data collection, data analysis, interpretation and publication which can cause false conclusions. ”There are many types of biases, including bias in data collection and in publication.

 

I work as Managing Editor at a national society journal. In my position, I am task-oriented and feel very accomplished when I can check off the items on my to-do list. I can confidently say that many of you are probably like this, too. The hard work comes when we drill down to the content and context of the research we are processing, and that work includes uncovering implicit biases – and they are always present.

 

Check your personal bias


Debbie encouraged us to take this implicit bias assessment. Register for Project Implicit and take the test. The results can be hard to digest, but it’s important to know where your blind spots are, especially when it comes to sex and gender.

 

As managing editor, I have a duty to call out the default non-inclusive language that exists in journal publishing today. Language and research that excludes more than half of the world’s population is detrimental to public health. Also, considering the diversity of gender identities and the reality of the biological differences between men and women, the focus on gender- and sex-positive research reporting is more important than ever.

 

Some questions to consider when evaluating research for bias include:

 

• How is gender or sex differentiated?

• Are the authors taking sex (biological determinant) and gender (social determinant) into account?

• How can journals incorporate sex and gender into their publication policies?

 

What can you do about bias?

 

Language is important. In the case of health science, how research is communicated in journals affects the way medicine is practiced. Those of us in the journal publishing industry have a duty to ensure that language is inclusive – for men and women and everyone in between. Not taking into account sex and gender differences in health research exacerbates health inequities. Journal publishers, editors, universities and other stakeholders have an obligation to address this inequity.  Debbie outlined three laws of inclusion:

 

1. It’s a lot of work – engage actively

2. You can never stop doing it

3. You will definitely mess it up.

 

In confronting our biases, we need to be honest with ourselves – and check our egos and judgements at the door. We’ll make mistakes, but we should use them as learning cues, move on, and try again.  Personally, I’m now planning to factor a sex and gender component into research and the peer-review process by incorporating the SAGER Guidelines for our authors and peer-reviewers.

 

Wiley, thanks for inviting us in Canada from the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada to the event! We’ll see you next year!

 

Josephine E. Sciortino is Managing Editor for the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada (JOGC) for the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC).

 

Check out Debbie Chachra’s recent post Double-Blind Peer Review Isn’t Enough: How to Combat Gender Bias in Academic Publishing.

 

Image credit: Andrew Sariti

     Justine Streeton
Justine Streeton
Author Marketing

You’ve conducted your research, spent hours writing a great paper, and now it’s time to get published and maximize the reach and impact of your work. But how do you decide on the best home for your article when there are so many options available and new journals being launched all the time? And how do you easily navigate finding a journal that meets your criteria to ensure you publish successfully? This may understandably feel like a challenge, especially if you’re an early career researcher, expanding into a new or interdisciplinary subject area, or facing time pressures.

edit.jpg

So how do you choose the right journal?

 

After many researchers posed this question to us, we set out to find a solution. The result is our new Journal Recommendation service which is designed to take the stress out of selecting the most appropriate journal for your paper. When you enlist this service, for a one-time fee, you will receive a comprehensive report recommending 3-5 well-matched journal options based on the content of your paper. The report helps eliminate the guesswork, offering you the information you need to make an informed decision about the most appropriate journal to submit to.

 

The journal recommendations made will be based on the findings of your research, along with your publication goals. You’ll also receive helpful information about each journal including the aims and scope, article types accepted, impact factor, similar articles published, and geographic focus.

 

Importantly, you’ll be told whether revisions to your paper are required to meet the journal’s guidelines so you’re aware of any changes you’ll have to make before you submit. A rationale for recommending each journal, and whether or not it fulfills your requirements, will also be included, so you know your criteria have been taken into account.

 

To learn more about how Wiley’s Journal Recommendation service can support you in selecting a journal, visit www.wileyeditingservices.com/en/journal-recommendation.

Not quite ready to submit your paper?

 

Wiley Editing Services also offers a range of services providing you with expert help to ensure your manuscript is submission-ready.

 

  • English Language Editing: Get superior editing from native English speakers who are experts in your field.
  • Translation: Receive high quality translation from Chinese, Portuguese and Spanish into English.
  • Manuscript Formatting: Save time by having your manuscript and references formatted according to your chosen journal’s style guide.
  • Figure Preparation: Enhance your research’s visual impact by ensuring all graphs, illustrations and tables are formatted correctly.

 

For more information, visit www.wileyeditingservices.com.

 

We’re always looking for ways to improve the research publishing experience. Let us know if you find these services helpful in the comments below.

Terms and Conditions

 

Wiley is confident that our Journal Recommendation service will provide high-quality and well-matched journal options for your consideration. Although we cannot guarantee publication, we stand behind our work and will work with each author to ensure they are completely satisfied. Journal Recommendation does not include submission to any journal on the author’s behalf.

Image Credit/Source: Burst/Pexels

     Chloe Wenborn
Chloe Wenborn
Wiley, Library Services

Have you ever worked with archives or used them in your writing or research?

 

We asked this question recently at the 2018 Royal Anthropological Institutes conference ‘Art, Materiality and Representation’, at the prestigious British Library.

This esteemed event attracts a variety of participants from anthropologists, curators and teachers to undergraduates, postgraduates and artists, many of whom shared their experiences of using archives in their research:

‘I have used archived photos and articles. Archival material is vital for the research as they broaden perspectives and bring new dimensions to our understanding of the field of research.’- Mary Amsafe

‘I have used Journals, papers and archives of exhibitions and events. Archival material online has changed the way we research over the last 10 years. It has opened {up} lots of new ways to research subject using a trans-disciplinary approach… we cannot imagine doing research without it.’ -Marie-Blanche

These are just a couple of examples of the many responses we received where participants shared the importance of using archival material in their work.

 

It is clear, that there is educational and research value in using primary sources of content. But many of these primary sources, held by societies in their archives, are difficult, and in many cases expensive, for researchers to access.  Due to the physical nature, storage, and age of the archived items, it may be difficult to uncover these archives even when visiting the society library. Because of this, many societies, including the Royal Anthropological Institute, have had students request that archives be made more easily accessible.

“Might there be a way you can get that digitized and sent to me?”

--Faculty and researchers

The Royal Anthropological Institute was keen to lead an initiative with Wiley to digitize their archives to make them widely accessible to all their members and researchers

Why Go Digital?

By digitizing their archival content, the RAI became a pioneer in altering the competitive research landscape and in changing the nature of education in key fields for the future while also preserving their records for future generations to enjoy.

 

Digitizing archived content won’t just benefit the society and its faculty though.  The RAI would unlock a whole new wealth of material for their members and researchers making their content easier and more affordable to access.

 

Digitization offers a more holistic scholarly record for researchers, allowing them to gain a closer understanding or even to reinterpret the content and arrive at new conclusions.. It can also add historical context for researchers to add breadth and depth to their studies. Finally, digitization a offers a chance for researchers to re-visit, re-examine, and re-interpret content at any time so that, data or information can be viewed through a new lens or can be interpolated with more recent information to form new conclusions.

But, How Do You Go About Archiving Thousands of Pieces of Content?

The full range of content within the archive was worked through and considered for digitization.

 

The rights, copyrights, and privacy laws were considered for each piece before being put forward for digitization. The sensitivities and views of the RAI fellows and those of the peoples and cultures who may be represented in the archives were also carefully considered.. Following this process, the final decisions on the content to be digitized were made by the RAI.

 

From there, we worked closely with the RAI providing two conservators to work onsite to pull, identify, assess, repair (if needed) and track content throughout the process.

 

All content that is digitized has extant cataloguing and associated metadata connected to the documents at the item level. Digitization occurred offsite for most of the content using scans of 400 DPI 24-bit colour and printed text is OCR’d. Additional metadata is derived from the OCR process and/or keyed-in (handwritten documents) from the headers, names, places, and dates.

At the end of the process, all analog content is returned to the RAI. Much of the content was re-housed in new archival storage boxes and sleeves provided by Wiley. The digital archive is also available onsite at the RAI offices and all files, images and generated text, metadata were returned as well.

 

What was found within the RAI archives?

 

Several surprises arose from within the RAI archive. Because the content was not restricted to journals The RAI and Wiley managed to digitize everything from: reports, drawings and book clippings to field notes, correspondence and meeting minutes.

 

Beyond these more traditional primary sources, the process unearthed, a collection of Victorian glass plates numbering in the thousands most of which were designed to be used with a Magic Lantern.

The Magic Lantern, (as seen above) is an early type of image projector employing light to project pictures painted, printed or produced photographically on transparent plates (usually made of glass). It was mostly developed in the 17th century and commonly used for entertainment purposes. The magic lantern was in wide use from the 18th century until the mid-20th century.

 

The RAI Conference ‘Art, Materiality and Representation’

 

During the conference the RAI gave us a demonstration of the magic lantern with popular slides used for entertainment from the 18th century to the mid-20th century.

   

Above left is an ad for a magic lantern show and on the right is a popular depiction of Scrooge from Charles Dickens ‘Christmas Carol’.

 

We were then treated to a famous story of the time called ‘The Death of Koshchei the Deathless’- a fairytale which follows Prince Ivan on his quest to save Maray Morevna from Koshchei the Deathless facing many perils along the way.

 

Researchers and students were also given a live demonstration of how the new digital archives platform works.

 

Wiley Digital Archives

 

Wiley plans to continue this initiative to partner with the world’s leading societies RAI libraries and archives to digitize their unique and rare primary content to support researchers today while preserving it for future generations.

 

If you would like to find out more about the RAI Archives and other archives visit our resources page here.

 

Image Credit: 1 & 2: Chloe Wenborn, 3-6: Ray Abruzzi

 

    Ben Meghreblian
Ben Meghreblian
Sense About Science

0.jpegLitigated against for fighting spurious claims about vaccines. Attacked and undermined for researching complementary and alternative medicines. Dismissed for speaking out about the UK government’s policies on drugs being at odds with the evidence.

 

What do these have in common? They are all experiences of previous winners of the John Maddox Prize, which recognizes individuals who have stood up for science in the face of hostility. The prize is an initiative of Sense about Science, a charity which challenges the misrepresentation of science and evidence in public life, and Nature, a leading multidisciplinary scientific journal.

 

Sir John Maddox, whose name this prize commemorates, was a passionate and tireless champion and defender of science, engaging with difficult debates and inspiring others to do the same. As a writer and former editor of Nature, he changed attitudes and perceptions, and strove for better understanding and appreciation of science throughout his long working life.

 

Nominations are now open for the 2018 prize, and we are looking for individuals across scientific fields and countries who have faced significant challenges in their public activity in any of the following areas:

 

  • Addressing misleading information about scientific issues (including social science and medicine).
  • Bringing sound evidence to bear in a public or policy debate.
  • Helping people to make sense of a complex scientific issue.

 

Last year’s winner was Japanese vaccine researcher, Dr Riko Muranaka, who faced strong opposition from anti-vaccine activists and some academics, including being the subject of an ongoing lawsuit, for defending the safety of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine in Japan. Vaccination rates in the country dropped from 70% to less than 1% following a national misinformation campaign. This, despite the World Health Organization stating that there is no evidence to support the claims. The lawsuit is due to hear from witnesses at the end of July 2018, with a judgement expected six months later. Speaking after receiving the award, Dr Muranaka said: “...I simply cannot ignore dangerous claims that threaten public health. I want people to hear the truth, that’s the reason I continue to write and speak out.”

 

Other recent winners include Professor Elizabeth Loftus, a cognitive neuroscientist, whose groundbreaking research on eyewitness testimony has altered legal history, and Dr. David Robert Grimes, a doctor of physics and cancer researcher, who has previously written on challenging and controversial issues, including evidence relating to nuclear power, climate change, and abortion.

 

In an era awash with claims of post-truth and fake news, it’s more important than ever for scientists to continue working on and engaging with crucial issues, challenging dubious scientific claims and ensuring that evidence is placed at the center of any debate. It’s also important that their institutions support them in what they do. The John Maddox Prize is a fantastic way of encouraging and celebrating such work - previous nominees and winners have spoken of the morale boost they felt, along with the honor of being recognized for their work.

 

More information about the prize, including eligibility, criteria, and how to nominate can be found here - nominations close on August 13th, 2018, with the winner being announced at a reception on November 14th, receiving £3000 and an announcement published in Nature.

 

Ben has a background in psychology and IT, and has previously worked at Sense about Science and Open Knowledge International on AllTrials and OpenTrials, aimed at improving clinical trials through greater transparency and linked/open data. His interests include science, medicine, technology, psychology, open knowledge, and human rights. For more info visit: benmeg.com.

Image Credit/Source:pixabay.com

     Chris Graf
Chris Graf
Director, Research Integrity and Publishing Ethics, Wiley

Henriikka Mustajoki, Head of Development at The Federation of Finnish Learned Societies, recently visited Wiley to share her thoughts on the barriers to openness and open science (besides the ongoing debate over open access and business models) and responsible science communication. Henriikka explored some of the “shadows” created by biased metrics and lack of incentives, discussed how fear of negative publicity may induce self-censorship, and talked about the one thing that’s central to all research: Authorship. Henriikka builds on her experience developing a national curriculum for research ethics in Finland and teaching ethics at Universities of Helsinki, Sydney and Glasgow. She now leads the national coordination of open science in Finland. and explained the need for a cultural change in the way we do research, share research, and work within the research community.

 

We caught up with Henriikka after her presentation, and asked her to sum up the session by responding to three questions.

 

Q. What would you say are the main barriers to openness and research, Henriikka?

A. Open science requires a cultural change and change is never easy. There are three main barriers.

 

a) Incentives and metrics – why would an individual researcher engage with open science if there are no career benefits? Or even worse, what if  open science activities have a detrimental effect on their careers because they have promoted open science instead of producing articles in high impact journals. The open science revolution will be slow if we cannot address the issues with incentives and metrics.

 

b) Cost – open science is not simply unlocking scientific practices. It is a time-consuming and costly process of preparing FAIR data, funding open access publications, and creating new structures for collaboration.

 

c) Skills – open science requires new skill-sets in communicating openly, managing data and using collaborative tools. Time and opportunities for new skill development is an essential for open science development.

 

Q.  And how do you think these barriers might be particularly challenging for early career researchers?

A. Early career researchers are most vulnerable as they do not have the safety of continuing employment to take risks such as trying out new ways of publishing, sharing data, collaborating, and communicating their results. Opportunities must be specifically created to enable early career researches to engage with open science.

 

Q. What might research publishers like Wiley do to help?

A. The world of research is changing and everyone’s skills are essential. Publishers like Wiley are skilled in communication, making an impact in the research community, and creating networks. Sharing these networks and creating new broader roles for publishing in society (where publishers help researchers, and help research find its “users”) is one way of advancing open science.

 

Thanks, Henriikka. So we at Wiley, like many research publishers I’m sure, are imaging new roles for ourselves, where we support researchers as they transition to more open research practices, where we lead and are part of that transition to open science, and where we do our bit to ensure that all credible research and new knowledge can be shared in the best possible ways.

 

What are some ways you feel publishers can support researchers and open science? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

 

Photo credit: Henriikka Mustajoki

Filter Blog

By date:
By tag: