Tag Archive | Journals

Wiley pilots transferable peer review

PRP_flowchart_2509wide

Quiz time! How long would you estimate it takes for a paper to go through peer review?

On average, it takes 80 days per paper or 1,920 hours (according to an article by M. Ware in Publishing Research Consortium). That’s a lot of time spent waiting for a decision. In hopes to alievating this pain point, Wiley is piloting “transferable peer review.” As outlined in a  recent Wiley Exchanges article, this new system will cut down on review time.

Here are a few of the main points:

  • The system allows you the option to preserve and transfer initial peer review, should you receive a decision to reject from one journal and wish to request transfer to another.
  • The review is now able to travel with the article on its route to publication. By reducing the number of reviews in the universe, the aim is to reduce the burden on reviewers, while helping editors to make faster decisions and increase the publication speed.

There are initiatives to take some journals out of the peer review process altogether and detach reviewer reports from publication in a specific journal. Many authors know which journals they would prefer to publish and would rather not be told which journal they should submit. Many authors do not want undesirable journals to bid for publication of their paper.

The system is currently been piloted among nine of our high impact neuroscience titles  and will run for about six months. The results will be used to develop a new process. 

For more information, check out the full article visit the Wiley Exchanges page here.

You can subscribe to Wiley Exchanges updates via email or RSS feed or follow Exchanges on Twitter.

Link: Bad reviews: The perils of modern peer reviews

Image

We’ve tackled the topics of open access, as it relates, funding. But we’ve recently come across an interesting spin on the familiar topics in Significance Magazine‘s “Bad reviews: The perils of modern peer review” from contributor Carlos Alberto Gómez Grajales.

In the article, Grajales talks about the shifting process through which scientific publications place increased emphasis on electronic formats to dispense its content with a reduced or non-existent cost to readers.

Grajales highlights a project by John Bohannon (Harvard Universitybased biologist and science journalist) where he distributed fake scientific articles to online journals in order to test the effectiveness of the review process. “Out of 304 submissions made throughout a period of six months, 157 of the journals (about half) had accepted the paper, 98 rejected it. Of the 49 journals that remain, 29 appeared to be no longer operative and 20 were still evaluating the merit of the text.” Read the hoax in full in Sciences Oct 4 Issue or online.

One of the complications with the pay-to-publish model lies in the possibility of an ineffective review processes. This is why reviews are important, because we need to criticize each other, not for confronting, nor for glory, but because a fine review is a nice intellectual conversation in which both parties learn from each other.”One journal that approved the fake article, was ready to charge $3,100 USD for publication fees. 

Sound off: Has open access changed how you publish? What’s your review of Grajales conclusions and Bohannon’s findings?

Interview with Ann Okerson

Wiley Exchanges posted an interview with Ann Okerson.

There are many points that may be of interest to authors:

  • The SCOAP3 project: Okerson is a member of this international committee that works on transitioning high energy physics journals to a sustainable open-access business model. 
  • Her role at the Center for Research Libraries: As senior adviser on electronic resources, she supports digital activities, fosters collaborations, and supports the membership group of academic libraries and various partner consortia in the US, Canada, and the UK.
  • Establishing LIBLICENSE: Okerson founded this organization in 1997 and serves as a moderator for the project. She is a strong advocate for fair and clear licensing of online resources. In the years since the founding, the landscape of publishing and learning has changed and LIBLICENSE has adapted.
  • The challenges facing librarians: From driving access to entering into research and academic partnerships, there are many ways to stay relevant in the changing landscape.
  • Opportunities for women in librarianship and leadership roles.

Click here to read the full interview on Wiley Exchanges.

 

 

Some information for journal authors from author services

The information below is aimed at all current journal authors and those interested in contributing to one of our many journals.

+ + +

Read all about Wiley Online Library. Wiley’s next-generation content platform, delivers access to over 4 million articles from 1,500 journals to a global audience of 16 million scientists, researchers, and scholars, with millions of downloads per month.

Are you interested in submitting an article to one of our journals? Well, the vast majority of journals feature online submission, though each has its own submission process and standards.

Has your article been accepted?

Has your article already been published?

Visit our Author Services site* to:

  • Get free online access to your article at publication (many journals offer this feature; the access policy varies by journal).
  • Nominate up to 10 colleagues or specialists to gain free access to your published article (this policy varies by journal).

Scholarly & Academic Publication Ethics

Wiley adheres to the most rigorous publishing standards for all of the journals it publishes. For your reference, these guidelines are available for your review on our Author Services Site.

*Note: Not all journals are included in our Author Services site at present. If a journal is not listed on the site, please visit the journal home page on Wiley Online Library for contact information and other publication details.

“Writing better science papers” webinar announced, register today

chemistry views webinar

If you are interested in ways to improve your writing, you may be interested in this webinar based on 14 Tips for Writing Better Science Papers. From the team at ChemistryViews, the program will be all how to write high-impact research papers.

Presenters Dr. Richard Threlfall (managing editor of Asian Journal of Organic Chemistry and author of the above mentioned writing series) and Vera Koester  (of Chemistry Views) will focus on:

  • How to prepare a cover letter
  • How important the title of a paper can be
  • How to write a concise abstract
  • How to prepare graphics

The webinar will take place on November 7th (10 am GMT/ 11 am CET/7pm JST). The presentation will be followed by a Q&A.

Registration is now open. You can learn more by clicking here.

Loh Xian Jun, writing for journals, holding multiple roles, and being a fellow at Fitzwilliam College

Today’s interview is with Loh Xian Jun, research scientist, polychemist and Wiley author.

After earning his BA in Applied Science in 2006 and Ph.D in 2009 from National  University of Singapore, he has held several positions at both academic and research institutions.  His research interest focuses on biomaterials for healthcare (specifically delivery applications and tissue engineering), as well as nucleic acid delivery for therapeutic applications and shape memory polymers. Currently, he is the program manager and scientist at A*STAR Institute of Materials Research & Engineering.

As a young person in the industry, he had a lot of interesting thing to say about fellowships, publishing articles, and holding the distinguished honor of being the first from Singapore to be inducted as a fellow at Cambridge’s Fitzwilliam College.   Read the entire interview below.

+ + +

Write for Wiley: How did you get interested in your area of research? Who were some of your heroes as a young academic?

Loh Xian Jun: Research came naturally to me as a kid. I was interested in ‘kitchen’ chemistry stuff. My first project was to try to grow rock sugar from normal cane sugar. I figured out that if you could have large salt crystals, you could do the same thing with sugar. I like good science and I do not really have any single hero. I really like the area of hydrogels and used to devour any articles that mentioned hydrogels in the work.

Talk about your current positions as scientist and program manager. Why did you decide to change gears from professor to manager and scientist? How did you prepare for this position change? How do these positions differ?

I have a dual role as a Program Manager of the Personal Care Program in Agency For Science Technology & Research (A*STAR) and as a scientist in the Institute of Materials Research and Engineering (IMRE). These jobs are complementary.

As the Program Manager, I am given the opportunity to lead the direction of the Personal Care initiative in A*STAR. I find it exciting to talk to the different scientists from the institutes, universities and companies and to try to align their directions towards a main thematic thrust. Through the interactions, I learn more about their science and then assess their relevance to the program. My other role is as a scientist in IMRE. Here, I am most at home and very happy with my chemicals and round bottomed flasks. Life as an independent investigator is very interesting. As I continue to push the boundaries which I have set during my PhD, I remind myself that I have to surpass what I have achieved and to be better than my predecessors.

I read that you were the first Singaporean to be inducted as a fellow at Cambridge University’s Fitzwilliam College. Talk a little about this. How did you get to receive this high honor? 

At Cambridge, I was inducted to Fitzwilliam College as a fellow, the first Singaporean to be given this honour. For me, a Singaporean, it is a great honour to belong to the same college as Singapore’s first Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew who is an honorary Fellow at the college.

What effect has it had on your career and your work and your recognition within the industry?

Joining Fitzwilliam College has been a very humbling and exciting appointment that has given me the opportunity to be part of the unique pedagogic faculty at Cambridge. Together with my research experiences, this exposure has enabled me to have personal insight into the eclectic and vibrant culture there. Being there allowed me to be exposed to many things, I did the usual journal publications, wrote a book there, organized conferences and had the opportunity to create world beating technology while I was there.

What are the major things you learned from your fellowships? Which one has been the most memorable?

I learnt three things.

First is humility, scientists have to be humble. We are in the business of generating knowledge and this is a never ending cycle. We should be humble to accept that we do not know or understand everything. Once we think that we are a know-it-all, we are finished.

Second is an open nature. Sometimes, we hold on to something, be it a technique, a know-how or a formulation, that seems valuable to us and we might be unwilling to share because we are afraid that others might copy the same idea and propagate the science instead of ourselves. This is not sustainable in today’s world. I believe in an open concept and continued innovation. Ideas can always be generated. Building walls and living in your isolated castles can only retard the progress of science. This leads directly to the point I made earlier about being able to communicate my science to the people.

Third is being able to give credit where credit is due. This comes later in the career where you become the project leader. I have seen the way my supervisor at Cambridge (Prof Oren Scherman) worked and how he accredits the lab members accordingly. And I have contrasted that with my observations at some conferences where scientists present their work without giving due credit to the co-workers. Even in journal publications, I believe that postdocs who are trying to build their own careers should ‘own’ the work together with their supervisors. This is a concept which will take time to gain acceptance but is something which I want to put right in my own team. If a student or a postdoc develops a technology in my lab that is world class and decides to develop it further later in his career, I would be more than happy to support that.

I believe the third is the most memorable and noteworthy.

What advice do you have for others applying for fellowships? Why do you believe these to be important?

Have a clear view of what you want and the final goal you have in mind. Be able to communicate your science to the interview panel. Being book smart is no longer sufficient these days; you have to be relevant to the ecosystem you are in.

You’ve published a large number of journal articles. What tips do you have for those who hope to get their research published in journals? What do you wish someone had told you at the start of the process?

I believe that writing style is important. The clarity of the manuscript is important. The reviewer typically looks at the title, followed by the abstract. Reviewers and editors are very busy people and for proper journals, the cover letter is your 15 minutes of exclusive time with the editor. It allows you to put forward your case for publication.
What is one thing you wish you learned earlier in your career? What advice do you have for younger colleagues?
I started my research at a very young age of 17. Throughout, I have been through experiences, both good and bad. For all the papers, none is more important than the grant that financially provides a conducive research environment. I wished that I had a mentor who had guided me in grant writing earlier. Early on, what I knew, I learnt from books, from the internet. I learnt hands-on grant writing very late in my career.

The RCUK mandates & what it means for authors

Open Access is an important issue for journals authors.  This is the idea that journal articles should be available for free, with free re-use rights.  The fee to make an article open access is usually paid by the university or funder (and sometimes, the author). This policy is in contrast with journals requiring members to pay to read their issues.

If you are a UK author, you may be familiar with the Research Councils UK mandates.

For those who aren’t familiar, if you get funding from several organizations (MRC, BBSRC, AHRC, ESRC, EPSRC, NERC, STFC), you need to conform to the RCUK Open Access policies.

Here is a video explaining the policies and how to comply with them.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yV91BwY7pr0&w=560&h=315%5D

In the near feature, we will be featuring most posts on open access. If you have any specific questions for our experts, please let us know by commenting below or emailing us at authorblog@wiley.com.