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!
In the current ecosystem of academic publishing, research outputs make a long journey from the desks of researchers to research platforms. Once a preprint has been turned into a published paper, authors have almost no influence on metadata tagging, or whether their articles got indexed in a whole world of databases and research platforms. If you have ever come across a ‘ghost profile’ of yourself on the Web, this is where it came from.
With MyScienceOpen, our vision was to create a holistic platform where researchers can flexibly interact with their research outputs, and control the content themselves. In addition to our range of visibility enhancement services and impact monitoring tools, it remains crucial to enable authors to freely manage their articles on our platform and add new content easily and in a 100% legal way.
Flexible interaction with content from publishers
As a result, we are excited to announce our new article integration feature. This is the first time that a major research networking platform facilitates interaction with content from publishers, as opposed to manually uploaded records from individual authors.
In a time where we are all over-worked, it is crucial not to add to researcher fatigue. This is why we leverage ORCID for seamless and efficient integration of your research outputs into ScienceOpen.
Here, we will briefly guide you through our new content management features and share some tips and tricks to make the most out of them. Ready?
How to add your content to ScienceOpen and manage your publications
At the moment, you can add content to your ScienceOpen profile from two sources: from ORCID or form our existing corpus of 32 million article records. In addition, collection editors are also welcome to submit DOI lists, and BibTex or RefWorks files to us, and let us work our magic behind the scenes to integrate these into our database or your profile.
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!
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
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!
The May round of our free Open Access indexing competition comes with a focus on the broader context of scholarly communication: education. The new APC-free, Open Access journals that we selected will be fully integrated into, and promoted on, our platform. They hail from different corners of the world, as part of our mission to break down geographical barriers to research.
They facilitate critical and open discussion on all levels of the educational system and bring issues like transparency in education, inequalities in learning opportunities, educational management, students’ experiences in higher education, and bringing evidence-based best practices to the table.
Anyone can freely read, download, and share any of the articles, as well as export the article citation metadata to their favourite reference manager. ScienceOpen users can:
Society/Institution: Institute of Business Management, Karachi
Country of publisher: Pakistan
The Journal of Education and Educational Development focuses on both theoretical and applied research studies in education and related disciplines. Through publishing research articles, case studies, book reviews, and critical reviews, the journal intends to present its audience with interdisciplinary themes on education and educational development.
Research on emerging green technologies such as renewable energies, low-impact development strategies, advanced materials, smart water, and waste water management and remanufacturing is indispensable in tackling some of the world’s most pressing issues through continuous technological advancement.
Improving scientific literacy in these evolving fields is crucial, and at ScienceOpen we are helping to provide basic access to the latest important research.
Our recent additions of 2 publisher-led and 2 researcher-led collections bring together a selection of the latest innovations in the fields of energy engineering and management and ecology. They help us rethinking the relationship between our built and natural environment in the context of grand global challenges and offer life greening solutions for a sustainable social civilization.
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.
‘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.
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.
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.
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.