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.
This means that there’s no journal policy checking, no manual uploading, and no takedown notices, as the whole thing is based directly on your publication record itself.
The new ORCID integration button on your profile page takes you to your Dashboard where you can import articles from your ORCID account with one click. After clicking on Refresh from ORCID, your ORCID records will be automatically imported to ScienceOpen. If needed, you can update ORCID permissions or edit your ORCID profile.
Claim authorship feature
Another option for adding content to your ScienceOpen profile is claiming authorship of articles from our research corpus. It’s simple: select the Get more content menu on your dashboard (or just click on the Get more content button on your profile). Here the Claim your articles option shows how many potentially matching articles are found for you to claim. In case of finding this result list too long, the multi-layered searching and filtering tools available on all our search pages will help you to filter the needles from the haystack.
In addition to the Claim authorship button, a Mark asnot mine button is also available on each article record waiting for your confirmation of authorship. A click to this will ensure that the record in question will never appear again on your list. By doing so, you can help us to improve our database.
By claiming your articles, each record will become displayed among your publications. On the top of this, the claimed record will also be linked back into your ORCID profile via real-time synchronization.
As a result, a reciprocal ORCID-ScienceOpen integration comes full circle.
To make the most of this feature, we share some tips & tricks in our brand new FAQ page.
3 main benefits of reciprocal ScienceOpen-ORCID integration
Joining to ORCID’s Collect & Connect initiative, our aim was to contribute to a more verified and transparent ecosystem of academic communication. By leveraging the power of reciprocal ScienceOpen-ORCID integration, we make sure that your research on ScienceOpen:
Is assigned to the right person
As a persistent identifier, your ORCID ID distinguishes you from other authors with similar names. Linking back your article records available on our platform to your ORCID account helps us recognize the researcher behind the article record and hence disambiguate any conflicts in authorship and metadata.
Retains complete control by its author(s) in terms of visibility and metadata
Having your articles integrated to your ORCID profile allows you to edit your research metadata (e.g., to add additional information such as DOIs to your article records or to modify the list of order of authors on the article record). Furthermore, you can also list manuscripts and preprints to your ORCID account to make your research visible from its inception. This visibility however can be shaped and controlled by the privacy settings on the information in your record.
Is easily connectable and has cross-platform compatibility
Being listed in your ORCID profile, article records can be linked to multiple platforms though ORCID bringing about better connectivity to your research. Having therefore just one highly-integrated and detailed profile like ORCID, you can save time from manually maintaining all the different platforms.
MyScienceOpen is your ScienceOpen
When your content is complete on ScienceOpen, we will display your research in context:
Dynamic views of readership and Altmetrics through time
Total citations of your work, and links to all articles
Articles you have referenced available on ScienceOpen
Similar authors and research articles you might not be aware of
Have any collection Editors singled out your work?
It’s your turn now to play around with our new article management and integration features and tell us how you like them. As a next step in boosting your research impact, make use of our brand new enhance visibility tools and add non-specialist summaries, images, keywords or discipline tags to your article records. Enjoy! 🙂
Here you can learn more about why we don’t support direct manual upload.
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!
How can something exclusive, secretive, and irreproducible be considered to be objective? How can something exclusive, secretive, and irreproducible be considered as a ‘gold standard’ of any sort?
Traditional, closed peer review has these traits, but yet for some reason held in esteem as the most rigorous and objective standard of research and knowledge generation that we have. Peer review fails peer review, and its own test of integrity and validation, and is one of the greatest ironies of the academic world.
What we need is a new standard of peer review that is suitable for a Web-based world of scholarly communication. This is to help accommodate the increasingly rapid communication of research and new sources of information, and bring peer review out of the dark (literally) ages and into one which makes sense in a world of fast, open, digital knowledge dissemination.
What should a standard for peer review look like in 2017?
The big test for peer review, and any future version of it, is how does the scientific community apply its stamp of approval?
A whole new year means a chance to start or continue building your profile as an Open Scientist! There are so many ways you can do this, from publishing Open Access and sharing your research data, to helping to teach students how to code or use GitHub. Every little bit helps.
Here are ten recommendations from us to kick-start the New Year with an Open Science bang!
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.
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!
With the launch of our new unified search interface, we restructured the Author Profile page on ScienceOpen, providing dynamic ways to explore an author’s output.
For a very prolific author like Ray Dolan, Director of the Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging at UCL and author of 674 articles, it can be hard work for a reader to even just scroll through the titles of his total output. The new ScienceOpen author profile, however, provides the researcher a variety of avenues to delve into this content on their own terms. They can sort publications by Altmetric score, citations, usage, date or reviews – to find the view that fits their needs.
The left side-bar overview shows top collections, journals, publishers, keywords and disciplines. Users can also search within the publication list with a free-text search or add up to 14 filters to find exactly the content that is relevant to them
The top metrics bar provides a view on total usage of the articles on the site and activity by the author. And if you want to know more about the background of the author just click on the profile button for biography and more.
How does it work? From the beginning ScienceOpen has worked closely with ORCID and required an ORCID ID for active participation in the network. We draw our information therefore from a user’s public profile. If we detect an author who is not identified in our network with an ORCID (we are tracking nearly 15 million authors), we mark the profile as “record” to indicate a lower level of reliability; for example, this profile from Jonathan A. Eisen:
Below are several examples of interesting profiles on ScienceOpen to inspire you. We welcome you to search, explore, link your ORCID to your own profile and share your experience with us. At ScienceOpen we are striving to serve the academic community and always welcome your input.
Full steam ahead with our incredible Open Science Stars! We hope you’ve been enjoying it so far, and today we’re bringing you Dasapta Erwin Irawan, a a researcher based in Indonesia at the interface between Engineering, Hydrogeology and Geoscience, and an avid open science supporter. Enjoy his story!
When did you first hear about ‘open science’? What was your first reaction, do you remember? It’s kind of funny, I heard it first from you :). (Ed: *sniff*) It was one of your blog post in 2012 Relocation, and a chance to try some open science-ing that gave me ideas of sharing my results as fast as I can and as wide as I can. I had finished my PhD when I first read it and your posts on EGU blog. There I noticed your hash tags ‘#OpenPhD` then followed it. I wasn’t serious in using my Twitter handle for academic purposes back then. My first reaction was, to make all my published papers available online, posted them all on my ResearchGate account and my blog.
You have a very strong commitment to open science. What is it that drives this for you?
My strong commitment has been built by seeing so many other doing the same thing. In Indonesia, where not many universities have subscription to major journals, open science could be the answer of what we’ve been looking for. Everybody here keeps saying to submit papers to major paywalled journals, as they have good reputation and indexed by WoS or Scopus, while it should not be that way. What we need in Indonesia is to keep writing, write more in English and find a way to make it easier to be found and accessible by others, as if it was indexed by WoS and Scopus. And I see by using the latest free and open source services, we can do that.
In Indonesia, where not many universities have subscription to major journals, open science could be the answer of what we’ve been looking for
There are many many amazing blogs and bloggers out there that provide critical comments, context, and feedback on the ‘formally published’ research literature. One problem with these though is that they are often divorced from the papers themselves, perhaps lost on obscure websites, or not hitting the right target audience. This seems like an awful waste, don’t you think?
While some great initiatives such as The Winnower will now publish blog posts openly, these still are not connected to the papers that they are based on, if they are indeed written about particular papers. But what do researchers think about blogging as a form of scholarly communication in the form of post-publication peer review?
So as with most of my ponderings, I took to Twitter to get some feedback with a little poll. I actually framed the question a little ambiguously, but this shouldn’t sufficiently skew the data in any direction (I hope).
Do you consider blogging to be a form of post-publication peer review?
What is interesting to me is that 41% of people who answered, who undoubtedly did not constitute just a researcher sample, do not consider blogging to ‘count’ as peer review. I would really love to know why this is the case for some people. Perhaps they haven’t seen good examples, or perhaps just because it’s not formalised in any way, and quite disassociated from the research literature.
ORCID integration has been at the heart of our publishing system since our inception. We like to think that this demonstrates that ScienceOpen was already thinking way ahead of the curve for the future of publishing, and recognising the importance of infrastructure and the value of unique identifiers. ORCID is now a major part of the scholarly communications infrastructure, and becoming more so with each passing day.
At ScienceOpen, registration with us requires registration with ORCID. In fact, if you register with us, we will automatically provide you the options for registering with ORCID.
To comment, review and rate articles, we require an ORCID along with membership at ScienceOpen. If you have more than 5 articles within your ORCID profile, you’ll gain Expert member status with us, and free reign of services! We feel this is important to maintain a high standard of quality for our peer review services. This isn’t to say that those without ORCID wouldn’t be great referees, it’s just that this is an explicit minimum standard.
Here’s a little table to help make this a little easier to understand. We’re evolving all the time to adapt to the needs of the research community, so please let us know if there’s anything we can do to enhance our services!