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

As innovation continues to advance in the library and information science sector, what skills are important for librarians to succeed? We recently asked this question of attendees at the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions.

*Participants polled comprised mostly of librarians, a handful of faculty members, directors and editors who attended IFLA WLIC 2018, the leading global library confex that saw thousands of delegates from the library and information service community.

 

Soft skills in demand with Librarians

“Advocacy for libraries and librarians.”

 

Surprisingly, despite technological disruptions throughout the industry, soft skills topped the list at a staggering 43% when attendees were asked which skills they would like to improve on.

 

In an age where library users are turning to self-sourced e-resources and e-learning tools, Reshma Dangol, Library Director at SAARC Secretariat, believes that learning to advocate for your library’s worth is particularly integral for librarians to succeed.

 

Zahra Aljunied, Senior Librarian at National Library Board, Singapore, specified “Soft skills like listening, understanding, empathy.”

 

It seems that at the end of the day, librarians value providing a personal touch in their service, whether it’s librarians working to understand the pains of library users, change management, multitasking or simply cultivating a healthy dose of curiosity and adaptability.

 

Participants sharing their thoughts on what skills are important for Librarians in the changing landscape.

 

Taking Digital Steps Forward

 

Predictably, technological skills came in second in importance, at 36%. With a sizeable number citing “skills to take advantage of AI and other algorithm-based innovations” as key to serving their customers better.

 

Hand in hand with the need for upgraded technological knowledge and skills, librarians saw a gap in their data management skillsets – 14% of those polled see these skillsets as a critical competence to succeed in the changing landscape.

 

Caption: Librarians sharing their views via our live Twitter wall.

 

Helping Librarians Create Libraries of the Future

 

As Neemat Abdulrahim, Deputy Director, Head of City Library, Abuja, puts it, “I see the future of the library as all encompassing – from being an information hub, innovative services, community engagement, to cultural hub.”

 

It is a challenge for librarians to meet these ever changing and evolving needs of users and adapt to volatile industry trends. How can librarians meet these demands to create a “Library of the Future”?

 

There are several e-platforms available to help librarians enhance the learning experience in libraries.

 

For instance, rare archive collections are no longer confined to the physical library. With Wiley Digital Archives, librarians can provide their researchers with digital access to rare primary historical archives to add value to the research experience. The value of rare archive collections in a researcher's work can mean the difference between an excellent or mediocre paper and librarians can contribute to their institution's research quality by \adding this service.

 

Another e-platform that can help librarians create Libraries of the Future is the Wiley Researcher Academy. For those looking for mentorship in improving their research writing skills, librarians can provide the e-learning tool Wiley Researcher Academy, to help them figure out the nuts and bolts of writing a quality research paper. The online, modular and 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.

 

Librarians at IFLA WLIC 2018 understanding how Wiley Digital Archives and Wiley Researcher Academy can enhance the learning experience in libraries.

 

What do you think are critical skills for librarians to succeed in the changing landscape? Share with us your comments below!

 

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

Funding bodies, researchers, institutions, and publishers are all focusing on the call for more transparency within the research publication process. Transparency can make research more reliable, and potentially more reproducible. Researchers are being asked for more openness by their employers and funders, which means they need it more than ever from the journals they publish in.

 

From peer review to open data, transparency comes in different forms. How does transparency fit into your journal strategy? Is it a top priority, or something only thought of during a crisis? The discussion around transparency is always evolving, so whether or not you have a transparency policy for your journal, it is always something to return to time and again. By reviewing the current transparency of your journal and creating a plan for progress, you can improve research integrity and research impact.Journal Transparency-small.jpg

 

Read through our five tips to get started.

 

1. Evaluate where your journal currently stands

 

To build a transparency strategy, you must first examine current journal procedures. It can be challenging to take a critical look at processes and question them, but without this step, prioritizing changes will be a challenge.

 

Some good questions to ask yourself are:

  • Do we explain how editors make decisions about what research they choose to publish?
  • What are the interests, and conflicts of interest, of the editor and editorial board?
  • Do we know what steps to take if we suspect misconduct?

 

By identifying gaps in your publishing process you’ll be better positioned to develop a transparent publishing strategy for the future.

 

2. Reflect on the peer review process

 

Peer review is consistently highlighted as one of the key areas in need of added transparency. For some, this may mean introducing a transparent peer review process, and for others it may be offering training for peer reviewers. Reviewing your journal’s current peer review process can help you identify areas for improvement. Offer training and guidelines for your reviewers, so that they are aware of their personal biases and their potential effect on the peer review process.

 

3. Shine a light on journal processes

 

After a paper is submitted, what occurs next is often hidden behind closed doors. Operational transparency refers to how journals, publishers, and others open up their internal processes. Publicly share the journal workflow and decision-making that occurs throughout the article publication process. This will further develop trust within your community and authors will know what to expect throughout the submission process.

 

4. Help your authors be more transparent

 

Authors are responsible for maintaining transparency throughout the scientific and publishing processes, but things can be lost or forgotten along the way. Ensure that your author guidelines are clear and acknowledge any notable transparency-related policies. Providing an author checklist can also be useful.

 

5. Have a plan if things go wrong

 

Mistakes happen and errors can be missed. Knowing how to take action if something goes wrong will help to resolve the issue quickly. Having policies for challenges such as conflict of interest or editorial misconduct will prepare you for the worst and set expectations for authors. COPE, the Committee on Publication Ethics, has created a series of flowcharts, designed to help follow their Core Practices and implement advice when faced with cases of suspected misconduct.

 

How you are improving transparency in publishing? Tell us in the comments below.

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

At the recent International Association for the Study of Pain’s 17th World Congress on Pain, fifteen researchers, science communication professionals, and journalists met to discuss science communication. The Media Roundtable event was the first of its kind at the World Congress and sought to break down barriers between researchers and the press by engaging participants to discuss their motivations, experiences, and challenges in science communication. Through this conversation, participants garnered a better understanding of how research is currently communicated, found areas of improvement, and further cultivated the valuable connections between scientists and the media for the public good.

 

MediaRoundtable.jpg

The two-hour discussion was marked by moments of understanding and revelations, such as a realization that the lack of incentives for researchers to engage with the media has a significant impact on research translation.

 

It became clear by the end of the session that researchers and journalists share a common goal: to better the world. Fueled by this conversation, we’ve pulled out a few ways that societies can help their members to connect with the media, better share their discoveries, and inform the public.

Education = Empowerment

 

Speaking to the press can be intimidating. Researchers want to be sure that they speak clearly about their work, get their points across, and ensure that a reader will understand. Some institutions have public relations offices that will assist in getting the word out about new research, offer training, and even attend meetings with the press, but not all researchers have access to this kind of support. Societies can help to close this gap by offering media training sessions for members, either at conferences, during regional events, or online. Learning how to best explain their research and serve as experts will help your members speak with the press and the public more confidently.

Finding connections

 

How do we know who’s the right person to contact? This sentiment was echoed by researchers throughout the roundtable session. Members of the press are happy to be contacted directly, and welcome this kind of connection. Participants agreed that if they had a resource to go to when they wanted to find a journalist, they would be more likely to regularly reach out to share their research. Societies can achieve a quick win by creating and maintaining a list of media contacts relevant to your field for members to access.

Building Trust

 

Attendees who were members of the press said they have built many strong relationships with researchers, and that these relationships are key to their work. However, participants unanimously agreed that the opportunity for in-person interaction between journalists and researchers is rare. Offering activities such as press receptions, “meet the press” networking events, or roundtables at conferences and regional meetings, gives members the chance to meet and talk with journalists in person.

 

What are other ways societies can support better science communication? Let us know in the comments below.

Image credit:Emma Brink

    Lucie Peplow
Lucie Peplow
Manager, Society Marketing, Wiley

On September 25th, Dr Sarah Lloyd-Fox will receive the Wiley and British Academy 2018 prize in Psychology - awarded for her outstanding empirical and methodological contributions to the study of infants.

IMG_4644.jpg

 

We were delighted to be able to catch up with Sarah and find out why she loves being a researcher, what advice she would give to those starting in their careers and why she is proud to win this prize.

 

Q. What does winning the Wiley/British Academy prize in Psychology mean to you?

 

A. I was immensely proud to have been nominated for this prize, and to win means so much to me - both as a researcher and as a mother of two young boys who will, hopefully, eventually come to understand a little bit more about what I do! I am also really happy to have received this award given how much of my career has balanced theoretically-motivated research with methodological innovation in psychology.

 

Q. What advice would you give to your 20 year-old self?

 

A. I meet a lot of early career researchers and students who are incredibly anxious (as I was in their position) about their futures; in particular feeling like they had to have a cast-iron idea of their career intentions. I’d advise them - and my 20 year old self - to stop comparing yourself to everyone else and be happy with who you are in the present, be prepared to occasionally step into the unknown and grab opportunities for new experiences when they come; and don’t be scared to admit if your decisions are wrong and you need to revise your path ahead. 

 

Q. What made you choose to become a researcher?

 

A. While I loved my undergraduate dissertation working with families and researchers at the University of Reading, I didn’t know that this was what I wanted to do when I left university. I applied for dozens of jobs across a range of occupations before my mother encouraged me to apply for a job that she saw in a newspaper. Once I began working as a research assistant at Birkbeck I quickly grew to love the way research constantly evolves and to have the opportunity to learn new things alongside people so passionate about their work.

 

Q. How would you describe your research to your neighbor, to make them understand how it impacts their life?

 

A. It depends which neighbor I talk to! One has a son with autism and understands why finding early markers of autism is so important for guiding family support and improving community knowledge. For the many expectant parents in my village, my favorite thing to tell them is that we now understand that from their first breath of life their babies will recognize their mothers and fathers voice, and will be learning new things every day from the interactions they have with their parents.

 

Q. If you could change one thing, to improve your life as a researcher, what would it be?

 

A. To escape the tyranny of bulging inboxes and free up more time to have face to face meetings which are invaluable for sharing ideas and stimulating new research.

 

Q. What are the things you hope your research will fix?

 

A. I hope by optimizing research tools to reach socially disadvantaged communities, I can better understand the impact of risk on brain development - to tailor new interventions, and to effect policy change in education, health and foreign aid. 

 

Q. If you hadn’t become a researcher, what would you have become instead?

 

A. A farmer…. with an art studio!

 

Q. What is the most interesting thing you've read this week?

 

A. Robert McFarlane’s Landmarks.

 

 

Image Credit: Sarah Lloyd-Fox

 

    Lucie Peplow
Lucie Peplow
Manager, Society Marketing, Wiley

draca_2017_cropped.jpg

Congratulations to Dr Mirko Draco from the University of Warwick who has been awarded the 2018 Wiley/British Academy prize in Economics for his promising early-career work and particularly for his research on the effect of Chinese imports.

 

We were recently able to ask Mirko a few questions to find out more about why he loves being a researcher (and what career path he might’ve chosen as an alternative!), and why he is certain that economics research can and should influence policy decisions.

 

Q. What does winning the Wiley/British Academy prize in Economics mean to you?

 

A. It means that I've made a contribution to the UK academic economic community. I think that academic economists in the UK have done amazing work in areas of both theory and empirics. In particular, I think that the UK leads in the development and promotion of rigorous, evidence based policy – and it feels very satisfying to be a recognized part of this community.

 

Q. What advice would you give to your 20-year-old self?

 

A. I'd advise on lots of time management and productivity hacks that took me too long to learn!

 

Q. What made you choose to become a researcher?

 

A. Intellectual curiosity and freedom - the opportunity to read, research, write and teach as a full-time job is a pleasure.

 

Q. How would you describe your research to your neighbor, to make them understand how it impacts their life?

 

A. The example I would give is my research on police and crime - where we have been able to demonstrate the impact of government cuts to police resources – these cuts directly affect everyone in society.  I'm also currently researching the economics of illegal drug markets and I hope that work will inform future policy.

 

Q. If you could change one thing, to improve your life as a researcher, what would it be?

 

A. Less administrative paperwork!

 

Q. What are the things you hope your research will fix?

 

A. I hope that my research on money in politics and emerging patterns of ideological polarization will help us understand and reform our current political institutions. 

 

Q. If you hadn’t become a researcher, what would you have become instead?

 

A. Easiest question ever - I would write and draw comic books.

 

Q. What is the most interesting thing you’ve read this week?

 

A. I recently came back to a speech by the writer Bruce Sterling about technology and the state of our political and social institutions from the 2016 SXSW festival. It's from early 2016 but despite our fast- moving times is still a very shrewd analysis of the era we're living through at the moment.

 

 

Image Credit: Dr Mirko Draca

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

500 years ago, the Protestant Reformation was just beginning in Western Europe, explorers like Juan de Grijalva and Martin Fernandez de Encisco were publishing discoveries on the New World, the earliest printed use of the plus and minus signs for arithmetic was published and a small group of physicians were granted a royal charter that would change the medical world forever…

 

Happy 500th birthday, RCP!

 

That’s right; this month marks the 500th birthday of the Royal College of Physicians (RCP), the oldest medical college in London, delivering five centuries worth of progress, innovation and breakthroughs in the medical field.

 

So how did this small group of 16th-century physicians ultimately become a leading, global force in health and medicine? How does an institution not only survive but thrive after hundreds of years filled with epidemics, natural disasters, legal battles, world wars and continued industrial and technological disruption?

 

In honor and celebration of this monumental occasion, we’ve taken a look back at the RCP through the centuries to see just what it takes to make it to the big 5-0-0.

 

The 1500s

The Royal College of Physicians was founded on September 23, 1518 in response to a lack of regulation in the medical field. To combat “the quacks” and impose consequences on malpractice, the small group of leading physicians secured a royal charter from King Henry VIII to grant licenses to those with actual credentials and to punish unqualified practitioners.

 

In 1523, an Act of Parliament expanded their reach to all of England and the premises of the college were settled. The first official committee was created in 1555 and meeting recordings began. Just 10 years later, the RCP received the right to collect four bodies of hanged criminals every year for anatomy lessons and studies. The College was officially on the medical map, and began conducting research as a growing institution.

 

1600s Image - RCP.JPGThe 1600s

The first few decades of the 17th century showed promise for the young RCP.

 

Esteemed RCP fellow William Harvey started delivering the College’s famous anatomy lectures and in 1628 published his groundbreaking theory on the circulation of blood. Through a series of experiments, Harvey demonstrated that the heart is a pump, pushing the blood through the body with every beat. The findings were a radical departure from the prevailing belief that the lungs were responsible for blood circulation.

 

But, in 1665, the RCP’s fate took a turn. After fleeing London due to a devastating outbreak of the plague, RCP members returned to the College’s premises to find the office robbed, with all its valuables gone. Not even a year later, the Great Fire of London destroyed the College’s premises completely, along with most of its library’s content and official records. Despite these sizable setbacks, the RCP persevered and built a new home in 1674 to continue its research.

 

The 1700s

This century brought another set of distinct challenges to the College in addition to groundbreaking advances. First, in 1704 the College lost its monopoly on medical advice due to the expense of the fees and the rise of general practitioners and pharmacists. The general feeling of unrest continued as non-voting members of the College disrupted meetings and rioted against their lack of power.

 

However, these obstacles did not stop the College from advancing. In 1768, it published its first journal, Medical Transactions, with the aim of disseminating authoritative information on diseases and treatments to further the knowledge of the profession. This would mark the beginning of a long, successful future in publishing world-class medical content.

1800s Image - RCP.JPGThe 1800s

In the 19th century, RCP expertise was drawn upon by successive governments as long-overdue medical reforms were introduced, including the Medical Act of 1858. The Medical Act created the General Medical Council (GMC), which is now the regulator for the medical profession, taking over regulatory roles from many of the traditional medical institutions and directly impacting the RCP, which lost its regulatory role. The GMC also took over the pharmacopoeia, a list of medicinal drugs and their effects, previously published by the College, and published the list of approved drugs for use in medicines across England from then on.

 

In 1869, the College published the Nomenclature, a definitive classification of diseases, which remained the standard until the 1960 publication by the World Health Organization.

 

The 1900s

During the first four centuries of the RCP’s history, women were excluded from membership and struggled to gain a foothold in the medical profession. However, the 20th century marked a critical turning point; in 1909, the College began to include women, allowing them to sit for exams and become licensed practitioners.

 

Over the next several decades, opportunities continued to arise as women were officially invited to become fellows (voting members) in 1925. As the first female fellow, Helen Mackay was elected in 1934 and proceeded to change the global attitude towards infant feeding, and became an authority on anemia of dietetic origin in childhood. Many years later, Dame Margaret Turner-Warwick, one of the world’s leading thoracic physicians, was appointed as the first female president of the Royal College of Physicians in 1989.

 

The 20th century also marked a pivotal shift for the College as it started to assume an “active voice” in the community; this was a notable retreat from its historic impartiality that declined to offer any public advice on matters of health. This was exemplified in the RCP’s 1962 publication Smoking and health, a groundbreaking study that detailed the dangers of smoking. While this would hardly appear earth shattering to us in 2018, smoking was a hugely popular habit at the time and the claim that cigarettes were linked to cancer was received with skepticism. As the tobacco industry was also a major source of employment and revenue for the government, it is hardly surprising that the report was met with varying degrees of acceptance.

 

In spite of this backlash, the evidence-based report proved to be highly influential, selling over 33,000 copies and ultimately leading to a decrease in cigarette sales over time. Today, the RCP’s Tobacco Advisory Group continues to investigate and disseminate the harmful impact of smoking.

 

2000s Image RCP.JPGThe 2000s

The RCP continues to exert its influence in the medical field, with the first two decades of the 21st century marked by the publication of several critical studies and reports. Published in 2010, the Passive smoking and children report led to a ban on smoking in enclosed spaces. In 2013, the Future hospital: caring for medical patients report, together with the Future Hospital Commission, addressed growing concerns about the standards of care currently seen in hospitals and made recommendations for providing patients with the safe, high-quality, sustainable care that they deserve.

 

In addition to other notable publications, these reports have led to a number of proposals and responses in the medical community, demonstrating the RCP’s continued influence and authority on public health.

 

2018

With 500 years under its belt, the RCP has created a new charter this year “to reaffirm the commitment made by physicians to provide the highest standards of patient care; train, develop and support doctors; act as leaders; and promote good health and prevention of ill health.” The RCP now has 34,000 members in 33 specialties.

 

So how does a society that has persevered through five centuries of both challenges and innovation celebrate its 500th anniversary? Over the next several months, the RCP will be hosting special events to highlight its fascinating past, thriving present and exciting future. Celebrations include open houses, exhibitions of collections, informative lectures, study tours and extended museum hours.

 

Happy anniversary to the Royal College of Physicians! We can’t wait to see what the next 500 years will bring.

 

To learn more about the RCP’s incredible history and explore its extraordinary collections, visit The Royal College of Physicians: a Wiley Digital Archives Collection.

 

Image Credit: Claire O'Neill

    Lou Peck
Lou Peck
Marketing, Wiley

What a brilliant week we had celebrating #PeerReviewWeek18 – did you manage to get involved? Fear not, we’ve summarized all our activities below:

 

 

We want everyone to feel they had the opportunity to contribute to #PeerReviewWeek18 – why not discover and continue the conversations on Twitter using #PeerReviewWeek18.

Looking to become a peer reviewer? Check out our hints and tips.

Are you an active peer reviewer? Join over 135,000 Wiley Peer Reviewers on Publons to help you record, verify and showcase your peer review contributions.

 

    Serena Tan
Serena Tan
Senior Editor, Publishing Development, Wiley

Did you attend Wiley’s recent webinar about Registered Reports during Peer Review Week and want to share it with your colleagues? Were you so busy checking out all the other  activities taking place during Peer Review Week 2018 that you were unable to attend our webinar but wish you could have?  Well, you're in luck as we've recorded it and made it available to you here on our Wiley Author Webinars site!

 

Wiley first began a pilot focused on Registered Reports earlier this year, in spring 2018.  Since then, 37 journals have begun or are getting set-up to offer authors the option of publishing a Registered Report and we wanted to hear from the journals and societies that have joined us in this initiative to learn about their experiences thus far.  So, we invited Nidhi Bansal (Editor-in-Chief, Cancer Reports), Daryl O’Connor (Chair, British Psychological Society Research Board), and Eric Prager (Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Neuroscience Research) to share some of their initial thoughts with us here and then we dug deeper and fielded questions from the research community in our webinar “Why Publish a Registered Report”. In total, there were 350 registrants representing 72 countries and 31 research disciplines!

 

The Registered Report model supports more inclusive research publishing, aligning well with this year’s theme for Peer Review Week of “Diversity and Inclusion”, and is an innovative model of peer review that reduces publication bias and improves the reproducibility of published studies.  It does this by shifting the emphasis of peer review onto validation of the research methodology and design, rather than the perceived impact or novelty of the results. With our panelists, we discussed how peer review of Registered Reports works, and the opportunities and benefits of the Registered Reports model that motivated our panelists to adopt it. We delved into the challenges and caveats and another hot topic was how all of the above might vary across different research communities. The audience asked lots of great questions and our panelists were eager to engage.

 

In addition to our webinar panelists, we’ve also received great feedback from authors and editors of other journals involved in this pilot, from a variety of different research communities.  Read about Matthias Mittner’s experience with publishing a Registered Report at the European Journal of Neurology and Christian Leuz’s experience Registered Reports as the theme for a conference and special issue for the Journal of Accounting Research.  We also asked editors why they wanted to offer Registered Reports at their journals and what role they might play in supporting more inclusive research publishing. Below, we share some of their perspectives from the editors of Stress and Health, Ecology and Evolution, and Language Learning

To find out more about Registered Reports and the journals that offer them, check out this list curated by the Center for Open Science and don’t forget to check out the recording of our webinar “Why Publish a Registered Report”!

 

Tahira Probst, Editor-in-Chief, Stress and Health

Scholars and academicians seek to produce cuttingedge research that contributes to science and knowledge. Unfortunately, the intense pressure that accompanies this goal can actually erode the quality and rigor that should be at the heart of science. We launched our Registered Reports Initiative to maintain our focus on rigorous high-quality research while simultaneously circumventing some of the pitfalls of traditionally published research, such as publication bias against null findings and replication research. While the Registered Reports mechanism has been used in fields such as medicine, biology, and neuroscience, this publishing mechanism is only beginning to emerge within many of the disciplinary fields that contribute to Stress and Health, including psychology, organizational behavior, and occupational health. By leading the way, we hope to contribute toward the ultimate goal of inclusive and open science.  

 

Estimates suggest over half of funded research projects fail to result in published findings. This is a serious waste of scarce research funding, as well as the time and talent devoted to those projects.  While many reasons for this likely exist, the pressure to publish statistically significant findings seriously undermines our ability to collectively learn from prior research (including null findings). Registered Reports can help address this by promoting more inclusive research publishing, since submissions are evaluated solely on the quality and merit of the research idea and proposed methodology, rather than the statistical significance of the eventual findings.

 

Allen Moore, Editor-in-Chief, Ecology and Evolution

We live in an age of information, but the quality of information is variable. Science is not immune to the growing suspicion that information that is provided may be selective or that there may be unintended (or even intended) biases in what is available. Scientists are increasingly seen as working toward a personal agenda rather than working towards the public good.

In academia, this is a critical problem as we are dependent on the public, we work for the public good, and we are increasing public knowledge. We can improve confidence in our work by transparency - rather than hiding the process by which we reach conclusions, open the curtain.

Registered reports are an outstanding way to provide transparency. We can also educate on the process. Finally, the added work is actually minimal, as the best research is designed before it is undertaken, not during or after.

 

Emma Marsden and Kara Morgan-Short, Associate Editors, Language Learning

We give three reasons why Language Learning introduced Registered Reports. 1) To incentivize replication research, as our systematic review found that only about 1 in 400 published articles in our field are replication studies. Registered Reports support would-be replicators via ‘In Principle Acceptance’. 2) Our review also illustrated the need to share materials and data to improve the amount and systematicity of replication research. More materials and data would become available through the registration aspect of Registered Reports. 3) As Associate Editors, we notice that many reviewers seek clarification about methods – and sometimes request changes that are impossible to address retrospectively. Registered Reports allow for methodological modification through peer review before methods are “locked in”.

 

Registered Reports should result in greater inclusiveness of researchers as they provide the opportunity to receive feedback on research design before data collection. This aspect of Registered Reports can support the development of more valid research designs by individuals in resource-poor positions, where access to feedback from colleagues and from conference attendance may be limited. Improved research designs would enhance these researchers’ ability to publish in high-visibility journals. Registered Reports may also be more inclusive theoretically and methodologically. This is because ‘minority’ or ‘controversial’ approaches are given more of a chance to reach publication as IPA prevents theorists from ‘rejecting’ a manuscript when data don’t align with their own standpoint.

 

Thank you to our webinar panellists, Nidhi, Eric, and Daryl. Thank you also to Tahira, Alan, Emma and Kara for sharing your extra comments for this post. And if you came to our webinar, or watched it afterwards, then thank you, too!

 

Here is a list of journals curated by the Center for Open Science that offer researchers Registered Reports.

 

Wiley has a Registered Reports toolkit to help launch Registered Reports. Please speak with your publisher so together we can make this option available for researchers in your communities. Journals published by Wiley that offer now (or will soon offer) researchers the option to submit a Registered Report include:

 

Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics

Brain and Behavior

British Journal of Clinical Psychology

British Journal of Developmental Psychology

British Journal of Educational Psychology

British Journal of Health Psychology

British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology

British Journal of Psychology

British Journal of Social Psychology

Cancer Medicine

Cancer Reports

Clinical Endocrinology

Developmental Science

Ecology and Evolution

Endocrinology, Diabetes & Metabolism

European Journal of Neuroscience

European Journal of Personality

Immunity, Inflammation and Disease

Infancy

Journal of Accounting Research

Journal of Clinical Nursing

Journal of Computer Assisted Learning

Journal of Neuropsychology

Journal of Neuroscience Research

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology

Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science

Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing

Journal of Research in Reading

Language Learning

Legal and Criminological Psychology

Mind, Brain and Education

Psycho Oncology

Psychology and Marketing

Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice

Stress and Health

    Elizabeth Moylan
Elizabeth Moylan
Publisher, Research Integrity and Publishing Ethics, Wiley
Michael Willis
Michael Willis
Senior Manager Content Review, Wiley

Elizabeth Moylan, Publisher at Wiley, talks to Michael Willis, Senior Manager in Wiley’s Content Review team, about the work he and colleagues have undertaken to explore what better peer review looks like.

 

Q. What inspired you to define a set of standards for ‘better peer review’ ?

A. The starting point was a question thrown out by a Wiley colleague: ‘is there a gold standard of peer review?’ That got us thinking about what good peer review looks like. I guess we all have our preconceptions of what good peer review looks like – it should be timely, ethical and fair - but we felt we needed to articulate the details more usefully and also  help journals to improve in measurable, specific ways.

 

This in turn led to a project to define essential areas of best practice for peer review. We thought about different characteristics of the peer review process, and then we described the ways in which each of these might be manifested. Taking integrity as an example, and pertinent to the theme of this year’s Peer Review Week, a journal might achieve greater integrity in its processes by working towards greater geographical and gender diversity in its reviewer pool.

 

You can read more about our project in this blog post which we wrote soon after the project launched.

 

Q. How did you go about researching some of the issues in peer review?

A. Having defined our scope, we then published a survey seeking the views of editors, reviewers, authors, readers and the general public, asking them to share examples of good practice in peer review. We received 40 case studies which we grouped under the headings of integrity, ethics, fairness, usefulness and timeliness.

 

Simultaneously we also explored the current literature on peer review to identify major themes that recur, such as peer review models, transparency, ethics and bias.

 

Q. What did you conclude?

A. Looking at the responses we received from the survey, we realized that we could help journals identify their strengths and weaknesses in each of the five themes we identified, and so we devised a detailed checklist for journals to use. The checklist covers such aspects as author guidelines, reviewer guidelines, and internal editorial processes.

 

We wrote up our findings in this preprint and shared them through a poster at this year’s conferences of the International Society of Managing and Technical Editors. We’re hoping we can publish our work in due course, and we’re running a symposium on the topic at next year’s World Congress on Research Integrity.

 

Q. In many respects, you touch on issues broader than peer review, e.g. recommendations for policies regarding authorship, why is this?

A. That’s correct. By ‘peer review’ we encompassed the whole journal editorial process and not simply peer review in the strict sense, i.e. review by independent expert colleagues. So we looked at (among other things) the integrity checks undertaken by the editorial office, the process for handling submissions used by journal editors, and how editorial and peer review processes are described in author guidelines. This is illustrated in Figure 1.

Peer review publishing process.png

Figure 1: The act of peer review in the context of the end-to-end peer review publishing process: a simplified view.

 

Peer review in the strict sense doesn’t happen in abstract; it’s part of a nexus of processes. You cannot separate editorial control from how external peer review operates, and all players in a journal team have differing (albeit interconnected) responsibilities within this. So we wanted to cast the net more widely than how peer review is typically studied.

 

Q. So what’s next?

A. We’re concentrating our efforts at the moment on developing and refining the self-assessment checklist which you can find at the end of the preprint. We want to help journal teams reflect on their current practices and consider if and how they can improve. We’ll road test the checklist on a few journals to see how they get on with completing it, and we’ll make improvements to it as necessary. Then we’ll scale up to implementing it on as many of our journals as possible in the coming months, and we hope we can share more information about this in due course.

 

Ultimately this whole project is about helping journals to aspire to ‘be better’, and we want to play a part in guiding and equipping journals to achieve this. Taking the theme of this year’s Peer Review Week as an example, we can help journals identify if they need to improve in the area of diversity, and our checklist can encourage them to aspire to be more diverse.

 

Looking to become a peer reviewer? Check out our hints and tips.

Are you an active peer reviewer? Join over 135,000 Wiley Peer Reviewers on Publons to help you record, verify and showcase your peer review contributions.

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

Inspired by his success with transparent peer review, Wiley is working with Reiner Veitia, editor-in-chief of Clinical Genetics, along with Publons, and ScholarOne - both part of Clarivate Analytics - to introduce a new, more robust and automated option for researchers to choose transparent peer review. We’ve undertaken this work to make the whole process easier, and enable many more journals to do the same. We asked Reiner and our friends at Publons to share their thoughts and begin to spread the word about this foundational work.

                                                                                                     

Transparent peer review advocate Reiner Veitia, Editor-in-chief, Clinical Genetics                          Andrew Preston, Managing Director at Publons

 

 

Q. Reiner, when did you introduce transparent peer review to Clinical Genetics and how does it operate?

 

A. We first started offering more transparency for authors in the peer review process when I became the Editor-in-Chief of Clinical Genetics in January 2016. Authors are able to choose whether they would like more transparency in peer review, and if so, the reviewers’ comments as well as the authors' point-by-point responses are published. The content of the peer review report is shared, but reviewers are able to choose if they wish to reveal their identity or not. Initially, when we introduced this process the peer review history was shared within the supplementary material of the published article. However, more recently this year, in a collaborative pilot with Wiley, Publons and ScholarOne a dedicated team has been able to establish a new workflow that enables the peer review history to be viewed on its own page, via a link from the published article, like this.

 

Q. What would you add to that, Andrew, about your interests in transparent peer review?

 

A. There has been increased demand for open peer review models in recent years, as publishers and researchers strive to bring greater transparency to the research process. We believe open and transparent peer review will ultimately reduce fraudulent review, improve research integrity and reproducibility as well as providing greater visibility and recognition of the efforts of reviewers.

 

Academic journals have faced a number of practical difficulties to adopt transparent peer review models, hindered by complex and established workflows. We were really excited to partner with Wiley to develop a robust and seamless solution to these challenges.

 

Q. Why were you so keen to adopt transparent peer review in the first place, Reiner?

 

A. From my perspective as an author and as an editor, I firmly believe that the editorial process should be transparent. Publishing the accompanying peer review history of a paper adds real value to the peer review process and illustrates how the process of publishing research works. Increased transparency in peer review shows the “whys” and “hows” behind the editorial decision-making process. It is also a resource for early career researchers (and for the community at large) to appreciate how the results of a paper were perceived by the peer reviewers, to view the constructive comments and questions they raised, and  to see how the authors addressed them.

 

At present, the practice of making available the reviewer reports, authors’ responses and editorial correspondence is only done by a small proportion of journals. I think this is a pity because the reader cannot see the information underlying the editorial decisions, or appreciate the quality of the reviews on which these editorial decisions are based. This is particularly critical for early career researchers who need to fully understand the process of peer review. A transparent process is also likely to result in more thoughtful and fair reviews. As the physicist and Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman said: “A very great deal more truth can become known than can be proven”. I’m in agreement with this idea, I feel that publishing the authors’ responses to the questions and comments of the reviewers also allows a record of the authors’ thinking behind their research too.

 

 

Q. What feedback have you received so far, Reiner?

 

A. In general, I think increased transparency in peer review is appreciated by both authors and readers and that is also what I hear from my colleagues. However, we had some learning points along the way. When we first started the process it was not as automated as it is now, and authors had to post the reviewers’ comments as an online supplement. Now the pilot with Publons and ScholarOne has provided a more automated process and we see a higher proportion of authors choosing transparency in peer review. In my opinion, this is due to the fact that the current process is straightforward and posting the information is ‘automatic’ (i.e. without extra effort from the authors).

 

In the 57 days since we adopted our new, more automated, approach, we’ve received a total of 137 new manuscripts submitted, and from these 123 corresponding authors have chosen our transparent peer review option. To make a comparison, for the same number of manuscripts submitted in the months before we made the change, 3 corresponding authors chose our previous transparent peer review option. We’re excited about these early results, and will report more when manuscripts have made their way through transparent peer review to publication.

 

Q. And from an editor’s perspective what do you consider to be the main benefits of transparent peer review?

 

A. There are concerns in the research community regarding the trustworthiness and quality of the peer-review process in its entirety. I think, along with others, that increased transparency in the peer review process can restore trust and revitalize the process, bringing more accountability and recognition for the people involved. This is essential in our current setting, especially in the broader context of movements such as open science. Increasing transparency in collaboration with Publons has also enabled recognition for the incredibly valuable work reviewers do. Assigning DOIs makes the peer reviewer reports citable in their own right. Additional functionality on the Publons site enables more interaction. For example, reviewer reports can be endorsed by, or commented on, by Publons users, continuing the conversation around peer review and the published research.

 

Q. Andrew, from a technology and peer review platform point of view, what do you think makes our new approach to transparent peer review valuable for researchers and research publishers?

 

A. The new workflow enables transparent publication of an article’s complete peer review process — from initial review and response through to revision and final publication decision. Alongside the published article, readers can now review a comprehensive peer review history. Each element of the peer review process has also been assigned its own digital object identifier (DOI), enabling future authors to easily reference and cite relevant peer review content.

 

Beginning with Wiley’s prestigious journal Clinical Genetics, this is the first open peer review initiative to develop a scalable model applicable to diverse publishing processes. The comprehensive workflow provides alignment to best-practice data privacy regulation, ensuring the individual preferences of authors, peer reviewers and journals are met.

 

Q. Reiner, to close, what are your recommendations to people who are considering implementing transparent peer review?

 

A. I am convinced that increased transparency in the peer review process is an essential step in the open science movement and this is the right time to get involved in that process. I am eagerly waiting the outcomes of the next stage of the pilot when it has been able to run for a longer time. For example, finding out how many authors are opting for the initiative, how reviewers are finding it and if reviewers are willing to be identified alongside their comments.  These are exciting times for peer review and we will be sharing what we learn along the way.

 

Thank you, Reiner and Andrew

And thank you to the dedicated team who contributed so much to this initiative: Erin Arndt, Tiago Barros, Lisbeth Cranfield, Cathy Greig, Laura Harvey, Lou Peck and Elizabeth Moylan.

 

To close, we have a final message for Wiley journal editors, and for researchers who submit their work to Wiley journals.

 

For Wiley editors, we’re running a waitlist for the next group of journals at which we’ll use our new transparent peer review toolkit, and introduce more transparency to the peer review process. So editors please do add your journal to the list: Please speak with your publisher.

 

And if you’re a researcher who would like to see more transparent peer review at the journals you work with to publish your research, then please make your voice heard in the comments below: Together we can make this option available for researchers in your communities.

 

Looking to become a peer reviewer? Check out our hints and tips.

Are you an active peer reviewer? Join over 135,000 Wiley Peer Reviewers on Publons to help you record, verify and showcase your peer review contributions.

 

    Marilyn Pollett
Marilyn Pollett
Senior Marketing Manager, Wiley

Did you know that the number of peer-reviewed journals has steadily grown by 3.5% per year for over the past three centuries? In fact, a rigorous peer review process is considered to be an indication of a journal’s quality, and most journals rely on peer review to ensure that only the best research gets accepted for publication. This often results in journals having high rejection rates, for example, as high as 90% in the case of many Wiley journals.

climb.jpegPeer review is considered the pillar that upholds the credibility and integrity of the scientific record. However, in its conventional form, peer review has drawn some criticism for issues like lack of transparency and inconsistency in output. To address these issues, several innovations in peer review have been introduced (new models, reviewer recognition, and more). Let’s take a look at the evolution of peer review and how industry experts see it shaping up in the future.

Challenges associated with peer review

Despite its merits, peer review has some limitations that threaten to weaken the entire scholarly publishing system:

  • Lack of transparency: Anonymity forms the basis of traditional single-blind or double-blind peer review. This lack of transparency can make the system vulnerable to manipulation, as seen in recent cases of fake peer review and mass retractions, and can lead to a general lack of trust in the process.
  • Lack of recognition: Peer review is a voluntary task, and reviewers typically do not stand to gain any recognition or monetary compensation for the time and effort they spend in evaluating research papers. Therefore, journal editors often find it difficult to find and appoint suitable reviewers.
  • Lack of training and standardization: The peer review process varies from journal to journal due the lack of standardization. Moreover, the absence of systematic training or onboarding process for reviewers leads to inconsistencies in reviewer evaluations.

 

How peer review has evolved in response to challenges

To overcome some of these limitations, and in response to global movements in publishing (e.g., the open science movement), various new models of peer review have emerged, for example:

  • open peer review (where the reviewers’ identities are disclosed to editors, authors, and readers),
  • collaborative peer review (where peer reviewers and authors are able to interact and discuss recommended changes to the manuscript),
  • post-publication peer review (where readers can offer feedback and comments on a paper after it is published),
  • and transferable or cascading peer review (where a rejected manuscript may be transferred to another journal, usually under the same publisher, along with the original peer review reports).

 

Each of these models attempts to refine the peer review process for greater transparency and efficiency. In parallel, efforts are also being made toward recognizing and rewarding peer reviewers. To address the lack of formal training for new reviewers, some publishers and organizations have begun to offer peer review training to groom reviewers.

Where is peer review headed?

Despite the challenges involved, industry leaders believe that peer review will continue to play a crucial role in the scholarly publishing process and that technology will revolutionize the future of peer review. “If you look at the underlying reason for peer review, it’s to validate quality. The need for validation is now stronger than ever due to the proliferation of published research,” opines Deborah Wyatt, VP APAC Society Services at Wiley.

She continues, “Machine learning and artificial intelligence might also play a role in reviewer selection in the next decade as journal editors and publishers push for further process efficiencies to keep up with demand.Indeed, some companies are taking initiatives in this direction, for example, by supporting peer review with technologies like blockchain.

Addressing one of the major problems of peer review—the lack of a standardization—Richard Donnelly, Professor in Medicine at the University of Nottingham, and Editor-in-Chief of Diabetes, Obesity, and Metabolism, says, “At present most peer review is based on free text comments and global assessments. I do think that developing a more quantitative scoring system to be used by reviewers and feeding back these aggregated scores to authors would be helpful.”

On the issue of building trust through transparency, Chris Graf, Director, Research Integrity and Publication Ethics at Wiley, and Co-Chair of COPE, states that, “The future lies in ensuring the integrity of the publishing process through embracing transparency without breaching confidentiality.”

To sum up, peer review has been and remains the backbone of scholarly publishing. The entire academic community – including healthcare practitioners, authors, publishers, and reviewers themselves – is embracing and looking forward to innovations that address issues of reliability, transparency, and standardization in peer review.

Like this post? Download the PDF today.

Looking to become a peer reviewer? Check out our hints and tips.

Are you an active peer reviewer? Join over 135,000 Wiley Peer Reviewers on Publons to help you record, verify and showcase your peer review contributions.

 

Image credit: pexels.com/@martin-138963r

    Thomas Gaston
Thomas Gaston
Managing Editor, Wiley

There is a present imbalance in the regional distribution of the burden of peer review. The regional distribution of reviewers (or, more specifically, of those invited to review) does not mirror the regional distribution of submitting authors. This is the conclusion of multiple studies (Kovanis, 2016 and Mulligan and van Rossum, 2014), including a study conducted by Wiley in 2016 (Warne, 2016). This research found that uneven burden upon researchers from the USA, providing 33-34% of the reviewers and 22-24% of the submissions.

notes.jpg

 

One might argue that this is not an issue. Editors are under no obligation to ensure an even geographic distribution of those they invite to review. The primary consideration for editors, when selecting reviewers, must be choosing individuals whose expertise is appropriate to the manuscript under consideration. However, there are reasons for seeing the present imbalance as a problem. The burden of peer review is currently borne by a small pool of reviewers, leading to increased difficulty for editors in finding available reviewers (Sipior, 2018). Furthermore, there is an inherent advantage in having a diverse reviewer pool to counter tendencies toward group-think and bias.

 

Why This Imbalance?

 

We wanted to understand why there is this regional imbalance. Non-US researchers are willing to review (Mulligan and van Rossum, 2014); the problem seems to be that they are not being invited. We wanted to investigate the factors involved in the reviewers being invited and agreeing to review. Our hypothesis was that there would be a correlation between the location of the editor-in-chief (EiC) and the location of the reviewer. We also wanted to look at other potential factors, including the location of the author, the ranking of the journal, the size of the journal, and the apparent difficulty the journal had in obtaining reviews.

 

We selected two subject areas to look at, Medicine and Agricultural & Biological Sciences, and then downloaded the data from ScholarOne Manuscripts. The data was anonymized and then analyzed. Our research evaluated 149 journals, involving 55,732 articles and 208,084 invitations to review to 110,053 reviewers. Of these invitations, 105,235 (51%) were accepted, 57,181 (27%) were declined and 45,668 (22%) received no response.

 

How Do EICs Choose Reviewers?

 

Our findings endorsed earlier investigations that have revealed an imbalance between the locations of the corresponding authors (as declared in the author affiliation) and the locations of reviewers. In total (the entire data set), 25.68% of authors come from Asia, but only 9.08% of reviewers. 33.23% of authors come from Europe, but only 27.97% of reviewers. 23.85% of authors come from North America, and 31.7% of reviewers.

 

In addition we found that EiCs select reviewers from their own region more often than from other regions (with the exception of EiCs in Oceania.) The finding was repeated at a country level; EiCs more frequently select reviewers from their own country than the average. This is particularly notable for the Scandinavian countries, USA, Germany, and UK. EiCs from the USA, for example, select 50% of reviewers from the USA, compared to the average of 38%; and EiCs in the UK select UK-based reviewers twice as often as the average (22% compared to 11%). However, all EiCs show a preference for US-based reviewers.

 

The other factor where we found a clear correlation was between the location of the corresponding author and that of the reviewer. This was particularly notable for articles with Chinese, USA and Iranian corresponding authors. At a regional level, it seems that a very high proportion of those papers being sent to reviewers in Asia have Asian corresponding authors (55.9%). Similarly, reviewers in Africa are being sent a high proportion of papers with African corresponding authors. So, whilst there seems to be an overall preference for reviewers from the USA (a greater proportion of the total review invitations are sent to reviewers based in the USA), there is also a preference for sending papers to reviewers from the same region and country as the authors.

 

We did also find some indications that reviewers were more likely to accept invitations, and more likely to give positive reviews, in cases where they were from the same region as the corresponding author. The effect was small and would warrant further research.

 

None of the other factors we looked at seemed to correlate significantly with the location of the invited reviewer.

 

What Do These Findings Show?

 

Given these findings, we hypothesized as to why editors prefer reviewers from their own location and/or from the same location as the author. Our intuition is that this is due to the way editors select reviewers, which (anecdotally) is still primarily from their own networks rather than favoring other reviewer finding strategies, such as following citations or automated searches. There may be other factors as well. One way of assessing the suitability of an unfamiliar reviewer is by looking at the institution he/she is affiliated with; if editors are unfamiliar with institutions in other regions they may feel uncertain about using that reviewer. Our results also may suggest that editors may purposefully select reviewers from the same location as the author, which would make sense in cases where there is a geographically specific component to the research.

 

How Do We Find a Better Balance?

 

If our intuitions are correct, then moving towards a more regionally balanced reviewer pool would require adopting new strategies for finding and assessing reviewers. The knowledge and expertise of the editor, and his/herown personal networks, are an essential component to the peer review process. With the sheer volume of research being produced annually, it is increasingly unrealistic for editors to be connected with everyone working their fields. Using automated tools to search research articles has now made it possible for editors and those that assist them to identify qualified reviewers without any prior personal connection. Crucially, such tools identify reviewers based purely on their relevant publication history and are blind to their region (or any other demographic factor).

 

The future of peer review is better peer review, with impartiality at its core.

 

What are your thoughts on regional diversity in peer review? Let us know in the comments below.

 

Our research is published in Learned Publishing and can be found here.

 

Looking to become a peer reviewer? Check out our hints and tips.

Are you an active peer reviewer? Join over 135,000 Wiley Peer Reviewers on Publons to help you record, verify and showcase your peer review contributions.

 

Image Source: startupstockphotos.com

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

As part of this year’s peer review week activities, we’re hosting a free webinar on Wednesday, September 12th to discuss Registered Reports. Serena Tan (Senior Editor, Publishing Development, Wiley) will be chairing the discussion and inviting perspectives on the Registered Reports initiative from guest speakers Nidhi Bansal (Editor-in-Chief, Cancer Reports) Daryl O’Connor (Chair, British Psychological Society Research Board) and Eric Prager (Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Neuroscience Research).

 

RR panel.JPG

 

The Registered Report article format takes an innovative approach to peer review using a two-step peer review process as outlined in this infographic. The first step involves researchers submitting the rationale for their study (including methods) for peer review with a journal before the study is executed. The peer review process focuses on the validity of the research question and the proposed methodology. If the outcome of peer review is positive, the paper is accepted in principle by the journal with a commitment to publish regardless of the findings. At this point, the approved Stage 1 Registered Report can be registered with the Open Science Framework (or other recognized repository) or published by the journal. When the study is completed and resubmitted, further peer review ensures the study is consistent with the proposed research plan and draws appropriate conclusions. The final step is a published Stage 2 Registered Report.

 

Registered Reports bring many benefits to research publishing, including increased inclusivity and transparency. However, there are challenges in terms of additional steps involved in pre-registering a study protocol and further peer review. Ahead of the webinar taking place on Wednesday, September 12t, we asked our guest speakers for their thoughts on the Registered Report initiative to give you a flavor of the topics we will be discussing in more depth.

 

Q. Eric, why did you adopt the Registered Report format at Journal of Neuroscience Research?

A. My primary motivation was to help reduce research bias, enhance credibility and potential reproducibility of the work. The format gives researchers a framework for designing and conducting experiments in the most transparent and rigorous manner. Acceptance at Stage 1 ensures that all studies, regardless of statistical significance will be published, as long as they have been rigorously and transparently executed.

 

Q. Nidhi, what are the benefits and challenges to offering Registered Reports for your journal?

A. The benefits for adopting Registered Reports at Cancer Reports are clear and simple – to reassert among cancer researchers and oncologists the value of rational hypothesis, robust methods and statistically competent analysis over and above the “direction” of the research findings. Registered Reports evaluates the ‘why?’ and ‘how?’ of a research study as opposed to the outcome and its perceived impact. Endorsement of Registered Reports will strengthen the core framework of cancer research and enable researchers around the world to reproduce and advance ground-breaking discoveries.

 

While the values of accurate reporting, transparency and research reproducibility are generally appreciated by every researcher, editor and funder, there are challenges too. The main challenge to achieving more widespread adoption of Registered Reports is the need for a paradigm shift so that ‘success’ is not largely dependent on studies with exceptional outcomes.

 

Q. Daryl, what are the benefits of Registered Reports in your field and do you see them being more widely adopted?

A. These are exciting times for psychology, and it is great that psychology has been leading the way in terms of open science initiatives. The introduction of Registered Reports will increase the transparency of psychology and allow peer review of research studies before the results are known. As a consequence, this will help reduce the use of questionable research practices while improving the quality of our research protocols, that will ultimately improve the robustness of our evidence base.

More widespread offering of Registered Reports across other fields represents an important step forward for more inclusive research publishing. However, the real impact will hinge on journals strongly encouraging or requiring authors of Registered Reports to agree to register their approved protocol on the Open Science Framework or other recognized repository, either publicly or under private embargo until final acceptance. The British Psychological Society has introduced this for all 11 of its journals. This is vital to ensure the integrity of Registered Reports and will easily allow comparisons to be made between the planned and published protocols.

 

Thank you, Eric, Nidhi, and Daryl. To learn more about the challenges and opportunities with the Registered Reports initiative, and put your questions to our speakers, do join us this coming Wednesday. Click here to register.

 

Here is a list of journals curated by the Center for Open Science that offer researchers Registered Reports.

 

Wiley has a Registered Reports toolkit to help launch Registered Reports. Please speak with your publisher so together we can make this option available for researchers in your communities. Journals published by Wiley that offer now (or will soon offer) researchers the option to submit a Registered Report include:

 

Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics

Brain and Behavior

British Journal of Clinical Psychology

British Journal of Developmental Psychology

British Journal of Educational Psychology

British Journal of Health Psychology

British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology

British Journal of Psychology

British Journal of Social Psychology

Cancer Medicine

Cancer Reports

Clinical Endocrinology

Developmental Science

Ecology and Evolution

Endocrinology, Diabetes & Metabolism

European Journal of Neuroscience

European Journal of Personality

Immunity, Inflammation and Disease

Infancy

Journal of Accounting Research

Journal of Clinical Nursing

Journal of Computer Assisted Learning

Journal of Neuropsychology

Journal of Neuroscience Research

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology

Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science

Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing

Journal of Research in Reading

Language Learning

Legal and Criminological Psychology

Mind, Brain and Education

Psycho Oncology

Psychology and Marketing

Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice

Stress and Health

    Lou Peck
Lou Peck
Marketing Manager, Wiley,

In keeping with the theme of Diversity in Peer Review, for this year’s Peer Review Week we’re taking a closer look at two recent studies on the topic. These articles are freely available crowdedcity.jpgthroughout the month of September.

 

What influences the regional diversity of reviewers: A study of medical and agricultural/biological sciences journals

 

This 2018 Learned Publishing article discusses the geographical imbalance of reviewers discovered during research in medicine and agricultural and biological sciences. They found that:

  • there was a correlation between the reviewer location and the country and region of the EditorinChief and that of the corresponding author.
  • reviewers were more likely to accept invitations to review articles when the corresponding author was from their region and were more likely to be positive about such articles.

 

Editor and reviewer gender influence the peer review process but not peer review outcomes at an ecology journal

 

This 2015 British Ecological Society article reviews a comprehensive data set of the peer review process for all submitted papers to the Functional Ecology journal and concluded that editor gender, seniority and geographic location affect who is invited to review for Functional Ecology, and how invitees respond to review invitations, but not the final outcome of the peer review process. To increase diversity of reviewer populations, journals should increase gender, age and geographic diversity of their editorial boards.

 

They found that:

  • though the gender ratio of editors was majority male, the proportion of female editors increased over time
  • female editors invited more female reviewers than their male counterparts, and both editors over-selected reviewers from their own graphical locality
  • females invited to review were less likely to respond to review invitations, but more likely to accept if they responded
  • men invited to review were both less likely to respond and more likely to decline if the editor was female
  • the proportion of women among selected reviewers decreased with editor seniority when the editor was male but increased with editor seniority when the editor was female
  • the gender ratio of selected reviewers differed a lot between latecareer (more senior) male and female editors
  • individuals invited to review were less likely to agree to review if the editor was more senior

We want everyone to feel they have the opportunity to contribute to #PeerReviewWeek18 – engage with us during our activities, discover our PRW page for related resources, connect with all the Twitter activity using #PeerReviewWeek18, see how you can get involved with Peer Review Week and include #PeerReviewWeek18 and the Peer Review Week logo in your own activities.

Looking to become a peer reviewer? Check out our hints and tips.

Are you an active peer reviewer? Join over 135,000 Wiley Peer Reviewers on Publons to help you record, verify and showcase your peer review contributions.

Image credit: Pixabay/johnpotter

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

This year marks the 30th anniversary of Learned Publishing, the scholarly journal of the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers which has played an integral role in documenting the evolution of the publishing industry during a period of marked transformation. To commemorate the occasion, we asked editors Pippa Smart and Lettie Conrad to reflect on the past thirty years and challenged them to do some future-gazing as well.

 

 

Pippa-pic small.jpgConradLettie.MR (002)-small.jpg

Pippa Smart and Lettie Conrad

 

Q. Looking through your digital timeline is a fun and fascinating review of the past thirty years. What stands out to you as one major catalyst for publishing’s digital transformation?

A. It has to be the launch of the PDF and Acrobat in 2003 – suddenly we had a format that (nearly!) everyone could read, was easily transmitted and downloaded, and kept the familiar print formatting. But, if it had been the only thing, we would have only reached halfway – for instance, the PDF “container” gave rise to data standards and new ways of doing business, such as the DOI and the CrossRef registry. It was fascinating to create this timeline, and we had so many “aha!” moments about how each incremental change added up to digital publishing transformations. Following the dawn of DOIs in 1997, then came Catchword in 1994, XML in 1998, the ALPSP guidelines for licensing e-publications in 1998 ... and the list goes on!

 

Q. What prompted the creation of Learned Publishing and how has the publication itself changed over the years?

A. In 1975, when the Bulletin (the Learned Publishing precursor) launched, its purpose was to inform members, and provide a forum – it says it was not intended “…as an excuse for the Editor to waffle, or as a further contribution to the great waste paper chase”! When it changed to Learned Publishing in 1988 it retained the objective of providing information to members and the wider publishing community, and mostly provided news on events and news items. However, it increasingly started to include original content, mostly views and experiences. Notably, in the past decade we have increased the amount of original research and the globalization of our authorship. The journal remains a “practice journal” with the objective of providing publishers with useful information that will help them improve their operations – but we now base more of this information on evidence: research rather than opinion. And we still try to avoid contributing to the great waste paper chase!

 

Q. Learned Publishing is pretty meta being a product of the community and industry it is chronicling, how does publishing about publishing offer perspective? Were there any surprises when you put on your editor hats?

A. That’s a really interesting question and, generally, our experiences prove that publishing is both an art and a science. Being part of Learned Publishing means we are witnessing both the incremental advancements in our industry, but can also easily step back to see a bigger picture about what it means to publish quality research in the modern age. One thing we’ve learned is that being an excellent publisher does not make you an excellent author. We’re sometimes surprised when our authors demonstrate gaps in their understanding of how a rigorous, ethical editorial and peer review process works. As an industry, to ensure dissemination of high-quality, unbiased research, we ask authors to jump through a lot of hoops during the submission and peer review process. Yet, some industry experts find this challenging when they act as Learned Publishing authors. Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned there!

 

Q.The timeline mentions that the most downloaded article from LP is on the failure of the publishing world to combat piracy thus far. Do you think that publishers can turn the tide?

A. Just as some publishing experts struggle to fill the role of the author, I think some in our industry do not truly understand the access and discovery experiences of researchers. Ultimately, if we are not truly listening and responding to the challenges of end-users, then someone else will fill that space – whether honestly, or not.

 

Q. What’s to come for the journal and community as a whole in the next 30 years?

A. As libraries increasingly act as publishers, and publishers increasingly influence information experiences, we’d really like to see the broader field of Information Science provide more evidence-based research on which to develop journals and scholarly communication. This is happening in open scholarship and other modern academic information initiatives, but less so in our environment. The journal model is still a great validation tool, but we hope that there will be more experimentation with sustainable publication models that include diverse voices and better meet the needs of research, policy, and practice.

 

With the proviso that crystal-ball gazing can be tricky, we’d like to suggest that the journal model as a validation tool will continue. However, we also anticipate a much more mixed market with layering of information in repositories and personal sites, of both formal (reviewed, approved) and informal (preprints) content, with spin-offs (secondary publications including blogs and other social media) adding to the mix. The different elements of the information chain (e.g. peer review, editing, hosting, data services, archiving, etc.) may separate, each handled by different organizations. It is possible that publishers will become the service providers of technology and “value-added” overlay services, whilst the dissemination of research content takes place elsewhere. However, this raises threats of “fake news” and cluttering of the information environment, so it is likely that overlay services (selecting the “best of the best”) will increase in importance. But if change is really to be achieved, it is not the researchers and publishers that will drive this – the academic reward system needs to change its focus away from the traditional established models.

 

Thanks for the look back Pippa and Lettie.

 

Check out the video below to learn more about the past 30 years of Learned Publishing.

 

#PeerReviewWeek18 Is On the Way

Posted Sep 7, 2018
    Lou Peck
Lou Peck
Marketing, Wiley

Peer reviewers are an essential part of the scholarly publishing community and the foundation for safeguarding the quality and integrity of scientific and scholarly research. That’s why next week we’re continuing our annual commitment to support #PeerReviewWeek18 with a jam-packed week of activity. This year’s theme is: “Diversity in Peer Review” which is timely, as diversity has been an emerging conversation in research communications.

#PeerReviewWeek18 will run next week September 10th-15th 2018. Check in with us next week for: peerreviewweek_logo_2018_v1.jpg

Peer Review Week was originally sparked from informal conversations between ORCID, ScienceOpen and Wiley. Now in its fourth year, the industry support has grown hugely and is supported by numerous publishers and intermediaries. We’re all still working to share the same central message: good peer review, whatever shape or form it might take, is critical to scholarly communications.

We want everyone to feel they have the opportunity to contribute to #PeerReviewWeek18. Engage with us during our activities, discover our PRW page for related resources, and connect with all the Twitter activity using #PeerReviewWeek18. Be sure to check out how you can get involved with Peer Review Week and include #PeerReviewWeek18 and the Peer Review Week logo in your own activities.

Looking to become a peer reviewer? Check out our hints and tips.

Are you an active peer reviewer? Join over 135,000 Wiley Peer Reviewers on Publons to help you record, verify and showcase your peer review contributions.

    Melody Lee
Melody Lee
Marketing Specialist, APAC Library Services, Wiley

 

“50% of our projects are in partnership with universities.” -Dr. Tsuyoshi Abe, Senior Vice President and General Manager of Yokogawa Electric Corporation.

 

Out of 25 projects this year (as of June 2018), Yokogawa Electric Corporation is collaborating with academic partners on a total of 13 projects, Are we looking towards blue skies research as a driver for R&D and innovation? Or, is there a fine equilibrium to be met between agenda-driven research and basic research.

 

The rivalry between agenda-driven research and blue skies research has been a longstanding one. In the podcast below, we speak to Professor Masato Wakayama, Professor Seeram Ramakrishna and Jose Oliveira on the growing trend of corporations outsourcing part of their R&D to academic institutions and what this means for today’s results-driven world.

 

 

 

Our Speakers

 

On the podcast we hear from speakers at the Wiley Research Seminar Japan 2018. The conference saw a full house of executives from the Corporate industry, Society and Universities, all eager for the latest research & publishing trends, go-to innovation and collaboration possibilities across their sectors.

 

Professor Masato Wakayama, is Executive Vice President of Kyushu University and Professor of Institute of Mathematics for Industry.

 

Professor Seeram Ramakrishna, is Professor of Mechanical Engineering at the National University of Singapore. He is a pioneer in nanofibre production used in fields like healthcare, clean air, clean water and clean energy, and has been listed by media and information firm Thomson Reuters as one of the world's most influential scientific minds.

 

Jose Oliveria has been Editor-in-Chief of the nanotechnology journal Small since 2008, and was a founding editor of Chemistry – An Asian Journal, Advanced Healthcare Materials, and Small Methods. As Vice President and Editorial Director, China, he is responsible for Wiley’s journal publishing activities in China. He holds Honorary and Visiting Professorships at several Chinese universities and research institutes. Stay tuned for Episode 2 where we’ll explore how Academia and Corporate collaboration can drive life-changing research and discovery.

Tokyo tower.jpg

Filter Blog

By date:
By tag: