Blog
About

UCL’s innovative open access megajournal starts taking submissions

For the official press release, please see our Press Room, UCL News, and Science|Business.  

UCL Press has launched its new open access megajournal ‘UCL Open’ and will start accepting academic research submissions from today (January 31, 2019).

It is the first university megajournal providing an open access and transparent end to end publishing model, enabling research to be accessible to everyone.

It is being piloted with UCL Open: Environment which focuses on environment-related research and will include contributions from life and earth sciences, as well as medical, physical, population, engineering, and social sciences. The model is expected to be developed and rolled out across a broad range of multidisciplinary research subjects.

Continue reading “UCL’s innovative open access megajournal starts taking submissions”  

Kicking off the new year with 50 million article records!

Image by Epic Fireworks, Flickr, CC BY

We made it! ScienceOpen reached a major milestone: 50 million article records in 5 years of making science open! What’s more, this number is increasing faster and faster as we index more articles. ScienceOpen’s aggregation engine enables us to track citation genealogies and identify similar publications from published articles, making it possible to exponentially push the boundaries of our research discovery environment.

To mark our successful 5-year journey to 50 million records, ScienceOpen CEO Stephanie Dawson talks about the meaning of this milestone for ScienceOpen’s future and scholarly communication in general.

Continue reading “Kicking off the new year with 50 million article records!”  

Open Science: Is the future already here?

Photo credit: ‘Science is great, open it (open science)’, Martin Clavey, Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0

How will we report the results of scholarly research in the future? Probably not on paper. Digital, accessible, machine-readable, reproducible describe the foundations of open science. And, increasingly, the question for funders, publishers, and institutes is becoming: can we influence how research is done by changing the requirements and attributes of the research “paper”?

With the growing opportunities of the digital world, the demand for open access to research articles developed into an open science movement that strives for science to be done in an “open, and reproducible fashion where all components of research are open”. The process of making all aspects of science open, transparent, and interoperable is a huge endeavour and means different things for different communities. ScienceOpen’s commitment to open science has been clear from its foundation: we make science open. Our latest project in the realization of this goal has been integrating ‘BMJ Open Science’ as a new open access featured collection on our platform.

Continue reading “Open Science: Is the future already here?”  

McGill Professors/MUHC RI scientists launch new Point-Of-Care Testing (POCT) Super Collection on Infectious Diseases on ScienceOpen

For the original press release, see our Press Room and Knowledgespeak

ScienceOpen is pleased to announce six new collections on Point-Of-Care Testing technologies  curated and organized by a team led  by Dr. Nitika Pant Pai, MD., MPH., PhD—a tenured Associate Professor at McGill University in the Department of Medicine and a Research Scientist at the MUHC Research Institute—as active contributions to the mission of open science medicine research for a positive global impact in healthcare. Her trainees, Anna De Waal, Alexie Kim, Nandi Belinsky, joined her in curating this collection. Continue reading “McGill Professors/MUHC RI scientists launch new Point-Of-Care Testing (POCT) Super Collection on Infectious Diseases on ScienceOpen”  

Spring Competition: Review an Article on ScienceOpen & Enter a Drawing for an Amazon Kindle Fire Tablet!

 

This Spring, we are organising a little competition for all you researchers! Review an article on ScienceOpen before the end of April, and we will enter you into a prize drawing for an Amazon Kindle Fire tablet.

  • Open Peer Review on ScienceOpen

ScienceOpen counts currently more than 40 million articles including 3.7 million open access articles as well as more than 1.4 million preprint articles. All these articles are open on ScienceOpen to a fully transparent review process: open identities, open reports, and open interaction on the platform (see our precedent blogpost here).

At ScienceOpen, we believe that “Open Science” is not just about sharing research data. For us, “Open Science” aims to make research and underlying data accessible in order to inform and allow researchers communities to take part in discussions regarding their field, increasing overall participation and relevant inclusion of different perspectives.

Open peer reviews are also crucial in this current context of rapid development of open science and digital scientific communication. If the openness of scientific contents is a first victory for the advancement of research and innovation, open peer review still needs to be embodied in this practice to establish its full credibility and full benefit. (Picture: CC0 1.0)

  • What does reviewing on ScienceOpen bring concretely to reviewers?

→ Reviews are published under Creative Commons Attribution License CC-BY (4.0) and will receive a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) from Crossref. This makes them fully equivalent to any Open Access publication, and they can be cited or integrated further into platforms like Publons, Impactstory, or ORCID.

→ As open access publications indexed on ScienceOpen, reviews are public and can be found easily on the platform using the filter “Content type”: “Review”. For a more precise search, this filter can be used for example in combination with the title of an article.

 

 

→ Reviewing articles on ScienceOpen is a great way to show the reviewer’s involvement in his/her research field and his/her appreciation for researchers who have dedicated their time to providing a research resource to their community.

  • Ready, set, go!

The only requirement to write a review on ScienceOpen is to be registered with ORCID (already done with a ScienceOpen profile) and have at least five publications assigned to the ORCID account (with which you reach ScienceOpenExpert status). If you do not meet these requirements but would still like to review a paper, contact us.

To enter the drawing, all you need to do is:

→ Log in to ScienceOpen

→ Explore our Content, our Collections

→ Choose any article in your field and click “Review article”.

You can also “Invite someone to review”. This video will help you in getting started.

 

 

We look forward to your reviews & will announce the winner on April 30th, 2018!

Good luck!

 

In:  Collections  

Showcasing our favourite ScienceOpen collections

In the last few months at ScienceOpen, we have rolled out an incredible number of new features for our users. Now, we feel it is time to take stock, and reflect on how you are all using them to help enhance your research. We want to recognise some of the valuable work from the global research community in helping to make science more open!

There are now 177 excellent research collections published on ScienceOpen, each with our pretty slick new collection statistics. With this, we want to highlight just a few of the latest collections that have really caught our eye. Here, the collection editors have each done exceptional work in curating and promoting research to create a valuable resource for their communities.

Take a dive into one of the latest collections all about the world of sponges!

Take your pick!

  • Good practices in cognitive neuroscience and science communication – Cyril Pernet and Jonathan Peelle
    • For researchers, scientific integrity and communication have never been more important. This collection contains some excellent articles on statistics and data visualisation and data and code sharing.
  • Small-angle X-ray scattering: Recent – Brian Pauw
    • Part of the new SAXS collection series, this automatically updates with the most recent publications in the field. A fantastic educational resource for Chemistry students.
  • Research paper of the future – Gail Clement and Plato Smith
    • Papers relating to new models and prototypes of the future research article. Great for those interested in scholarly communication!
  • Wikipedia Quality – Egon Willighagen
    • How much do you trust the information in Wikipedia? This collection has some research to illuminate this for you!
  • Paleontology of Mongolia – Andrew Farke
    • Mongolia is a treasure trove of fossils for palaeontologists. Learn about what they’ve discovered here!
  • Pneumonia, sex, and the environment – Patricia Silveyra (read her Editorial here!)
    • Articles describing the link between air pollution, pneumonia, and the differences between male and female individuals.
  • Tics – Kevin Black
    • The science behind tic disorders such as Tourette’s syndrome.
  • Higher order chromatin architecture – Wolf Gebhardt
    • Delving into our understanding of the function and structure of higher order chromatin.

Collection statistics looking great here!

 

Continue reading “Showcasing our favourite ScienceOpen collections”  

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”  

  Previous page
1237