Today at ScienceOpen we’re pleased to welcome Hogrefe, a major publisher in the fields of psychology, psychiatry, and mental health, among our new partners in 2017. Their open access collection, Hogrefe OpenMind is now available on our platform and waiting for you to read, share, comment on or review.
The collection makes a significant contribution to keeping society’s mind open about relevant social psychological issues surrounding us. The collection consists of a diverse portfolio of highly-regarded, peer-reviewed articles in English and German covering many subject areas of psychology and psychiatry. As well as studies addressing highly-professional audience, such as psychometric tests, assessment reports, or experiment design updates, articles of the collection are centred around issues in psychology touching upon the functioning of any given society but are considered to be taboo topics by convention. These form the center-pieces of the OpenMind collection, and have the potential to facilitate a better understanding of these taboos and thus to raise awareness of them. So what are these issues?
1. The evolution and functioning of stereotypes
Stereotypes are something we all live by. Being part and parcel of our very basic cognitive mechanism and categorization, they unconsciously shape our worldview. This group of studies give us a chance to develop a reflexive, deliberate view of them as well as to gain a better understanding on how they work and how they influence us and structure our thinking.
2 other stereotype-related studies survey how stereotype awareness affects our behavioural patterns. More precisely, how awareness of stereotypes could affect a person’s behaviour and performance when they complete a stereotype-relevant task. They also point out which kind of stereotypes are stronger in this respect: race or gender.
2. How well do you know your biases? Priming factors underlying our moral decisions
These set of studies take us closer to the unconscious physical biases that might influence our moral judgements or self-evaluation.
3. Suicide intervention
A significant part of the collection comes from the journal Crisis and contains potentially life-saving information for all those involved in crisis intervention and suicide prevention. These studies show the more general, social dimensions and implications of these, for the first sight isolated, individual-level crises. As such, the collection helps to strengthen social awareness and the perception of responsibility towards suicide phenomena, and complements our existing collection on stigmatisation of mental health issues and suicide prevention.
2 of these studies sketch primary and multilevel suicide prevention strategies and show evidence-based best-practices for these efforts.
Not surprisingly, one of the biggest “suicide-magnets” of the world, the Golden Gate Bridge also has its rightful place in the collection. One study examines whether the suicide barrier on the Golden Gate Bridge is effective enough. Its results hold special relevance considering the recently growing number of committed suicides (second most-used suicide site in the world) despite the existence of the countermeasures.
Finally, Coveney et al. surveys another means of practical aid and shows how callers’ feedback on Samaritans National Suicide Prevention Helpline can help in providing a better service and therefore save more lives.
+1 Gender bias in academia
Gender bias is definitely a highly-debated issue in current academic discourse, and even the most read article on our platform is on the subject! Mutz, Bornmann, and Hans-Dieter contribute to a clearer picture by examining whether gender matters in grant peer review in an Austrian context. Here you can see their results. Peer review option is just 3 clicks away!
The importance of the free availability of these studies for everyone is beyond question. With the help of our new discovery tools and multiple filtering options you can easily find the most relevant pieces of the collection for you. Furthermore, you can also share them with your research community by adding them to your own collection. Take a look and get engaged!
The journal was established by the International Scientific Group of Applied Preventive Medicine I-GAP Vienna, Austria in 2010. Their three-pronged commitment was to find solutions to the current demands in social work practice, to help clinical social work students to fully develop their knowledge, skills and qualification, and to foster dialogue between social workers, doctors and teachers. This resulted in an open, independent exchange forum covering topics from Social Work, Psychology and other Social Sciences. Although theoretical concepts and suggestions are also part of the professional discussion, the journal is strongly practice-oriented and shares case-studies, reports and problem-solving strategies for issues such as healthcare ethics, family policies, unemployment or infectious diseases such as hepatitis or AIDS. The aim of supporting new generations is also represented in that students are encouraged to share their experiences and as such to add a fresh spirit to the value of the journal.
The multilingual character of the journal since it accepts works in numerous languages. Hitherto the majority of articles were written in English, Spanish and Catalan, but all abstracts are available in English.
Due to its digital format and annual publication frequency the journal favors articles longer than the usual standard (the longest one is a 267 page thorough study from Jaume J. Chiner Gimeno updating the biographical records of the writer Joan Roís de Corella (1435-1497)). This is especially beneficial in the case of such a textology & philology oriented field as medieval studies, where in many cases space constraints impede the sharing of authentic texts or data in full length. Eliminating this obstacle, the journal aims to give forth longer texts, manuscripts and literary texts, critical editions or biographical data which are well-deserved to be openly published.
The journal puts special emphasis on medievalism and the maintenance of medieval heritage by means of facilitating exchange on digitization projects.
Magnificat CLM is strongly committed to Open Access values and collaboration for boundless research.
The high quality of articles as well as meticulous editing is guaranteed by the prestigious editorial team from the Universitat de València.
The third volume is a hot release from 9 December. Diving into the issue, you can read about a Renaissance love story, on the early reception of Dante in Catalan culture, on the intriguing epigraphic inscriptions of Lara (of the famous infantes), on a critical edition of several mythological Corellan proses and finally, on the importance of ekphrasis in Ramon Llull’s writings.
At ScienceOpen we’re pleased to announce yet another new publishing partnership with Cold Spring Harbor. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press is an internationally renowned publisher of books, journals, and electronic media, located on Long Island, New York, USA. Since 1933, it has helped to advance scientific knowledge in all areas of genetics and molecular biology, including cancer biology, plant science, bioinformatics, and neurobiology.
Articles display scores from Altmetric, and like all other open access content on our platform display the little OA logo. Integrated into our existing corpus of 26 million articles and article records, Cold Spring Harbor content will be put into context through our citation and recommendation network.
For more information about our indexing services, please contact our Marketing Manager Agata Morka (firstname.lastname@example.org). We are still running our free indexing competition for APC-free open access journals, so get in touch if you qualify!
Recently we made the announcement that we were partnering with Brill, a major publisher in the Humanities and Social Sciences for more than 300 years, and who publishes more than 250 journals and 1000 books and reference works each year.
The journals now indexed on our site, and some of the selected articles are:
Indo-European Linguistics, a fully open access journal devoted to the study of the ancient and medieval Indo-European languages:
In a fairly big release today, we are pleased to announce a big new partnership with SciELO, the Scientific Electronic Library Online. Many of you might know SciELO as the leading Open Access publisher in Latin America and what we might consider to be developing or emerging countries. At last count, they had published almost 600,000 peer reviewed research articles in more than 1200 journals, so constitute an enormous contribution to our global research knowledge!
Typically, SciELO content is still largely excluded from what we might consider the ‘research powerhouses’ and “global” indexing platforms of the western world. In 2013, SciELO was integrated into the Web of Science, but only covered around half of their journals. Some SciELO Brazil content is also indexed in Scopus, but this is a pay-to-access service.
As such, simply being Open Access is not sufficient in the current scholarly publishing climate – you have to be promoted, shared, and recognised too! This is crucial for publishers in terms of generating increased visibility, transparency, and credibility for research, all principles embodied by Open Access. So ScienceOpen is partnering with SciELO to generate increased visibility for its content, and to provide an enhanced global perspective on research.
Some might be wondering where you’ve heard of SciELO before. Well, Open Access advocate and keeper of predatory publishing lists Jeffrey Beall publicly commented last year that SciELO was akin to the ‘favelas’ of the scholarly publishing world, and created a bit of a stir. Thankfully, this derogatory and unnecessary characterisation was met with appropriate responses, but revealed a somewhat ingrained cultural perspective that some ‘western’ academics, and those involved in scholarly publishing, might still have: research and publishing from Latin America and peripheral countries is of lower quality than the north, for no apparent reason than geography; a factor which is often referred to as ‘ethnocentric prejudice’.
Well, at ScienceOpen we think such views are not helpful in creating a more global, collaborative and open research foundation. We believe that through integration we are stronger, and that we gain more by transcending barriers than creating them. The future of research is through global collaboration, sharing, and enabling open practices, and this is what we’re doing with SciELO. Indeed, SciELO are arguably doing more to advance Open Access publishing and global knowledge than many well-established publishers in Europe and North America!
Which is why partnering with SciELO is exciting for us for many reasons!
ORCID (Open Researcher and Contributor ID) is a community-based effort to provide a registry of unique and persistent researcher identifiers, and through this links to research activities and outputs. It is a powerful tool for both researchers and institutions, and can be easily integrated with CrossRef, PubMed Central, Scopus, and other data archives to populate researcher records.
Hello there, and Happy New Year from the new Communications Director of ScienceOpen!
My name’s Jon, and I’m currently finishing up my PhD at Imperial College London, where I’m a palaeontologist! (think Ross from Friends..) This year, I’ve been fortunate enough to join the ScienceOpen team to help grow their communications and networking abilities, and continue to realise the benefits of their pretty cool open research networking platform.
Those of you who know me will be aware that open access and more broadly, open science and communications, is something that I’ve been quite active in over my short career as a researcher. Some of the more ‘open-related’ projects I’ve been involved with include the writing of the Open Research Glossary, as well as challenging the AAAS on non-optimal publishing practices. For those of you lucky enough not to have met me yet, I’m highly interested in a whole array of factors that influence scholarly communication, including:
Publishing and disruptive technologies and innovation
Access to raw data and reproducibility
Community building and the power of social networks
Social media for researchers
Science communication, public engagement and outreach
Academic assessment and altmetrics
I’ll be taking over the reins from Liz Allen, who will shortly announce her new non-profit role. Rest assured that she will continue to spread the word about the importance of open. On behalf of the ScienceOpen team, I’d like to take this opportunity to thank Liz for helping to establish our brand and offering her personal support as I get up to speed with the nuances of the job. Over the next few months (and onwards), I hope to help to raise awareness of what ScienceOpen does, and why it should be part of the essential toolkit for researchers, along with a host of other innovative applications that are bringing research into the digital age.
Why ScienceOpen? Well, apart from the obvious name, I support their ideals that science deserves to be open, transparent, and equal in every way. This essentially is the inverse of the traditional method of scholarly communication of publishing via journals, which are closed, opaque, and beset by inequalities on all fronts, the foremost being financial. ScienceOpen offers a valuable service that doesn’t replace traditional publishing, but compliments it through having a community aspect of driving open peer review, which is still the golden standard of acceptability for published research. Combine this with a hefty archive of both open and non-open research articles, and you have a valuable platform for developing research networks and building upon the published literature in an open, transparent, and community-driven way. For me, this is just one of the many ways in which the way we conduct research and disseminate those results is changing for the better, by harnessing the power of the Web and the opportunities it gives us for greater inter-operability throughout academia.
Alongside my activities here, I’ll be continuing my research and finishing the dreaded thesis, as well my science communication activities, in particular for the PLOS Paleo network which is great fun! So essentially combining my three favourite things: research, science communication, and open science policy and communications. Yay!
You can contact me on Twitter, or drop me an email if you wish. I look forward to working with ScienceOpen, and with them the global research community!
Following well received news earlier this week that we have enabled content filtering (over 10 million articles and records) on ScienceOpen by Altmetric scores (which measure social and mainstream media attention) and Citations, we’re delighted to share this convo between Euan (Altmetric) and Stephanie (ScienceOpen).
Euan: ScienceOpen is beginning to show up on our radar as a content aggregator. What is your goal with ScienceOpen and where are you heading?
Stephanie: Our goal has always been more open scholarly communication.
ScienceOpen is a freely accessible network for aggregating, sharing, and evaluating research information with over 10 million Open Access articles and bibliographic records. Moving forward our focus is on exposing the context of scholarly content. Powerful search and filtering tools, including the first publically available citation index and now the article Altmetric score, will help researchers rapidly find the literature they need.
Altmetric is also an information aggregator and has strongly influenced the debate on how to measure research impact. Altmetric is highlighting the benefits of Open Access in terms of increased attention by the scholarly community. I think it was at a conference coffee break when we talked about how it would be great to be able to search and filter by Altmetric score and now here we are – natural partners!
Euan: What first got you interested in altmetrics and why were you keen to add the Altmetric badges to the site?
At ScienceOpen, the individual research article is always at the center of what we develop. The Altmetric score provides unique insight into the quality and quantity of attention that a scholarly article has received. If citations represent the geneology of an idea, altmetrics tracks its dissemination. Together they give a fuller picture of the “impact” of an article – a tricky category but a worthwhile goal.
By making search results filterable by both citation numbers and Altmetric score, we can provide researchers with different entryways into the data – and that in and of itself may generate new ideas. That is why we were so interested in including the Altmetric badges on the site.
And of course we love the rainbow donuts!
Euan: How do you think that authors or researchers can make best use of your platform?
In three main ways.
It’s a great discovery resource. A search on ScienceOpen does not just pull up a list of article records, but rather a network of information. Topics and articles can be explored via authors, references, keywords, altmetrics, comments and more. Results can be narrowed and sorted and the search parameters saved. Most importantly, the research itself is center stage independent of publisher and journal. We strive to expose as much context for the research on our site as possible.
All content on the platform is available for Post-Publication Peer Review by scientific members with five or more peer-reviewed publications on their ORCID which helps maintain a high standard of discourse. Our larger goals here are to speed up the communication of science by moving its evaluation to after publication, to eliminate anonymity in the interests of transparency and to ensure that the conversation around science never ends. From our perspective, quality assurance does not end at the moment of publication.
ScienceOpen also appoints members of the research community to the role of Collection Editor and they curate articles from multiple publishers in any topic using a Collection tool. The big picture here is to complement the topical bundling done by individual journals and publishers with flexible post-publication collections across all scientific knowledge. The best papers can be included, regardless of whether published on a pre-print server or top journal. In this way we can support of the values espoused by DORA by developing alternatives to the Impact Factor.
Euan: On the technical side, the content you host – could you tell us where it comes from, and how much we’re talking about in terms of volume?
Our platform currently consists of over 10 million articles and records. We have imported to-date 950K full text Open Access articles from PubMed Central and roughly 830K records from arXiv. The additional roughly 8 million bibliographic records are extracted from the references within the full text content. We have started updating the records with the full metadata from external sources (currently PubMed ORCID) for better usability of the content. We also compare the references to ensure that we have good matching so we can merge reference data to create our citation index.
Euan: Where will site visitors be able to find the badges/what can they expect to see?
Researchers will find the Altmetric badge both on the search results page, where they can filter their search by Altmetric score to find the most talked-about paper in their field, as well as on each individual article page as part of the article metrics. When researchers have landed on a paper of interest, they can drill down to find out exactly what aspect of the research people are talking about. The score itself is just a starting point to discover more and we would hope that researchers would treat it critically as with any metric.
As we continue to develop the site we may find unique ways to present the Altmetric score such as an aggregated Altmetric score for collections.
Euan: Do you offer any other article level metrics?
We are committed to providing as much context to an article as possible and article level metrics are central to this mission. On each article page we have a summary box that displays reader numbers on ScienceOpen, citations, post-publication reviews, comments, recommendations and shares.
Search results from within the 10 million articles and records on the site can be filtered by reader count, review rating and, most recently, number of citations.
We have taken the first steps towards a publically available citation index, something that the scientific community truly needs. Researchers can sort their search results by citation number, view the reference list sorted by citation and see other articles by same author, with more contextual information to come. These citation numbers are correct (in a relative not an absolute sense) and can be very useful together with the Altmetric badge to quickly sort articles based on attention by the scientific community.
Euan: Would you like a Donut?
I don’t mind if I do. By return, here’s a 41 second video “How to filter your search by Altmetric” complete with groovy Berlin Techno soundtrack (nice going Dan Cook!).
I am the Co-founder and Chief Strategy Officer, ScienceOpen (@tigracc). This OA Week, it gives me great pleasure to publish the first in a series of posts about the strategy behind the evolution of the platform and our drive to reveal the context of OA articles which we believe is a powerful and disruptive mechanism in the next wave of the OA movement.
When ScienceOpen started our Open Access initiative in 2013, we focused on publishing and networking. We understood that research communication is all about Open Access content and networking was the mechanism that supported authors in preparing their article and helping the publication of their research. And such articles had to be openly available, so they could be discovered and serve as proof of their engagement.
We of course also knew that other organizations offered a great deal but all these features were available as bits and pieces on other publisher’s sites (Post-Publication-peer-review, “speedy publication after a thorough but fast editorial acceptance, among others), but not in one place and not combined. We felt there was far too much focus on vanity and luxury at the core of the publishing process, instead of support for researchers who need to understand what others before them have done and deliver their contribution, that could and would be incorporated into the ever growing corpus of knowledge. Researchers are builders and breakthroughs are the result of collaboration over time. Ingenious ideas need a base to evolve from and – less eloquently said then Newton and some others before – there’s no genius who doesn’t stand on the shoulders of others before them.
Along the way, we recognized some thresholds and obstacles slowing down the migration to Open Access and they were greater then we initially anticipated. We were always aware of the Impact Factor trap, fostering the illusion that it provides a glorious, if sometimes miraculous, entry into the higher echelons of science, but we also knew that it was based on a hollow foundation.
Over time, we learned to see this entire conundrum from the viewpoint of the individual researcher. She does not have the luxury of statistics, it’s all about her research, her fight for her career and as long as institutions use these as a major tool for gratification, it is the researchers de facto trap of our time. There’s not much difficulty asking established scientists to publish Open Access and similarly offering services to young scientists, especially by providing a home for posters and the like, is easy. But the mass of scientists, too young to be settled and too old to take a risk, is a different animal.
We do see them (slowly) turning to Open Access but, somewhat alarmingly, we see them doing that with traditional publishers like Springer Nature, PLOS, Wiley and others, than with new and “revolutionary” ones . Why? Because those settled publishers provide Brands and for the time being IFs, that the researchers can present. They are taking a step in the right direction, just a more expensive and challenging one than it needs to be. There’s no blame here and there are a few ways we can press forward: we can ask tenure commissions, research funders and institutions to stop considering brand-related impact factors and start seriously focusing on the articles themselves, and we will continue to do so together with the core of the Open Access movement. While this trend is further eroding the base of the Impact Factor illusion it’s not really razing it to the ground.
So, is that it? We just wait another 10 to 15 years till the Impact Factor starts to wither and hope that we win out on the long run?
Instead of doing just that, we need to go forward by continuous development of (a) new publishing paradigm(s) and we need to start to show the (currently hidden) additional benefits of Open Access. Benefits which are transcending the “article” and start to expose a glimpse of the new eco-system, which can flourish with this opening.
We see three pillars for ScienceOpen to focus on, all of them geared to help create an eco-system,which inherently weakens the Impact Factor and therefore helps to direct energy and momentum to Open Access:
Here’s what we set out to acheive:
Put the article at the center (independent of publisher, journal and other silos)
Expose all available article based information (activities, reviews, comments, …)
Provide as much context as we can (references and citations)
This strand is the newest addition to the ScienceOpen platform. Just recently we started to expose contextual information on the more than 10 million articles and records aggregated on ScienceOpen. We did this by consecutively creating stubs for all referenced articles from the base Open Access corpus. Adding more and more publicly available but distributed information about these articles and extracting additional facts, we can already expose the connections of almost 6 million authors mainly in Life Sciences. We do provide information about similar articles, most cited references, most referenced authors and all detected citations. This, like other available metadata, can be used to navigate, research and learn about the context of a given article. Given that our article base is publisher and journal independent, all this context becomes meaningful and turns the whole article base itself into a research object, at the fingertips of the researcher. All this information is revolving around the core content instead of arbitrary segments like the publisher. We allow you to focus on the research itself, to explore related information, people and institutions. Go on and find out who else is researching about the field in question, which connections are more meaningful than others, what collaborations exist etc.
Months ago we started to support and propagate the usage of Collections. We see Collections as a way to create theme-based and up to date clusters of information that matter most for any specific field of research. These being journal and publisher independent and as such another nail in the coffin for the Impact Factor. I don’t believe that any Journal can be a better collection on any theme, than one that is based from a researchers selection from the universe of content. Our Collections can and will expose different aspects of a topic– foundation articles, most discussed ones, etc. – and can therefore become a natural magnet for publishing negative results where they make most sense.
Since the launch of ScienceOpen, we have worked on providing a platform that lends itself to the concept of Public Post Publication Peer Review (P4R), an approach that helps to attack one of THE corner stones of the Closed Access Publishing Paradigm: the use of enormous energy from the research community for an almost always secretive peer review process with the main purpose of utilizing selection to improve the Impact Factor of a journal. Besides the price of suppression of less glamorous results (including negative results) and/or slowing down the publishing process to an unacceptable degree and all the costs for society this generates, traditional peer review hampers public discourse and is bad for science. Instead P4R speeds up publication, fosters public discourse and allows the reviewer to benefit from their (now public) work.
We strongly believe, that the set of these activities is invigorating the the strength of the Open Access paradigm. ScienceOpen is committed to work on all three of these strands to expose more of the inherent strength of Open Access. Over the course of the next weeks and months we will discuss these activities in more detail and add more functionality along these lines.