Blog
About

Author: Jon Tennant

In:  Collections  

We need to get informed about Climate Change

Climate change needs open science

We are in the midst of a global information and knowledge crisis. Access to scientific research has never been more important to provide the basis for debates on critical issues such as climate change, global health, and renewable energies.

At ScienceOpen, we want to play our part here. We have built an automatically updating research collection on climate change for anyone and everyone. It has almost 7,500 research articles, each of which are Open Access. This means they are freely available for anyone to read, re-use, and share without restriction!

Collection statistics – growing every day!

The collection already has 80,000 views, demonstrating the power of our collections features, and joins more than 150 others so far on ScienceOpen!

Continue reading “We need to get informed about Climate Change”  

In:  About SO  

Metrics are dead! Long live… metrics?

MyScienceOpen is your ScienceOpen

Last week, we unveiled MyScienceOpen, our new professional networking platform for researchers. MySciencOpen comes with a whole cadre of new features that combine the functionality of a range of existing social platforms, and bring them directly to you all in one place. You get access to all of this at the click of a button through our ORCID integration. Free, legal, and easy!

One of the main new features we’ve added is the ability for authors to upload non-specialist summaries to their articles. This is great for increasing the visibility and impact of your research at the point of discovery.

But how can you track this increased impact? Aha, well, we thought of that. Every user at ScienceOpen now has a whole suite of brand new metrics that track how their content is being re-used across ScienceOpen.

Quantifying your context

Everyone can see the tab for your content in context. These show how many total ‘nodes’ or connections your work forms in the context of the ScienceOpen platform. We show:

  • Your total number of publications
  • Your total number of different journals published in
  • How many co-authors you’ve published with
  • How many articles you’ve referenced
  • How many articles in our database have cited you
Exhibit 1

Continue reading “Metrics are dead! Long live… metrics?”  

In:  About SO  

Enhanced article impact with MyScienceOpen

Last week, we were pleased to announce the launch of our new professional networking platform, MyScienceOpen.

Fully integrated into our article archive of 32 million article records, and combined with our extensive researcher toolkit, MyScienceOpen is the only research networking platform you will ever need!

Now, this is not just another researcher profile. This is the researcher profile. Why have one profile for your research usage, another for you article records, another for your science communication activities, another to record your peer reviews, another for searching for research, and another for tracking citations and Altmetrics? It’s exhausting!

MyScienceOpen brings you all of these features into one platform. We make this even easier by leveraging the power of ORCID to make integration, tracking, and activation of your research one seamless process. All it takes is the click of a button!

Continue reading “Enhanced article impact with MyScienceOpen”  

In:  Announcements  

MyScienceOpen: The only networking platform you’ll ever need

Today, we are happy to announce our launch of MyScienceOpen, the professional networking platform designed for a modern research environment.

Since 2013, ScienceOpen has been leading innovation in advanced search and discovery, open peer review, and content management. Now, by leveraging the power of ORCID, we bring you our latest service for helping researchers to make an impact in the open.

MyScienceOpen is an integrated profile where academics can visualize their research impact through enhanced author-level metrics. Key new features include:

  • Interactive visualizations of an author’s readers, citations, and Altmetric scores for all their publications through time;
  • Addition of non-specialist article summaries, disciplines, keywords, and images to their article records;
  • Extraction of articles as RIS, BibTex and Endnote citation metadata for your reference managers;
  • Enhanced statistics for collection Editors to track usage.
New features to enhance your article visibility!

Making an impact in a research discovery ecosystem

We designed these new features for you to make an increased impact, and keep track as your research progresses. All of this is provided to you within the context of a discovery environment of more than 31 million article records. It just makes sense to have these profile and article enhancement features integrated into an ecosystem where people are actually discovering and re-using research. And for free, of course.

Continue reading “MyScienceOpen: The only networking platform you’ll ever need”  

In:  Peer Review  
Increasing academic support for Open Peer Review

Increasing academic support for Open Peer Review

‘Open research’ isn’t just about sharing resources like data, code, and papers, although this is a big part of it. One big, and often under-appreciated aspect of it is about making research accessible, inclusive, and participatory. A major principle driving this is leveraging transparency to bring processes and factors that are currently hidden into public view.

One area of research and scholarly communication where the debate is still very much ongoing for this is for peer review – our system of validation and gatekeeping to the vast archives of public knowledge.

OpenAIRE have released an important new survey and analysis on attitudes and experiences towards ‘Open Peer Review’ (OPR), based on more than 3000 respondents (full data available here to play with). This is important, as OPR is all about the principles above – making the process transparent, collaborative, inclusive, and in the end, better!

Below, we discuss some of the major findings of the survey, and how we at ScienceOpen fit into the bigger picture of Open Peer Review.

The future is Open

The main result of the survey is that the majority (60.3%) of respondents are in favour of OPR becoming a mainstream scholarly practice, particularly regarding open interaction, open reports and final-version commenting. Part of this is due to the relatively lower satisfaction scores reported, with just 56.4% of respondents being satisfied with traditional closed peer review, and 20.6% being dissatisfied – a much lower gap than all previous reports. From the survey, more than three quarters of respondents had previously engaged with OPR either as an author, reviewer, or editor. This suggests that OPR, in one form or another, is already probably more common practice than we might think.

Interestingly, this development is similar to what we saw with other aspects of ‘open science’ such as open access and open data – there is debate, experimentation, variable implementation, and finally they start to become accepted as the norm as policies, practices, and cultures adapt. The survey also showed that 88.2% of respondents were in favour of Open Access to publications, a much higher value than several years ago. It also found that support for OPR is correlated with support for Open Data and Open Access, which is perhaps not surprising, although conversations regarding OPR are still in their relative infancy.

This suggests that as debates around OPR mature, we are likely to see an increase in the uptake and support of it, as with other areas of ‘Open’. Indeed, the survey also found a difference in generational support for OPR, with younger generations favouring it more over more-established researchers. As it is these generations who will inherit and govern the system in the future, it is more likely to have the characteristics that they favour.

Continue reading “Increasing academic support for Open Peer Review”  

In:  Peer Review  

Defining Open Peer Review at ScienceOpen

Recently, our colleagues at OpenAIRE have published a systematic review of ‘Open Peer Review’ (OPR). As part of this, they defined seven consistent traits of OPR, which we thought sounded like a remarkably good opportunity to help clarify how peer review works at ScienceOpen.

At ScienceOpen, we have over 31 million article records all available for public, post-publication peer review (PPPR), more than 3 million of which are full-text Open Access. This functionality is a response to increasing calls for continuous moderation of the published research literature, a consistent questioning of the functionality of the traditional peer review model (some examples in this post), and an increasing recognition that scientific discourse does not stop at the ‘event’ point of publication for any research article.

Peer Review at ScienceOpen – A brief summary

Open participation

At ScienceOpen, we invite the whole scientific community to contribute to the review process, should they wish to. The only requirement is that the person has to be registered at ORCID and have at least five publications assigned to their ORCID account to write a review (Scientific Members and Experts). If you do not satisfy these requirements and wish to perform a peer review at ScienceOpen, please contact us and we will make an exception for you.

Users with at least one publication assigned to their ORCID account are able to comment on a paper (Members). Please refer to our User categories for further details.

We also encourage users to use our ‘Invite to review’ function (see below), which is available on more than 31 million article records. We know that editorial control will always be a critical aspect of any open peer review system, including PPPR, and therefore encourage collection Editors to solicit peer reviews for articles within their collections.

Continue reading “Defining Open Peer Review at ScienceOpen”  

Peering into the mind of our Neuroimaging Collection Editor, Jonathan Peelle

Peering into the mind of our Neuroimaging Collection Editor, Jonathan Peelle

This year in our Open Science Stars series, we’ve heard from researchers in Europe and Asia and their experiences of the publishing world, as well as from funders like the Gates Foundation. Today, we’ve interviewed Jonathan Peelle, a cognitive psychologist working in the Department of Otolaryngology at Washington University in Saint Louis. Jonathan recently built a collection on Neuroimaging Methods (ways to look inside your brain..), at ScienceOpen, so we decided it would be nice to turn the tables and pick his brain instead to learn about his research background and interests in open science!

  1. Hi Jonathan! Thanks for joining us. Can you tell us a bit about your research interests?

My research is focused on the neuroscience of language processing, and how sensory and cognitive systems interact to enable communication. We are interested in questions like:

  • How can we understand people we’ve never heard before?
  • Why is having a conversation in noise harder for some people than for others?
  • How similar is brain activity across a group of people?

My lab spends a lot of time studying people with hearing loss and cochlear implants because of the profound effects these have on sensory processing. We rely on converging evidence from behavioral studies, structural MRI, and functional neuroimaging.

MRI scan of human head in a patient with benign familial macrocephaly (Source)

Continue reading “Peering into the mind of our Neuroimaging Collection Editor, Jonathan Peelle”  

In:  About SO  

Getting started at ScienceOpen

We recognise that some times it’s not clear exactly what you’re supposed to do when joining a new research platform. What are the important features, what’s everybody else doing, how do I make my profile as strong as possible? Well, hopefully this will make it easier for you. If you’re still wondering ‘What’s that ScienceOpen thing all about?’, hopefully this will add a bit of clarity too!

Here are the main things you need to know about ScienceOpen:

  • Get an ORCID account

More than 3 million researchers already have an ORCID account, which acts as both a unique identifier and an integrated profile for them. Registration for it takes 30 seconds, and is now a core part of scholarly infrastructure, with many journals requiring an ORCID profile prior to article submission. Make sure it’s well-populated with all of your published papers, (drawn automatically from Web of Science, Scopus, or CrossRef). Easy!

  • Refresh your profile from ORCID

*click* Done.

From your profile page (eg here)

Continue reading “Getting started at ScienceOpen”  

In:  Peer Review  

Peer Review Week 2017 is all about transparency

At ScienceOpen, we have been pushing for greater transparency in peer review since our inception. We inject transparency at multiple levels, by identifying referees, publishing reports, providing formal recognition for contributions, and encouraging open interaction on our platform (more details here).

This is why we’re extremely stoked to see the theme for this year’s Peer Review Week to be all around the theme of transparency!

The idea for the first Peer Review Week, held in 2015, grew out of informal conversations between ORCID, ScienceOpen, PRE (Peer Review Evaluation), Sense About Science, and Wiley, the organizations that planned and launched the initiative in 2015. Last year, ScienceOpen hosted a webinar with Nature, PaperHive, and Publons along the theme of recgnising review.

In 2017, we are helping to organise a session at the Peer Review Congress to help showcase what peer review should look like when it works. We look forward to working with the other partner organisations and the global scholarly community in helping to make peer review a fairer, more transparent process.

Continue reading “Peer Review Week 2017 is all about transparency”  

In:  About SO  

ScienceOpen is a resource for the community

A core concept for our evolving understanding of open research and scholarship is that of equity and fairness within the global research community. At ScienceOpen, this is something we strongly believe in, and work together with a range of publishers and researchers to play our part in making this a reality for research.

As part of our mission, we therefore try to break down barriers in research, and prefer to build bridges over walls. Here are just some examples of how we do this, and in doing so contribute to building a platform that acts as a social community space for all researchers.

We harvest content from across platforms like PubMed Central, arXiv, SciELO and bring it all together in one place

One of the main features of ScienceOpen is that we are a research aggregator. We don’t select what we index based on discipline, publisher, or geography, as that just creates another silo. Enough of those exist already. What we need, and what we do, is to bring together research articles from across publishers and other platforms and into one space, where it is all treated in exactly the same way.

When you have articles displayed in this way, factors such as journal brands and impact factors play less importance than the actual content itself. Users can make their own choices about what to read, review, share, and re-use based on their own expertise and evaluation, or the social context provided by our other users.

We also don’t just focus on the hard sciences or the humanities and social sciences. Too often are the main fields of research and disciplines segregated from each other, rather than being used together in inter-disciplinary harmony. This is why we integrate research from across fields and at different levels, such as with the fantastic Open Library of Humanities, and also more recently a whole range of new content to help emphasise this from Materials Science, Biomedical Science, Entomology, Archaeology, Medical and Health Research, and er, dinosaurs.

Last year, SciELO integrated more than 500,000 Open Access articles with us from across Latin America, for the first time putting all of this research on the same level as that from research contained within PubMed Central. There is no reason why there should be geographical segregation of research across platforms. We believe that all research deserves to be read and re-used by anyone, irrespective of where that research was conducted and who published it.

Open Access isn’t just about access to knowledge, but also principles of equality, and to achieve that we have to recognize the value of research from around the world.

Continue reading “ScienceOpen is a resource for the community”  

  Previous page
12311