Blog
About

In:  Other  

Welcome to ScienceOpen version 2.017

Kick off the new year with the new unified search on ScienceOpen! We have accomplished a lot over the last year and are looking forward to supporting the academic community in 2017.

In 2016 ScienceOpen brought you more context: Now your search comes with a new analytics bar that breaks down your search results by collections, journals, publishers, disciplines, and keywords for quicker filtering. Try a search for the pressing topics of 2016 like Zika or CRISPR and take the new features for a spin.

Researcher output, journal content, reference lists, citing articles can all be dynamically sorted and explored via Altmetric score, citations, date, activity. Statistics for journals, publishers and authors give overview of the content that we are indexing on ScienceOpen. Check out the most relevant journals on ScienceOpen, for example BMC Infectious Diseases or PloS Genetics for a new perspective. Or add your publications to your ORCID and get a dynamic view of your own output.

Image by Epic Fireworks, Flickr, CC BY

In 2016 ScienceOpen brought you more content: We welcomed publisher customers across the entire spectrum of disciplines to ScienceOpen and expect many more for the upcoming year. We added multiple journals from Brill, River Publishers, Open Library of Humanities, Higher Education Press and featured collections for PeerJ Computer Science, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press Molecular Case Studies and the Italian Society for Victimology. We had the pleasure to work with a very diverse group, from STM to HSS, from open access to subscription-based journals, creating interdisciplinary bridges and new connections for their content. We further integrated all of SciELO on ScienceOpen this year for a more global perspective and have had a great time working with them. We are at over 27 million article records and adding content every day.

In 2016 ScienceOpen brought you more open: The ScienceOpen team participated in and helped organize numerous community events promoting Open Science. From Peer Review Week to OpenCon, talks at SSP in Vancouver and SpotOn in London, our team was on the road, debating hot issues in scholarly communication.

In order to bring more visibility to smaller community open access journals, very often with close to non-existent funding and run on a voluntary basis, we launched our platinum indexing competition. It was geared towards open access journals charging no APCs to their authors. Four successful rounds in, we have selected 18 journals to be indexed and awarded some of them with special featured collections on the ScienceOpen platform. This activity was particularly rewarding as we heard back from journals’ editors expressing their enthusiasm about the ScienceOpen project and enjoying bigger usage numbers on their content.

The ScienceOpen 2.017 version will continue to focus on context, content and open science. We are your starting point for academic discovery and networking. Together let’s explore new ways to support visibility for your publications, promote peer review, improve search and discovery and facilitate collection building. Here is to putting research in context! The year 2016 had some great moments – may 2017 bring many, many more!

Your ScienceOpen team

8 thoughts on “Welcome to ScienceOpen version 2.017”

  1. Open Access Journals don’t seem to take full advantage of their key feature.

    When a researcher is reading an article by his peer, what is it that can make him suffer most? Unavoidable misprints and minor errors are responsible for that. Correcting them is always time-consuming and has a distracting effect on content comprehension. Similarly, on publication of one’s own article one frequently sees in it some minor faults and misprints whose correction would constitute an improvement.

    Conventional hard copy journals use in such cases a procedure that can be regarded as highly impractical. Even though an appropriate letter may be sent to the editor very soon, it will not be published without much delay, if at all. In any case, the article and the corrigenda will appear in different issues of the journal and thus may not be jointly taken notice of by all readers.

    On the contrary, an Open Access Journal could see to it that any corrigenda could be accessed in the very file of the article in point. The reader could then be informed of a misprint a moment after it had been noticed. My strong belief is that providing such an option to contributors would improve the impact factors of any Open Access Journal.

    Igor Andrianov
    Professor
    RWTH Aachen University, Germany

    1. Hi Igor, thanks for your comment! Yes, post-publication editing of this sort is frustrating and often time consuming. All 27.5 million articles on our platform can be commented on or formally peer reviewed post-publication. As well as this, ‘overlay’ services such as PaperHive provide useful annotation tools that can be used to indicate where these corrections are needed.

      Jon

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *