Blog
About

Tag: ORCID

In:  Profiles  

ScienceOpen membership – the how, the what, and the why!

ScienceOpen is a free network for rewarding and encouraging Open Science practices.

But what exactly can you do on our platform..?

  • New, enhanced collection features

But isn’t ScienceOpen just another social networking site?

With 101 platforms for researchers available these days, and each one vying for the proud title of ‘Facebook for science’, why should you bother with ScienceOpen?

Continue reading “ScienceOpen membership – the how, the what, and the why!”  

In:  Other  

Ten Open Science New Year resolutions

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!

  1. Update your ScienceOpen profile
    • We revamped our author/member profiles recently to make them more dynamic and generally useful for researchers!

      Example of the new author profiles (link)
  2. Get your author- and article-level metrics
    • They’re all right there on your profile page
    • They provide a great accompaniment to other ‘impact’ profiles such as with ImpactStory
  3. Get an ORCID account
    • ORCID is an essential part of research infrastructure
    • We use ORCID in multiple ways on our platform to make things easier for you
  4. Build a research collection for your community
    • Collections are now even better ways of getting your community to engage with research now
    • Just message me to get started!

      Enhanced collection features
  5. Use social media more – get it together!
    • Social media is an essential part of a researcher’s toolkit
    • Get on Twitter, start blogging, amplify your research!
  6. Upload your papers as pre- or post-prints
    • Use the SHERPA/RoMEO tool to see what journal policies are
    • Submit your manuscripts to an institutional or subject repository
    • Make your work Open Access easily and for free!

      Most journals allow self-archiving of some sort (source)
  7. Comment on or post-publication peer review an article
  8. Get an ImpactStory profile and tell your research story
    • ImpactStory is similarly integrated with ORCID, and is a great and fun way of documenting your story as a researcher

      ImpactStory profile example (link)
  9. Get a Publons account for your pre- and post-publication peer reviews
  10. Get informed about Open Science developments at a global level
    • Open Science is a vast and complex topic, see our Open Science Stars series for some context
    • We all need to take the responsibility in making sure we understand why making our research more open is important, and how to go about doing this

Do you have any Open Science New Years resolutions? Let us know in the comments!

In:  Other  

Welcome to ScienceOpen version 2.017

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.

Image by Epic Fireworks, Flickr, CC BY

In 2016 ScienceOpen brought you more content: We welcomed publisher customers across the entire spectrum of disciplines to ScienceOpen and expect many more for the upcoming year. We added multiple journals from Brill, River Publishers, Open Library of Humanities, Higher Education Press and featured collections for PeerJ Computer Science, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press Molecular Case Studies and the Italian Society for Victimology. We had the pleasure to work with a very diverse group, from STM to HSS, from open access to subscription-based journals, creating interdisciplinary bridges and new connections for their content. We further integrated all of SciELO on ScienceOpen this year for a more global perspective and have had a great time working with them. We are at over 27 million article records and adding content every day.

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!

Your ScienceOpen team

In:  About SO  

Dynamic view of author’s works on ScienceOpen profile

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.

New enhanced author profiles!

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:

Integrate your ORCID account to activate your full profile record
Useful author-level metrics and context

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.

Alexander Grossmann

Philip Stark

Yang Gan

Thomas Rosenau

Dasapta Erwin Irawan: The state of Open Science in Indonesia and how to drive change to make research better for everyone

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

Continue reading “Dasapta Erwin Irawan: The state of Open Science in Indonesia and how to drive change to make research better for everyone”  

In:  Peer Review  

Can blog posts be used as peer reviews?

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).

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.

Continue reading “Can blog posts be used as peer reviews?”  

In:  ORCID  

ORCID integration at ScienceOpen

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.

Why is this important?

At ScienceOpen, we have always supported the use of ORCID within our services. Membership at ScienceOpen can be updated directly using your ORCID profile, providing seamless integration of the two.

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!

Continue reading “ORCID integration at ScienceOpen”  

In:  ORCID  

ORCID goes national in Germany

At ScienceOpen, there’s nothing more we like than good news for open science! That’s why we’re happy this week to see ORCID announcing a new partnership with the DFG, the German Research Foundation and major government funding body here, to support increased ORCID adoption in Germany.

The aim of this partnership is to standardise and integrated information that is currently distributed throughout more than 230 systems and databases in Germany. By adopting ORCID, this will support German universities and research institutes in implementing ORCID in a co-ordinated and sustainable approach.

orcid-hero-logo

“Thanks to the financial support from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft we have now the opportunity to promote the use of ORCID in Germany. This is a strong signal for ORCID in Germany,” says Roland Bertelmann, head of the Library and Information Services at the German Research Centre for Geoscience (GFZ).

ORCID is a critical part of research infrastructure, acting as a unique identifier for researchers, and a sort of LinkedIn style profile with your published research, and educational and professional histories embedded, and partnered with tools such as CrossRef/Scopus to make content integration easy and automated.

At ScienceOpen, we’ve implemented ORCID across our platform since day 1, and are part of a major publisher-wide initiative for it. ORCID is used for:

  • Getting credit for peer reviews and Collections, which have CrossRef DOIs so automatically get picked up by ORCID;
  • Quality control for peer review, as we require a minimum of 5 ORCID items to perform formal public peer review;
  • Integrating your profile, as we facilitate simplified logging in and registration through ORCID;
  • An ORCID is required to publish with us too, so we know who you are!

This of course now means that engaging with the ScienceOpen platform for researchers in Germany just became a lot easier! Lucky them!

In:  Peer Review  

Should peer review reports be published

One main aspect of open peer review is that referee reports are made publicly available after the peer review process. The theory underlying this is that peer review becomes a supportive and collaborative process, viewed more as an ongoing dialogue between groups of scientists to progressively asses the quality of research. Furthermore, it opens up the reviews themselves to analysis and inspection, which adds an additional layer of quality control into the review process.

This co-operative and interactive mode of peer review, whereby it is treated as a conversation rather than a selection system, has been shown to be highly beneficial to researchers and authors. A study in 2011 found that when an open review system was implemented, it led to increasing co-operation between referees and authors as well as an increase in the accuracy of reviews and overall decrease of errors throughout the review process. Ultimately, it is this process which decides whether research is suitable or ready for publication. A recent study has even shown that the transparency of the peer review process can be used to predict the quality of published research. As far as we are aware, there are almost no drawbacks, documented or otherwise, to making referee reports openly available. What we gain by publishing reviews is the time, effort, knowledge exchange, and context of an enormous amount of currently secretive and largely wasted dialogue, which could also save around 15 million hours per year of otherwise lost work by researchers.

 

Source
Source

Continue reading “Should peer review reports be published”  

In:  Announcements  

ScienceOpen joins ORCID initiative

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.

At ScienceOpen, we have always supported the use of ORCID within our services. Membership at ScienceOpen can be updated directly using your ORCID profile, providing seamless integration of the two. 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!

Continue reading “ScienceOpen joins ORCID initiative”  

  Previous page
12