Elizabeth Levine
Elizabeth Levine
Assistant Marketing Manager, Humanities, Society Services, Wiley


The field of humanities is changing rapidly, along with the world, as new technologies alter centuries of tradition in various disciplines. In this, the third year of the Wiley Humanities Festival, we’ll focus on the digital humanities, and how technology has revolutionized the way the humanities will be taught, learned, and researched for years to come.


The festival will take place Thursday, September 13th, and will conclude with our free webinar, which looks at why technology matters, especially within the humanities in the twenty-first century. Below you’ll find brief introductions for the participants of our webinar.


Register now for the webinar and join us on September 13th to take part and learn more about the digital humanities.


Steve has a lifelong commitment to the fundamental mission of teaching and research in the humanities and social sciences.  After graduating in philosophy from McGill University in Montreal and Oxford University, Steve embarked upon a career in SSH publishing spanning over twenty-five years -- first at Blackwell Publishers in Oxford UK, and then at Wiley in Boston MA.  Steve has served in various editorial capacities, including as editorial director of the social sciences and humanities books program during a period of transformational change.  Amongst other things, Steve helped lead and launch the creation of Blackwell Reference Online, the world’s largest and most authoritative digital reference resource, and Wiley’s ambitious portfolio of eMRWs.  In more recent years, Steve has been focusing on strategic development and the fast-growing open access program at Wiley.


Professor Kingsley Bolton joined Nanyang Technological University in 2013, as Professor of English Linguistics and Head of the Language and Communication Centre. Professor Kingsley Bolton has published sixteen books (edited and authored), and more than eighty journal articles and book chapters. He is Co-Editor of the Wiley journal, World Englishes. He is also a Member of the Editorial Boards of Applied Linguistics Review, Educational Studies, English Today, English World-Wide, Global Chinese, and the Journal of World Languages. Professor Bolton served as Elected President of the International Association for World Englishes from 2003-04, is a Founding Fellow of the Hong Kong Academy for the Humanities, and Professor Emeritus of Stockholm University, Sweden.


Miranda Richardson has been Editor of the International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, published for the Nautical Archaeology Society, for the past six years. A love of sailing, diving, and an archaeology education and career, followed by a stint in newspaper journalism, brought her to the role, of which she says: ‘How could I not love it? I get to sail both around the world and through time, at least in my imagination’. The constraints of working under water have made maritime archaeologists early adopters of new technologies and encouraged them to use digital means to present current research to both academic audiences and the general public.


Lizzie Brophy is currently a Senior Journals Publishing Manager at Wiley where she manages a list of Political Science, Archaeology, and Geography journals. Her background is in Classical Archaeology, and she completed her DPhil in Ptolemaic and Roman Royal Sculpture at Oxford in 2015. Since joining Wiley as a Journals Publishing Assistant in 2015, she has been putting those research skills to use, especially thinking about journal metrics and the role of social media in the research landscape.


We hope you’ll join us for a lively discussion of the evolution of the humanities!



    Samantha Green
Samantha Green
Society Marketing, Wiley

Impact.jpgOn a gray Sunday morning in Atlantic City, New Jersey, we gathered with twenty members of the American Fisheries Society for a new type of workshop: The Impact-a-thon: Angling for New Ideas in Science Communication. Together we planned to spend the morning learning about tools and tricks we could use to help communicate science effectively with new audience. We then broke into groups for a brainstorming competition in the afternoon.


As folks settled in for a day of new ideas, we were struck once more by how important science communication is for all the participants—whether they worked in universities, at aquariums, at agencies, or NGOs—to be successful in their roles. We developed the Impact-a-thon because communication is not a one-way street. For research to have impact, it is critical that the relevant stakeholders are engaged. They need to care, and powerful communication can help make that happen.


But it can be hard to find the time to focus on science communication as well as the impact of your research on policy or practice. Equally, it can be hard to find the time to think outside the box. With the Impact-a-thon, we wanted to provide dedicated time to focus on the bigger picture. Our sprint-style afternoon brainstorm would leave no time for second guessing or getting caught up in the details.


The morning centered around how to focus communication on the person who needs to engage with it. When talking to policy-makers or government officials, we explored how preparing messaging in advance that leads with the “so what” can help make the most out of short, often scripted, encounters. We also talked about how important strong and clear communication is with journalists, who are science communicators themselvesNext we stressed the importance of media training for scientists, so they deliver their messages with the right context. A closing section on photos, videos, and other graphics and data visualization drove home how meaningful a behind-th- scenes look at the scientific process can be.


By the afternoon, we were warmed up and ready to brainstorm. We had a deep discussion about how to define impact: it is all about engaging groups in the non-scientific community with those within. It is also about influence: whose opinion or behavior are you trying to change with your research? Ultimately, we agreed that the form impact takes depends on who we’re trying to influence. And with that, the groups were off.


With just two hours to brainstorm a pilot or experiment to improve research impact in their field, we were shocked by how inspired and thoughtful each group’s project was.

The judges, made up of AFS and Wiley leaders, had a tough job on their hands.


The winners proposed a pilot program that will improve diversity in fisheries science. The program will engage with local high schools with an event that connects scientists with students, so they can learn from each other and so students can experience how science impacts their communities and their daily lives. It also kicks off a mentorship program that helps kids learn more about science and life as a scientist. This team included Julie Defilippi Simpson of Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Sarah Glaser of Secure Fisheries and the University of Denver, Karen Murchie of Shedd Aquarium, and Patrick Shirey of Ecology Policy LLC and the University of Pittsburgh.


With an inspiring presentation, and an idea that has the potential for far-reaching impact on the field and in the lives of all the students who participate, we are honored to award a grant to help kickstart this initiative.


The Impact-a-thon’s goal was to get everyone thinking about science communication and the connections we can make to improve research impact. But it also helped us create connections with one another through a day of discussing, asking questions, and brainstorming. As one participant shared on her way out: “I feel re-energized. Today has helped me feel renewed and inspired again.”


Image credit: Samantha Green

Why Don’t Members Renew?

Posted Aug 24, 2018
    Fiona O'Connor
Fiona O'Connor
Society Marketing, Wiley

Membership_Renew.jpgEach year, in our Society Member Survey, we ask recipients if they were previously members of a society, but let their memberships lapse. 11% of the people we surveyed this year did not renew a membership.


Members join a society for many different reasons. For some it’s access to content, for others, the networking opportunities, and for many it’s a combination of different benefits. With all that a society can offer, why do some choose to let their membership lapse?


Now in its fourth year, the Wiley Member Survey has a lot to tell us about the actions and motivations of the research community. By understanding why members leave a society, we can begin to develop strategies to retain current members and determine how to win back lapsed members.


So why do members leave?


Overall, members are satisfied with the value and service they get from their societies—a trend that has stayed consistent throughout the past four years.


However, one in ten respondents reported leaving a society in the past 12 months. This year, for the first time, the percentage of those who stopped renewing because they retired jumped from 7% in 2016-2017 to 14%. More than ever, this shift underscores just how important it is to engage with the next generation of researchers and recruit members early in their careers.


Other top reasons for letting their memberships lapse include a loss of funding, followed by moving to a different region, and career change. Those from Asia-Pacific are more likely to have left an organization in the past year, as are those focused on career growth.


What can societies do to bring members back?


The good news is that three quarters of members who leave—for reasons other than retirement—are likely to rejoin. Often, lapsed members just need more communication from their society and a stronger sense of the community. So, talking to lapsed members is key: remind them about the benefits they receive from the society and help them remember what membership is all about.


Connect members with each other. Community remains one of the top reasons for joining a society. To keep your community strong, create opportunities for members to engage with each other—and with your organization—beyond your annual conference. Virtual discussion, social media channels for your society, webinars, or other online forums, can be valuable places for members to connect, especially international members.


Members that renew year after year help keep your society sustainable for the future.


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


Image credit: jeffbergen/Getty Images

    CJ Hwu
CJ Hwu
Director, Government Affairs Asia Pacific, Wiley

Photo 1.jpgMotivated by stories of shattered screens on phones and other electronic devices, Dr. Madhu Bhaskaran set out to make unbreakable glass. It turns out the technology she developed has a number of uses beyond what she originally intended, and for this she was awarded the 2018 APEC Science Prize for Innovation, Research and Education (ASPIRE), announced last week at policy development meetings in Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea.


Dr. Bhaskaran’s work has practical, potentially life-saving applications that could help in the fight against skin cancer, detect dangerous gases in mines, and create “smart” contact lenses that can analyze tears for biomarkers, creating real impact on the future of healthcare.


An Associate Professor at RMIT University in Australia, Dr. Bhaskaran was selected from a group of 13 nominees, each nominated by one of the APEC member economies under the 2018 ASPIRE Prize theme, Smart Technologies for Healthy Societies. Nominees, all under 40 years of age, were considered based on their commitment to both excellence in scientific research as evidenced by scholarly publication and cooperation with scientists from other APEC economies.


“This is an exciting and fast-developing field of research which could have far-reaching implications in healthcare and enable people to age well and age productively,” said Dr. Bhaskaran.


Dr. Bhaskaran said it was fantastic to receive international recognition for her work and paid tribute to her team in the Functional Materials and Microsystems Research Group.


“It is certainly not a one-woman show. All credit goes to my team of hardworking and highly motivated researchers who share my vision of translating groundbreaking research discoveries into devices which can be used to positively impact lives.”, she said.

US Ambassador to Papua New Guinea Catherine Ebert-Gray echoed the importance of collaboration in her remarks at the award ceremony, emphasizing that the reason ASPIRE exists goes beyond the academic achievements of individuals. “The science community knows that we are stronger together,” she said. “Cooperation, especially cooperation across APEC, allows for different perspectives on issues which spawn innovative solutions.” 


Ambassador Ebert-Gray noted it is especially inspiring to see young female scientists nominated.  “The women leading the next generation of science deserve a special shout-out for their leadership and accomplishments as we work together to encourage more women to enter the exciting world of science and technology.”


Dr. Bhaskaran said there are many challenges facing young researchers like herself. “You’re trying to do too many things at the same time. It’s a balancing act trying to establish career stability and dealing with family pressures. And especially as a woman, not only is there a career clock, there is also the biological clock.”


So what advice would she give young researchers? “Say yes to everything, so you’ll know what to say no to later.” Though, Dr Bhaskaran admits she still says yes more often than not.


ASPIRE group photo-smaller.jpgShe added that it is also important to understand industry partners, because they can help bring research out of labs and into the real world to the benefit of society. As evidence of this, she was contacted by private sector companies and government ministries after news of her research was released because they could see the possibilities of her discovery.


For her achievement, Dr. Bhaskaran was awarded a prize of US $25,000, co-sponsored by Wiley. Because her five-year-old son wants to be a zoologist (at the moment), and loves to travel, she is considering using some of the prize money to take him on a safari to Africa.


Established in 1989, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) is a forum for 21 Pacific Rim member economies that promotes free trade throughout the Asia-Pacific region.  The member economies are Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, China, Chinese Taipei, Hong Kong SAR, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Russia, Singapore, Thailand, US, and Viet Nam.


Top photo: ASPIRE Prize winner Dr. Madhu Bhaskaran and Hon. Pila Niningi, Minister for Higher Education, Research, Science & Technology, Papua New Guinea

Bottom photo, from left:: Mr. Warren Hauck, Director, APEC Trade and Investment Section, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Australia, Ms. Catherine Ebert-Gray, US Ambassador to Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, and Vanuatu, Mr. Brad Fenwick, Elsevier, ASPIRE Sponsor, Dr. Madhu Bhaskaran, ASPIRE 2018 Winner,Ms. CJ Hwu, Wiley, ASPIRE Sponsor, Hon. Pila Niningi, Minister for Higher Education, Research, Science & Technology, Papua New Guinea


Photos credit: Elijah Diulo

    Lucy Whitmarsh
Lucy Whitmarsh
Library Services, Wiley

In 2015, Jason Martin published exploratory research with the American Library Association which begins “One of the most important parts of any organization is leadership.” The research explores leadership style in academic libraries and suggests that who a library has for its leader is critical to the success of that library. But in an industry where librarians are being asked to constantly evolve their own skills and do more for their institution and patrons, is there room for every librarian to become a leader?


What is a Leader?

According to businessdictionary.com a leader is ‘a person or thing that holds a dominant or superior position within its field and is able to exercise a high degree of control or influence over others’.leadergeese.jpg This simplistic definition focuses on position and control, and quite simply doesn’t allow for the collaborative networks that academic librarians can often find themselves part of. Assuming this definition would imply that no, there isn’t an opportunity for leadership for everyone. Working with fellow library staff, researchers, students, faculty and other stakeholders puts librarians in a complex position where position and influence are not necessarily in direct correlation, and this could put them at a disadvantage.


However, Gamelearn – a learning company – explored ‘What is Leadership’ in a 2016 blog post that perhaps offers a more flexible definition. They define leadership based on common elements of vision, motivation, service, empathy, creativity, thoroughness, management, risk taking and improvement. Thinking about leadership as a set of skills and mindsets, instead of a hierarchy, offers those working in complex networks a way of becoming a leader and suggests that everyone can take steps towards leadership. Exploring the list suggested by Gamelearn, these leadership requirements can be further divided into several areas for library staff:


  • Communication


Academic libraries can be central to discussions around purchasing, how best to support patrons and where to invest for resourcing and so any good leader in a library must know how to communicate with those around them. Key skills include being able to put your vision and goals into words for others to share. Choosing your words carefully can help to motivate peers to work towards these same goals and showing empathy for their situation, challenges and pressures will further encourage them to work with you.


  • Support

Strong leaders don’t just lead from the front, they also ensure continual support to work with their surrounding team and stakeholders. For academic libraries this is particularly important as they’re often involved in so many different aspects of the institution, all relevant stakeholders need to be able to keep up. This requires careful management of any process or project, ensuring you approach all aspects with a thoroughness that considers the impact for all involved.


  • Innovation

Sometimes being a leader means being the first and the same is true in the world of academic libraries. Taking the first step towards change can demonstrate leadership – whether that’s as a team or as an individual. This could come from a spark of creativity or perhaps taking a risk with a new change in the library, exploring new ways to improve processes or library support.


If we accept that leadership relates to skills rather than the circumstances of your role, what are some simple first steps someone working in an academic library can take to build these skills and position themselves as a leader? How can focusing on communication, support and innovation help to drive leadership?


The First Steps to Become a Leader


  • Communicate - Start a discussion

Starting an open conversation with colleagues could be the first step to feeling like a leader, whether it’s about an industry hot topic, innovation you’ve seen introduced elsewhere that might benefit your institution, or simply a discussion about what’s affecting you in your role. Talking openly and providing your peers with a platform to do the same can help to position you as forward-thinking and a potential leader.


  • Support - Improve a process

Making small changes to an existing process within the library can demonstrate to others that you have a keen idea for making improvements where needed. If the process affects colleagues, this can be an excellent opportunity to collaborate as well, building your network and giving you support for any future leadership opportunities.


  • Innovate - Explore new ideas

Whatever aspect of leadership you’re looking to develop and whatever your goals are, you should always be open to new ideas. Leaders help move things forward and that’s only possible when you’re moving forward yourself. Explore, experiment and don’t be afraid to fail. By demonstrating your openness to new ideas, you’ll also show your willingness to find the right path forward for both you, your colleagues and your institution.


And finally – remain passionate


While you might not be giving the next TED talk, showing your passion around a subject can do wonders for positioning you as a leader amongst your peers. If you have a real interest in an area of librarianship or something that affects your institution, take advantage of this and take any opportunity you can to showcase this.


Do you have any experience in leadership? Are you interested in sharing your thoughts with peers? Get in touch and share your thoughts in the comments below.


Photo credit: pexels.com/padrinan

    Elizabeth Moylan
Elizabeth Moylan
Publisher, Research Integrity and Publishing Ethics, Wiley

Elizabeth Moylan joined Wiley last month as Publisher, Research Integrity and Publishing Ethics. Here she shares what excites her in the areas of research integrity, publishing ethics and peer review.


integ.jpegWhy should we care about research integrity?


Upholding the values of research integrity has never been more important to responsibly conducting research. Hot off the press is a recent report into research integrity by the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. The report outlines recommendations for all who play a role in championing research integrity including funding bodies, researchers, institutions and publishers. Emphasis is placed on training and the need for researchers to receive support to foster a healthy culture of research integrity. This was also highlighted previously in the report on the culture of scientific research in the UK from the Nuffield Council on Bioethics.


What can publishers do to support research integrity?


As publishers, we should listen to what researchers and colleagues are telling us and work collaboratively to provide solutions or pilot new approaches to address their needs. Many research communities are participating in a growing drive to more openness, whether that be in terms of open science and open research, open collaboration, open data, open access to published research, requiring increased transparency in the peer review and publishing process and recognition for the work done. These initiatives have a positive influence by introducing more transparency and accountability to the research, peer review and publishing processes. Wiley colleagues recently shared their key concerns with respect to publishing ethics, namely: image manipulation, authorship and credit, plagiarism, reproducibility, and data publication. At Wiley, we believe in quality with integrity. Through our society partnerships, with research communities and internal teams we continue to collaborate on better ways to support integrity in peer review and research publishing, trialling initiatives to improve transparency and openness and investing in people and technologies that support researchers (as authors, peer reviewers, editors or readers).


Projects that contribute to improving research integrity


There are a number of initiatives that can help improve research integrity from a journal perspective. For example, in collaboration with the Center for Open Science, we’ve implemented a Registered Reports toolkit across 20+ journals with encouraging feedback. A dedicated team is working on defining what ‘better peer review’ could look like, providing recommendations for journal best practice. For researchers, we are working on enhancing the reproducibility of published research conducted within an open science framework (see our work encouraging data sharing and using open science badges). Internally, we continue to support our colleagues with policies, training and the tools necessary to manage research integrity issues. This involves collaborating where necessary to share information between journals and institutions.


Support for researchers


While Wiley provides tailored support for researchers, editors and peer reviewers, many researchers directly receive support and training on research integrity from their institutions. Of course, external organisations may assist too (e.g. in the UK, UKRIO provides support and advice for UK researchers). Guidance documents are available, for example, the Concordat to support Research Integrity by Universities UK and the recently revised European Code of Conduct. However, there is scope for more to be done. Support for research integrity varies across institutions and some researchers often feel isolated and struggle to translate policies into best practice. But two EU-funded projects are aiming to address some of these issues - EnTIRE and Virt2ue - by supporting researchers in upholding and practicing the principles of research integrity.

EnTIRE is a project that will map the normative frameworks of research ethics and research integrity to create a dynamic, community driven, open source platform that will be launched in June 2019 at the 6th World Conference on Research Integrity. This platform will support researchers to not only be empowered to find the resources and help they need but also become ambassadors to improve practice. Virt2ue is a project that will drill down further into the virtue-based ethics and integrity of research. The aim is to develop resources in research integrity and specifically create a blended learning “train the trainer” program to foster best practice in research integrity. Both initiatives are centered in Europe with contributions and involvement from many European countries.


What’s next in terms of research integrity developments at Wiley?


Publishers are fundamentally services providers for the researchers we serve in all their diverse roles whether as authors, peer reviewers, editors and readers. At Wiley, the researcher is our ‘North Star’ and at the heart of our research journals and educational services. We need to listen to the research communities we serve and continue to support and promote the integrity of research. Adopting “open publishing” practices facilitates this and so in the coming months we will be working towards


  • providing transparent peer review toolkits for journals wishing to embrace more openness in peer review
  • developing self-assessment measures for journals for peer review and publishing standards
  • rolling out an “expects data” toolkit so that researchers can provide information on how data can be accessed, via repositories, in
    their published articles
  • pilot ‘integrity technology’ especially in relation to image screening, statistical checks and reporting standards to assist peer review


We welcome feedback on these areas and would love to hear from you. Please email us via publication.ethics@wiley.com with questions or feedback. Thank you.


Note: Elizabeth Moylan is on the advisory board for EnTIRE and Virt2ue.


Image Credit:pexels.com

    Claire O'Neill
Claire O'Neill
Library Services, Wiley

Isn’t it ironic that the further we advance technologically, the more our attention is called to the past?


When it comes to primary source collections, digitization has offered a sustainable means of preservation. If nothing else, it guarantees the longevity of original materials and safeguards them against the effects of time, wear and use.



But expanded technology transcends the creation of digital surrogates. Now, developments like advanced scanning techniques, optical character recognition, and sophisticated metadata are not only making fragments of the historical record accessible online, but are also enabling researchers and educators to discover and leverage entire primary source collections in brand new ways.


With the rise of these large-scale digitization projects comes a resurgence of the conversation around primary sources. Now that these collections have been made more visible and accessible, what effect does this have on teaching, learning and research? How do libraries effectively socialize these resources and ensure that they’re properly used, interpreted and integrated to align with critical research and educational outcomes?


We’re on a mission to find out! The Wiley Digital Archives team is currently surveying researchers, librarians and faculty to find out how an unprecedented wealth of primary source material is being used to bolster information literacy, pedagogy and research innovation.


In the meantime, I did a little digging to see what the community is currently doing to support the integration of primary sources into research and learning—and it seems it’s quite a lot!


Check out just a few of the initiatives I spotted around the web:


Front and center


An institution’s website is prime real estate when it comes to promoting resources and collections.  In Stanford University’s case, a specific page on the site is devoted to inviting students to explore its archives and integrate their primary source findings in their research and assignments. Included on the site is a host of helpful how-to’s, including guides for searching the archives, handling original materials, and leveraging these resources to enrich research projects and assignments.


Getting bloggy with it


Blogs are a collaborative way to discuss and exchange ideas, and many institutions are leveraging this modern method to promote awareness and engagement with primary sources and archive collections.


At the University of Notre Dame, the Rare Books & Special Collections Department has its own blog that features collection highlights, news about acquisitions, and information regarding relevant events and exhibits. With contributions from librarians and archivists to students and researchers, the blog offers a variety of perspectives which readers can relate to.  Article topics range from deep analyses of specific materials to broad musings on the value of primary sources as a whole. Not only can readers find tips on how to leverage these collections, but they can also hear about their real-life applications, as some authors reflect on how they themselves used a specific source or collection in their own work.


Embed a librarian into course-related instruction


Whether for an undergraduate or graduate-level class, librarians are proactively offering to teach sessions that specifically cater to the course at hand. At Georgetown University, for instance, faculty members can schedule a library instruction session to introduce students to relevant research materials that are specific to any given course assignment. Curated library resources, archives and databases help direct students to the materials that will be the most pertinent to their area of study. Similarly, at Stony Brook University, Rutgers University, and the University of Pittsburgh, instructors have invited librarians into the classroom to teach students where to start their primary source exploration, offer examples and follow-up materials, and facilitate discussion on how to garner the best results throughout the research journey.


Early intervention


Workshops and tutorials provide an open opportunity for libraries to reach faculty and researchers even before the research process begins. Though many may understand the value of primary sources to their work, they still may not be confident in their abilities to search, access and examine them.


At institutions like Boston University, Yale University, Princeton University, and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, libraries are hosting open workshops and events designed to answer questions that faculty and researchers may have about archives collections, give tutorials on searchability and handling, and even teach attendees about the digitization process that makes archives more accessible.


Are you a librarian who has experience with digital archives and primary source collections? Let us know! Take the survey now.


Image Credit:istockphoto

    Anna Ehler
Anna Ehler
Society Marketing, Wiley    

In a highly competitive environment for government grants, learn why powerful private organizations like the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative are poised to have an impact.  In this episode of the Wiley Society Podcast, Katja Brose, CZI Science Program Officer, shares CZI’s mission and how she sees private foundations playing a role in research communication.



Listen to the previous podcast episode: Research communication as diplomacy


The Wiley Society Podcast will be taking a short break over the next few months as we work to bring you a new and improved listening experience in 2019. You can listen to this episode and previous episodes – including shows on why research sharing needs to get easier and the how one society is thriving in the midst of change – by going to iTunes and subscribing to the Wiley Society Podcast.

    Pippa Smart
Pippa Smart
Editor, Learned Publishing

Plagiarism is bad. Readers are duped into believing they are reading something new and may also be misled by manipulation of the content. True authors don’t receive credit, and fraudulent authors receive undeserved credit. It is high-profile academic misconduct and hundreds of blog posts, articles and news items cover the topic. RetractionWatch specializes in reporting bad behavior, and plagiarism comes up as (probably) the worst offender. It even reaches the general news ;for example a 2017 article in The Guardian asks why it was so rife and so pervasive in academia.



The topic has also been well covered in this blog stream, with articles discussing editor experiences, advice, guidance and top tips for avoiding ethical problems when publishing.


As an ethical problem, and one that – theoretically – should be easy to discover, plagiarism checkers have been in place for many years. CrossCheck (now called Similarity Checker), TurnItIn and iThenticate dominate, but journal editors also use other tools, even general search engines to check their submissions. Some journals check everything, others nothing, and many check only occasional articles depending on suspicion and experience.


However, beyond the shocking scandals and newsworthy retractions, how bad is the problem for most journals?


There are some quantifiable methods for investigating, but they are not always very helpful. Looking at retractions is of some use (see, for example The Top 10 Retractions of 2017) but this doesn’t reveal how much is caught by editors before publication. Using statistics from the checking tools gives some indication of how many submissions are found to have duplication, but this doesn’t tell us if the duplication is plagiarism or valid repetition.


So how do we discover the true experiences of plagiarism? It seems that the only way to discover the scale of the problem is to speak directly to editors and editorial offices. Therefore a scoping survey is being run with the support of the European Association of Science Editors (EASE) and Wiley to see if we can discover the true scale of plagiarism.


We are reaching out to editors around the world to see if there are differences between disciplines and regions, and to discover if the levels of plagiarism show intended fraud or more minor copying. Once we have an overview we can determine the best way to investigate further.


We would love to hear your experiences, so we’re asking all editors to answer the short survey (only 10 minutes maximum) to let us know if you have experienced plagiarized submissions or not (negative feedback is just as useful).  Please do undertake the survey, and also send the link to your own editorial networks – the more information the better!


Here’s the survey link.


Thanks for helping us learn more about plagiarism!


Image Credit:pexels.com

What is your Citizen Science IQ?

Posted Aug 15, 2018
    Anna Ehler
Anna Ehler
Society Marketing, Wiley    

You’ve probably heard of Open Science. But do you know about Citizen Science? Throughout history, scientists have worked with the public to help answer some of our biggest research questions. Check out this infographic to learn more about Citizen Science and how societies and associations can support their members to collaborate with the public.


     Chloe Wenborn
Chloe Wenborn
Wiley, Library Services

Unsurprisingly, with the introduction of technology into secondary and tertiary education, educators have moved towards giving students more autonomy over their own learning. But what are these new teaching trends and how are they being reflected within our academic libraries?


This recent wave of teaching is being referred to as Active Learning. Recently, educators and authors on the topic define active learning as an instructional method that engages students in the learning process. In short, active learning requires students to engage in their own learning. They are not just passively listening to lectures, rather, they are learning by doing. Technological advances only enhance this type of student engagement.


So how is the trend toward active learning affecting libraries?



Libraries and Trends in Education

The first thing to note is that our learning spaces and libraries have always reflected the teaching trends of the era. Previously in the twentieth century, before active learning methods became popular, didactic teaching methods were widely used. This teaching method was teacher-centric, meaning it was thought to be the teacher’s role to impart knowledge and the student’s role was to be the receptacle of knowledge. Our libraries reflected this teaching practice.


Today, with more quiet spaces and booths for individual study, the library has become a place where students would consolidate their learning from their teachers and complete research tasks using the content set by the teachers.


Now with the move toward students taking more autonomy over their own learning and engagement, the academic library landscape has changed dramatically to incorporate this.


Many university libraries have transformed their spaces or are preparing to undergo a transformation that supports the changing learning needs of twenty-first-century students.


Libraries as active learning spaces

Students are now using the library more as their own classroom/office space in which they can develop their own inquiries, question ideas, and search for answers aided by technology. To support this, libraries are investing more in digital resources and reducing the amount of content that is physically in their libraries in order to open up their space. This space is becoming more flexible with configurable study space, discussion areas, learning commons and extended hours. Many libraries who have the budget are also revamping furniture, adding more collaborative study rooms and media booths.


What’s the student response?

Students have had an overall positive response to these innovations in space and have used it to their advantage. They’re not only becoming more active in their learning but also more collaborative by problem-solving together, transferring knowledge, and motivating each other. Students also now have the opportunity to use some of these new library spaces for socializing, grabbing a snack or taking a break, making the library a more attractive place to be.


Librarians and teachers alike have recognized that this new way of learning is also providing students with more transferable skills that they will be able to take with them into the workforce after university.As the active learning trend seems to be here to stay and using the library space becomes more popular we are not just seeing the academic library space adapt for learning but we are also starting to see it adapt for socializing. Many students are also using the space for learning breaks with the incorporation of a library cafés, social spaces, multimedia facilities, informal lounge areas, and as a place to interact with the wider community of the university.


Have you noticed students engaging more actively in your library? Let us know in the comments below.


Image Credit: unusuallibraries.pbworks.com

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

Mid-way through writing last week’s post about whistleblowing and whistleblowers we started a conversation with PubPeer to set up a trial of their alerting service. This service lets journals and publishers know when someone has commented on the PubPeer “online journal club” on one of the articles they’ve published. So we decided to ask Brandon Stell from PubPeer a few questions about the service, and its evolution.


Q. PubPeer… so where did you come from, and what are you all about?


A. PubPeer is a site for discussing any and all research published in scientific journals (and preprints). We make things as simple as possible - every publication has its own page and a text box into which anybody can type their comment and have it appear, either immediately or after moderation. A key and sometimes controversial feature of the site is that we allow users to comment anonymously. As an overall philosophy, at PubPeer we believe that there should be much, much more public discussion of research. Such discussion has the potential to accelerate greatly the clarification of ideas - compare commenting immediately on an internet discussion site with waiting to publish another paper and adding a few discreet lines to its Discussion section.


Q. Didn’t your anonymous commenting give you a reputation for encouraging “vigilantes”?

A. In some quarters, yes, that is the reputation our site has attracted. Allowing anonymity was not a step taken lightly, but we believed (and still believe) that the positive aspects of encouraging commentary and protecting commenters far outweigh the possible negative aspects of anonymity. We have developed commenting guidelines and moderation policies that minimize those negatives. We have written a blog post giving our reasons for allowing anonymity.


Q. Oh, so you’ve addressed that … tell us more about how you make sure all valid comments get through?

A. The key guideline is that comments must be verifiable (or falsifiable) by other readers. That means they must be based upon publicly available information - usually the content of the article being examined, but other articles or resources are also acceptable. Allegations of misconduct, hearsay and insults are forbidden. In other words, what counts on PubPeer is the content of the comment, not who made it. These rules are enforced by moderation and user reporting of abuse. Note however, that the site does not perform a scientific review, so comments can be factual but incorrect, although in our experience the overall accuracy of comments is exceptionally good. Authors receive alerts by email as soon as a comment is posted on their article and they have the possibility of replying with exactly the same prominence as the original comment. We believe that authors should provide an after-sales service for the publications.


Q. Great, so I can see why this would be a useful way for people who see a problem to let off steam, but what about connecting those comments with people who can act on them (like universities, and journal publishers)?

A. To be honest, one of the reasons PubPeer exists is because journals made discussing, commenting or refuting publications so difficult, while neither they nor institutions displayed much appetite for investigating possible misconduct. However, it is true that the situation is now changing and at least some journals and institutions are very proactive and rigorous in resolving questions about their publications. To facilitate this important work, PubPeer is creating "dashboards", a fee-based service available now for journals and soon for institutions. PubPeer journal Dashboards allow journals to keep track of and address comments on their articles with specialized search features, email alerts to new comments, features to track the evolution of commenting statistics for the journal, etc... and all features can be tried out for free:  https://pubpeer.com/journals


Q. Aha… I understand… so it sounds like you’re well on your way to providing a notification service for when whistles are blown (and also for when the discussion about a piece of research is carrying on, whether or not a whistle is being blown). That sounds great! What do you think the next steps are for PubPeer?

A. Our current focus is on getting institutional dashboards out. We'll probably then have a period of consolidation as we try to grow the network of actors using PubPeer.


Thanks, Brandon, for giving us a guided tour of PubPeer. We’ll see how we get on with your alerting service.


Photo credit:

    Aino Ahoniemi
Aino Ahoniemi
Library Marketing EMEA

While social media may be a fixture in your personal life, you may not be capitalizing on all it has to offer as an easy and cost-effective tool for communicating with your library users and beyond.


Here are five tips for maximizing what you and your library can get out of various social media platforms.


1. Keep profile information freshSocial.jpg

Make sure the details on your profile are correct and the profile picture is up to date and cropped correctly on your profile. For your library’s social media, double-check opening times (if applicable) and contact information. This signals to your patrons or other potential audiences that the rest of the content on the account is also likely to be up-to-date, and that you are making an effort to communicate through social media platforms. The standard profile features can also be used creatively to get information out there: if your library is hosting an event, putting up a promotional banner as the header image on your profile or a pinned Tweet on Twitter is an easy way to get the word out.


2. Follow and use hashtags

Hashtags connect your content to the larger conversation and help you reach the people you want to reach, while also allowing you to read what others are posting about different topics. See the latest conversation happening around #OpenScience and share your views on why #LibrariesMatter. Can’t travel to an interesting conference or talk? Follow the event hashtag and live vicariously through other people! And of course, no one understands #LibrarianProblems like your fellow librarians. You might also want to create a hashtag for your library and encourage patrons to post library-related questions and comments under that tag.


3. Who to follow

Social media is, of course, all about being social, but it’s equally important to make sure you only follow people and organizations who actually bring value to your newsfeed-scrolling activities. To ensure that your newsfeed is always filled with relevant content, follow publishers (@WileyLibINFO on Twitter for the latest updates from Wiley’s librarian resources), colleagues, conferences, university departments, newspapers, NGOs, and even other libraries to get a sense of what they are doing. Think beyond your own interests and figure out what your audience might find useful or interesting.


4. Sharing is caring

Think of what might interest the target audiences of your personal or library accounts and make a point to share content that’s relevant to those interests. Your librarian colleagues might be interested in an article about changing library spaces and the students at your institution might benefit from you retweeting some key announcements from the university. Take note of unique and interesting ideas and content pieces online and pass them on! Sharing or retweeting a post also lets its creator know that you appreciate their content and find it useful.


5. Teach what you know

Social media can help students and researchers keep up to date on relevant academic topics, promote their research, and network with people in their fields. As an information professional, you can support them in making the most of these platforms by sharing your knowledge and strategies with them. Consider hosting a social media workshop, or posting tips on social media for your patrons to learn from.


How do you use social media to promote your library? What are your favorite tips for mastering the various platforms? Let us know in the comments bellow or tweet us @WileyLibinfo!


Image Credit: ZBW MediaTalk

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

Last week, here on The Wiley Network, we introduced you to a few of the nominees for the ASPIRE prize for young scientists and asked them to share their thoughts on what inspires their work and how it supports this year’s theme of “Smart Technologies for Healthy Societies.” Below we hear from a few more of the nominees to learn how their research is creating a better world.


Here at Wiley we’re proud to be co-sponsor of this annual prize, which rewards research excellence and cooperation with scientists from other APEC economies. Check back next week to learn more about the annual ASPIRE prize ceremony in Papua New Guinea.


4_Photo_CV_Prof. Choongik Kim.jpg

Nominated by Korea, Dr. Choongik Kim researches and develops novel electric materials for use in wearable devices, including activity monitor bracelets, smart watches, and GPS enabled shoes. In 2007, as published in Science, he was the first to expand upon the relationship between electric materials and electronic device performance. His peer reviewed scholarly publications include articles in Angewandte Chemie and Advanced Electronic Materials  among others. His research is used to develop the core technology for new wearable technologies, leading to more real-time applications that can support meaningful improvements to health outcomes.


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

A. I hope to develop a scientific technology to help humanity. For instance, my research on wearable electronics could provide high-quality, low-cost diagnostics (e.g. for blood pressure, sugar level, disease) in low-resource settings.


Q. Why is creating healthier societies important to you?

A. In history, scientists have made a great contribution to humanity (e.g. the discovery of penicillin by Fleming, the development of polio vaccine by Salk, etc).

I believe that science should coexist with society, by fostering a greater connection with society and solving  challenges to create healthy societies.


spiller-kara.jpgNominated by the United States, Dr. Kara Spiller focuses her research on the design of “smart” biomaterials that can control the behavior of immune cells to promote tissue repair and wound healing. She has developed a point-of-care diagnostic to tailor optimal treatment for patients based on the state of their immune systems according to factors such as age, genetics, and nutrition. She has published in numerous scholarly journals including Journal of Biomedical Materials Research and Journal of Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine.


Q. Why is creating healthier societies important to you?

A. I believe that creating healthier societies through biomedical engineering will also make the world a more peaceful place by lifting economies.


Q. How and why did you enter this field of research?
A. I develop technologies to modulate the immune system because that’s how the body naturally heals itself when everything is working properly. The more researchers I meet who study the body’s response to injury or disease, the more fascinated I become with the immune system.



Photo Pablo Gonzalez UC-Chile.jpeg

Nominated by Chile, Dr. Pablo González Muñoz studies the virus herpes simplex-2 (HSV-2), a virus that currently affects about 500

million people for which a vaccine is not available. Dr. González has worked with at least five human pathogens and published in numerous journals. Through his research, he has developed a fast, affordable, and easy-to-use diagnostic kit to detect viral infections for different tissues that can be used in rural areas.


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

A. I hope that my work helps people around the world to live better lives, by preventing, treating and identifying, in a timely manner, infections produced by pathogens that cause disease and complications in the human population. Specifically, I hope that my research at the P. Universidad Católica de Chile and the Millennium Institute on Immunology and Immunotherapy, an Excellence Research Center based in Chile, translates into new therapeutics, vaccines and diagnostics against herpes viruses which affect hundreds of millions of people worldwide.


Q. Why is creating healthier societies important to you?

A. I believe that a healthier society is key for its overall happiness. Preventing and resolving health issues allows people to better dedicate their time, effort end energy into personal and family development, which builds a better society. Health and society development are tightly interrelated.


Art.jpgNominated by Thailand, Dr. Wanpracha Art Chaovalitwongse focuses his research on data analytics in medical and healthcare applications, especially in analyzing brain activity to predict and monitor epilepsy. Through his work, he has developed solutions for problems caused by attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, non-small cell lung cancer, sarcoma, and esophageal cancer and has published in many scholarly publications.


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

A. I am hoping to advance research and technology to promote health and well-being, and one day the outcome of my work will result in tools or devices that can better the quality of lives of people around the world.


Q. How and why did you enter this field of research?

A. My PhD advisor worked on a project related to epilepsy and the team needed an expertise in data analytics and optimization. I was asked to watch VHS tapes of patients who suffered from seizures and sit in the exam room to listen to all kinds of issues epilepsy patients have. Since then, I have always looked at health research problems as my personal problems.




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

We’re all proud of the work we do to support researchers. Our journal teams help researchers share outcomes from approximately 180,000 research projects annually at Wiley. Our journal teams support researchers from submission, through triage and checking, on to feedback via peer review then to revision, through to final preparation and publication, and lastly via active curation.



And it’s that curation – the work that we do after publication – that’s often not talked about, but always vital. When something needs correcting, we do it. That’s important


Take, for example, the story I often share about the “good retraction” from the University of California, Davis researcher Pamela Ronald. I first read this story as a news item from Nature Jobs. Pamela Ronald is a crop scientist. When Ronald and her colleagues found they couldn’t reproduce their work on disease resistance in rice they “blew their own whistle.” They spoke with the journal and went to extraordinary lengths to understand what had gone wrong. They communicated this with the editors at Science and the public, and retracted the paper.


That work is great research practice, supported by good active curation from the journal. We should celebrate it. We need researchers like Ronald to blow their own whistle, because we do need to correct what we’ve published, and sometimes retract it,if necessary. Similarly, we need research readers to blow the whistle, to help us identify when something we’ve published may need a little extra attention.


Because even when we’re doing our best, we sometimes miss things that we wish we hadn’t (whether we are researchers or members of research journal teams).


So what’s best practice for how to listen and respond to whistleblowers?


A dedicated team at Wiley is working on a project to understand what might make peer review better (the whole process, end-to-end, not just the act of peer review itself). We began sharing our work with 40 case studies and a preprint, titled “What does better peer review look like?”. We’re aiming to take this work to the next level with conference presentations, a peer reviewed journal, and a symposium in mid-2019.


Two questions that the “better peer review” team thinks journal teams should ask themselves are: whether and how they enable readers to raise concerns, and how they act on those concerns when they are raised. The team thinks better practice demands that:

“Concerns raised by readers are received, considered, and acted upon”


Research readers may raise queries about research published in journals. And – because they’re also authors (and peer reviewers) – they may equally raise queries about journal practices. That’s OK, too: We need our journal operations to be fair and transparent, and we are happy to listen to fair criticism, and to act on it when warranted.


For example, we listened and acted on concerns raised by authors about Land Degradation and Development when we received allegations that the previous journal editor was asking authors to add citations from Land Degradation and Development to their papers. We followed due process, and then worked with new editors to create and convene the new editorial team. Land Degradation and Development now has an editorial structure and governance designed to rebuild confidence in the journal, and to protect researchers who choose to read and submit their work to the journal.. More detail is here:


Let’s finish by making our approach to whistleblowers clear…


  • We want to hear from whistleblowers, and have set-up our Publication Ethics Helpdesk for that: publication.ethics@wiley.com, which we promote via our best practice guidelines on publishing ethics
  • We understand that the act of whistleblowing carries risk for the whistleblower, and we receive queries, triage them, and act on them using our complaints procedure whether they are anonymous or signed
  • We follow the COPE flowcharts on how to respond to whistleblowers s, an early step in which asks “Do the allegations contain specific and detailed evidence to support the claim?”
  • We may choose not to correspond with whistleblowers who make defamatory statements, or whose complaints are irrelevant or offensive


We note that there are new avenues for whistleblowing about problems in journal articles (as well as online discussion of those articles), like PubPeer. In part 2 of this post we explore the risks and benefits of anonymous online commenting with Brandon Stell from PubPeer.


How does that sound to you? Please, share your thoughts and comments. We’d love to hear them.


Chris Graf is Director, Research Integrity and publishing ethics, Wiley

Disclosure: Chris Graf is current Co-Chair, COPE. This is a voluntary and elected role for which he receives no compensation.


Photo credit: Henriikka Mustajoki

Filter Blog

By date:
By tag: