text:
Editors' Update is your one-stop online resource to discover more about the latest developments in journal publishing, policies and initiatives that affect you as an editor, as well as other services and support available. Discover and participate in upcoming events and webinars and join in topical discussions with your peers.
Proofing can be a bottleneck in the publishing process. It requires input from the authors: they need to read their articles carefully and make sure there are no errors in the text, figures or tables. When the proofs arrive as PDFs, this can take time, often resulting in authors putting off proofing until later (after […]
Proofing can be a bottleneck in the publishing process. It requires input from the authors: they need to read their articles carefully and make sure there are no errors in the text, figures or tables. When the proofs arrive as PDFs, this can take time, often resulting in authors putting off proofing until later (after all, they have a DOI already).
Unfortunately, this can have an impact on a journal's average publication times. We have been working on new approaches - Fast Proofing Workflow and our Online Proofing tool - to help make it easier for authors to check and correct their articles, and get the published, citable article out as soon as possible.
Having a paper accepted is great news for an author, but it's not the end of the publication process. Traditionally, it would take around 19 days for an author to receive typeset proofs of their article. This is because lots of editorial tasks are going on in the background. After all, the whole cycle was set up to accommodate print publishing. Although everything is now digitized, we still deal with print to varying degrees, so we needed a way to improve speed without changing the whole approach.
To address this, we set up Fast Proofing Workflow: a project that aims to reduce the time between acceptance and first proof to 24-72 hours. When we started the project, the average time from acceptance to proof was 19 days; now, that time is down to just 3 days, and we are still chipping away at it. We are busy rolling out the new workflows to a growing list of journals, with 750 currently benefiting from faster production.
We have focused on making our administrative tasks more efficient. We have also relaxed the print layout rules a little, so, for example, we have more flexibility in terms of white space at the end of a column.
Proofing is an important part of the publishing process: by checking the article carefully, authors can pick up any small typos and mistakes that slipped through the net. While it's not an opportunity to make big changes, or update the content of the article, it enables authors to make the article as high quality as possible.
Many years ago, authors would receive printed proofs of their article in the post, for them to mark up and send back. With digital technology, this is now done faster but there are still opportunities for typesetters to misinterpret an instruction.
To address these problems, we've introduced a new Online Proofing tool which lets authors look at their proofs and make changes directly in the text, reducing the opportunities to introduce mistakes and ultimately speeding up the process. After a successful pilot and some great feedback from authors, more than 1,500 journals are now using the system.
Our Online Proofing tool enables authors to see their text, showing very clearly what the copy editor has changed, in html format. It's a bit like the Word layout of the article – you can clearly see headings, how tables are structured and the layout of the references. It doesn't look exactly like the PDF version, but the PDF is available for reference if the author wants to check it.
Combined, both Fast Proofing Workflow and Online Proofing tool are having a significant effect on the production time of articles, helping to speed up the time between acceptance and publication, and improving journals' performance statistics. For more information or to find out if your journal can be included, contact your publisher.
Rachel Cairns is Director – Journal Workflows and e-content for Elsevier. She joined Elsevier in 1996 as a Production Editor for journals in Materials Science, and then worked for 13 years in Supplier Management before returning to Journals Production two years ago. Rachel's focus is on continuing to improve the post-acceptance experience for researchers publishing in Elsevier's journals.
This autumn will see a range of webinars on publishing topics of interest to editors. Registrations are now open.
Jagdesh Kaur Georgiou | Researcher Relations Manager, Elsevier
Are you wondering about...
At Elsevier, we are committed to supporting editors. Our regular webinar series contain useful tips and advice on a range of valuable topics presented by our top experts. By participating in these webinars, you will join in-depth discussions on publishing and journal-related subjects. You will also be able to send your questions to our experts either via the registration form, or online during the live events.
You can register for one, several or all webinars in this series, by simply clicking on this link.
Improving the Publication Experience for your Authors (now available to view in our archive)
Presenter: Alina Helsloot (Executive Publisher)
25th June 2015, Amsterdam: 16.00 / London: 15.00 / New York: 10.00 / Beijing: 22.00
Mendeley Editor Program for Elsevier Editors (now available to view in our archive)
Presenter: Jessica Chang (Global Director of Mendeley)
1st July 2015, Amsterdam: 16.00 / London: 15.00 / New York: 10.00 / Beijing: 22.00
Introducing EVISE® - Elsevier's new submission system
Presenter: Adrian Tedford (Director of Journal Editorial Services & Operations)
2nd September 2015, Amsterdam: 16.00 / London: 15.00 / New York: 10.00 / Beijing: 22.00
Research Data
Presenter: Dr Helena Cousijn (Product Manager Data)
9th September 2015, Amsterdam: 16.00 / London: 15.00 / New York: 10.00 / Beijing: 22.00
How to make your journal stand out from the crowd
Presenter: Matthew Smaldon (Head of Marketing Communications)
16th September 2015, Amsterdam: 16.00 / London: 15.00 / New York: 10.00 / Beijing: 22.00
Trends in Journal Publishing for Social Sciences & Economics
Presenter: Dr Andrew Plume (Director of Market Intelligence)
4th November 2015, Amsterdam: 16.00 / London: 15.00 / New York: 10.00 / Beijing: 23.00
Trends in Journal Publishing for Health & Medical Sciences
Presenter: Dr Andrew Plume (Director of Market Intelligence)
11th November 2015, Amsterdam: 16.00 / London: 15.00 / New York: 10.00 / Beijing: 23.00
Content Innovation
Presenter: Simone Groothuis (Content Innovation Manager)
18th November 2015, Amsterdam: 16.00 / London: 15.00 / New York: 10.00 / Beijing: 23.00
Trends in Journal Publishing for Societies
Presenter: Dr Andrew Plume (Director Market Intelligence)
2nd December 2015, Amsterdam: 16.00 / London: 15.00 / New York: 10.00 / Beijing: 23.00
This new virtual publication features summaries of research articles with social impact which are then promoted to a broad readership
Floris de Hon, PhD | Elsevier Publishing Director for Applied Biosciences / Project Lead, Atlas
Earlier this year we launched Atlas, a virtual publication taking a unique approach to demonstrating the impact scientific research has on people globally.
With the slogan 'Research for a better world' its aim is to show the value of science and scientific publishing in ways that resonate with global challenges. After all, it's crucially important for the future of science that the public has trust in researchers. Atlas helps researchers communicate the importance of their work; we give them a voice and make them more accessible, which all helps to build that trust. It also makes the researchers realize "Ok, what I'm doing is important!".
Although Publishers are responsible for putting forward the nominations, no-one knows the content of a journal better than its editor and you are ideally placed to flag suitable papers to your Publisher.
The fact is a lot of articles that have - or could have - real social impact are not as highly cited and downloaded as they deserve to be. We want to highlight the research they contain, their authors and their institutions to the public. And while giving out the Atlas awards for the papers published so far, we have been so excited and touched by the enormous gratefulness of the people who receive them. This recognition is such a valued thing. In fact, one institute organized a whole awards ceremony around our visit.
Then there are the benefits for your journal. If you suggest an article to your Publisher for the nomination process, the author will know how much you value their paper and that builds loyalty, making them more likely to submit their high impact content to you the next time.
If you know of a suitable paper, please do let your Publisher know. The good news is suggestions for Atlas can be made at any stage of the paper's publication process – even after it is live and attracting citations. The Advisory Board makes the final decision and given the caliber of the nominations we have received so far, we have been enjoying some long discussions!
The articles which have won an Atlas award to date are:
- Health care policy should not focus on finance, says research (published in Value in Health)
- No quick fixes for world's solid waste management crisis (published in Waste Management)
- Quenching the world's thirst for seawater (published in Desalination)
- Food security in Africa needs a tailored approach, suggests new research (published in Food Policy)
- 'SuperAmma' to the hand washing rescue (published in The Lancet Global Health)
- 'Sustainable' coffee: what does it mean for local supply chains in Indonesia? (published in World Development)
- Making construction safety social (published in Automation in Construction)
Dr. Maddy Parsons is a Reader in Cell Biology in the Randall Division at King's College London. She started her lab 9 years ago following the award of a prestigious Royal Society University Research Fellowship. Upon its completion, she was awarded tenure at King's. In addition to being highly experienced in biochemical, cell and […]
Dr. Maddy Parsons is a Reader in Cell Biology in the Randall Division at King's College London. She started her lab 9 years ago following the award of a prestigious Royal Society University Research Fellowship. Upon its completion, she was awarded tenure at King's. In addition to being highly experienced in biochemical, cell and molecular biology techniques, Dr. Parsons has over 14 years of experience in the use of different forms of advanced microscopy; indeed, an overarching feature of her research is the development and implementation of state-of-the-art imaging techniques to analyze protein dynamics, interactions and activation status in live cells.
Dr. Parsons works closely with both biophysicists and clinicians in her research and has a strong commitment to multidisciplinary research, training and education. She is also founder and Director of the recently established Nikon Imaging Centre at King's College, which houses 13 microscopes ranging from super-resolution to multi-photon platforms. Dr. Parsons regularly speaks at national and international meetings, teaches at academic workshops and actively contributes to outreach programs for schoolchildren and undergraduates.
She has served as an Editor on The International Journal of Biochemistry and Cell Biology (IJBCB) since 2010. She joined initially as a Section Editor and since 2014 has also taken on the role of Reviews Editor. IJBCB has an Impact Factor of 4.24 and publishes 12 issues per year. In 2014, it attracted 620 new submissions and had a rejection rate of 45 percent.
Q. What does being a journal editor mean to you and what do you find most rewarding about this role?
A. I feel extremely privileged to be an Editor at IJBCB. The position has given me the opportunity to experience a much broader scope of high quality biological research that goes well beyond my own field of expertise and has opened my eyes to many new fields and concepts. I have also had the pleasure of interacting with other Editorial Board members and learning from their experience, which has been extremely valuable. As Reviews Editor, I also have the opportunity to find new or emerging fields and then commission articles that capture their essence with a view to conveying this excitement to a broader audience. Helping to facilitate the provision of such a platform for delivering new and important concepts in biological research is extremely rewarding.
Q. What are your biggest challenges as editor of IJBCB? How do you overcome these challenges and what extra support can Elsevier provide?
A. I believe one of the most significant challenges in scientific publishing is identifying and securing appropriate reviewers for submitted articles. Elsevier has now provided much-improved online tools for editors to be able to search for reviewers. However, there is still certainly room to improve on these, as well as ensure the database of reviewers is being updated and maintained for accuracy. Unfortunately, there are no magic tricks available to make sure reviewers submit their comments on time! The other big challenge is to identify what you think will be the next big hot topics in biology and try to get ahead of the game on commissioning reviews. It is very clear that an excellent review article can command substantial citations for a number of years, so it's really worth investing time and energy into understanding what the emerging areas are within different fields.
Q. In many areas of research, the growth of paper submissions is outpacing the growth of qualified reviewers and resulting in pressure on the peer-review system. What do you think the solution to this problem is and how do you see the peer-review process changing in the future?
A. The peer-review system is obviously the foundation of scientific publishing, but it seems a number of fields and journals are starting to adopt slightly different variations to ensure it is a fast, fair and transparent process. Whilst this is not necessarily an immediate solution to the lack of willing, good reviewers for papers, I do think using non-anonymised, published reviews makes the review process more fair and the reviewers more likely to think twice before submitting unreasonable, non-constructive or biased comments. However, this is still relatively controversial and such a step change will likely take a while to take hold across all journals. Post-publication review or online commenting can also be an interesting way to gauge opinions in the field on new papers or ideas, although my own view is that this should only occur after a rigorous peer-review process has already taken place and the paper is published, not as a replacement for peer review itself.
Q. We have observed that researchers are increasingly accessing journal content online at an article level, i.e. the researcher digests content more frequently on an article basis rather than a journal basis. How do you think this affects the visibility of your journal among authors?
A. I think this is an inevitable consequence of the move away from paper versions of journals. I do think it's a shame because it discourages researchers from reading articles that are not necessarily directly in their field, as you might do if you were flipping through a paper version of a journal. This is particularly important for PhD students as they can otherwise tend to lose sight of the 'bigger picture' in science. Interesting editorial pieces and comments can also easily be overlooked when reading material online, but these can be very valuable sources of information. My impression is that the homepage of any journal is the most important thing to get right to combat this problem; if the content is well highlighted there, then people will be more likely to link through to read it. Otherwise the risk is that a lot of articles get lost in the increasingly enormous and often intimidating volume of data that is already out there.
Q. Academic publishing is increasingly embracing open access. How do you see these open access changes in your country? And how do you see them affecting authors who publish in your journal?
A. Open access is incredibly important in the UK; indeed, most funding agencies will now only support research that is published in this format. In future, the government review of University research will also only take into account open access publications for their audits, so everyone is now encouraged to ensure their research is available to as many people as possible. The only real barriers to this being standard practice are the policies of the journals and the cost to the authors. Many journals add a significant charge on top of any other publication costs for OA, and many authors feel this is an additional luxury they cannot afford. This is a particular problem in the UK, because the Research Councils no longer allow publication charges as an admissible cost on a grant application so funds have to come from other sources, which can be difficult. I strongly believe that all journals should offer an immediate open access option at an affordable price. Whilst this may be difficult to reconcile for the publishers financially, I think the increasing number of successful new open access, online-only journals will force 'older' journals to re-think their strategy.
Q. Researchers need to demonstrate their research impact, and they are increasingly under pressure to publish articles in journals with high Impact Factors. How important is a journal's Impact Factor to you, and do you see any developments in your community regarding other research quality measurements?
A. Impact Factor is still a very important metric to most researchers as it ultimately provides a very useful guideline of the 'visibility' and quality of a given journal within the scientific community. Clearly this has flaws; the Impact Factor does not always reflect the scientific quality of publications per se, and often can be greatly skewed by the size or global popularity of the field of research. Nevertheless, it is one of the measurements that people look to when choosing where to publish their best work, and I suspect it will continue to be so for a while yet. A number of new journals have attempted to discourage or move away from using the Impact Factor to measure their success. Whilst these journals do not refer to it themselves, the irony is that Impact Factors are automatically assigned to them anyway. There are other combinations of measurements out there that might help better reflect the true impact of articles within a given journal, but for now, the Impact Factor seems to still be the one most people care about!
Q. As online publishing techniques develop, the traditional format of the online scientific article will change. At Elsevier, we are experimenting with new online content features and functionality. Which improvements/changes would you, as an editor, find most important?
A. I think the ease and accuracy of navigation coupled with the visual impact of a journal website can play a big part in attracting and retaining readers. Providing quick one- or two-sentence summaries of key papers published that month, or striking images of recent research articles can make a big difference to the impact of that paper, and having the information in an easily digestible format to begin with certainly helps to encourage people to look at the full paper in more detail. I think graphical abstracts can also be great visual aids, although these only work if a relatively 'simple' message is being conveyed in the paper otherwise they can appear a bit too chaotic to be useful! The inclusion of more interactive media such as movies or 3D image projections is also really useful to boost online visual impact.
Q. Do you use social media or online professional networking in your role as an editor or researcher? Has it helped you and, if so, how?
A. I'm personally not a big fan of Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn etc. Of course, I fully understand that they can potentially be powerful platforms to disseminate information quickly for publishers and authors, as well as to make new contacts, but equally I think they can often be a significant distraction from daily life. I'm a huge fan of face-to-face contact; personal interactions - particularly in scientific research - are a really important part of learning and collaborating. I often mention my role as Editor when discussing new and exciting work with poster presenters at meetings to encourage them to submit to IJBCB. I also take the opportunity to meet with people that I believe might be keen to write a review article on a new or exciting subject. So whilst I recognize social media can be useful for getting across short, sharp snippets of information, I don't think it can ever really reproduce, or replace, that kind of personal interaction.
Q. How do you see your journal developing over the next 10 years? Do you see major shifts in the use of journals in the future?
A. I think the next 10 years will see print journals completely disappear and a total move to online content. I suspect we will also start to see more 'interactive' publishing methods to engage readers in the research or subject matter being discussed. For imaging-based data, something we handle a lot in my own lab, online publishing offers the opportunity to present complex time and Z-dimension datasets in their full, unadulterated glory. Similarly, structural biology studies benefit enormously from this kind of publishing media as the reader can interact with different angles and zooms of the structures being presented without the need for additional costly software. I think all journals in the world of cell biology, including IJBCB, will need to adapt to accommodate the ways in which scientists consume scientific publications in future. The increasing recognition that most material is now read online also makes the issue of open access all the more important.
An inevitable consequence of online publishing is that the volume of publications released to the community is exponentially increasing. This can be frustrating for researchers, as the volume of material in their field is sometimes unmanageably large and very difficult to navigate, particularly for new graduate students. Moreover, the increased volume of data often appears to negatively correlate with data quality, which is a significant concern. This places the onus back onto journals, both new and long established, to ensure any data released as a publication is rigorously peer-reviewed so quality can be assured.
Q. Do you have any tips or tricks to share with your fellow editors about being a journal editor?
A. As I'm an academic, I have found the biggest challenge is ensuring I devote enough quality time to the editorial process on top of the day-to-day lab management, teaching, grant and paper writing, and endless meetings. One thing I have learned, which sounds obvious, is to try to be as super-organised and efficient as possible, and to use your time wisely. For example, when I'm invited to speak at meetings I usually try to use it as an opportunity to seek out new subject areas for review article commissions or encourage primary research article submission. I also seek advice from collaborators and colleagues after meetings on their ideas or suggestions for emerging hot areas we can tap into. As an author myself, I also like to try to ensure I have personal contact with the authors of articles I oversee and also to do everything in my power to make the editorial process as transparent and fast as possible. These are things I value as an author, and hopefully they make the experience of publishing in IJBCB an enjoyable one!
An Elsevier project designed to streamline reviewer and author revision times has led to an average increase in editorial speeds of 7 days for participating journals, with several titles recording improvements of more than 10 weeks. The acceleration project was launched in 2014 with 1,100 journals from a variety of disciplines. The first step was […]
An Elsevier project designed to streamline reviewer and author revision times has led to an average increase in editorial speeds of 7 days for participating journals, with several titles recording improvements of more than 10 weeks.
The acceleration project was launched in 2014 with 1,100 journals from a variety of disciplines. The first step was to conduct an inventory of the deadlines given to reviewers and to authors for their revisions. We discovered that some journals didn't mention any, while others regularly received contributions before the deadline given. There were also some journals which allowed up to one year for the review/revision process – a tradition dating back to the time when manuscripts traversed the globe via sea mail.
We asked participating journals to reduce their current review periods by a minimum of one week, and then closely monitored the results: We wanted to learn how reviewers would react to tighter deadlines, both for reviewer invites and reviews. We had already learnt that with regards to author revision times, there are much larger gains to be made, so our (title-specific) proposals to reviewers and authors varied from one week to even a month or more.
The acceleration project was inspired by a 2013 Cell Press initiative, which set out to discover what would happen if a journal's review deadline was reduced by a few days. The results showed that reviewers were more likely to accept invites with a shorter response timeframe. Cell also found that the percentage of reviewers meeting deadlines remained unchanged at 70 percent and reviewer compliance was comparable with previous compliance levels. Sending one pre-deadline reminder was also found to have a positive impact on reviewer response.
700 of the original 1,100 journals in the project changed their deadlines – some for both reviewers and authors and some for one group only. Data collected over 2014 and 2015 to date show these journals, on average, have indeed accelerated their editorial times by one week, while several participating journals have improved them by more than two months. This has led to articles being published online faster and a shorter waiting time for authors. And the good news is that this has been achieved without any negative feedback received from the authors and reviewers involved.
In the table below, we highlight several journals which have really made a difference to their authors by implementing these speed improvements:
|Journal title
|Total editorial time in weeks
|What deadlines were changed?
|What did they achieve?
|Developmental Review
|First and subsequent review and author revision
|Revisions 6 weeks faster
|Journal of International Money and Finance
|First and subsequent review and author revision
|Revisions 6 weeks faster
|Journal of Marine Systems
|First and subsequent review
|Reviews 6 weeks faster
|Aerospace Science and Technology
|First and subsequent review and author revision
|Revisions 4 weeks faster, reviews 1.5 weeks faster
|Review of Development Finance
|Only subsequent author revision
|Revisions 10 weeks faster
|Journal of Multinational Financial Management
|Only first author revision
|Revisions 12 weeks faster
|Progress in Retinal and Eye Research
|First and subsequent author revision
|Revisions 3 weeks faster
Giovanni Raneri, a publisher for the Finance Portfolio, commented: "I am delighted to see two of my titles, the Journal of Multinational Financial Management and the Journal of International Money and Finance, standing out for the biggest gain in editorial speed. This is exactly the kind of improvement standard needed to make a difference in the publishing industry and it has been delivered in Elsevier's own innovative and unique way."
Following careful analysis of the data, we will now offer journals three review and revision time options - short, average and long. These will be available to all journals already on Evise - the successor to the current Elsevier Editorial System (EES).
For reviews of research papers, journals will be able to choose from 14, 21 or 30 days and for revision deadlines we will offer 14, 30 or 60 days (based on title analysis).
If your journal has not yet been involved in this project but you would like to participate, please contact your publisher.
Other Elsevier projects designed to tackle editorial speed are currently underway. If your journal isn't already involved and you would like it to be, please contact your publisher.
Empower: Elsevier's traffic light email service which alerts you to potentially late and overdue editorial tasks for articles under your supervision.
Editor visibility in invitations for reviews and revisions: Cell research has found author response rates increase from 77 percent to more than 90 percent when the editor's name is visible in reviewer and author communications.
Reviewer deadline reminders: Pre- and post-deadline reviewer reminders can be switched on for your journal in EES/Evise. Sending well-formulated, pre-deadline reminders is much more effective than sending post-deadline reminders. This also applies to reviewer invites awaiting acceptance.
Peer to peer sessions: Just mention your interest to your publisher and a peer-to-peer session can be arranged with another Elsevier journal editor. These sessions are an ideal opportunity to share knowledge and discuss the issues you face.
With thanks to our main contributor, Meredith Adinolfi, Production Director Cell Press
Annette Leeuwendal is Director of Publishing Projects, Processes & Systems and is based in Amsterdam. Her team's remit is to apply best practices and innovations to the larger group of Elsevier titles, whether it concerns customer-facing improvements, or internal efficiencies. Editorial speed, workflow innovations and author centricity are key focuses. Annette has been involved in various programs across Elsevier's Operations and Publishing divisions since 2010. She has a master's degree in geology and an MBA from Henley Management College Netherlands.
Recently, we have interviewed and brainstormed with journal editors to better understand how we can support your roles and activities. Some of the key themes you identified include: Improved ways to showcase your journals Better support for you as researchers Information to further your role as educators of future researchers Two years ago, we acquired […]
Recently, we have interviewed and brainstormed with journal editors to better understand how we can support your roles and activities.
Some of the key themes you identified include:
Two years ago, we acquired Mendeley, one of the most commonly-used reference management tools integrated with one of the largest academic collaboration networks. With more than 4 million worldwide users, Mendeley is a modern, easy-to-use researcher workflow tool which supports academics in reading, writing, publishing and showcasing their expertise to the world.
So now Elsevier's Journals division and Research Applications & Platform department have joined forces to develop and launch the Mendeley Editor Program.
The new initiative provides editors with:
Join the program
To register your interest in the Mendeley Editor Program, simply email firstname.lastname@example.com
Assistant Professor Xinyi Song at Georgia Institute of Technology is an active collaborator with Automation in Construction Editor, Daniel Castro-Lacouture. Her experience of the Mendeley Editor Program has been very positive so far. She says: "I have totally switched from Endnote to Mendeley for my all research projects, and the students are doing well too. I also plan to introduce it in our next faculty meeting."
For more information on the program, please visit Elsevier.com or send your inquiries to email@example.com.
Jennifer Chang is Elsevier's Global Director for CDI (Customer Discovery and Innovation) and Mendeley. She has CDI responsibilities for the North America region, focusing on developing customer insights to support business decision-making and managing the Development Partner Program. In addition, she leads the global commercial operations and business development of Mendeley for institutions. Jennifer joined Elsevier in 2010 as Sales Strategy and Business Development Director. Before joining Elsevier, she worked for 10+ years at Oracle and a few software companies in senior sales, strategy, and professional services management positions. Jennifer graduated from University of California at Berkeley with a Bachelor of Arts in psychology and business administration and an MBA from Cornell University.
"Make yourself available for advice if they want it, but only if they ask for it – don't stand in the shadows trying to hang on to something you've decided to stop doing." Professor Graham Moon Handing over the editorial reins isn't always easy, especially if the outgoing editor has many years of experience. How […]
"Make yourself available for advice if they want it, but only if they ask for it – don't stand in the shadows trying to hang on to something you've decided to stop doing." Professor Graham Moon
Handing over the editorial reins isn't always easy, especially if the outgoing editor has many years of experience. How can you best arrange the transition, making sure that knowledge isn't lost and ensuring continuity for authors? We hear from two Editors-in-Chief who have recently been through the experience about the challenges, and how they made a success of the change.
"I don't think any editor always gets it right," says Professor Graham Moon, founding Editor-in-Chief of Health & Place.
He has just stepped down after 20 years at the helm and sees being an Editor-in-Chief as more of a vocational endeavor than something that can be communicated via 'how to do it' book learning.
"Preparation, knowledge and networks are extremely important when you're setting up a journal," he says. "Copy may sometimes be thin on the ground initially, but if you're well networked you can overcome that and increase submissions."
Now the journal is mature the issue has shifted to attracting quality papers – but good contacts remain vital. "My successor Jamie is high profile in the field and well networked; he's the ideal person to take the journal forward."
Professor Jamie Pearce was a member of the Health & Place Editorial Board for four years before being approached by Graham about becoming his successor. They discussed the options and decided that Jamie would begin his new role in January 2014, followed by a year of transition as co-Editors-in-Chief. This gave Graham the opportunity to share his knowledge and experience, Jamie to become acquainted with the running of the journal, and for the two to align their approaches.
"It was daunting, especially since Graham has been a big figure in the field for so many years, and led the journal successfully for so long," comments Jamie. "But the transition year really helped. Graham was a brilliant mentor for me in taking on the role – I learnt on the job with him, and could discuss what was going well, and the things we could change in the future."
Much of what they discussed during the handover was mechanical and process-driven – the logistics of working with Elsevier's technical staff, who to talk to about different issues and how to find information. The two editors are at opposite ends of the UK – Edinburgh and Southampton – and in other cases, outgoing and incoming editors may well be in different countries. How did the transition work at a distance?
"We spoke via email and on the phone a lot, and saw each other in person a few times," says Jamie. "When I first took on the job in early spring I spent a few days in Southampton with Graham and we did a calibration process. We worked throughout the year on a week on / week off basis, alternating to see how well matched we were in terms of decision-making – what to send for review and how to respond. Luckily, we were well matched."
Continuity and consistency for authors is vital when changing journal leadership. In particular, Graham and Jamie wanted to make sure they were aligned in their decision-making during their co-editorship, and with 800 submissions a year they had plenty of opportunity to make decisions.
"It's great for the journal, but you always disappoint a lot of people," says Graham. "That's the nature of copy flow – you can't burden an already hard-pressed reviewer community with papers that don't fit the journal's requirements, so desk rejection is important."
"I spent the year learning how to recognize the elements of a strong paper," recalls Jamie. "As an editor you become more focused on the remit of the journal, rather than on your personal perspective – a paper might be interesting but not right for us. It's important that I continue to make good decisions – it's part of the service we give to authors."
"Definitely work alongside the new Editor-in-Chief for at least a year," says Graham. "Be very clear about what you've done and why, and communicate that to them."
"First and foremost, learn from the people who are already involved," says Jamie. "Spending the first year working with Graham and the Associate Editors, working out how and why Health & Place has been so successful for so long was really valuable."
For Jamie, learning the process of seeing a paper through to publication, as well as having the opportunity to be proactive and think about how the journal itself can start to set a research agenda, provided a great foundation for the future. "It put me in a better position to make decisions about the future direction of the journal," he says.
As much as the incoming editor has to learn, the outgoing editor also needs to adjust to a new situation. This can be difficult, especially after nurturing a journal from inception to success. "Let go, and recognize that someone else will be running the journal now," advises Graham. "Make yourself available for advice if they want it, but only if they ask for it – don't stand in the shadows trying to hang on to something you've decided to stop doing. This can be sad, but just stop doing it."
It's also important to keep communication open for issues that may arise, and most importantly for strategic advice. Graham remains on the Editorial Board as a strategic advisor. "I've already called him a couple of times for his advice about particular issues," says Jamie. And Graham will also be called on to do something he hasn't done for the journal in a long time; review papers.
Top tips for handing over
- Have a handover period, if possible – working side-by-side allows you to calibrate
- Arrange meetings – talk regularly and address issues that arise
- Focus on continuity – decision-making needs to be aligned
- Explain protocol – share information on processes, and why things are done that way
- Share Elsevier's address book – who to contact with different issues
- Enable change – journal leadership is not one-size-fits-all
- Let go (outgoing editor) – acknowledge that there's a new editor
- Take control (new editor) – don't be afraid to lead the journal in a new direction
Graham Moon founded Health & Place and was its Editor-in-Chief for 20 years. He is Professor of Health Geography at the University of Southampton, is committed to interdisciplinary research and has worked across geography, sociology and epidemiology. He has held visiting Chairs in New Zealand and France. His research interests, funded by the ESRC (Economic and Social Research Council) and health agencies, focus on place effects on health-related behaviors, particularly the geography of smoking and tobacco; the estimation of small area health indicators; and the afterlives of the psychiatric asylum. He was central to the development of the new geography of health and the introduction of multilevel modelling to health research. Graham is a fellow of the Academy of the Social Sciences and an Honorary Member of The UK's Faculty of Public Health.
Jamie Pearce is Professor of Health Geography at The University of Edinburgh where he is Head of the Institute of Geography and Lived Environment, and co-Director of the Centre for Research on Environment, Society and Health (CRESH). Previously he was Director of the GeoHealth Laboratory at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand, where he remains Adjunct Professor. Working at the intersection of human geography, public health and epidemiology, he has particular interests in health-related behaviors (e.g. smoking, nutrition, physical activity and obesity), environmental justice and health (e.g. air pollution and multiple environmental deprivation), and macro-level health-related processes (e.g. social and economic inequality).
Submissions are the fuel that drives a journal forward, but what happens when there are too many to handle? At the Journal of Ethnopharmacology, we developed the 'Rules of 5' to help control the inflow. They are five clear criteria that each author needs to think about before submitting a manuscript. Editors and reviewers can […]
Submissions are the fuel that drives a journal forward, but what happens when there are too many to handle?
At the Journal of Ethnopharmacology, we developed the 'Rules of 5' to help control the inflow. They are five clear criteria that each author needs to think about before submitting a manuscript. Editors and reviewers can also refer to them before we start the whole process of editing and reviewing.
Each of the five rules has five 'sub-rules'. If a manuscript meets one or more of those sub-rules it should be rejected immediately. The structure is modeled on the rule of five (RO5) that pharmacists use to determine whether a compound is a likely candidate as an oral drug. This makes it a familiar system, easy for researchers in our field to understand.
Authors can easily access the Rules of 5 on the journal website. The rules are first and foremost about scope so the author can determine whether their article is suitable for the journal before they even submit. This saves everyone time – authors, editors and reviewers.
I believe as editors we have a role to play in improving both research and the publishing of results. The five rules give authors our decision framework for rejecting papers, helping them make changes or reconsider whether to submit to the journal. Being open about reasons for rejection means an author's next study and next paper will be better – you can see improvements in the papers, and I like to think this is in part because of the system.
Many reviewers also use them. If a paper isn't right for the journal, the reviewer can just say it's out of scope, or too preliminary, for example, and refer the author to the relevant rule.
The Journal of Ethnopharmacology's Rules of 5
Each of these rules has five underlying sub-rules. A manuscript meeting one or more of the sub-rules should be rejected immediately. To see the full list, visit the journal website.
- Out of scope
The paper should report on traditional use or present results on pharmacological or toxicological studies (positive or negative) that are directly related to the traditional use. These data should eventually contribute to evidence-based traditional medicines.
- Too preliminary
A paper must be based on a thorough and extensive study, using proper controls.
- In-vitro antioxidant activity
Antioxidant activity is present in all plants. Screening with in-vitro assays thus has little meaning if no clear evidence is given for in-vivo activity.
- Ethnopharmacology and ethnobotanical surveys without quantitative data
To be able to make choices for further studies it is important to have information on how frequently plants are cited in surveys, and to have, if at all possible, cross checks for the information.
- Lack of novelty
The study must represent a novel approach to the study of the activity, i.e. it shouldn't more or less repeat what has already been published with similar results.
When I took over as Editor-in-Chief of Journal of Ethnopharmacology in 2000, one of the more difficult aspects of the role was getting a clear direction for the journal – the papers were quite diverse, and we didn't really have a system by which to judge them. Then, when the electronic submission system was introduced in 2004, we noticed a rapid increase in the number of manuscripts sent to the journal. That was great, of course, but we could only publish about 300 of the 2,000 articles we were receiving every year.
We needed a fast-track rejection system – as editors we could pick out most of the out of scope papers already, accounting for around half of the submissions. That meant we weren't putting additional pressure on reviewers. But because we were rejecting more papers without review, we were getting more questions from authors asking us why their papers were being rejected.
I came up with the five rules and sub-rules, and we discussed and agreed them as an Editorial Board. The rules were then introduced in an editorial in 2006. They are very visible on the journal website, so the criteria on which we base our decisions are more open. We now receive 4,000 submissions a year, and the Rules of 5 are still just as helpful, if not more so – they help us cut through submissions in a transparent way.
The Rules of 5 have been very helpful and I think this is really just the start. We need to develop certain standards in the wider field – for example, what do you need to show in order to prove something has antimicrobial activity? What can be considered promising? By soliciting 'standard-setting' papers, which are published open access, we want to help researchers set priorities and avoid praising formulations with low activity as highly active.
This doesn't mean we only have to publish results that show activity: If a drug isn't active, that's ok as well. The result is what it is: There are no negative or positive results, they are all just results and they always have a meaning. The value lies in whether the result was obtained properly.
I believe a set of standards may be achieved by educating reviewers and determining together what those standards are. The Rules of 5 are a starting point for this alignment.
Professor Dr. Rob Verpoorte is Professor Emeritus at Leiden University. He holds a Pharmacists degree and a PhD from Leiden University, and was lecturer there from 1976-1987. Since then he has been Professor and Head of the Department of Pharmacognosy. He was a guest professor in London (UK), Uppsala (Sweden), Amiens (France) and Reims (France). From 1992-1998 he was Vice-Chairman and Chairman of the committee of the Phytochemical Society of Europe (PSE). He has authored 725+ scientific papers, four books and six patent applications, and is Editor-in-Chief of Journal of Ethnopharmacology. He supervised 65 PhD-theses and 150+ MSc theses. He received an Honorary Doctorate from the University of Amiens (Université de Picardie - Jules Verne), France (2004) and Uppsala University, Sweden (2012). In 2007 he received the PSE Medal.
11 Mar 2015 2 Comments
In this regular feature, we highlight an ethics dilemma from the searchable cases database operated by COPE, the Committee on Publication Ethics. In 2008, all Elsevier journals were enrolled in COPE so editors would have an alternative information resource when faced with research misconduct. The cases database contains details of, and advice given on, more […]
In this regular feature, we highlight an ethics dilemma from the searchable cases database operated by COPE, the Committee on Publication Ethics. In 2008, all Elsevier journals were enrolled in COPE so editors would have an alternative information resource when faced with research misconduct. The cases database contains details of, and advice given on, more than 500 cases and is just one of the many services COPE offers.
In this issue, we highlight a case in which a divergence of opinion between two researchers has consequences for a journal. Simply click on the link at the end of the article to find out what the COPE Forum advised.
A manuscript was published in journal X, submitted by several co-authors, including one of the editors in chief of journal X, Dr. A (the article was handled by another editor in chief at the journal). Another researcher, Dr. B, has claimed that this article should be withdrawn because it contains unauthorized data from him (Dr. B).
A few years previously, Drs. A and B worked and published jointly, but at some point there appeared to be a divergence in points of view on the interpretation of results (obtained in a large part by Dr. B and his team) in a manuscript co-written by both Drs. A and B (and the teams of both Drs. A and B). Dr. A decided that Dr. B and his team must agree to the publication of the manuscript or they would be removed from the co-author list. The paper was then submitted as an appendix in an internal report for their funding agency.
Later, a similar paper was published by Dr. A and his team (only) with similar content to the previous disputed paper in journal X. Dr. B and his team are acknowledged in the text but have not been asked or listed as co-authors. The paper contains the results from Dr. B's team, very important results that people now refer to as from Dr. A's team.
Dr. B thinks this is a violation of the rules of good scientific practice and has asked advice from a third independent party. The third party recognized the violation of the rules of good scientific practice and suggested publishing an erratum. Dr. B refuses to agree to an erratum because his team does not necessarily wish to be co-authors, as they disagree with the interpretation. Dr. B wishes to have this published article withdrawn.
Question: What should the editor of journal X do?
The 15 chapters contain practical advice for researchers looking to publish their papers and for current and future journal editors.
Years of watching academics struggle with the 'publish or perish' phenomenon has inspired a leading Elsevier Editor-in-Chief to publish a book to help academics navigate the world of publishing.
"After spending 24 years as the founding Editor-in-Chief of the journal Expert Systems with Applications and also researching in the knowledge management field, I feel it's time to practice what I preach," explains the book's editor Dr. Jay Liebowitz, who is now Editor-in-Chief of the journal Procedia Computer Science. "With this book I hope to share the lessons I've learned in journal editing."
The new book, A Guide to Publishing for Academics: Inside the Publish or Perish Phenomenon [1], is a compilation of chapters from 15 journal editors, some from leading Elsevier journals. It offers practical advice to help researchers increase their chances of being published in peer-reviewed journals. It also has advice for current and future journal editors, including models of editing and editorial boards, editorial coaching advice, and editing smart practices.
Dr. Liebowitz's top 5 tips for editors
- Publish high-quality papers that make a significant contribution to the existing literature
- Set aside part of each day for 'journal patrol'
- Be fair and reasonable, but uphold the highest technical standards
- Beware of all the 'vested interests'
- Give back to your scientific community as a reviewer, editor, or 'community friend'
"Doing 'journal patrol' as I call it is a daily time-consuming activity," says Dr. Liebowitz from Harrisburg University of Science and Technology. "It's a lot of work, but getting an email from a reader who said that the journal has greatly shaped her research agenda, or a newly minted assistant professor who eventually has his dissertation research published makes serving as a journal editor a rewarding experience."
Gathering information for the book helped Dr. Liebowitz see the work he does as an editor from a new perspective, and including the lessons learned by other leading editors was invaluable.
"I'm a big believer in cross-collaboration – that leads to new ideas and creativity," he says. "I'm honored to have some of the most knowledgeable journal editors in the business and IT fields join me in contributing their knowledge. It's a thrill for all of us involved in this book project to provide some helpful insights, guidance, and best (or worst) practices to researchers as they move forward on their research and publications journeys."
Life as an editor isn't always easy. "It certainly was a catharsis to assemble this book," says Dr. Liebowitz. "We could have told some hair-raising stories about personal or professional vendettas with various colleagues regarding their research and writing activities, or about plagiarism cases that consumed many months of the journal editor's time. Instead, we tried to take the 'high road' and focus on the key things academics can do to get published."
Dr. Liebowitz has a wealth of expertise in knowledge management, business, finance, analytics, intelligent systems, and IT management. His work at Harrisburg University focuses on analytics, knowledge management, and financial literacy education. Although the focus of his new book is mainly in the business and IT areas, much of the guidance provided can be applied to other fields.
"We wanted to provide some interesting vignettes and dos and don'ts so that the potential author could understand what goes on behind the scenes once the manuscript arrives on our (virtual) desks," he explains. "We hope that this book serves as part of our legacy as journal editors."
[1] Liebowitz, J. (ed.) (April 2015), A Guide to Publishing for Academics: Inside the Publish or Perish Phenomenon, Taylor & Francis, NY.
Professor Philip Steinberg reflects on the pros and cons of holding speed review sessions at conferences.
Professor Philip Steinberg | Associate Editor for the journal Political Geography
Philip Steinberg is a Professor in the Department of Geography at Durham University, UK, a post he has held since autumn 2013, following 16 years in Florida State University's Department of Geography. Prior to Florida State, he attended Clark University's Graduate School of Geography (1990-1996), where he received his MA and PhD degrees, as well as teaching briefly in Bucknell University's Department of Geography (1997). His research focuses on the historical, ongoing, and, at times, imaginary projection of social power onto spaces whose geophysical and geographic characteristics make them resistant to state territorialization. He has been an editor with Political Geography for five years.
When our publisher at Elsevier first suggested that we conduct 'speed reviews' at major conferences, the Political Geography editorial team was skeptical. We assumed that most of our authors and prospective authors were familiar with Political Geography: After all, they had gotten through graduate school reading articles from the journal and we figured they must have a good sense of its content.
What we hadn't considered, though, was the value of giving the journal a human face. As editors, we establish relationships with our authors. Sometimes these are fleeting, hassle-free relationships and sometimes they're long, drawn-out dramas. It's understandable that authors want to have a sense of what they're committing themselves to before submitting an article, especially when the odds suggest that their submission may well end up being rejected. Particularly wary are those prospective authors who are considering a jump between disciplines (or sub-disciplines) or publishing in a language in which they're not accustomed to writing. I've found that most prospective authors who attend our speed review sessions come from outside the world of Anglo-American political geography that constitutes the journal's historic author- and reader-base.
Speed reviews – what you need to know
The sessions usually take place at conferences with each individual slot lasting around 15 minutes, giving the author and the editor a short amount of time to discuss the paper and how it might fit with the journal.
If you are interested in hosting speed reviews at an upcoming event, simply contact your publisher. Once you have decided on a suitable location, prospective authors will be alerted via marketing channels and can either pre-book their individual session or arrange attendance once they are onsite.
Political Geography Editor-in-Chief John O'Loughlin has coined the term 'speed dating' for these speed review sessions and I think his renaming of the encounters makes sense. While these conversations do indeed provide opportunities for an editor to provide a preliminary review of a prospective author's publication idea, the meeting is also, in a sense, one in which the editor and the author 'check each other out' in a safe, controlled, and time-limited environment. Each 'date' ends with the two sides awkwardly (and sometimes with an abundance of politeness) deciding whether it's worth trying to take the relationship further.
And, as on many speed dates, the answer is frequently "It was nice meeting you, but I don't think we're right for each other". Of the 20 or so prospective authors I've met at these sessions, I believe that just one has submitted an article, plus another two or three were early stage graduate students who may submit pieces in the next few years.
But this doesn't mean that the speed review concept is a failure. In fact, it is just the opposite. As with more conventional speed dating, speed reviewing lets both authors and editors test the waters and, if necessary, reject each other with a minimum of heartbreak. Frequently when this happens, I'm able to give the author a steer toward another journal, or in some cases I've been able to pull out a nugget in the author's presentation that, if adequately developed, could be of interest to Political Geography. As my fellow editors and I have found when desk-rejecting submissions, many authors appreciate a quick rejection instead of a long drawn-out process that has the same conclusion. And a pre-submission rejection is even quicker than a pre-review rejection.
And then there are the cases where sparks fly between editor and author. Even in these cases, there's no guarantee that 'love at first sight' will lead to publication ('love at first cite'?). But an early conversation exploring where a proposed topic intersects with the journal's remit can lead to a stronger initial submission.
Whether the end result of a speed review is a quick rejection or eventual publication, the speed review process provides an efficient and enjoyable way for editors to meet both their contributors and their readers. I look forward to conducting them at conferences to come….and maybe some day I'll find that perfect author who sets my editorial heart aflutter.
Our free webinars contain useful tips and advice on a range of valuable topics presented by our top experts.
Jagdesh Kaur-Georgiou | Researcher Relations Manager, Elsevier
Are you wondering...
At Elsevier, we are committed to supporting editors. Our regular webinar series contain useful tips and advice on a range of valuable topics presented by our top experts. By participating in these webinars, you will join in-depth discussions on publishing and journal-related subjects. You will also be able to send your questions to our experts either via the registration form, or online during the live events.
You can register for one, several or all webinars in this series, by simply clicking on this link.
Capturing High Impact Content for your Journal
4th March 2015
Amsterdam: 16.00 / London: 15.00 / New York: 10.00 / Beijing: 23.00
Presenter: Dr. Floris de Hon (Publishing Director)
The Changing Journal Landscape
10th March 2015
Amsterdam: 16.00 / London: 15.00 / New York: 11.00 / Beijing: 23.00
Presenter: David Clark (SVP Life Sciences & Social Sciences)
Elsevier's Innovations in Peer Review
2nd April 2015
Amsterdam: 16.00 / London: 15.00 / New York: 10.00 / Beijing: 22.00
Presenters: Dr. Bahar Mehmani (Publishing Innovation Manager) & Dr. Joris van Rossum (Publishing Innovation Director)
Open Access Publishing
8th April 2015
Amsterdam: 16.00 / London: 15.00 / New York: 10.00 / Beijing: 22.00
Presenter: Els Bosma (Open Access Program Director)
Trends in Journal Publishing for Physical Sciences
3rd June 2015
Amsterdam: 16.00 / London: 15.00 / New York: 10.00 / Beijing: 22.00
Presenter: Dr. Andrew Plume (Scientometrics & Market Analysis Director)
Trends in Journal Publishing for Life Sciences
9th June 2015
Amsterdam: 16.00 / London: 15.00 / New York: 10.00 / Beijing: 22.00
Presenter: Dr. Andrew Plume (Scientometrics & Market Analysis Director)
In our regular Editor in the Spotlight Q&A, seasoned editors share their views on a broad array of publishing topics. We have gathered together just some of their responses in this two-minute video – we hope you will find them useful. To view the video full screen, simply click on the icon in the video […]
In our regular Editor in the Spotlight Q&A, seasoned editors share their views on a broad array of publishing topics. We have gathered together just some of their responses in this two-minute video - we hope you will find them useful. To view the video full screen, simply click on the icon in the video toolbar.
Dr. Lynn E DeLisi, MD, is a psychiatrist in the VA Boston Healthcare system and cares for very acutely ill psychotic patients. She is also a Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, where she teaches residents and directs several research projects, the majority of which are on schizophrenia. She is a founding editor of […]
Dr. Lynn E DeLisi, MD, is a psychiatrist in the VA Boston Healthcare system and cares for very acutely ill psychotic patients. She is also a Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, where she teaches residents and directs several research projects, the majority of which are on schizophrenia.
She is a founding editor of Schizophrenia Research along with her co-Editor, Henry Nasrallah, MD. They have edited the journal together for the past 28 years. Schizophrenia Research is now the largest specialty journal in the field. Over the years it has had a major impact on the field and reports on new data generated worldwide by established researchers.
Q. What does being a journal editor mean to you and what do you find most rewarding about this role?
A. I love being a journal editor, and particularly in the area of schizophrenia research. I feel that I contribute substantially to the field by facilitating the communication of important new research and advance the field through first rate journalism.
Q. What are your biggest challenges as editor of Schizophrenia Research? How do you overcome these challenges and what extra support can Elsevier provide?
A. Probably the biggest challenge is moving submitted papers along in a timely fashion. As our journal has grown, more and more papers are submitted each week and, on average, I now process 40-50 manuscripts a week. Since this is not my "day job" you can see this is quite a challenge. In addition, when a paper is sent out through electronic means for review, reviewers often ignore the invitation, decline it, or accept and then forget that they accepted it. Even with website sent reminders, they still do not review in a timely fashion. In addition, reviewers often change their email addresses, so the database we use to send out the emails needs constant updating.
Q. In many areas of research, the growth of paper submissions is outpacing the growth of qualified reviewers and resulting in pressure on the peer-review system. What do you think is the solution to this problem and how do you see the peer-review process changing in the future?
A. This problem stems from the custom to make reviewing manuscripts a voluntary chore. There is nothing that reviewers receive, except perhaps being acknowledged as a reviewer once a year. This is not enough. Reviewers should be rewarded for timely completion of a review, either with money and/or with CME credits.
Q. We have observed that researchers are increasingly accessing journal content online at an article level, i.e. the researcher digests content more frequently on an article basis rather than a journal basis. How do you think this affects the visibility of your journal among authors?
A. I doubt this affects authors at all; when considering which journal to submit to, authors look at where articles of interest are published, the Impact Factor of the journal and how quickly the journal will publish their paper. Online access to individual papers does not diminish this.
Q. Academic publishing is increasingly embracing open access. How do you see these open access changes in your country? And how do you see them affecting authors who publish in your journal?
A. Time will tell how open access affects our journal. Times are hard and individual researchers do not have a lot of grant money. Even if the concept is good, the means to get there cannot financially burden the researcher. There are costs involved in publishing an article. That means publishing companies, funding bodies and libraries need to work together to come up with ways to provide sustainable open access.
Q. Researchers need to demonstrate their research impact, and they are increasingly under pressure to publish articles in journals with high Impact Factors. How important is a journal's Impact Factor to you, and do you see any developments in your community regarding other research quality measurements?
A. I think about it all the time when processing manuscripts. A paper may contain perfectly good research and be well written, but if it is a topic that is only of interest to a small group of people, it will obviously not be widely read or cited. The Impact Factor is imperfect at best and it may not accurately reflect the quality of a journal that specializes in publishing many small data papers and not many long review articles.
Q. As online publishing techniques develop, the traditional format of the online scientific article will change. At Elsevier, we are experimenting with new online content features and functionality. Which improvements/changes would you, as an editor, find most important?
A. Having interactive websites with videos and perhaps an 'Ask the expert' section. Websites need to be expanded. I believe that paper copies of journals will soon no longer exist. We need to consider having apps for the journal and also be able to display an entire journal on an electronic book/tablet.
Q. Do you use social media or online professional networking in your role as an editor or researcher? Has it helped you and, if so, how?
A. Networking both online and in person is extremely important to keep up with the field and have the journal keep up with the field as well as solicit the best manuscripts.
Q. How do you see your journal developing over the next 10 years? Do you see major shifts in the use of journals in the future?
Q. Do you have any tips or tricks to share with your fellow editors about being a journal editor?
A. The best I can think of is to learn ways to triage papers. After you have had experience over a long period, you can see what is likely to be of interest to readers and what is likely to be looked at favorably by reviewers. Often one can even just tell from a title of a manuscript whether it will ultimately make the cut. Certainly once you read the abstract, you can get a good idea of the impact a given manuscript will have. Finally, keep up with all the electronic media available, as they change each year - publishing will shortly no longer exist on paper!
The Elsevier Editorial System (EES) provides a number of powerful tools you can use to manage the peer-review process. Recently, we have introduced a range of enhancements, including: The Find Reviewers Tool – reviewer candidates located using the tool can now be transferred into EES My EES Hub – this functionality introduced exciting options for […]
The Elsevier Editorial System (EES) provides a number of powerful tools you can use to manage the peer-review process.
Recently, we have introduced a range of enhancements, including:
In this article, we want to highlight some additional EES features – some of which you may not be aware of if they aren't switched on for your journal. These features have been designed to make life easier for you, your authors and your reviewers, and your Publisher or Journal Manager will be happy to provide more information.
EES can be set up to allow reviewers to upload a file to support their review of a manuscript, for example, an annotated PDF in which they have marked up suggestions. When uploaded, the file(s) will automatically be sanitized by EES to ensure the reviewer's identity is removed from the file properties and any 'sticky note' comments the reviewer has added. An attachment that is uploaded by a reviewer will only be available to the author with the editor's approval and the editor can also choose to edit and upload a replacement version.
Similarly, editors can upload files to support their decision on a manuscript. These files will be made available to the author when they receive the decision notification. As well as providing additional files, such as an annotated PDF, you could use this functionality to upload a review that was delivered late.
We all know that reviewers are busy people and many appreciate receiving timely reminders for their reviewing tasks. It is possible in EES to set up automated reminders so that email reminders are automatically sent by the system when the following situations apply:
Automating this process helps to ensure reminders are sent according to a set schedule, and reduces the effort required by the editor.
When an author uploads their submission files in EES, the system can automatically re-order the files so that they appear in the order required by the journal. This saves time for the author and also means that editors and reviewers receive correctly ordered PDFs.
When a reviewer receives an invitation to review, they can accept or decline the invitation without the need to log into EES, which saves them time. Did you know that an additional link can be included in EES emails to reviewers, allowing them to access a PDF of the submission without the need to log in? Depending on the policy of your journal, the link can be added to the reviewer invitation or the letter of instruction they receive when they agree to complete a review. This means a reviewer can accept to review, download the PDF, and then begin their review without even logging into EES!
When you invite reviewers in EES, you can also choose to set up 'alternate reviewers' – they will automatically receive an invitation to review if one of the original reviewers declines or fails to respond within the time limit. Including alternate reviewers means that you can locate a list of suitable reviewers for a submission upfront and then let EES manage the invitation process for you. Another advantage is that the alternate reviewers will still be available to invite for another submission, if needed.
With the Find Reviewers Tool you can easily locate reviewer candidates and import them into EES at the click of a button, where you can add them as reviewers, alternate reviewers, or just keep them as potential reviewers should you want to invite them manually.
With the 'suggest reviewer preferences' option in EES, you can narrow your search for reviewers by configuring a number of options to exclude anyone:
You can also change the order in which the results appear by assigning each criterion a level of importance. You can find out more about this on our EES Support Hub.
For more information on any of these features and their suitability for your journal, please contact your Publisher or Journal Manager.
Following graduation from the University of Exeter, Ben Rowe joined Elsevier in 2002. He was initially a Journal Manager and held a number of different roles before being appointed Service Manager for Operations in 2013. Throughout his time with Elsevier, Ben has worked on EES, including providing support to internal and external users. Ben is based in Exeter, UK.
Ask any journal editor to name their top three pain points and you will frequently hear "finding reviewers". With researchers so busy and the number of journal submissions on the rise, it is a common challenge for the editor community. Edward H Shortliffe, MD, PhD, is Professor of Biomedical Informatics at Arizona State University in Phoenix, […]
Ask any journal editor to name their top three pain points and you will frequently hear "finding reviewers".
With researchers so busy and the number of journal submissions on the rise, it is a common challenge for the editor community.
Edward H Shortliffe, MD, PhD, is Professor of Biomedical Informatics at Arizona State University in Phoenix, USA. In his role as Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Biomedical Informatics, he has come up with a simple yet novel approach to solving the problem; researchers interested in reviewing for the journal are invited to fill in this form on the journal homepage.
Here he outlines the origins of the initiative and his observations since the form's introduction.
When I became Editor-in-Chief of Journal of Biomedical Informatics (JBI) around 14 years ago, I began receiving email messages from people interested in reviewing for the journal.
As is true for every journal, sometimes we struggle not only to source enough reviewers, but to find people with the correct areas of expertise to review the research we publish.
Some of the people who volunteered were clearly extremely knowledgeable in their field, but that field was outside the scope of our journal. In other cases I would receive emails with hardly any information – which meant I had to contact the sender to request more details – or need to deal with other emails that would be pages long.
I realized that by creating a form with a standard set of questions, we could both formalize and simplify the volunteer process.
How does it work?
People visiting the Elsevier.com homepage of Journal of Biomedical Informatics see a link inviting them to volunteer as a reviewer.
Those clicking on the link are taken through to the form below. It contains a range of questions, the answers to which help Professor Shortliffe to decide whether the researcher is a suitable reviewer candidate.
As well as the usual information – name and contact details – I ask them for a short bio and their publishing and reviewing history. The question I find especially useful is "What is your motivation to review for JBI?". It helps me to assess whether they have a clear understanding of the journal's aims and scope.
The way someone fills in the form also tells me a lot about them. If it has been completed in a slipshod manner I can see they wouldn't be the kind of reviewer JBI is looking for.
Interestingly, I have found that around 90 percent of the people asking to review for the journal are Asian postdocs in the US.
The papers we publish tend to be concerned with information technology rather than medical devices, and to focus on underlying methods rather than applied system descriptions or summative evaluations. However, a number of those who apply to review are concerned with the biological end of the spectrum – I would love to get more people on the clinical end applying – and many of the volunteers are not really familiar with informatics at all.
Having said that, I approve around 50 percent of the people who fill in the form. I simply send their details to the Journal Manager who adds them to our reviewer database and informs the individual. Whether they ever get asked by the editor to review is another matter and that is quite difficult to track.
The form is not the only avenue we use to find new reviewers; all first authors of accepted papers are automatically added to our reviewer database, for example.
Professor Edward H Shortliffe has been Editor-in-Chief of JBI since 2001, when the former Computers and Biomedical Research was reconstituted as the Journal of Biomedical Informatics. A physician with a PhD in computer science, he has research expertise in computer-based clinical decision support, knowledge representation, clinical systems, and the role of the internet in health care. He is Professor of Biomedical Informatics and Senior Advisor to the Executive Vice Provost for the College of Health Solutions at Arizona State University. Based for much of the year in New York City, he is a Scholar in Residence at the New York Academy of Medicine and holds academic positions as Adjunct Professor of Biomedical Informatics at Columbia University's College of Physicians and Surgeons and as Adjunct Professor of Health Policy and Research (Health Informatics) at Weill Cornell Medical College.
Jonathan Culpeper is Professor of English Language and Linguistics at Lancaster University in the UK. Since early 2009, alongside Professor Neal Norrick of Universität des Saarlandes in Germany, he has held the position of co-Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Pragmatics (JOP), an interdisciplinary journal of language studies. During this period, the journal has experienced a […]
Jonathan Culpeper is Professor of English Language and Linguistics at Lancaster University in the UK. Since early 2009, alongside Professor Neal Norrick of Universität des Saarlandes in Germany, he has held the position of co-Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Pragmatics (JOP), an interdisciplinary journal of language studies. During this period, the journal has experienced a steady rise in the number of submissions and has sought effective ways to deal with that increase.
As he prepares to step down from his editing role at the end of this year, Professor Culpeper and his Publisher, Christopher Tancock, reflect on the changes introduced and their impact on the journal.
When I took on my role, it was soon clear that the model of one editor was simply impractical given the number of submissions JOP was receiving, so one of the first changes that Chris (the Publisher) and I made was to introduce more editors. In the months that followed, we added my co-Editor-in-Chief, Neal, followed by two associate editors, a book review editor and a special issue editor. We have recently added another associate editor and having those extra resources has made everything possible.
One of the next things we did may sound trivial but I don't believe it is – we changed the nature of the request letters sent to reviewers. The ones we were using were not optimal in terms of persuasion so I rewrote them to ensure they would be more engaging and personal. I believe this has led to an improvement in the acceptance rate, particularly in the case of invitations to carry out a second review of the same paper – now more than 90 percent of the time the reviewer says yes to a re-review. People have also informally told me that the journal has become politer - that's quite funny as much of my own research focuses on politeness.
Another thing I believe has helped is the introduction of new journal policies and the effective sharing of those policies. I remember that near the beginning, Neal and I were mutually relieved to discover that we think alike. We have the same views on what constitutes pragmatics so it is easy to decide whether a submitted paper is in the remit of the journal. We make sure we keep other editors in the loop and the lines of communication are rapid and efficient.
In terms of the kinds of new journal policies we have introduced, a good example is the deadline given to reviewers. It used to be 90 days. Firstly and most importantly, that is longer than the norm, and seemed to be having a negative effect on the amount of time the reviewers were taking. Secondly, it is expressed in days. Can you imagine a time period of 90 days? So, we reduced the amount of time and changed the expression - it became six weeks, and then more recently five. We were a little nervous about whether fewer reviewers would be available in that shorter time period, but those worries proved unfounded.
We always provide feedback on every paper we reject so that the scholar has the opportunity to improve it. We also now have the opportunity to suggest the article is transferred to another journal, the recently-launched Ampersand. We might choose this option when the submission is good but it's not quite right for our journal, for example, it is out of scope or does not have the weight we are looking for. This can happen before or after the review process on Journal of Pragmatics – if it is after, the review reports are transferred along with the manuscript. While Ampersand can, of course, still reject the paper, I see this as a great move forward for authors, editors and reviewers.
Once Neal and I were settled into our roles, our Publisher suggested we did an editorial to announce our arrival and I thought I would look at the keywords for the papers being submitted to get a feel for the field – it was really interesting to see what the popular themes were.
Two to three years later, we decided to refresh the journal's aims and scope – the ones we had been using were drawn up when the journal was launched in the late 1970s and were no longer entirely relevant. We knew from that early editorial what we needed to update and were able to tweak the terminology accordingly. I think that has also had a positive effect – the scope for submissions is now much clearer.
I've been managing the Journal of Pragmatics for almost a decade now and have been really pleased with how the journal has developed and grown. As Jonathan says, from 2007 onwards, JOP was really struggling under the weight of the submissions it was receiving; in essence, its popularity was becoming a burden. The challenge was to consider how to manage the submissions without jeopardizing JOP's emphasis on quality or its proud traditions.
One of my main concerns was that with only one editor working on the journal, the turnaround times for processes (e.g. getting a paper into review or recording a decision on that paper) had begun to slow down considerably. Authors were starting to be affected by this.
Enlarging the editorial team was an immediate success and, as the graphic below demonstrates, the editorial time for the journal has dropped year on year so that we've now reached a point where JOP is one of the faster journals that I publish, despite having the most submissions. The 62 percent increase in speed between 2007 and 2014 speaks for itself and is an eloquent testament to the efforts of Jonathan, Neal and the rest of team, as well as the work of the editorial office run by Journal Manager Sara Bebbington.
As well as the changes to the editorial team, we also made some other adjustments which I believe have had a very beneficial impact on the journal and have undoubtedly improved the experience for authors. One thing we did – which might sound contradictory – was to become more hard-nosed about revisions. This is one area where things tend to slow down significantly which is strange since obviously it's in an author's interest to deliver a revision promptly and thus keep the submission moving along smoothly. Setting and policing a (reasonable) deadline for revisions (120 days for initial revisions and 42 days for subsequent revisions) has definitely had a good impact.
We have made two further changes; we have increased the number of journal issues published, providing more 'slots' for publication, and we have introduced article-based publishing. As a result of these two initiatives, an author's accepted paper will now be published online within an average of 6 weeks and will appear in paper form within just 16 weeks. In 2008, those figures were 7 weeks and 24 weeks, respectively.
It's clear that with the changes outlined above, the journal is delivering a better service as the following comments from authors surveyed in the latest Author Feedback Survey for the journal demonstrate:
"Great content, great editorial feedback, great response time." (Author from US aged 26-35)
"Very efficient and speedy management of the whole process, excellent referees." (Author from Spain aged 46-55)
"There is no single reason. There are reasons: 1) The Editor was super professional. 2) The Elsevier team was super prompt and professional in the production process. 3) Journal of Pragmatics is an excellent journal." (Author from US aged 36-45)
"I would publish with JOP again because of the speed, efficiency, good and helpful reviewers." (Author from UK aged 36-45)
While we welcome these really positive steps forward, I, Jonathan, his successor and the rest of the team on JOP, plan to continue developing the journal and striving to further improve the experience for authors and readers.
Jonathan Culpeper is Professor of Linguistics and English Language at Lancaster University, where he is a member of the largest Linguistics department in the UK, placed 9th in the QS World rankings. He specializes in the study of language use in context, that is, pragmatics. Between 2006 and 2009 he held a prestigious three-year ESRC Fellowship to study impoliteness. He is the author of 13 books and many papers.
Christopher Tancock has nine years' experience in STM publishing. He joined Elsevier in early 2006 where he initially managed social science book projects before moving to journals. He is now Senior Publisher for Linguistics and History of Science, managing some 20 journals including the prestigious Journal of Pragmatics and Lingua. He has degrees in European Studies and Linguistics from Royal Holloway and the University of Oxford respectively and is based in the Oxford office. In his 'spare' time, he manages the Oxford City Division of St John Ambulance and is qualified as a Patient Transport Attendant.
Mirjam Cvetič is Fay R. and Eugene L. Langberg Professor of Physics at the Department of Physics & Astronomy at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA; an institution with which she has had a primary affiliation since 1987. Her research encompasses broad areas in fundamental particle theory, including gravitational physics in string theory (with her […]
Mirjam Cvetič is Fay R. and Eugene L. Langberg Professor of Physics at the Department of Physics & Astronomy at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA; an institution with which she has had a primary affiliation since 1987.
Her research encompasses broad areas in fundamental particle theory, including gravitational physics in string theory (with her seminal work on black holes). She has published close to 300 papers with over 15,200 citations - more than 5,000 per author - and has an h-index of 71 (source: INSPIRE, the High Energy Physics information system).
She has been a Physics Letters B editor since 1999. The journal ensures the rapid publication of important new results in nuclear and particle physics and the editorial team is comprised of specialists in their fields; Professor Cvetič primarily handles papers in theoretical high energy physics. Physics Letter B receives more than 1,500 submissions per year with a rejection rate of around 50 percent. Among the articles it has published are the two papers proving the discovery of the Higgs boson at CERN. It has an Impact Factor of 6.019.
Q. What does being a journal editor mean to you and what do you find most rewarding about this role?
A. An important reason for accepting the offer to become an editor of Physics Letter B was the opportunity it offered to oversee and contribute to improving the quality of published papers in my field. One of the most rewarding aspects of my role is the opportunity to closely view the forefront of scientific activities in this field, as the letter format is a rapid way of disseminating the latest results. Another aspect is the intermediary role that an editor plays between the authors, referees, and all members of the same scientific community.
Q. What are your biggest challenges as editor of Physics Letters B? How do you overcome these challenges and what extra support can Elsevier provide?
A. I joined the Editorial Board at a time when the online posting of theoretical high energy manuscripts on an electronic bulletin board (arXiv) became the norm. There was a sense in the community that publishing in refereed journals would soon no longer be necessary. We kept in close communication with Elsevier about these issues and it was great to see that the electronic publishing process improved significantly in a very short time. I have also been vigilant about processing the submitted manuscripts as efficiently as possible by closely overseeing the refereeing process and I have made efforts to inform colleagues in my community about these improvements. I believe that this has contributed to a steady submission of manuscripts in broad fields theoretical high energy physics to the journal.
Q. In many areas of research, the growth of paper submissions is outpacing the growth of qualified reviewers and resulting in pressure on the peer-review system. What do you think the solution to this problem is and how do you see the peer-review process changing in the future?
A. I believe that the peer-review process is critical in maintaining the quality of scientific publishing and it is here to stay. As an editor, it is important to have close scientific ties with the community. It is colleagues in the field who accomplish the arduous task of preparing a timely review, motivated by their responsibility to the field and my editorial office.
Q. We have observed that researchers are increasingly accessing journal content online at an article level, i.e. the researcher digests content more frequently on an article basis rather than a journal basis. How do you think this affects the visibility of your journal among authors?
A. Indeed, the articles in my field are typically posted on a bulletin board (arXiv) prior to being published. Thus my community has access to the articles prior to their publication. Nevertheless, the community still insists on publishing in peer-reviewed journals and it then accesses the published versions online.
Q. Academic publishing is increasingly embracing open access. How do you see these open access changes in your country? And how do you see them affecting authors who publish in your journal?
A. I am delighted that Physics Letters B has become an open access journal (as part of the SCOAP3 project). I believe that the majority of my community continues to publish in peer-reviewed journals and this gives Physics Letters B an edge.
Q. Researchers need to demonstrate their research impact and they are increasingly under pressure to publish articles in journals with high Impact Factors. How important is a journal's Impact Factor to you, and do you see any developments in your community regarding other research quality measurements?
A. In the field of theoretical physics, citations of scientific work remain extremely important. Work is often conceptual so the number of papers that follow up and develop that work is considered a major metric of its impact.
Q. As online publishing techniques develop, the traditional format of the online scientific article will change. At Elsevier, we are experimenting with new online content features and functionality. Which improvements/changes would you, as an editor, find most important?
A. In the field of theoretical physics, open, online access to published work is crucial. Primarily, this involves the ability to access the published papers, but sometimes access to available computer code that may be provided along with the published article can be useful. Another aspect that is important to my community is online access to work published prior to the advent of online publishing. It is important that Elsevier ensures it is made available digitally.
Q. Do you use social media or online professional networking in your role as an editor or researcher? Has it helped you and, if so, how?
A. To some extent I have been involved in some online professional networking (LinkedIn and ResearchGate) and I believe that social media may become more important for scientific communications. Nevertheless, I believe that the primary model of disseminating research results in my field will remain via online submission to arXiv and peer-reviewed journals.
Q. How do you see your journal developing over the next 10 years? Do you see major shifts in the use of journals in the future?
A. I believe that the shift toward online posting of research papers - which was actually initiated in the theoretical high energy community in the mid-90s with the advent of the arXiv bulletin board - is here to stay, at least in the field of high energy physics. Nevertheless, the peer-review process also remains a cornerstone of the scientific publishing model. Therefore, journals such as Physics Letters B, with editors whose close scientific ties to the community allow them to run efficient editorial offices, play an important role in the field. This is particularly true in my field, where unforeseen new physics results in experimental high energy and astrophysics trigger strong research efforts in theoretical physics. Physics Letters B is a prime journal in which to publish this research.
Q. Do you have any tips or tricks to share with your fellow editors about being a journal editor?
A. I am extremely fortunate that the excellent administrative support of my assistant, Ms. Kulynych, contributes to the efficient running of my editorial office. I believe that strong scientific ties to the community are crucial; this allows for the speedy assessment of the scientific quality of submitted manuscripts and a choice of referees who often promptly fulfil this arduous task as a personal favour to the editor.
Since its launch in 2002, the Elsevier Editorial System (EES) has been Elsevier's preferred online submission and peer-review system and now caters for around 2,120 journals. As you may know, we are currently developing a new web-based publishing workspace to replace EES. This new system — EVISE — has been designed to make the publishing experience easier […]
Since its launch in 2002, the Elsevier Editorial System (EES) has been Elsevier's preferred online submission and peer-review system and now caters for around 2,120 journals.
As you may know, we are currently developing a new web-based publishing workspace to replace EES. This new system — EVISE — has been designed to make the publishing experience easier and less time-consuming by providing improved intelligence, communication, connections, ease, clarity and personalization. We have been working closely with researchers and current users of EES throughout the development process and will continue to do so after the initial launch, with new features and functionality being included in each subsequent release. EVISE will introduce a range of new benefits for editors including:
While development work on EVISE continues, the EES product development team has introduced a range of new tools and services with the aim of improving your EES experience. Many of these will also feature in EVISE so let's take a brief look at them.
Quite often, we see research submitted that is of sound science, but not suited to the scope of the selected journal. ATS allows editors of around 600 participating journals to decline (rather than reject) the paper and transfer it to another, more suitable journal. To do this they simply select the right decision term in EES and identify the appropriate receiving journal(s). Editors can easily check the status of a transfer by looking at the dedicated ATS flags or at the ATS section in the manuscript's 'History' screen. For editors of receiving journals, it is now easier to identify transferred papers within a journal, and view related information, such as reviewer comments. Automated ATS was first delivered in June of 2013, with enhancements delivered in January and April this year. The most recent enhancements support an author-driven transfer; all the editor needs to do is decline the submission. We will continue to add journals to existing and new ATS clusters during the course of this year.
We regularly conduct an audit of EES tools and processes to determine where improvements can be made. The major recommendations from a 2012 audit prompted a security change: user profile consolidation. First delivered in the early part of 2013, profile consolidation enables users to create one profile in EES with one username (email address) and password. This means people with multiple roles (editor, reviewer, author) across multiple journals, can create one profile applicable to all those roles/journals. Equally importantly, users consolidating their profiles in EES are protected from people misusing their profile because only they, as the registered user, have total control over the personal information it contains. More information about the benefits of user profile consolidation can be found on this Profile Consolidation FAQ. Consolidated users also benefit from 'my EES hub', which enables them to see an overview of all pending reviewer and author activities across all relevant journals. Uptake of user profile consolidation has been very high with 1.3 million unique profiles now created across 3.5 million accounts in EES. Enhancements to this feature have been delivered at regular intervals based on feedback from users. More information can be found here.
Did you know?
- EES currently receives more than 1.4 million submissions annually from 14 million researchers (both corresponding and co-authors); 95 percent are satisfied with their experiences.
- There are 3.6 million reviewers active in EES each year, 90 percent of whom have expressed satisfaction with the system.
- There are 25,000 editors active annually in EES; however, with editor satisfaction currently at 82 percent, it is clear there are still opportunities for us to improve the service and we have been monitoring your feedback closely leading to many of the developments outlined in this article.
ORCID is an open, non-profit, community-based initiative. By registering with ORCID, users receive a unique digital identifier — also called an ORCID or Open Researcher and Contributor ID — to which they can link their published articles and other professional activities. Researchers then have a single record of all their research, which can be made public. This can reduce or eliminate confusion when the same person's name appears in different ways in various publications, when people have the same or similar names, or when people change their name, e.g. following marriage. Put simply, an ORCID provides a unique identity for researchers — an 'author DOI' — similar to that used for publications.
EES integration with ORCID began in late-summer 2013 and we have already seen almost 50,000 EES user accounts linked to ORCID profiles; in fact, 20 percent of all EES submissions are now associated with an ORCID.
Editors can now search for reviewers on EES using an ORCID, which will help to ensure the right person is contacted when names are similar. If a user has linked their ORCID to their EES profile, the ORCID will be displayed in an additional column in the profile as a clickable link that opens the user's public record on the ORCID website. This will allow editors to see the full list of research linked to that user, which will help with identifying suitable reviewers.
The plagiarism tool CrossCheck has now been integrated into EES for a large number of journals. CrossCheck is configurable by article type in EES. Once an author has submitted a manuscript, EES will automatically upload the editor PDF to CrossCheck's iThenticate website, where it will be checked against a huge database of publications. Editors can then view an automatically generated similarity report within EES. Over the past few months, several feature enhancements have been introduced based on your feedback and we will continue to roll out the tool with the aim of making it available to all journals by the end of 2014.
The Find Reviewers tool is powered by Scopus and allows editors to search for potential reviewers, compile a list of candidates and then export that list to EES.
In April 2014, an automated version of the tool was introduced. EES will now automatically send the keywords and authors associated with a submission to the Find Reviewers tool. Once compiled, editors can then export their list of reviewer candidates from the tool to EES at the click of a button. EES will check for matches within the journal's EES database and, if none are found, allow editors to quickly proxy register the candidates they wish to invite as reviewers.
All of these new and enhanced features were introduced based on your feedback. We encourage you to continue letting us know how we can improve our products and services via the normal channel (email@example.com). Or you can post your comment below. Your feedback is key in helping us continue to deliver the best submission and peer-review experience possible and also feeds development priorities for EVISE.
Following graduation from the University of Limerick, Adrian Tedford joined Elsevier in 1996. He was initially a Desk Editor before moving into an EES trainer role in 2001. Tedford took on management of the training team in 2004 before setting up the new Editorial Production Customer Support group in 2006. He was appointed General Manager of Services in the new Eddie organization in 2009; Eddie was set up to centralize management of all EES-related activities. In late 2012, Tedford moved into his current role as Director of Journal Editorial Services & Operations, adding journal production responsibilities in Spain, France and NL to his EES/EVISE brief. He continues to be based in Shannon, Ireland, but travels extensively.
A common researcher complaint is that with so much published literature available, it can be difficult to locate relevant articles. Then there are concerns about evaluating papers, particularly due to the "use of different terms and definitions across sources and authors". In this article, we will look at some of the technology we have available […]
A common researcher complaint is that with so much published literature available, it can be difficult to locate relevant articles. Then there are concerns about evaluating papers, particularly due to the "use of different terms and definitions across sources and authors".
In this article, we will look at some of the technology we have available to help, including our latest taxonomy EMMeT™. We also highlight the new Smart Collection Tool, which will make it possible to create topical collections of articles.
Indexing journal articles to subject-specific taxonomies is a meaningful and controlled way to manage a body of knowledge. At Elsevier, we have developed our own proprietary taxonomies over many years, including the Engineering Index Thesaurus and our most recent initiative, EMMeT, the Elsevier Merged Medical Taxonomy. This latter 'super-taxonomy' creates greater value by integrating and expanding on existing, well-known taxonomies. It is managed by a team of clinical medicine informatics professionals who continue to tune the semantic engine and add new branches as medicine grows and expands.
Semantically enriching articles by text mining - and then mapping the concepts and entities described in the text to a hierarchical taxonomy - adds another layer of meaning to the raw article. This additional metadata can be used to tell computers and humans alike what the article is about, and how it relates to other content. The taxonomy can manage synonyms, abbreviations and variant spellings, which means that even if a researcher uses a search query that is not mentioned anywhere in the text, the article can be found if it is relevant to that query.
Beyond improved search results, semantic metadata can be used to cluster articles by topic. This helps researchers click on a topic of interest and find all the articles indexed to that topic. Filters allow researchers to narrow the list down to sub topics, or adjacent topics.
This type of topical navigation can save time and give researchers a quick overview of articles published in that topic area. The ability to further refine the list is important to hone in on the most relevant information. Elsevier is testing ways to let researchers select sub topic areas of interest and combine them to find articles on the crossover of disciplines, or in even more specific fields.
Many journal editors have expressed a wish to present their journal articles online in ways other than by volume and issue. Although very important, the volume/issue navigation does not necessarily showcase the articles published in particular topic areas. Some topics are very timely, for example, the focus of a conference, or a new development in the field. Some are newsworthy. Some are particular strengths of a journal's coverage. Elsevier has developed an editorial tool, called the Smart Collection Tool, which enables editors to quickly and easily define article collections for publication on journal websites. Currently, the Smart Collection Tool is available only for selected health and medical journal websites, but we are exploring its expansion to journals and websites in other areas.
The Smart Collection Tool lets an editor search by 'standard' metadata fields such as full text, year, author and DOI, but in addition enables a search of articles indexed to concepts in taxonomies like EMMeT. The refinement possibilities are elegant and sophisticated, allowing an editor to expand a concept to select sub topics or related concepts, such as diseases that are treated by a particular procedure.
The tool helps editors define a very specific search query. Editors can set up the resulting article collection to either be automatically updated with any new article published that matches the query, or include a curation step to approve candidate articles for inclusion.
"We look forward to using the new collection tool for editors that Elsevier is planning," said Dr. Craig Niederberger, Head of Urology at the University of Illinois, Co-Editor-in-Chief of Fertility & Sterility®, and Urological Survey Section Editor of The Journal of Urology®. "These semantic technologies are needed to assist editors in offering navigation and article collections organized around topics that are relevant to readers."
Elsevier's Health Advance journal websites are the first to deploy editorially-created collections from the Smart Collection Tool. Users are reporting that relevant articles are easier to find, and they can refer back to a collection page for new updates as well as set up an email alert.
ScienceDirect will soon offer access to the same collections, indicate when articles are part of one or more collections, and provide access to collection details. Again, we will start with EMMeT-indexed medical journals, while we explore how to extend the initiative to other subject domains.
We would like to hear your feedback on these developments, and your suggestions for other ways we can put semantic technologies to work for users. Please take a few moments to post your comments below.
Harriet Bell joined Elsevier in 1996, following graduation from the University of Oxford. Initially working in Marketing for publishing divisions in the Oxford office, she then moved to Amsterdam and was part of the team launching Scopus. After a short period working for digital advertising agencies and for Microsoft, Harriet rejoined Elsevier as Product Director for TheLancet.com and then led product development for health journals. In her current role as Vice President of Journal & Data Solutions, she now leads the application of smart content technologies on Elsevier's journal platforms from Elsevier's London office.
Rolf Kwakkelaar initially joined Elsevier in 1996. Working out of the Tokyo and Singapore offices, he was responsible for IT consultancy. Subsequent to that, he was with Endeavor Chicago, where his last position was Director of Digital Library Projects. After a four-year stint at the Singapore National Library Board, he rejoined Elsevier in 2012. Based in New York, he now leads the Content Innovation and Article of the Future activities for the STM Journals' Health and Medical Sciences portfolio in his role as Content Innovation Manager.
In this special issue, we've touched on how Scopus can support your editorial role. Now we turn the spotlight on another powerful source of research insights – Elsevier's new generation SciVal. Using data from Scopus – the largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature – SciVal offers quick, easy access to the research performance […]
In this special issue, we've touched on how Scopus can support your editorial role. Now we turn the spotlight on another powerful source of research insights - Elsevier's new generation SciVal.
Using data from Scopus - the largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature - SciVal offers quick, easy access to the research performance of 220 nations and 4,600 research institutions worldwide. Metrics can be combined to benchmark an institution's or a country's productivity, citation impact, collaboration (and more). They can also help researchers understand their position relative to that of their peers, as well as global and domestic standards.
Together with your publisher, you can now use this research intelligence tool to craft the future strategy of your journal and inform potential expansion of your network in emerging fields of research.
Executive Publisher for Water Management and Biological Resources, Dr. Christiane Barranguet, recently prepared a SciVal report for one of her editors, Laurent Charlet. Professor Charlet is co-Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Hydrology, which publishes original research papers and comprehensive reviews in all the subfields of the hydrological sciences.
Dr. Barranguet explained: "Hydrology is becoming more and more interdisciplinary and also more fragmented, hence its trends and developments have become more difficult to analyze. Nowadays, we see the traditional fields of hydrology (engineering, water geochemistry, soil science, geology and meteorology) integrated with such diverse disciplines as social sciences, economics, law, environmental sociology, psychology, epidemiology and behavioral science.
"The United Nations has declared 2014 the year of water and energy, and with three universities in Grenoble, France, merging into one larger entity (the University Grenoble Alps), we wanted to discover the salient facts and figures for research integrating both water and energy: where research is being done, how impactful it is, and which collaborations between international institutes are the most beneficial - both in the whole world and in France.
"Using SciVal, we confirmed that 'water and energy' is a growing research field, but we also saw the directions in which this emerging field is developing (Figure 3). By analyzing the most frequent keywords, we discovered that the field of water and energy research has different expertise areas in the world, France and France's Université Joseph Fourier (Grenoble-1) in particular."
She added: "We also noticed that water-energy research conducted at Université Joseph Fourier was very impactful in terms of citations, both at a global level, and normalized for the field." (Figure 4)
Professor Charlet, who is Professor of Water Biogeochemistry at the Université Joseph Fourier (Grenoble-1), said: "One of the interesting outcomes from the research was that the intersection of energy and water does not identify people working in hydrology or engineering, which is what we were expecting. Instead, two of the key researchers highlighted work in fundamental chemical biology (and specifically on understanding hydrogenase enzymes), both of whom I know personally." (Figure 5)
Dr. Barranguet and Professor Charlet were able to conclude that:
According to Dr. Barranguet, the information SciVal provides can not only support you in your role as an editor, but in your work as an academic too.
She said: "You can't be a good editor unless you have a good understanding of your community and are in fluid contact with it. In a world of complex transdisciplinarity, research intelligence analysis can enhance scientists' understanding of their disciplines. By examining which particular competences are emerging in a research field, who is working on what topic, and what the most impactful collaborations are, an editor can better anticipate developments and adapt the journal strategy to meet them."
Professor Charlet intends to use the SciVal data to develop future Special Issues and explore collaboration opportunities. The data discussed here will be presented during the 2015 Grenoble Interdisciplinary Days, more information about which will appear shortly on the Elsevier.com homepage of Journal of Hydrology.
Laurent Charlet is Professor of Water Biogeochemistry at the Université Joseph Fourier (Grenoble-I). His research group belongs to the Earth Science Institute (ISTerre). He is holder of the CNRS (The National Center for Scientific Research) Silver Medal for Excellence in Research and is Chancellor International Research Advisor. The aim of his research is to develop general methods for understanding the reactivity of trace elements and nanoparticles present in nature, and also in the human body, as a means of predicting biogeochemical processes that are relevant to environmental quality, sustainability, paleoenvironment reconstruction and risk assessment. Recently he developed different collaborative projects on 'medical geochemistry' studying the effect of nanoparticles, metals & metalloids speciation on DNA double-strand breaks, whether non-repaired or mis-repaired, with respect to (nano)toxicity and carcinogenesis.
Dr. Christiane Barranguet, PhD, studied oceanography in Uruguay where she completed her MSc at the Universidad de la República. Subsequently, she was awarded a grant from the French Minister of Education and moved to Marseille, where she completed a DEA and a PhD in oceanography (1994). After graduation, Christiane worked at the two major institutes for marine research in The Netherlands (NIOO and NIOZ) as a postdoc, and later on at the University of Amsterdam, where besides her research work she mentored MSc, PhD and postdoctoral students. Dr. Barranguet has published over 30 scientific publications in international journals. In 2004, she left academia to manage the Aquatic Sciences portfolio at Elsevier as Publishing Editor, being promoted to Publisher in 2006. Presently, she occupies the position of Executive Publisher, shaping the publication policy of water research, comprising the top international scientific journals.
In his role as Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Professor William S Neilson relies heavily on the information contained in Elsevier's Scopus – the largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature. In this article he explains why he finds it so useful. Editors have many responsibilities, but the greatest one […]
In his role as Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Professor William S Neilson relies heavily on the information contained in Elsevier's Scopus – the largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature. In this article he explains why he finds it so useful.
Editors have many responsibilities, but the greatest one may well be separating those manuscripts having enough interest to warrant publication from those that do not. This becomes especially hard when one edits a journal with broad scope, too broad for any single person or small team to master. Nevertheless, publishers give editors this responsibility, and we must find a way to perform this sorting process. How do we judge an article's interest when we are unfamiliar with the literature?
I edit the Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization (JEBO), which fits into the above categorization of a broad journal. JEBO is an economics journal that receives papers from across the spectrum of economic specializations as well as from finance and management. The manuscripts use all the different tools at an economist's disposal from mathematical or computational to empirical or experimental. Individual researchers typically specialize in a topic-technique pair, so no single person could have expertise in everything our authors do. Furthermore, JEBO is a large journal; each year we receive more than 1,000 new submissions and publish more than 150 articles.
Every new submission begins with a step in which I determine whether the paper is too narrow to pursue or potentially interesting enough to send on for review. Those in the former category receive desk rejections. While I have accumulated expertise over many of the topics covered by the manuscripts, I cannot claim it in all of the narrow literatures in which these papers hope to contribute. Scopus allows me to compensate for this, and I use it almost daily.
Elsevier's Scopus database does many things, but for my editorial duties the citation tracking feature helps the most. For any article in the 21,000 titles indexed by Scopus, one can readily find every other article that cites it, and from there find the references for – and citations to – those articles, the references for – and citations to – those articles, and so on. Many of us are familiar with the ISI Web of Science, which shares these features. For me, the primary differences are how quickly new information appears in the database (Scopus is updated daily) and how easy the interface is to use. Scopus has the advantage in both, and both matter for how I use it.
When I receive a manuscript addressing a literature I do not know well, I look for a reference to use as the key to my search. I look for one that was published 3-5 years ago in a prominent journal and which every subsequent paper on that topic should have cited. Let's refer to this article as "Eve." I search for Eve in Scopus, either using the article title or an author's name. When I find it, the number of citations to the article appears prominently on the right of the screen. If that number is too small, I know that the literature addressed by my manuscript is too narrow to warrant further review, and I desk-reject it. If the number of citations is large, I do more digging.
Example: Let's pretend the submitting article has referenced "The evolutionary basis of risky adolescent behavior: Implications for science, policy, and practice" (1). A search for this article reveals that it has 47 citations:
Clicking on the number leads to a screen listing all of the published articles citing Eve. This screen has proven extraordinarily valuable, and I use the information in a number of ways. First, a quick scan reveals the number of distinct authors citing Eve, which provides an idea of the number of researchers who might find the submitted manuscript worth reading. The same quick scan tells me how well these citing papers have published – this is measured by the titles of the journals in which they have appeared.
Second, I can trace the trajectory of the literature growing from Eve to get an idea of whether the submitted manuscript is at the frontier or just fills gaps in the literature. Scopus makes it simple to retrieve abstracts or get to the publisher's page for the article, so I can find any similarities between already-published papers and the submitted manuscript. As an added bonus, this step would uncover any plagiarism of an already-published article.
If these first two steps identify the submission as potentially contributing to the frontier of an active literature, I then assign the paper to a co-editor or an associate editor. Even though the editorial board has broad coverage, sometimes submissions fall into literatures outside of the expertise of everyone on the board. The role of Editor-in-Chief makes me the residual claimant for these submissions, so I have to find reviewers. Because Scopus leads me to every paper citing Eve that has been published in the past few years, and all of these authors are familiar with the literature to which the submission hopes to contribute, this constitutes my reviewer pool. It means I can successfully find reviewers when I know neither the literature nor any of its participants.
My primary day-to-day task for Scopus is to learn more about submission-specific literatures, but the database proves useful for ex post assessment of the editorial team. Scopus makes it possible to search by journal title, and it then reports the number of articles published by year. These articles can be sorted by the number of citations they have generated, making it easy to find out which articles are becoming important and which are not. This in turn tells us where we can focus our future efforts. I can also perform the same exercise for aspirational journals to see what topics are becoming hot in the literature. This analysis can inform a number of decisions, from when and whom to add to the editorial board to what special issues to pursue.
In short, Scopus informs every phase of the editorial process. I would not want to do this job without it, and I intend to continue using it throughout my career.
In March this year, Scopus launched the Cited References Expansion project to expand the database's citation data back to 1970. The project is scheduled to run until 2016, when an estimated 8 million articles will have been re-indexed to include cited references. The first of the new content will be searchable and viewable by Scopus users as early as the end of this year. Correct citation data for the archival content will make it possible to measure its impact, perform historical trend analysis and conduct more accurate evaluations of authors who have published prior to 1996. There will also be higher h-index rankings for those senior researchers – many of whom have subsequently become key influencers and decision makers – who published most prolifically before the mid-1990s.
(1) Ellis, Bruce J., Marco Del Giudice, Thomas J. Dishion, Aurelio José Figueredo, Peter Gray, Vladas Griskevicius, Patricia H. Hawley, W. Jake Jacobs, Jenee James, Anthony A. Volk, and David Sloan Wilson. "The Evolutionary Basis of Risky Adolescent Behavior: Implications for Science, Policy, and Practice." Developmental Psychology 48.3 (2012): 598-623. Scopus. Web. 14 Aug. 2014.
William Neilson is a Professor of Economics and holder of the J. Fred Holly Chair at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA, where he has taught for eight years and serves as department head. Prior to that, he taught for 18 years at Texas A&M University. He has been Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization since January, 2011, and served as Editor-in-Chief of Economic Inquiry from 1997-2001. He is an economic theorist specializing in decision theory, game theory, and behavioral economics.
Editors and publishers are always curious to learn how their journal is performing compared to others in the field. They are also keen to discover whether the content they are publishing is attracting citations. In this piece, we would like to share with you a number of visualization techniques that can help to generate insights […]
Editors and publishers are always curious to learn how their journal is performing compared to others in the field. They are also keen to discover whether the content they are publishing is attracting citations. In this piece, we would like to share with you a number of visualization techniques that can help to generate insights into journal performance.
How can you determine what the 'hot' topics are in a specific journal, group of journals or subject area? Or, more specifically, which topics have shown active growth and strong impact in research output (published articles) in recent years? To answer this question, we developed a new visualization tool in collaboration with the CWTS research group, which specializes in bibliometrics at the University of Leiden. The tool has access to all journals and conference proceedings indexed in Scopus. Drawing on this information, it can generate maps revealing the relationships between terms used in titles and abstracts of articles published in one or more selected journals. It does this with the help of a computer program called VOSviewer (1).
There are a number of steps involved in producing a term map.
The map shown in Figure 1 is known as a co-occurrence cluster map. Every term that occurs at least five times in the titles and abstracts of articles in the selected journals is represented by an individual node on the map. The larger the node, the more articles contain the term and the smaller the space between the terms, the more often they tend to co-occur. However, it is important to note that this is a 2D representation of a multi-dimensional network, so the proximity of terms cannot perfectly reflect the relationship in all cases. Finally, the terms are colored into clusters of terms that tend to co-occur.
Field expertise can help appropriately check and name the clusters, as well as predict which clusters are likely to contain the most highly-cited content, and why.
The next step in determining hot topics in the field is to check which terms are relatively well cited in comparison to the rest of the content published in the journal(s). This can be done by changing the coloring in the cluster map to show the average citation impact of the articles containing that term, relative to the average citation impact (1.00) of all articles included in the map (Figure 2). As older publications have had more time to be cited, the citations are normalized by year of publication to make a fair comparison possible. In Figure 2, terms with above average citation impact are colored red, terms with average citation impact are green and terms with below average citation impact are shown in blue.
We can clearly see that the relatively highly-cited terms tend to occur to the left of the map. These are terms found mainly in the yellow and green clusters in Figure 1, related to experiments (green) and clinical trials (yellow). Highly-cited terms in these areas include:
Finally, a Scopus keyword search can be performed for the terms in the map with the highest relative citation impact, to determine if these were isolated occurrences. The outcome of this keyword search, restricted to the Nursing field, confirmed that there were at least four areas in this analysis which had a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of more than 5 percent, which indicates that there was an above average increase in the number of papers published in these areas over the past five years, as the average CAGR is 3–5 percent (see Table 1).
The Scopus keyword search confirmed that the topics suggested by the map were indeed topics that have been attracting attention in the field. Although this specific map at field level is somewhat generic, it does provide a general idea of where to look for hot topics in more detail.
One editor's experiences
Dr. Paul H. Gobster is a Research Social Scientist for the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. He has just stepped down after four years as co-Editor-in-Chief of Elsevier's Landscape and Urban Planning, remaining on the journal's Board as Associate Editor. He and his colleagues used term maps to aid the development of an editorial for the journal's 40th anniversary (2).
Dr. Gobster said: "We identified important concepts and themes represented in its published content and developed a time-series of four maps to qualitatively describe changes across each successive decade.
"The term maps were relatively easy to interpret and produced visualizations that were suitable for presentation to readers within our editorial. I believe the term maps have additional value for journal administrative and strategic planning functions — the clustering can help to clarify thematic content for manuscript classification and assignment of submissions to Associate Editors, and the clusters and specific terms (their presence, positions, and any changes over time) may help to identify enduring and emerging subthemes of work."
While term maps are used to highlight the topics published within a journal or discipline, journal mapping can be used to examine a journal's position and scope and its interactions with other journals in the field. As with term maps, Scopus can provide the source data, ensuring the analysis draws on all indexed journals.
These journal maps are formed using citation links. A citation from a paper published in one journal to a paper published in another establishes that their respective contents are relevant to each other, and suggests a level of similarity between the two. In any given time period, a journal tends to contain citations to many other journals, and those it cites the most should be the journals with which it is most closely related. For instance, if Journal A provides many citations to Journal B and only a few to Journal C, this is a sign that it has a stronger connection to Journal B. If over time the balance shifts so that it begins to provide more citations to Journal C, this indicates that the scope of the journals or structure of the field is changing and it is becoming progressively more related to Journal C. When the citation links are built up over many more journals than in this simplified example, a map is a convenient way to display the links and see how journals interact to form larger groups.
See Figure 3 for an example of a journal map based upon the same six Nursing journals used in the term maps examples above.
Each journal on the map is displayed as a node (circle), with size determined by the average citations to that journal's papers in the time period. You can see in Figure 3 that the general Medicine journals included in the map have far higher average citation impact than the other journals. The selected journals are in blue and all fall into the region of core Nursing journals, while other journals are in grey and included because of their citation links to these seed journals. Citation relationships are shown as edges (lines) of varying thickness. These citation relationships are normalized by the number of citations received by the cited journal and by the number of citations given by the citing journal. The thicker the line, the higher the proportion of citations represented.
In this example map, key areas of different health science specialties have been labelled based on the journal groups. This allows you to see the links between broader specialties as well as individual journals. These groupings will tend to be fairly stable, but comparing maps based on different time periods allows you to identify newly-emerging journals in a given area or the changing research relationships that lead one topic area to become more relevant to another over time.
The citation environment in which a journal sits is unique and dynamic, and analysis of this can be used as an objective means for determining the competitive position of an established journal in a research field.
Both term mapping and journal mapping can help to benchmark the journal against competitors and provide useful insights for editorial board meetings. While a few strategic reasons for using these analytical tools have been suggested in the text above, their real advantage lies in how adaptable they are to different research questions. If you would like to know more about how these tools can help you, or other analytical tools to provide insight into the position of your journal, please contact your publisher.
(1) Van Eck, N.J., & Waltman, L. (2010) "Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping", Scientometrics, Vol 84, No. 2, pp. 523–538.
(2) Gobster, P.H. (2014) "(Text) Mining the LANDscape: Themes and trends over 40 years of Landscape and Urban Planning", Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol 126, pp. 21–30.
Dr. Daphne van Weijen, PhD, joined Elsevier's Research & Academic Relations department in 2012. Part of her role as a Publishing Information Manager is to advise publishers and editors on ways to improve the success and quality of their journals, using bibliographic data and visualization techniques. Daphne has a background in Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching, and completed her PhD research on First and Second Language Writing Processes at Utrecht University in 2009.
Matthew Richardson works within Elsevier's Research & Academic Relations department as a Publishing Information Manager. He studies scientific research through the lenses of publication and citation trends, with a focus on the information flows that construct and change research disciplines. His particular focus is on visualizing networks of scientific publications and fields, to enable a deeper understanding of how journals and disciplines relate to one another. Matthew completed a Master's Degree in Writing from the University of Warwick, UK, before joining Elsevier's Oxford office in 2010.
10 Jul 2014 3 Comments
Improvements to the Find Reviewers tool in EES have simplified the process of searching for potential referees. Find out more…
Egbert van Wezenbeek | Director Publication Process Development, Elsevier
The Find Reviewers application in the Elsevier Editorial System (EES) was built to help you locate appropriate reviewers.
Since its launch in 2010, editor feedback has been positive but we know that you have been keen to see better integration of the tool with EES.
We are pleased to inform you that following a recent update to EES this is now the case, resulting in a new workflow, details of which are outlined below.
In addition to the improved workflow outlined above, visibility of the Find Reviewers tool on the 'Search for Reviewers' page has been improved by adding a logo and hyperlinking the entire phrase that follows.
More detailed information on how to use the Find Reviewers tool can be found on our support pages and your publisher can also help with any queries you might have.
Spend even a few moments reviewing research online these days and you'll struggle to escape the omnipresence of social media. Whether it's the chirpy blue Twitter bird inviting you to share the article – or even the content of the research itself – social media is a constant presence. Setting up your first account may […]
Spend even a few moments reviewing research online these days and you'll struggle to escape the omnipresence of social media. Whether it's the chirpy blue Twitter bird inviting you to share the article – or even the content of the research itself – social media is a constant presence.
Setting up your first account may seem a daunting task. Even if you have established profiles, understanding how to use them to best effect can be a challenge. Yet, as we explain below, being active on social media brings a number of advantages.
Elsevier's Marketing Communications & Researcher Engagement department has developed a series of useful guides which can help. Designed for editors, they contain information on all the major social media channels and how they can support you in connecting with your research communities. In this article, you can learn more about the guides and the 160+ subject social media channels already operated by Elsevier.
We also hear from an editor who has proven success in this field. Dr. J. Martin Leland III, MD, is Associate Editor of Technology for Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopy and Related Surgery and Arthroscopy Techniques and is Assistant Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery at The University of Chicago Medicine. Not only is he responsible for his journal's growing success in the social media world (www.twitter.com/ArthroscopyJ and www.facebook.com/ArthroscopyJournal), he also frequently lectures on social media for orthopaedic surgeons. Below you can view our video interview with Dr. Leland and read his answers to our social media Q&A.
As an editor, social media can help you to:
- Reach a wider audience
- Boost visibility of articles
- Engage with early career researchers to build a connection with your journal
- Encourage conversations about your journal and its contents
- Gauge interest in topics and evaluate new areas of research
- Instantly share journal news: awards, Impact Factors, special issues
Source: Elsevier's social media guides for editors
In September 2012, Dr. Leland established profile pages for Arthroscopy on Twitter and Facebook. Since then, he has seen the number of followers on Twitter grow to 2,000+ and Facebook Likes now stand at 700+. In the short video below, Dr. Leland talks to Executive Publisher, Jason Miller, about the challenges he has faced and the lessons he has learnt. Dr. Leland also answers our social media Q&A.
Q. You are Associate Editor of Technology on Arthroscopy. What led your journal to create this role?
A. The leaders of our journal knew that with our increasingly digital society, a strong online presence (via an updated and mobile-optimized website as well as a social media platform) was imperative to a successful journal. In addition, in anticipation of a day when journals are no longer printed on paper, they saw having a social media campaign as one way of getting our readership to become more accustomed to accessing our journal online, instead of in print. The editorial board has been incredibly receptive and enjoys having a person dedicated to "all things digital".
Q. Is this the entire focus of your role or are you still involved in decision-making on papers?
A. At first, I was still involved in decision-making and reviewing papers. However, we also have a very active and growing online, video version of Arthroscopy, called Arthroscopy Techniques. As that has grown, we receive more and more videos submitted for peer review and online publication (which are submitted to PubMed Central and listed on PubMed, just like any other peer-reviewed publications). In place of reviewing papers, I now dedicate my non-social media efforts to reviewing and editing videos submitted to Arthroscopy Techniques.
Q. How did you identify which were the most appropriate social media channels for your journal?
A. I tried to identify where our readership would be if they were already active on social media. For Sports Medicine medical professionals (our readership), those who are interested in social media are usually on Twitter and Facebook. Very few are on Google+ or other social media sites. That's why we've focused our efforts on Twitter and Facebook so far - go where your readership is. But, we are always open to moving into new social media channels as the field develops.
Q. Have you been able to measure the results of your activities? What benefits has the journal seen?
A. Using Google Analytics, it is easy to identify how people are directed to your website. Did they get there via a bookmark on their computer (direct access), by doing a google search for your journal or by coming through a different website? Since we launched our social media campaign, we have seen an increasing number of readers get to our websites by clicking on links found on Twitter and Facebook. It has increased monthly and quickly exceeded the number of clicks we receive from the websites of our associated organizations. The more traffic on our website, the more our advertisers are willing to invest in online advertising, in addition to advertising in print.
Q. Do you also use social media outside your journal, e.g. on a professional or personal basis?
A. Yes, I have my own personal, professional-based Facebook and Twitter accounts. They are: www.facebook.com/DrMartinLeland and https://twitter.com/drmartinleland However, as busy as I am with the Arthroscopy accounts, I admit that I don't spend as much time on my own personal accounts.
Q. What advice would you give to editors and authors who want to promote research socially? Are there any tactics you've discovered that are likely to increase retweets etc.?
A. As Nike says, "Just Do It!". Get online, create Twitter/Facebook accounts (takes less than 5 minutes to establish accounts) and start posting. The more you post, the more active your accounts and the more followers you will get. Also, the more you post, the more you will learn (about what works and what doesn't, how to do certain things, etc.). The more you learn, the more successful your accounts will become.
New Elsevier guides launched this week aim to simplify the complex world of social media for editors.
Designed to support both new and more experienced social media users they contain:
Senior Marketing Communications Manager, Helena Stewart, led the team that created the guides.
She explained: "Our aim was to create pages that are easy to navigate, simple to use and packed with practical advice. As we know that some fields are more active on particular platforms, we have concentrated on each of the channels in turn. We have also created a handy list of seven things you can do right now to make an impact in your field, for those who just want some quick and simple takeaways."
Stewart leads a group within Elsevier's Marketing Communications & Researcher Engagement department that is responsible for our 160+ subject channels. She said: "These have been established in recent years and focus on everything from Chemical Engineering to Dermatology. Dr. Leland has been very successful with the social media channels established for Arthroscopy, but we know that many journals struggle to maintain their own profiles. These subject channels offer a great opportunity for journals to participate in social media without the burden of providing constant updates."
Elsevier social media channels - did you know?
- We currently have 160+ subject channels; a full list is available on Elsevier.com
- Together, these channels have 796,069 followers (an increase of 376 percent on 2012 figures)
- Social media was responsible for 679,490 visits to journal homepages, ScienceDirect articles and Elsevier.com last year, an increase of 2,800 percent on 2012 figures
J. Martin Leland III, MD, is the Associate Editor of Technology for Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopy and Related Surgery – the official journal of the Arthroscopy Association of North America, the International Society of Arthroscopy, Knee Surgery, and Orthopaedic Sports Medicine and the International Society for Hip Arthroscopy. He frequently lectures on social media for orthopaedic surgeons and a variety of sports medicine topics around the United States.
As Assistant Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery at The University of Chicago Medicine, Dr. Leland is a skilled orthopaedic surgeon and sports medicine physician and provides expert care for adults and children with surgical and non-surgical sports injuries. Dr. Leland has served as a team physician for the Chicago Blackhawks and currently takes care of Concordia College and numerous local high schools. He is also an active researcher and is currently working on projects that study how to improve ACL surgery and cartilage regrowth procedures in the knee. He can be found on Twitter: @DrMartinLeland and Facebook: DrMartinLeland.
No one is more familiar with a journal's content than the editor – you have often curated each manuscript from arrival to acceptance. On the new Editors' Choice website, you can now highlight the five most interesting, novel or important papers that have featured in your journal over the past 12 months, alongside an explanation […]
No one is more familiar with a journal's content than the editor – you have often curated each manuscript from arrival to acceptance.
On the new Editors' Choice website, you can now highlight the five most interesting, novel or important papers that have featured in your journal over the past 12 months, alongside an explanation about why you have recommended them.
The website marks a new direction for Editors' Choice, which began as an app for conference attendees in 2012. Editors whose journals were being exhibited at an upcoming event were invited to choose five articles they wanted to share with the researchers attending. They were also asked to provide a short explanation about why they had chosen those particular papers. Each selection was accompanied by a photo and bio of the editor in question. Conference attendees could download the app to access the information.
Because of the app's popularity, the program is now evolving. The information will no longer be delivered via an app but via a mobile website. Also, it won't only be journals exhibited at upcoming events that will be featured; editors of all Elsevier journals will be given the opportunity to showcase five of their journal's articles per year. Not only will the articles be highlighted on the mobile website, they will also appear on the journal homepage on Elsevier.com, subject webpages on Elsevier.com, and relevant Elsevier social media channels. They will also be promoted at exhibitions relevant for that journal.
The articles will be freely accessible to all readers.
This article first appeared in Elsevier Connect, an online magazine and resource center for the science and health communities with a broad and active social media community. It features daily articles written by experts in the field as well as Elsevier colleagues.
Liz Holmes, Global Project Manager in Elsevier's Marketing Communications and Researcher Engagement department, is behind the project.
Several years ago, as a marketing communications manager, she was responsible for shipping boxes of sample copies of her journals to events. However, her editors wanted the opportunity to highlight particular articles, so she created ring binders containing the relevant article PDFs with the words 'Editors' Choice' printed clearly on the front cover.
"I noticed people were choosing to take the ring binder away with them, even though it was a lot heavier than the sample copies," Holmes said. "Knowing that the articles had been personally chosen by the editor was clearly important to them."
With the publishing industry increasingly favoring digital delivery of information over the traditional print format, she realized there may be an opportunity for 'Editors' Choice' to follow suit.
Holmes said the new set-up will be user friendly while helping editors share important articles.
"The mobile website and the dedicated pods on each journal homepage will make the articles clearly visible to visitors. The website has been crafted to provide an optimal viewing experience – easy reading and navigation with a minimum of resizing, panning, and scrolling – across a wide range of devices, from mobile phones to desktop computer monitors.
"Equally importantly, authors will be notified that their article has been chosen and they will be encouraged to spread the news through their social media channels."
One of the next steps will be to show the impact that social media promotion by Elsevier – and the article author – has had on the Editors' Choice article.
At the point editors submit their chosen articles, they are asked for their feedback on the process. Of those who have responded so far, nearly 70 percent have said they feel "very positive" about the initiative.
If you have any suggestions for improvements, please email email@example.com. You are also welcome to post a comment below.
Liz Holmes was interviewed by Linda Willems, Editor-in-Chief, Editors' Update
In this article, Lucy Goodchild discusses a new project within Elsevier's journal marketing department to identify and share good science, while Sacha Boucherie explains how the Newsroom can help. Goodchild also guides us through the reasons why sharing science will benefit your journal. There are 12,360,691 articles in 2,500 journals on Elsevier's ScienceDirect as I […]
In this article, Lucy Goodchild discusses a new project within Elsevier's journal marketing department to identify and share good science, while Sacha Boucherie explains how the Newsroom can help. Goodchild also guides us through the reasons why sharing science will benefit your journal.
There are 12,360,691 articles in 2,500 journals on Elsevier's ScienceDirect as I write. How many stories are among them? How many exciting discoveries, fascinating facts and important findings?
Elsevier's Marketing Communications & Researcher Engagement department is currently piloting a content marketing toolkit of resources for editors and marketing communications managers; the toolkit helps editors to identify potential stories and marketing communications managers to write them. Together we can tell research stories across a variety of communications platforms, from Elsevier Connect to Twitter (and who knows – maybe we'll be making science comics in the future…).
It can be very difficult to take a step back from a topic when you're as deeply involved in it as most researchers are. And that's exactly where the toolkit comes in – it helps us to step back from the science and see the story.
The story telling process is simple, and the key step – which is the one you can take as an editor – comes first.
Step 1: identify the story
Sounds simple, but this is where the real added value is. As an editor, you see the articles as they come in and, crucially, you know whether the science is new, surprising, or important. By flagging up potential stories, you can help promote the journal.
Step 2: identify the audience
This is where we come in. The marketing communications manager looks at the proposed stories (much like a newspaper editor considers the day's content) and decides what can go where. One story might be best for an interview with the author on the journal homepage, one could be a catchy message on social media, and another might be a great press release. We use the channel tree to help with this.
Step 3: create the content
The author is important here and the marketing communications manager contacts them with a set of plain English questions about their research. We then use the relevant template to create the story in the right format for the chosen channel.
Step 4: publish, promote, measure
After approvals, we publish the content and promote it across the relevant Elsevier social media channels – we currently have 160+ which together led to a 2,800% increase in visits to our journal homepages, ScienceDirect and Elsevier.com in 2013. We also measure a number of things, to determine how successful the outreach was. We look at the number of views a story has received, likes and shares on social media, comments and engagement, and we also gather qualitative feedback from authors.
You can use this checklist to determine whether the article you want to suggest for promotion is newsworthy.
- Timing - is it new? (i.e. online for 4 weeks or less)
- Impact - does the research impact many people?
- Result - is there a clear finding that you can summarize in one sentence?
- Emotion - does it make you feel happy/sad/surprised/angry?
- Entertainment - is it an interesting and entertaining story?
- Location - could the research be interesting to regional media?
- Celebrity - does the research relate to a celebrity? (this means a recognizable 'star', which could be an elephant or Jupiter or a Prime minister)
- Novelty - is the research fresh? (It's best if it hasn't been press released or covered in the media)
Have you ticked three boxes or more? This could be a story we can promote - please send it to us! Got questions? Contact your marketing communications manager.
Once you have accepted for publication a research paper you think is newsworthy, interesting, ground-breaking or highly impactful to society, we can help you promote the paper and, indirectly, your journal. To get that process going, just contact your marketing communications manager who will then contact the Newsroom (firstname.lastname@example.com). Together we can determine the required next steps.
The list below provides an overview of the main channels and services we have available for promoting research through the media.
Press releases
Used to highlight papers presenting the highest impact research or special issues of journals, press releases are distributed to science media across the world through global newswire services. Depending on the focus of the research highlighted, they may also be sent to a specific group of journalists or to media in a specific region. Typically, a press release will highlight the key findings of the research, an outline of the method and include quotes by the authors and/or editor.
Research alerts
These are a shorter version of a press release – typically 250 words in length. Results do not necessarily need to be ground-breaking; the topic just has to appeal to the general public. They contain the key findings of the research and its implications in lay language; quotes do not need to be included. Similar to a press release, research alerts are distributed globally to science media platforms and to a tailored list of media.
Elsevier's Research Selection
This e-newsletter allows us to promote a number of different research papers in a single mailing. Each fortnight, it is sent to a global media list covering 1,600+ subscribing science journalists. Research included is fun, topical, or otherwise intriguing, and topics often touch upon aspects of our daily lives such as health, food, diet, sports and sex. Each edition highlights 5-8 research papers which are summarized in a couple of sentences with links to the full article online, enabling journalists to further interpret the results and determine the story angle. Articles included are in-press and have not been available online for more than 6 weeks.
Monitoring for coverage
The Newsroom scans media across the globe for coverage on research published in Elsevier journals. These media clips are included in daily media reports to Elsevier publishers and marketing communications managers. We can particularly focus on selected journals if they have recently made announcements to the media.
@ElsevierNews Twitter account
The official Newsroom Twitter account, @ElsevierNews, currently has 6,800+ followers, and this number is growing steadily. Our follower profiles include bloggers, journalists, academics, faculty, librarians, doctors, Elsevier editors, publishers, and marketing communications managers. All press releases, research alerts and Research Selection editions are tweeted.
Working with journalists directly
At times, science journalists look for an expert to help interpret or comment on particular study findings. On these occasions, we may, through your publisher, seek your expertise. Similarly, you may be approached by members of the media directly, as may the authors publishing in your journals. In all these cases, we appreciate remaining informed about your media activities and are happy to support and advise you.
Opening up articles for promotional access
Over the past months, the Newsroom has increased efforts to promote research papers by opening them up to external audiences (e.g. media and the general public) for a specified period of time. This action may be tied to a press release or research alert, allowing journalists to link to the full article in their stories. On other occasions, this can be done to highlight an article as a "must read" on the journal homepage or through social media channels.
Our support is not limited to the above list and for all specific cases, questions and suggestions we are here to help, brainstorm and advise.
In his 2008 book The Discovery of Global Warming, Spencer Weart talks about the relationship between scientists and the public in the 1970s, concluding that "most scientists already felt they were doing their jobs by pursuing their research and publishing it." Although much has changed, marine biologist and filmmaker Randy Olson still thinks there's room for improvement. In his book Don't Be Such a Scientist: Talking Substance in an Age of Style, he encourages scientists to "lighten up", and says science communication should be done through storytelling.
But why? And how will it help your journal?
Enable authors to engage with the public
It's a competitive environment for researchers today, and funding requirements often include references to public engagement. Authors are more attracted to journals that provide the possibility of engaging with wider audiences on the research they publish. By providing them with opportunities to promote their research and engage the public, we can support their research, their funding applications and, ultimately, their careers.
Improve recognition of the journals
Researchers read newspapers. They search on Google, scan blogs, follow Tweets and watch the news. Reading about research published in a particular journal on a platform they trust can have a very positive effect on their perception of the journal.
There's also evidence to suggest a link between exposure, usage and citations when it comes to scientific articles; the more an article is mentioned publically, the higher chance it has to be noticed, therefore read and – potentially – cited. Higher exposure and usage result in improved recognition, which could lead to increased submissions.
In support of science
Science is helpful and useful. It changes the lives of ordinary people on a daily basis. In 1985, The Royal Society published The Public Understanding of Science, on why science communication is important to society. According to the publication, "More than ever, people need some understanding of science, whether they are involved in decision-making at a national or local level, in managing industrial companies, in skilled or semi-skilled employment, in voting as private citizens or in making a wide range of personal decisions."
The door swings both ways – research can gain big benefits from engaging with the public. Research suggests that active engagement between scientists and the public can greatly increase the scope of projects. According to a recent article in Trends in Ecology & Evolution, "We simply need to be more creative about getting research to the people – instead of expecting them to come to us."
Note from Ed: Don't forget, you can also promote journal initiatives via Editors' Update. While we don't publish research, we are always keen to feature articles written by editors about topics of interest to your peers, e.g. thoughts on peer review, advice on how you have dealt with a challenge, ideas for journal improvements or simply a topic you feel strongly about. Just email email@example.com.
Lucy Goodchild
Lucy Goodchild joined Elsevier in November 2012, promoting Elsevier's immunology and microbiology journals and conferences from the Amsterdam office. She has a background in science writing and press relations through her previous work at the Society for General Microbiology and Imperial College London. Goodchild earned a BSc degree in genetics and microbiology from the University of Leeds and an MSc in the history of science, technology and medicine from Imperial College London.
Sacha Boucherie
In her role, Sacha Boucherie works closely with Elsevier's journal publishers, editors and authors at one end and with science journalists and reporters at the other end with the aim of spotlighting and promoting interesting, topical research articles. She is based at Elsevier's Amsterdam headquarters and holds a master's degree in social psychology at the University of Groningen in The Netherlands.
In this Sharing Research Special Issue, I am delighted to welcome as Guest Editor the Senior Vice President of Elsevier's Marketing Communications & Researcher Engagement department, Nicoline van der Linden. After gaining an MSc in Medical Biology from the University of Amsterdam and an MBA from the Rotterdam School of Management at Erasmus University, she […]
In this Sharing Research Special Issue, I am delighted to welcome as Guest Editor the Senior Vice President of Elsevier's Marketing Communications & Researcher Engagement department, Nicoline van der Linden. After gaining an MSc in Medical Biology from the University of Amsterdam and an MBA from the Rotterdam School of Management at Erasmus University, she began her career as a researcher in Life Sciences. She worked as a molecular biologist in the pharmaceutical industry in Basel before joining Elsevier's Amsterdam office two decades ago. Since then, she has held various roles in publishing, product development, marketing communications and researcher engagement.
I hope you enjoy this issue. We'll be back in September with a focus on technology and how it can support you in your role.
It was author Isaac Asimov who wrote in the 1970s: "It is change, continuing change, inevitable change, that is the dominant factor in society today. No sensible decision can be made any longer without taking into account not only the world as it is, but the world as it will be."
Those words ring just as true in 2014. We see the role of our editors and authors changing – not only in terms of how they must manage their journals or craft their papers, but in their day to day lives as academics. The world is digitizing at a very fast pace; this has greatly influenced how we search for information and has broadened the possibilities for dissemination and visualization of content.
The role of publishers is evolving too. While we have long needed to ensure that manuscripts are publishable and protected, in recent years it has become increasingly important that we make them searchable; retrievable; citable; and suitable for archiving on all our platforms – and, to some extent, other platforms – and for this we need the latest technologies.
At Elsevier, we operate an integrated marketing communications policy designed to ensure that messaging and communication strategies are unified across all channels and are focused on the researchers we serve. We combine more traditional media with newer avenues and allow the strengths of one to support the weaknesses of the other.
Increasingly, that integrated marketing communications is being driven by technology and it is an almost irresistible force. Just look at popular author services such as Journal Insights, CiteAlert and Article Usage Reports where automation/IT and promotion go hand in hand. This rising focus on technology will allow our marketing to become more and more targeted as we embrace databases and new electronic delivery systems. We hope this means we will be able to deliver more meaningful information to our research communities. To assist with that process, we have developed an online Customer Preference Center, where recipients can choose which communications they would like to receive.
As well as the journal-specific campaigns – highlighted in the Marketing Overview you receive from your marketing communications manager each year – we also run 'global' campaigns, which cater for large numbers of titles. These allow us to deliver consistent, timely information to authors and/or editors, no matter which journal they are associated with. Examples include:
Each year, we open more than 18,500 articles to the public through promotional access. Via Elsevier funding (e.g. by waiving OA article fees) we open up another 2,440+. Together, that is more than 20,000 articles. The majority of these receive our support because the editor has indicated they are special in some way, or analysis of reader behavior has led us to do so. We also make journal articles openly available to the press. In addition, Elsevier is actively supporting open data. While we have already been leading in linking our articles to open data at various data repositories, we are now investigating how we can open up all supplementary materials on ScienceDirect that contain original research data.
It is worth noting that with the introduction of new tools, techniques and business models, responsibilities are changing. As editors, there is still much you can do to make noteworthy or novel research more visible to our readers, as we explain in How to promote research in your journals (and why you should).
But for authors, it is no longer the case that publishing their article will ensure people read their research. They have an important role to play in raising the profile of their article. This is especially true with the rise in the number of OA articles, which sees some of the promotional responsibilities (and possibilities) for sharing divested to the authors themselves. In New tools help authors boost the visibility and impact of their research, we outline some of the avenues we have available to support them.
Interestingly, this new emphasis on author self-promotion may leverage the already shifting focus from the Impact Factor to other measures such as downloads, social media shares, Snip, Eigenfactor, and H-index. If it does, you can rest assured that Elsevier's Marketing Communications & Researcher Engagement department will be ready to respond…
UK-based editor, Professor Peter Griffiths, on why it's so important editors understand open access.
The May issue of International Journal of Nursing Studies (IJNS) features an editorial written by Executive Editor, Professor Peter Griffiths, PhD, BA, RN, outlining the open access options available on his journal. In the article, he highlights the difference between an OA journal and journals offering OA options (also known as the hybrid model). He also touches on IJNS's liberal self-archiving policies. Here he explains why establishing clarity around these points is so important.
As an active academic researcher in a leading research department, I have views and preferences around publishing and research strategy. While I always do my best to ensure that anything I publish is available OA (whether gold or green), I admit my major concern is whether it is the best journal for my work. However, if I'm wearing my journal editor hat, then my first thought is protecting my journal, my 'turf'. Luckily, these two positions rarely clash.
In my academic day job there is currently a huge push towards open access, for example, the next REF* demands it. Broadly speaking, I think that is great, but it is becoming increasingly apparent that many people misunderstand open access - they think the only route is a paid model and that in order for a paper to be OA, it must be published in an OA journal. If we don't help people understand that is not the case, we will all be in trouble.
For example, some people don't perceive IJNS to be an OA journal, but we are – we follow a hybrid model which means we not only publish subscription articles, but authors can choose to pay to make their article open access. A lot of people don't really understand this concept yet.
Going further forward, one of the big challenges, particularly for individual research groups, will be sourcing payment for articles but there are other approaches to OA. Many journals, including my own, are quite generous in the way they enable research to be shared without payment.
I wrote this editorial in an attempt to clarify the territory for colleagues who are operating under these misapprehensions and, if I'm honest, to make it clear that our journal is a good venue in the world of OA!
During the process of writing, there were several things I found very interesting. One was the extent to which we on IJNS have not really been engaged in setting our OA policy. I'm actually pretty comfortable with where our journal is now. What would cause me concern are blanket changes implemented by Elsevier that don't take into account individual journal's needs. For example, I would like to keep green open access, i.e. the ability for authors to post the post-print (the accepted manuscript sent to the publisher) version of their paper on their own personal websites immediately, and in institutional repositories after a short embargo period. In our field, it's the published paper that really counts so green open access doesn't affect our subscriptions if done in this way, in fact, it makes us very competitive.
It was also an interesting exercise to nail down what our OA policies are - it was surprising how much work we had to put into understanding all the nuances. I did eventually find my way to information where the policies were fairly clearly outlined but it was difficult. If I put myself in the shoes of an author, who already has all sorts of detailed guidelines to follow and information to read, I can imagine tracking down OA policies is a step too far. Is that the fault of the publisher, in this case, Elsevier? Not really. In the world of the internet it is extremely easy to make information available and that often means there is too much information to sort through. I think the only option is to make information available in a broad number of ways until it becomes zeitgeist and begins to shape the way people think. It's not just the publisher's responsibility, but a collective recognition that this information should be shared through many, many channels. With this editorial, I wanted to help to tell that story.
If there are other editors out there uncertain how to communicate about open access to their readers, I would certainly recommend writing a small editorial – the process might provoke their own learning on this subject. It's going to be a huge issue for authors and readers, if not today then tomorrow and if not tomorrow then the day after. I think those who understand OA and inform readers about what is possible will certainly reap the rewards.
* Research Excellence Framework (REF) - the new system for assessing the quality of research in UK higher education institutions
Professor Peter Griffiths, PhD, BA, RN, is Chair of Health Services Research at University of Southampton in the UK and Executive Editor of International Journal of Nursing Studies - a forum for original research and scholarship about health care delivery, organization, management, workforce, policy and research methods relevant to nursing, midwifery and other health related professions. Before taking up the Chair of Health Services Research, he was, from 2006 to 2010, Director of England's National Nursing Research Unit.
Information from our Legal department about a fraudulent call for papers sent out in Elsevier's name.
Paul Doda | Deputy General Counsel, Elsevier
Some of you may have received an email that appears to have been sent by Elsevier, inviting you to submit scholarly articles via email for publication in our various journals.
The subject line of the message is "Manuscripts Submission" and it is sent from a Gmail email address.
Please be assured that Elsevier is in no way associated with this fraudulent email campaign and we are currently investigating to identify the people responsible. Elsevier does not use free, third-party email providers such as Gmail and Hotmail to solicit submissions from authors. Additionally, almost all our journals only accept submissions via an online submission system, for example Elsevier Editorial System (EES).
If you receive any emails that appear to be a part of this fraudulent solicitation, please do not respond to the message and do not open any attachments it may contain. If you have any concerns, please contact our Support Team at email@example.com
Learn what a consolidated EES user profile can mean for ORCID profiles and managing EES accounts.
Masako Takeda | Publishing Services Manager, EES, Elsevier
Introduced in December 2012, user profile consolidation allows users to link their Elsevier Editorial System (EES) journal accounts so that they can use the same username and password for each account and more easily update their personal information. This also improves the security of personal data on EES as only the individual user is allowed to make changes. Since user profile consolidation was implemented in EES, over 1 million users have created a consolidated profile, representing nearly 3 million individual EES journal accounts.
There are also added benefits available to researchers who have undergone the consolidation process.
ORCID is a non-profit organization providing researchers with a unique digital identifier (also called an ORCID or Open Researcher and Contributor ID) that links their work, eliminates name ambiguity, and stays with them throughout their career. Elsevier supports this initiative and has integrated the ORCID ID within EES. A user with a consolidated profile can link their ORCID ID to their EES journal accounts. When submitting a paper to a journal via EES, not only the corresponding author but also the co-authors can link their ORCIDs to the submission. This helps editors select the right reviewer candidates and also means that if a submission is accepted and published, all authors' ORCID publication lists will automatically be updated. To date, over 650,000 researchers have created ORCID IDs and the number is growing.
Providing users with a single username and password to access all of their journal accounts was an important step in making EES easier to access. In December 2013, we went one step further when we introduced My EES Hub. If you have consolidated your profile, you can now log into EES and view all pending actions across the journals linked to that profile. My EES Hub features a single landing page from which you can:
To access these services, just log into any journal linked to your profile and click the My EES Hub link that appears at the top of the page (see below).
More information on these benefits is available in our support article: What is My EES Hub?
For more information on ORCID integration and the benefits for all EES users, please see ORCID/EES integration offers new benefits to researchers.
A guide to EES User Profile Consolidation is available on our Support Hub.
22 Apr 2014 1 Comment
Discover the lessons learnt during a reviewer experiment on the Journal of Public Economics.
Raj Chetty, PhD, is the Bloomberg Professor of Economics at Harvard University Department of Economics and Editor-in-Chief of Journal of Public Economics.
Together with two colleagues - Emmanuel Saez, E. Morris Cox Professor of Economics and Director of the Center for Equitable Growth at the University of California Berkeley, and László Sándor, a PhD candidate in Economics at Harvard University - Chetty ran an experiment evaluating the effects of cash incentives, social incentives, and nudges on the behavior of referees at the Journal of Public Economics. The interesting, and sometimes surprising, results of their study will be published this summer in the Journal of Economic Perspectives. Here Chetty talks about the rationale behind the trial and lessons learnt.
Since I took on the role of Editor-in-Chief, I have been interested in how we can better serve authors and improve the review times on our journal. And, as an author myself, I would love to see my papers reviewed more quickly.
To design the trial, we began by reading the literature and thought about what might prove effective in motivating reviewers to submit high-quality reports more quickly. We formulated three interventions.
First, naturally, as economists, we thought that paying people might prove an incentive. But psychologists suggest that payment can crowd out "intrinsic motivation" and actually lead to worse performance. So these contradictory hypotheses seemed very natural to test.
Second, the psychology literature suggests that simple nudges and reminders can affect people's behavior, so we decided to try changing the deadline by which reports were due.
Third, sociologists have suggested that social incentives – namely, how people are perceived by their peers – may be a key determinant of behavior.
To test these hypotheses, we randomly assigned referees to four groups:
In total, the experiment included 1,500 referees who submitted nearly 2,500 reports from February 2010 to October 2011.
I should mention that all the interventions we tested have been used by other journals, but until now there has never really been a clear examination of which factors work best.
First, a change in timeframe is very effective; if you shorten the deadline by two weeks you receive reviews two weeks earlier on average. In fact, we noticed that whatever timeframe you give, most people submit their review just prior to the deadline. Editors might worry that if you ask reviewers to review more quickly, they submit lower-quality reviews. However, we found no significant changes in the quality of referee reports, as judged, for instance, by the editor's propensity to follow the advice in the report.
Second, if a journal has the money available, cash incentives also work very well. The $100 payment reduced review times by about 10 days on average. Hence, it is clear that the "crowd-out of intrinsic motivation" that psychologists have been concerned about is actually not a serious concern in this context.
Third, the social incentive was less effective but still surprisingly successful in reducing review times, particularly with tenured professors, who were less sensitive to cash and deadlines. This confirms that people care about how they are perceived and suggests that gentle, personalized reminders from editors could be very effective in improving referee performance.
Overall, my biggest takeaway was that, as editors, we shouldn't believe that the performance of our journals is something we can't change. We can greatly improve the quality of our journals' review process through simple policy changes and active editorial management.
Personally, I was surprised by how effective the shorter deadline was. There was no consequence for reviewers who didn't meet it, yet they were still very receptive. The advantage for journals is that this approach is cost-free. I would probably be less responsive to the cash incentive, so I was also quite surprised by how successful that proved to be. However, if I have to do something anyway and by doing it today I get $100 then perhaps it's not so surprising it has some effect.
Going forward, we would love to see other journals adopting some of these policies. And for reviewers, I would suggest that often what is useful to editors, especially if you are going to recommend rejection, is a short, clear - and on time - report, rather than something that is more detailed which takes longer to draft. By focusing on the big picture, you not only save yourself time but better serve editors and the author community too.
Chetty's research combines empirical evidence and economic theory to help design more effective government policies. His work on tax policy, unemployment insurance, and education has been widely cited in media outlets and Congressional testimony.
Chetty was recently awarded a MacArthur "Genius" Fellowship and the John Bates Clark medal, given by the American Economic Association to the best American economist under age 40. He received his PhD from Harvard in 2003 at the age of 23 and is one of the youngest tenured professors in the university's history.
New reviewer and revision deadlines have been established for a number of Elsevier journals. Find out why.
Arnout Jacobs | Business Development Director, Elsevier
Sometimes, even simple things can make a big difference. An Elsevier project designed to reassess reviewer and revision times is large-scale, involving 1,100 journals. Yet we are focused on one small aspect: optimizing the deadlines we give authors and reviewers. The idea was born at Cell Press, where we decided to look at what would happen if a journal set its review deadline a few days earlier. Results were encouraging: reviews did indeed come in earlier, and there was no difference in reviewer response rates.
Recently, via a controlled experiment on the Journal of Public Economics, we also received confirmation from the scientific community that shorter review deadlines can work. You can find out more in the Short Communication How small changes can influence reviewer behavior.
Building on the lessons learnt at Cell Press, we made an inventory of deadlines across all of our titles. Some journals did not mention any. We also found titles where contributions were routinely received well before the stated deadline. And then there were journals that were still using timeframes from the days when manuscripts were physically sent around the world and back, with deadlines extending up to a year! For journals publishing on arctic geology in the 1980s, this may well have been understandable, but with today's instant communication, a new policy was due.
Whereas speed has always been important, that importance is increasing in today's publishing environment. In the past, even if an article was ready, it may still have had to wait for backlogs to clear and issues to be complete. Today, we aim to publish articles online as quickly as possible after they are accepted. So a day saved in peer review, means a day quicker online!
So, how did we set our new deadlines? Our first principle was not to disrupt existing practices. Some fields are slower than others, and usually there is a good reason for this. Other journals are already very fast, and there is little gain in asking contributors to submit within 4 days instead of the existing 5. So we looked at actual reviewing and author revision times, and at stated deadlines, and we used these as a starting point. The biggest gains were to be found in author revision times, where articles can sometimes linger for months. We then came up with proposed new deadlines, and consulted with you as editors. As a result, new reviewer and revision deadlines were implemented at the beginning of the year for around 600 titles.
It's still early days, so we do not yet know what the results will be. We are keeping a close eye on measurable items, such as response rates, compliance, and submission-to-acceptance times. But qualitative feedback is equally important. Ultimately, we hope that this initiative will speed up the publication process, while keeping all participants satisfied.
Of interest to: Journal editors (key), additionally authors and reviewers
Clinical Immunology publishes original research on the molecular and cellular bases of immunological disease. It is the official journal of FOCIS (the Federation of Clinical Immunology Societies), the preeminent association for clinical immunologists. George C. Tsokos, MD, a Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and Chief of Rheumatology at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, […]
Clinical Immunology publishes original research on the molecular and cellular bases of immunological disease. It is the official journal of FOCIS (the Federation of Clinical Immunology Societies), the preeminent association for clinical immunologists. George C. Tsokos, MD, a Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and Chief of Rheumatology at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, has been Editor-in-Chief of the journal since January 2011. Clinical Immunology has an Impact Factor of 3.771 and receives 690 submissions per year – around 20 percent of which are accepted.
Q. What does being a journal editor mean to you and what do you find most rewarding about this role?
A. Clinical Immunology publishes high impact papers in the field of clinical immunology and, in that respect, I feel responsible for choosing and presenting to the community what is important, novel and significant in the field. Working with a top notch cadre of associate editors with whom I orchestrate the reviewing process is highly rewarding. We work with the FOCIS leaders and the FOCIS Publications Committee to make Clinical Immunology the sole home for all important advances in the field.
Q. What are your biggest challenges as Editor-in-Chief of Clinical Immunology? How do you overcome these challenges and what extra support can Elsevier provide?
A. The greatest challenge is to secure qualified reviewers. For each paper we strive to recruit a senior reviewer, who can help to define the overall impact of the paper, as well as junior reviewers to comb the manuscript carefully. Although we do try to use the reviewers suggested by authors as much as we can, there are challenges. Many times the suggested reviewers are very senior people who are too busy to review papers and sometimes authors recommend reviewers from their own country – for a small country that is equivalent to an author recommending reviewers from their own institution. Other times authors recommend reviewers from other countries but their last names reveal the submitting author's country. I and the associate editors try to go through each submission to determine whether the article fits the scope of the journal and whether the manuscript presents novel, well-documented experiments. In this way we keep the burden on reviewers to a minimum.
Q. In many areas of research, the growth of paper submissions is outpacing the growth of qualified reviewers and resulting in pressure on the peer-review system. What do you think the solution to this problem is and how do you see the peer-review process changing in the future?
A. As already stated, identifying qualified reviewers is difficult. Submissions to Clinical Immunology increased by 10 percent in 2013 making the job of the editors even more difficult. I think the only solution is for editors to make the initial choices and only send for review submitted papers that fit the journal and will be read with interest and excitement by our colleagues. In this way, good reviewers are not inundated with requests to review papers that will not make the cut.
Q. We have observed that researchers are increasingly accessing journal content online at an article level, i.e. the researcher digests content more frequently on an article basis rather than a journal basis. How do you think this affects the visibility of your journal among authors?
A. Indeed, scientists search the web (Google Scholar or PubMed) to find articles that can help them interpret their experiments or plan new ones; clinicians search for solutions to clinical problems or to improve their clinical practice; and teachers search the web to stay up to date. I think Clinical Immunology has benefited from this evolving practice. Numerical/statistical data and personal feedback assure us that we are strong.
Q. Academic publishing is increasingly embracing open access. How do you see these open access changes in your country? And how do you see them affecting authors who publish in your journal?
A. My country, USA, started the concept and practice of free access which I think is a great idea. And it is rational to expect tax payers to have access to what they have paid for. A small caveat in this effort is who will pay for this? I do not know if the free-access-journal-upfront-fee is less or more than the one charged by the classic journals. I am happy though that papers that are accepted for publication to Clinical Immunology are uploaded to the central library immediately if the work has been funded by NIH (National Institutes of Health).
Q. Researchers need to demonstrate their research impact and they are increasingly under pressure to publish articles in journals with high Impact Factors. How important is a journal's Impact Factor to you and do you see any developments in your community regarding other research quality measurements?
A. This is true. Yet, many promotions committees in this country and study sections for NIH and other funding organizations pay attention to the body of work published by a scientist, rather than one or a few articles in high-impact, fashionable journals. With the advancement of open access and the availability of search engines it will eventually be left up to the readers to judge the 'impact' of a published article.
Q. As online publishing techniques develop, the traditional format of the online scientific article will change. At Elsevier, we are experimenting with new online content features and functionality. Which improvements/changes would you, as an editor, find most important?
A. Anything that increases access, functionality, cross-referencing, easy use from iPhone, iPad etc. will be welcome.
Q. Do you use social media or online professional networking in your role as an editor or researcher? Has it helped you and, if so, how?
A. I do not use social media at all but, from what I understand, those channels can help to spread information quickly.
Q. How do you see your journal developing over the next 10 years? Do you see major shifts in the use of journals in the future?
A. Clinical Immunology will keep on publishing only cutting-edge information in the field. We will continue publishing review articles on state-of-the-art issues that can offer critical knowledge to colleagues. We will continue seeking articles that provide a solid body of work presenting novel mechanisms and insights from clinical studies. Members of FOCIS have been increasingly sending their best work to Clinical Immunology and this will gradually place the journal at the top of the list. I believe that 10 years from now, it will be the top journal in the field.
Q. Do you have any tips or tricks to share with your fellow editors about being a journal editor?
A. It is important to go through all submissions and choose articles that fulfil the goals of the journal to guarantee homogeneity in the quality of the published papers. It is important to engage young colleagues as reviewers and offer them slots on the editorial board.
Do you agree with the advice outlined below? Perhaps you have some tips you would like to share? You can let us know your thoughts by posting a comment at the bottom of this article. Dr. Brian M Lucey is Professor in Finance at the School of Business, Trinity College Dublin. He is Editor-in-Chief of […]
Do you agree with the advice outlined below? Perhaps you have some tips you would like to share? You can let us know your thoughts by posting a comment at the bottom of this article.
Dr. Brian M Lucey is Professor in Finance at the School of Business, Trinity College Dublin. He is Editor-in-Chief of two journals – one is a new entry to the space, Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance (JBEF), the other is a longer standing one, International Review of Financial Analysis (IRFA).
Being an editor is tremendous fun and also tremendous work. My thoughts below come from that experience as well as that of 20+ years in academia and nearly a decade of being an associate editor and special issue /guest editor on a number of journals.
* Note from Ed: Derived from the Greek "chronos" (time) and the Latin "vorare" (to devour), in the television series Doctor Who, Chronovores are greatly feared transcendental beings who feed on time.
Dr. William C Eckelman is Editor-in-Chief of Nuclear Medicine and Biology, the official journal of the Society of Radiopharmaceutical Sciences. The journal publishes original research addressing all aspects of radiopharmaceutical science and Dr. Eckelman has held his current role for 16 years. A former Adjunct Professor, Radiology, at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD), Dr. Eckelman also held positions at national laboratories and pharmaceutical companies in the US. He is now CSO at Molecular Tracer LLC in Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
For Nuclear Medicine and Biology, using one editorial board member and one new reviewer with experience in the topic to peer review a paper has proved the most effective way to increase the reviewer pool, yet keep the focus on the Aims and Scope of the journal.
I would recommend that all revisions should be accompanied by a point by point response, including how and where in the text the manuscript was altered. Since the revisions are returned to the original reviewers, this makes the re-review more efficient (and more rapid).
Include a clear policy for resubmission of declined manuscripts in the letter to the author. Failure to do this can lead to a constant flow of emails from authors querying the journal's policy.
Dr. Jean-Claude Kader is co-Editor-in-Chief, alongside Dr. Kari Taulavuori, of Environmental and Experimental Botany (EEB), a role he has held for seven years. The journal publishes research and review papers, mainly devoted to the mechanisms involved in the responses of plants to the environment. This year will see the publication of Volume 100 of the journal. Dr. Kader is Honorary Research Director of the Laboratory of Plant Cellular and Molecular Physiology at University of Pierre and Marie Curie (Paris 6).
* Note from Ed: For many journals, new submissions to EES are now automatically run through CrossCheck/iThenticate, with the results available in the editor's 'Action' menu. Your publisher will let you know as soon as this feature is extended to your journal.
New app allows researchers to create a personalized feed of articles based on keywords, journals, and authors
David Allen | End User Marketing, IPD, Elsevier
A new free app, Research Highlights, has been developed to keep researchers up to date with new papers published in their field.
It harnesses the power of Scopus to let researchers track their critical search terms across 20,000+ peer-reviewed journals from hundreds of publishers.
Users can check author-written bulleted highlights and/or the abstract to determine which articles to read in full. Those they select will be sent to their inbox. Content licenses will also be recognized.
While it may be fine to scan article lists and read a few bullets or a short abstract on the small screen of a mobile device, lengthy full-text articles are not easy to consume that way. The Research Highlights app recognizes which parts of the literature search can be comfortably carried out on a mobile device and which parts are more easily performed elsewhere.
We encourage you to try out the app. If you like it, please do tweet about it and recommend it to colleagues and readers.
"My first thought is usually whether it is even appropriate for me to respond on behalf of the editor. The answer here, of course, is that it depends." Authors, editors, Elsevier…we all love the media when they want to write a positive, straightforward story about a new research finding that promotes a particular journal. As […]
"My first thought is usually whether it is even appropriate for me to respond on behalf of the editor. The answer here, of course, is that it depends."
Authors, editors, Elsevier…we all love the media when they want to write a positive, straightforward story about a new research finding that promotes a particular journal.
As an editor, you are probably proud of your role in deciding to publish the article, and welcome any corresponding increase in article submissions, citations and journal reputation that the added attention brings. Those calls from the media are always a pleasure to take and are usually redirected to the article authors who are best placed to answer questions about their research.
But what about when the media focus on something that went wrong? Or an issue that is complicated and not likely to reflect favorably on your journal? Those calls usually pertain to retractions and publishing ethics, and more often than not they go to editors. They're not as much fun. Some of those calls come straight to me at Elsevier, and whether or not they're fun isn't my concern. My first thought is usually whether it is even appropriate for me to respond on behalf of the editor. The answer here, of course, is that it depends.
We begin with the belief that while the publisher is responsible for setting the aims and scope of a particular journal, editors are responsible for the journal's contents. That means you are accountable for the vast majority of articles that don't raise any particular questions of impropriety, but it also means you are accountable for the very rare articles that do. So, when a reporter is looking for further information on how a journal handled a particular paper, the journal's editor is the primary, authoritative source.
We at Elsevier are here, however, to support our editors, and my team is happy to lend that support when it comes to managing media inquiries. There are also situations where we recommend that you pass the media inquiry to us to handle (always in tandem with the publishers). Here are some of the questions we ask when deciding who the appropriate person is to respond.
Our best advice would be that you should always talk to your publishing contact about the inquiry; together you can decide whether or not Elsevier's corporate media relations team should be involved. We can work together to make sure Elsevier, you as the editor, the reporters and the journal community at large are best served by receiving the most accurate information from the most appropriate source.
*View Reller's previous Editors' Update article, Watching Retraction Watch, to discover what a new breed of journalist means for transparency and public trust in science.
Tom Reller
Reller (@TomReller) leads a global team of media, social and web communicators. Together, they work to build on Elsevier's reputation by promoting the company's numerous contributions to the health and science communities. Reller directs strategy, execution and problem-solving for external corporate communications, including media relations, issues management and policy communications, and acts as a central communications counsel and resource for Elsevier senior management. Additionally, he develops and nurtures external corporate/institutional relationships that broaden Elsevier's influence and generate good will, including partnerships developed through The Elsevier Foundation.
At Elsevier, we receive around a million articles per year for publication in our journals. Unfortunately, a small percentage fails to meet our ethics guidelines and nearly 50 percent of those cases are suspected plagiarism. To help address this obvious pain point for our editors, in 2008 we joined CrossCheckTM, a collaboration between major publishers […]
At Elsevier, we receive around a million articles per year for publication in our journals. Unfortunately, a small percentage fails to meet our ethics guidelines and nearly 50 percent of those cases are suspected plagiarism.
To help address this obvious pain point for our editors, in 2008 we joined CrossCheckTM, a collaboration between major publishers and CrossRef® to prevent plagiarism, simultaneous submission and multiple publication. That enabled us to incorporate into our editorial workflows iThenticate, the software that powers CrossCheck.
For many journals, this software is now indispensable – more than 4,000 editors at 800 Elsevier journals have iThenticate accounts, and editor usage of the software is up 41 percent on last year. We expect that the upcoming integration of iThenticate into Elsevier's Editorial System (EES), which will make it possible to automatically run English-language submissions through the software, will see that usage continue to rise. The integration is currently being piloted and the EES team aims to roll it out to all journals by the beginning of next year.
Features of iThenticate
- Prevents plagiarism by detecting textual similarities which could indicate misconduct.
- Compares full-text manuscripts against a database of 38+ million articles from 175,000+ journals, books from 500+ publishers, and 20+ billion webpages.
- Use can be tailored to meet a journal's needs: screening at the submission phase, pre-acceptance phase, or on an ad-hoc basis when allegations are raised.
The main function of iThenticate is to identify the textual overlap of a manuscript against CrossCheck's growing database of published works and internet sources. Such software can only be as good as the database it uses, and this is a large part of the reason that iThenticate is so successful – CrossCheck's database is arguably the most complete and up-to-date of its kind available, with major publishers and societies contributing full-text content to it.
Editor-in-Chief of Information and Software Technology, Professor Claes Wohlin, has been using iThenticate since 2010. He said: "iThenticate helps in identifying textual similarity, but it is very important that the editor uses a sound judgment on the similarities found. It depends very much on whose text is reused and in which part of the paper. There's a big difference between similarities in the research methodology descriptions and the actual research findings."
Based on your feedback, recent releases have improved functionality. For example, a common complaint was that short, standard phrases in the field could add noise to the Similarity Reports. Since May 2013, users can now specify the length of individual matches, e.g. must be greater than 10 words, which makes the reports easier to interpret and analyze. The latest release on 24th September this year lets users exclude the Abstract or Materials and Methods sections.
A new viewing mode, Document Viewer, retains the layout of the original document (including figures and equations), making it more straightforward to spot where the overlap is and navigate through the document efficiently. The results from this mode can also be saved and printed to simplify sharing between editors.
A frequent request from editors was to integrate iThenticate with EES to minimize the time needed to upload the files to the software. We are pleased to report that by the beginning of next year we expect EES submissions to be automatically run through the software. EES will provide a direct link to the full CrossCheck report for each submission.
It's encouraging to see that journals adopting a screening policy can observe an increase in desk-reject rates and faster decision times, along with an improvement in the quality of papers sent out for review. For example, at Journal of Materials Processing Technology, thanks to the huge efforts of a strong and dedicated editorial team, desk rejections for scope, quality and plagiarism are now at 78 percent while editorial times from submission to first decision went from 4.8 weeks in 2009 to 3.5 weeks in 2012.
Use of iThenticate can also lead to other, less obvious benefits. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications Editor-in-Chief, Professor Richard Aron, has found that: "iThenticate helps not only in identifying plagiarism, but also in suggesting possible referees that have been overlooked, or at least not mentioned, in the citations."
If you don't have an iThenticate account but would be interested in benefitting from this service, please speak to your publishing contact.
More information on plagiarism detection can be found in PERK (Elsevier's Publishing Ethics Resource Kit).
Tips for interpreting iThenticate results
- Human interpretation is crucial to differentiate between:
- paragraphs or sentences copied from properly referenced sources;
- text copied from the author's previous works (often in the Methods section); and
- paragraphs or sentences copied from improperly or unreferenced sources.
- Similarities discovered in the Results/Discussion sections can be more concerning than those found in Intro/Methods.
- You should become suspicious if you discover:
- Similar strings of sentences or small paragraphs. One may not be an issue, but several could signify a problem.
- A couple of paragraphs containing identical material. This may indicate improper reuse and should be carefully checked.
- As much as a full page of matching material. Proceed with extreme caution!
Ethics cases can be less obvious than they appear so whenever in doubt, check with your publishing contact to make sure you follow due diligence in any accusation of research or publishing malpractice.
Laura Schmidt
Laura joined Elsevier in 2010 as a Managing Editor for a physics journal. She is currently a publisher for mathematics journals, and frequently works with editors to support and assist them in handling plagiarism and other misconduct cases. Earlier, she held a postdoctoral research position at the University of Twente in The Netherlands after receiving her PhD in Physics from the University of Chicago in 2008.
Gaia Lupo
Gaia joined Elsevier in 2011 as a Managing Editor after graduating from the University of Perugia in Italy with a PhD in Mathematics. Gaia is currently working as a publisher and is responsible for a portfolio of 16 journals across the areas of manufacturing processes and systems. Her role includes defining and implementing journals' long-term strategies and being the primary contact for editors seeking advice on publishing and ethics issues.
In 2008, all Elsevier journals were enrolled in the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), so editors would have an alternative information resource when faced with research misconduct cases. In this interview, current COPE Chair, Dr Virginia Barbour, discusses recent changes to the organization and outlines some of the benefits that membership can bring. When a […]
In 2008, all Elsevier journals were enrolled in the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), so editors would have an alternative information resource when faced with research misconduct cases. In this interview, current COPE Chair, Dr Virginia Barbour, discusses recent changes to the organization and outlines some of the benefits that membership can bring.
When a handful of medical editors set up the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) back in 1997, they hoped that pooling their knowledge would help them tackle the ethics cases they were witnessing on their journals.
Fast forward 16 years and COPE can claim more than 8,700 members spanning a variety of disciplines across the globe.
While the organization has undergone tremendous change – particularly over the past five years – that original goal of editors offering their peers non-judgmental advice remains central to all COPE's activities, says current Chair, Dr Virginia Barbour.
She explained: "COPE acted as a sort of support group for those early members and that really hasn't changed. COPE provides the resources so that editors can make their own decisions – we aren't here to tell them what to do."
COPE at a glance:
COPE provides advice to editors and publishers on all aspects of publication ethics and, in particular, how to handle cases of research and publication misconduct. It also provides a Forum for its members to discuss individual cases.
COPE does not investigate individual cases but encourages editors to ensure that cases are investigated by the appropriate authorities (usually a research institution or employer)." *
* Taken from the About COPE page on the organization's website.
Dr Barbour became aware of COPE in 1999, when she was working on The Lancet in the role of Molecular Medicine Editor – The Lancet Editor-in-Chief, Richard Horton, was one of COPE's founding members.
In 2004, she left to join the Public Library of Science (PLOS) and was invited to join COPE's Council. Dr Barbour said: "At that time, we were launching PLOS Medicine. Before our first paper was published we encountered some ethics issues so I realized COPE's help would be important."
At that stage, COPE still had a fairly relaxed structure, with no formal constitution. In the years that followed, membership expanded, a constitution was established, internal communications evolved, and the Council became more global. A group of officers was appointed (all voluntary) – the Chair, a Vice Chair, Treasurer and Secretary – and paid staff were added. These have all become crucial to the smooth running of what is now quite a complex organization.
Since taking over the reins as Chair 18 months ago, one of Dr Barbour's key aims has been to increase that internationalization. She said: "Until recently, London was the location for all our quarterly Forum meetings (where cases submitted to COPE are discussed). One of the first things I did was to hold two Forum meetings by webinar – opening up the opportunity for all COPE members to attend, wherever they are based. The success of the virtual Forums has been such that we have decided to hold all of our quarterly Forums by webinar. We will also be holding workshops around the globe where members can meet in person to discuss cases and publication ethics issues. We feel that it is important to retain that personal contact with our members, as well as opening up our services to more of our global membership."
Another two important steps have been the introduction of online consultation sessions (still in early testing) and an International Advisory Group.
The online sessions are designed to supplement the quarterly Forums; they will be held on a regular basis, dictated by the needs of members. Dr Barbour said: "Cases can be submitted in the usual way (via the COPE website) and we will post them on a secure section of the site. We will then hold a two-hour session where anyone from the Council can login and comment on them. As with the Forums, a written summary of feedback will be provided to the submitting editor."
The International Advisory Group, which is in the process of being launched, comprises a worldwide panel of individuals experienced in publication ethics. Dr Barbour explained: "Although our current Council is global and very active, by necessity it can't cover every area of the world. To remedy that, we have sought people who are interested in helping us think about ethics issues in their country; if an ethics issue arises that is of importance to their region, we will be able to call on their expertise."
She added: "The kind of internationalization we are discussing can only be achieved with appropriate software and technology so another major focus has been the introduction of those tools."
Dr Barbour has also steered COPE through a strategic review which involved having a "hard think" about what its principles should be. She said: "COPE's primary purposes are now much clearer; we exist for the support and education of members and we enable them to solve cases – on their own. That last point is absolutely the thing that members appreciate.
"Another point I would like to make is that we are not a regulatory body – this isn't the General Medical Council. We do get people writing to us about the behavior of editors. We do have a Code of Conduct and can work with editors to look at how they can better comply with it but we don't feel it is our role to rule on an editor's conduct from a regulatory point of view."
When editors approach COPE for advice on a case, the first step is to direct them to the resources on the COPE website. Dr Barbour said: "Many of the problems they experience we will have encountered before, for example, authorship issues are tremendously common." The website contains flowcharts to help editors make decisions on many publishing ethics dilemmas, such as 'What to do if you suspect redundant (duplicate) publication' and 'What to do if you suspect a reviewer has appropriated an author's idea or data'. There is also a database containing details of, and advice given on, the 500+ cases COPE has discussed since its inception in 1997. Work is currently being carried out to increase the effectiveness of the database's search function. COPE also hopes that an ongoing reclassification exercise will help it understand which areas of research misconduct are becoming more prevalent and require more focus.
Dr Barbour continued: "If an editor feels their case is not so simple, or they need a bit more support, e.g. they are a first-time editor, or are under pressure from someone, then we suggest they bring the case to one of our quarterly Forums, where it can be discussed by up to 60 editors. Another option shortly will be to submit it for an online consultation session.
"Both these avenues can lead to a divergence of members' views – not in a combative way, but you will find one editor says 'this has always helped me' while another favors an alternative approach. Sometimes members will say 'exactly the same thing happened to me' and they can explain how they dealt with it. We collate all the feedback received and provide a written (anonymized) summary to the editor who submitted the case. It is up to them to decide on the next steps."
Dr Barbour has seen firsthand the value that discussing a case at the Forum can bring. She explained: "At one North American Forum, a member mentioned that they were puzzled by the behavior of an author who had fabricated, or inaccurately reported, references on a paper. It sounded odd, but minor. Then another member said 'that's weird' and related a similar story. It turned out that the reference fabrication was just one aspect of a wider case and between them they uncovered misconduct going back years.
"Similarly, last year at two or three Forums we heard about incidents where authors had fabricated reviewers. It was strange, nobody had ever heard of this happening before and then suddenly there were three cases in six months. That was sufficient for us to send a warning to all our members."
Plans for the next few years include a focus on making COPE more proactive in leading debates on publication ethics. The first steps have already been taken with the introduction of a 'discussion' about a topical ethics issue at the start of each Forum. She said: "Our ultimate goal is to be an organization that leads the debate on publishing ethics."
COPE – how it can help
The automatic COPE membership Elsevier extends to all its journals brings a number of benefits. As an editor you can:
- Receive advice on individual (anonymized) cases from members of the Council and other COPE members at Forum meetings each quarter.
- Access advice on a more regular basis via the new online consultation service.
- Attend the COPE seminars (free for members) where real-life, anonymized cases are debated.
- Access the recently revamped eLearning course, and invite co-editors to participate.
- Use the ethics audit tool to see how well your journal matches COPE's guidelines (log-in required).
- Use the COPE logo in your journal.
- Apply for COPE research grants.
- Stand for election to COPE Council.
- Receive the new eNewsletter, COPE Digest: Publication Ethics in Practice.
- Use COPE's range of sample letters (log in required).
You will also have access to a variety of resources available to members and non-members alike. These include:
- Flowcharts on how to handle common ethical problems.
- COPE's searchable cases database, which contains details of, and advice given on, more than 500 cases.
- COPE's Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors, which contains a blend of mandatory and aspirational guidelines.
- An array of other guidelines, covering everything from how to peer review ethically to retracting a paper.
- Discussion documents on topics such as responding to anonymous whistle blowers, text recycling and electronic responses to blogs and journal articles.
Dr Virginia Barbour
Virginia Barbour joined The Lancet in 1999, becoming Molecular Medicine Editor in 2001. She joined the Public Library of Science in 2004 and was one of the three founding editors of PLOS Medicine. She was Chief Editor until September 2013 and is now Medicine Editorial Director for PLOS. She initially studied Natural Sciences at the University of Cambridge, and then Medicine at University College and Middlesex Hospital School of Medicine, London. After training in hematology at the Royal Free Hospital, London, she continued her studies at the Institute of Molecular Medicine in Oxford, before carrying out postdoctoral work in the Division of Experimental Hematology at St Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee. Alongside her role as Chair of COPE, Dr Barbour is a member of the Ethics Committee for the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME). She has participated in discussions on revisions to CONSORT statements, the QUOROM statement and was involved in the first meetings of the EQUATOR initiative.
* Dr Barbour was interviewed for this article by Linda Willems, Editor-in-Chief of Editors' Update.
"… a false statement of fact, made deliberately, is the most serious crime a scientist can commit." English Chemist and novelist, Charles Percy Snow (1905-1980) Over the years, numerous initiatives have been launched to educate authors about the dangers of manipulating data and images in their journal submissions — in fact, we discuss two of […]
"… a false statement of fact, made deliberately, is the most serious crime a scientist can commit." English Chemist and novelist, Charles Percy Snow (1905-1980)
Over the years, numerous initiatives have been launched to educate authors about the dangers of manipulating data and images in their journal submissions — in fact, we discuss two of our own programs in The importance of author education in this Ethics Special.
While many of these have met with success, there is no doubt this kind of behavior remains more common than we would wish. In this article, we focus on some of the tools and processes developed to detect data and image manipulation. Dr Jacques Piette, Editor of Biochemical Pharmacology, shares his eight-point plan to control submitted Western Blots, while Dr John Dahlberg, of The Office of Research Integrity (ORI), talks about how his organization can help identify manipulation and offers insight into the techniques used by its investigators. Dr Dahlberg has also kindly offered to share with readers a program the ORI uses to identify potentially fabricated numbers — further details of which you will find below.
But most of all, we hope this article proves the starting point of a wider discussion on this topic — we want to hear your views. Please let us know your thoughts on how data and image manipulation can be better managed in your field by posting your comments below.
The International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) offers the following guidance on graphics editing:
"For clarity, figures may be adjusted to better see the item being discussed as long as such changes do not obscure or eliminate information present in the original image. However any changes (brightness, contrast, color balance, etc.) must be made overall, and mentioned in the figure caption. An original image file must be retained in case it is required by the peer-review process. Do not remove or move anything in an image, or clean up an image."
The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) is responsible for oversight reviews of investigations into allegations of research misconduct that involve research funded — at least in part — by agencies of the US Public Health Service.
According to John Dahlberg, PhD, Deputy Director of the ORI, an oversight review is essentially a "de novo review of the institutional record" and is carried out by the ORI's Division of Investigative Oversight (DIO); ten scientists and physician-researchers with a wide range of disciplinary backgrounds.
He said: "The pace at which they are being asked to examine research is increasing dramatically. Over the years, DIO employees have developed a number of computer-aided approaches to examining data and other research records to strengthen the evidence for research misconduct in cases where findings appear warranted."
Here, Dr Dahlberg guides us through some of those tools and processes, many of which are available to the public, and shares some useful tips from the team.
Forensic droplets: First posted on the ORI website in 2005, droplets are small desktop applications in Adobe Photoshop that automatically process files dragged onto the icon. They are available to download from ORI's website and allow you to quickly examine the details of a scientific image in Photoshop while reading the publication in the full text (html) form or in the PDF form in an Internet Browser.
The droplets have a variety of uses and can help you to:
Photoshop Actions: ORI also posted a number of Photoshop actions in 2005 and an advanced set of these has been developed for later Photoshop versions. The actions differ from the droplets in that they pause to allow the user to make a choice in how to proceed with the analysis of the image(s).
Other image tools used by the Division of Investigative Oversight (DIO):
Adobe Bridge: This software can generate libraries of images for rapid screening — images can be organized by date or file size, and the large thumbnail size allows careful viewing of each image. This is particularly useful when searching for sequential versions of files that have been modified, where they are likely to be very similar in size and their time-date stamps are closely spaced.
ImageJ: This program is available for a variety of platforms and can be freely downloaded from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) website. It is very versatile and the DIO finds it particularly useful for producing quantitative scans of gel bands, for example.
DIO has also discovered research misconduct in PowerPoint images by using the 'Reset Picture' tool. On numerous occasions, this has revealed the use of underlying images and, in several cases, those underlying images turned out to have been scanned from unrelated published papers. It is also possible to reset images in some PDF files viewed in Adobe Acrobat.
Review of questioned numbers: Research [1-4] has shown that when people are asked to write random numbers, they do a poor job. James Mosimann, a bio-statistician at ORI in the 1990s, recognized that if sets of numbers in respondents' notebooks purportedly obtained by transcribing them from instruments such as scintillation counters or spectrophotometers were unaccompanied by the original data printouts, then they might have been fabricated. He also reasoned that while the digits on the left side of a number would be expected to be non-uniform (because they conveyed the results of the experiment) those in the right-most positions ought to be uniformly distributed. He developed a program to calculate chi-square values and corresponding probabilities based on the distribution of right-most digits in sets of numbers sufficiently large enough (>50 digits). Columns of numbers saved as a text file can be imported into his program. The DIO requires control data from similar unquestioned experiments carried out in the same laboratory. In quite a number of cases, while right-most digits from control numbers have been shown to be uniformly distributed, this has not been true of the questioned numbers.
Although not publicly available, the ORI has kindly agreed to provide a copy of James Mosimann's program to interested editors along with instructions. It is usable in Windows through version 7, but does not load in Windows 8. If you would like to receive a copy, please contact Dr Dahlberg at firstname.lastname@example.com.
Issues with spreadsheet files: ORI has made findings in several cases involving the discovery of embedded formulae in spreadsheets that calculate backwards; in other words, a formula is used to calculate the raw data value from the final claimed result. The formula in an Excel cell is visible in the formula bar when a cell in highlighted, while all of the formulae in the spreadsheet can be displayed in Excel (Microsoft Office 2007 version) by pressing the "control + ~" keys (control/plus/grave accent) simultaneously. Pressing the same three keys restores the normal view. Even when formulae have been removed from a spreadsheet, the format of the numbers in the columns may be informative. Calculated values usually have long digit strings to the right of a decimal, and data input values often do not — this can be revealed by setting the cell number format to 'general'.
Converting graphs back to spreadsheet values: ORI has frequently found it necessary to compare published graph data with raw notebook or computer data to determine if it has been reported accurately. Similarly, they can see if the published standard errors or standard deviations — expressed as error bars — are adequately reflective of the raw data. It is also often desirable to compare graphs published in different grant applications or papers that are labeled as coming from different experiments but which appear to have identical values. To accomplish this, DIO has used computer software [5] to convert images to spreadsheet values.
In several cases, ORI has determined that error bars seem improbably small, or of a fixed percentage of the experimental values. Fixed error bars at, say, 5 percent of the height of the histogram bars in the graphs, are not reflective of typical biological experiments, and warrant a review by the institution to determine if the experiment(s) were actually conducted as described.
Forensic review of sequestered digital data: In recent years, DIO has increasingly relied on the forensic examination of sequestered digital data, particularly of hard drives. This is reflective of increasing reliance by the scientific community on storage of data on computers rather than in notebooks. Whenever possible, ORI advises institutions to acquire forensic copies of digital data, which may involve the expertise of IT personnel and special hardware and software. There are multiple advantages to acquiring image copies in comparison to simply copying files onto CDs or other media; for example, time-date stamps are accurately preserved and forensic software can recover erased files as long as they have not been overwritten by a more recently saved file.
Western Blots — a highly valuable technique to separate proteins by structure or size — is a widely-used method. According to Dr Jacques Piette, Groupe Interdisciplinaire Génoprotéomique Appliquée Research Director at the Université de Liège, Belgium, and Editor of Elsevier's Biochemical Pharmacology, it is also a method that is sadly misused and vigilance is needed in evaluating these images [6].
Dr Piette has highlighted eight key points to consider:
1. Pay attention to the overall quality of the Western Blot (WB). The bands should be well-marked. Do not accept a WB with fuzzy or smearing bands.
2. Do not accept a WB with over-loaded or over-exposed bands because they are impossible to quantify.
3. Request that the WBs be quantified and statistically analyzed.
4. Do not accept a WB where the samples to compare have been loaded on more than one gel.
5. Do not accept a WB without the proper loading controls:
6. Pay attention to the fraudulent use of the same loading controls in several different WBs.
7. Primary and secondary antibodies must be described in the Materials and Methods section. If the antibodies are not of commercial origin, their characterization must be described.
8. If there are doubts about a WB, do not hesitate to ask the authors to provide an image of the full WB.
The Guide for Authors of many journals do not carry any information around submitting Western Blots. Biochemical Pharmacology is one of the few that does. If a journal receives a large number of Western Blots, the editor might consider amending the Guide accordingly. Any editors interested in working together on a common text on Western Blots should contact me, Anthony Newman, at email@example.com.
Anthony Newman
In September 1987, Anthony moved from London to Amsterdam to join Elsevier. He has always been interested in ethics, and was one of the original project team that founded PERK (Publishing Ethics Resource Kit), and brought COPE into Elsevier. Apart from managing a dozen or more journals, he is also a member of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) Task Force on Ethics, where he recently published a white paper, and he has given workshops on publication ethics at various IFCC-sponsored events worldwide.
[1] Mosimann J E, Wiseman CV and Edelman RE, "Data Fabrication: Can People Generate Random Digits?", Accountability in Research, 4:31-55, 1995.
[2] Mosimann J E and Ratnaparkhi M V, "Uniform occurrence of digits for folded and mixture distributions at finite intervals", Communications in Statistics, 25(2):481-506, 1996.
[3] Mosimann J E, Dahlberg J E, Davidian N M and Krueger J W, "Terminal digits and the examination of questioned data", Accountability in Research, 9:75-92, 2002.
[4] Dahlberg J E and Davidian N M, "Scientific forensics: how the Office of Research Integrity can assist institutional investigations of research misconduct during oversight review", Sci. Eng. Ethics, 16:713-735, 2010.
[5] There are various programs that can be used, and although ORI cannot endorse any, it has used SigmaScanPro, sold by Systat Software Inc.
[6] Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky, "Can We Trust Western Blots?", Lab Times, 2-2012, 41
Increasingly, researchers are turning to digital tools to find and access content, and are using the web to share and organize research output in new and exciting ways – just consider Mendeley for a moment. Much research material now has a fully digital life-cycle and this new type of content calls for a new publication […]
Increasingly, researchers are turning to digital tools to find and access content, and are using the web to share and organize research output in new and exciting ways – just consider Mendeley for a moment.
Much research material now has a fully digital life-cycle and this new type of content calls for a new publication format. At Elsevier we have been working to meet that need via our Article of the Future (AotF) project.
The format of an article hasn't evolved much over centuries. While the move from print to PDF has changed the way in which articles are delivered, and made content easier to find, the article format has remained, by and large, unchanged. We believe there is a lot of room for improvement.
For example, at one time or another many of us will have printed out a plot, then used a ruler to reconstruct the actual data points – an inefficient and inaccurate process. We know that the author has the actual data and may assume that they are willing to share it (since it is presented in a plot) – but it's the article format that makes that sharing impossible.
Our answer has been to develop an interactive plot viewer that allows readers to hover over data points and see the actual value of the data as provided by the author (see figure 1). This is still a prototype application, but we are working on deploying such an interactive plot viewer on ScienceDirect.
The Article of the Future is an ongoing project. Our goal is to:
- Break away from the limitations of the traditional, ink-on-paper article format.
- Enable researchers to publish their work in all its dimensions, including digital content like data, code, multimedia, etc.
- Take advantage of what modern web technology has to offer to create an optimal and richer reading experience.
There are three main directions in which we are improving the online article – presentation, content and context. You may have read about some of these in previous articles in Editors' Update. However, new elements are being rolled out on a regular basis and 2013 has seen a number of innovations introduced. Below we highlight just some of these and outline how you can get involved.
In ScienceDirect, articles now appear across three panes (see figure 2).
The left-hand pane is used for browsing and navigation, the center pane is optimized for online readability, and the right-hand pane collects additional content and functionality. What is shown in the right-hand pane will vary per research discipline and even per individual article – influenced, for example, by the content the author has delivered. However, it also includes some generic features, for example the reference browser shown in figure 3. When you click on a reference in the main article, bibliographical information for that reference appears, including an abstract when available. This information is pinned to the right-hand pane, so that it remains in place while you read through the paper in the center pane. This example shows how small changes can make a difference – this is not a technological tour de force, yet it saves readers a lot of scrolling time.
This aspect of the AotF focuses on better support for digital research output such as data, code, or multimedia, but also on better support for domain-specific data formats.
One innovation we have introduced this year is the embedding of 3D visualizations in online research articles - invaluable for understanding complex structures, dynamic simulations, and research discoveries. Without interrupting the flow of reading, users can explore and interact with 3D models by zooming in, panning and rotating. They can also change various display settings, open the viewer in full screen mode and download original data files.
The ultimate goal of this project is to create an online visualization infrastructure for ScienceDirect that can be accessed from any device. We are working to achieve this in partnership with Kitware SAS, our 3D visualization service provider. So far, a 3D molecular viewer and a 3D archaeological viewer are available. An author simply uploads the model as a supplementary file to the Elsevier Editorial System (EES). The 3D model then appears in the right-hand pane of the article on ScienceDirect.
The 3D molecular viewer visualizes molecular structures and supports PDB, PSE, and MOL/MOL2 data formats. It allows the models to be explored using the two most common visualization techniques: 'ribbons' and 'balls-and-sticks', both shown in figure 4.
The 3D archaeological viewer (see figure 5) visualizes models submitted in PLY and OBJ formats. The surface rendering technique is applied to display 3D data (including the texture and material properties support). The viewer was developed to support the new Elsevier journal Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage, which is unique in that it focuses on the application of 3D modeling to cultural heritage.
The next 3D viewer – a neuroimaging module supporting 3D data in NIfTI format for selected neuroscience journals – is currently under development.
Another big step for the Article of the Future project was taken in May of this year, when Elsevier announced the first Executable Papers on ScienceDirect. These papers were published as part of a Special Issue in the journal Computers & Graphics, and would not have been possible without the full support and ambassadorship of the Editor-in-Chief, Joaquim Jorge, and guest editors Michela Spagnuolo and Remco Veltkamp. What makes Executable Papers unique is that they not only capture the narrative of a traditional scholarly paper, but also the computational methodology underpinning the reported results. This gives the reader additional insights and ensures full reproducibility of key scientific findings – an ideal of scholarly communication but, with the traditional article format, something that is often not realized.
The Special Issue makes use of the Collage Authoring Environment, developed by a Polish team affiliated with CYFRONET and first-prize winner of the Executable Papers Grand Challenge launched by Elsevier in 2011. Using Collage, authors can upload data and computer code and interconnect these elements to construct a 'computational experiment' from input to output.
ARVE Error: Mode:
is invalid or not supported. Note that you will need the Pro Addon for lazyload modes.
ScienceDirect readers can inspect code and data, and – more importantly – they can also change parameters, upload their own test data, and re-run code to really probe the paper's computational methodology. Collage also offers reviewers and editors access to the computational experiments that belong with a paper, extremely useful for the peer-review process.
Another recent innovation, which is quite different from the projects discussed above, is AudioSlides. These are five-minute, webcast style presentations (combining slides with voice-over recordings) displayed next to the article on ScienceDirect. What sets these apart is that the presentations are not an integral part of the paper, but rather presentations about the article.
They are created by the author and offer a unique opportunity to provide insights into the paper's content and explain why it is of interest. This new feature has been rolled out to a wide range of journals, and we do hope that you will encourage authors to make use of it.
As an editor, you can also highlight papers of interest yourself by creating an audio podcast. This might take the form of an interview with the author or it could be you sharing your opinion about the article with potential readers. There is also the option to create a podcast for a complete journal issue, which may be organized as a brief overview of all included articles. The article-related podcasts will appear in the right-hand pane of an article, while issue/volume-related podcasts will appear next to each article in the specific issue/volume.
Other content innovations introduced include:
- The Interactive (Google) Maps viewer, now available for more than 100 journals working with geospatial data. Authors upload their KML/KMZ files as supplementary material and the viewer upgrades a static map to an interactive one. This is integrated into the article view on ScienceDirect and readers can download underlying data.
- An application to visualize MATLAB figure files. MATLAB is a general-purpose mathematical modeling tool widely used in engineering and applied sciences. With MATLAB it is possible to export plots to a MATLAB FIG format, which contains both the visualization and the underlying data. Currently available for 50+ journals.
- Interactive phylogenetic trees. Displayed in the center pane below the abstract, this application allows the reader to interactively explore phylogenetic trees on ScienceDirect. To support this functionality, authors of relevant articles are invited to submit their tree data in Newick and NexML formats.
- The Chemical compound viewer, an application that visualizes the chemical structure of key compounds in the article and links to Elsevier's Reaxys® chemistry database*, where additional information can be accessed.
Web technologies allow us to interlink the article with other sources of relevant, trusted scientific information on the web – upgrading the article from a one-way street to a roundabout.
For example, Elsevier has a program to link articles with relevant data sets that reside at a data repository. One way we can do this is by inserting a banner next to an article which is only shown if a database has data sets specifically relevant to the paper. Figure 8 shows a banner pointing to two data repositories: MGI (Mouse Genome Informatics database) and RGD (Rat Genome Database). We currently collaborate with more than 30 data repositories in different domains.
Taking data linking one step further, it's also possible to build visualization tools on top of data links, for example the PubChem Compound Viewer we have developed with the National Center for Biotechnology and Information (NCBI). The application extracts relevant information from the NCBI PubChem Compound database using the PubChem CID code and compound name provided by the author. It generates a short summary, which includes the 2D chemical structure image, molecular weight, molecular formula, IUPAC name and a direct link to the full PubChem record (see figure 9). The PubChem Compound Viewer appears in the right-hand pane of the article on ScienceDirect.
We are committed to enhancing the online article so that it better meets the needs of researchers in the digital age but your input is invaluable if we are to achieve this. There are a number of ways you can get involved:
* Reaxys®, the Reaxys® and ReactionFlash™ trademarks are owned and protected by Reed Elsevier Properties SA. All rights reserved.
Hylke Koers
Hylke is responsible for a range of projects to enhance the online article format. Part of Elsevier's Article of the Future program, this includes improved online presentation, better support and visualization of digital content, and contextualization of the article by linking with data repositories and other sources of trusted scientific content on the web. Before joining Elsevier in 2010, Hylke received a PhD in Theoretical Astrophysics from the University of Amsterdam and served as a postdoctoral research associate at the Université Libre de Bruxelles. He is based in Amsterdam.
Elena Zudilova-Seinstra
Elena has been working on the Article of the Future project since joining Elsevier in 2010 as a Senior User Experience Specialist for the User Centered Design group. She holds a PhD in Computer Science and an MSc degree in Technical Engineering from the St Petersburg State Technical University. Before joining Elsevier, she worked at the University of Amsterdam, SARA Computing and Networking Services and Corning Inc.
We are looking for enthusiastic and technology-oriented editors to participate in a new initiative which allows you to create editorial audio podcasts for your journal.
Elena Zudilova-Seinstra | Content Innovation Manager, Elsevier
With so much information available, it can be all too easy for a researcher to miss important articles in their field. Our new editorial audio podcasts have been designed to combat this problem and we are now inviting editors to join the pilot. We are keen to hear from editors who already know how to create podcasts, are familiar with existing technologies, or have the interest and time to learn.
These podcasts are a powerful means of highlighting articles that deserve special attention. They might take the form of an interview with the author or it could be you sharing your opinion about the article with potential readers. There is also the option to create a podcast for a complete journal issue, which may be organized as a brief overview of all included articles.
All editorial audio podcasts will be freely available on ScienceDirect. The article-related podcasts will appear in the right hand side panel, next to the article. The issue/volume related podcasts will appear next to each article in the specific issue/volume.
An example of an editorial audio podcast can be found in the journal Sport Management Review.
Thanks to the podcast player embedded next to the article, readers are capable to listen to the podcast online or to download it locally and play it later using any MP3 player. To help choose between these two options, the length of the podcast and the MP3 file size are both indicated. It is recommended that each podcast is a maximum of 10 minutes long and has a short text description. The podcast submission and production processes are guided and controlled by the journal managers of participating journals.
If you are interested in creating editorial audio podcasts, we would be delighted to include your journal in our ongoing pilot. Please email me at firstname.lastname@example.com
Social media has become a part of everyday life. In 2010, Facebook overtook Google as the Web's most visited site and in the US Internet users spend one out of every four online minutes on social networking sites and blogs [1]. If social media is unfamiliar, that first dip of your toe into new waters […]
Social media has become a part of everyday life. In 2010, Facebook overtook Google as the Web's most visited site and in the US Internet users spend one out of every four online minutes on social networking sites and blogs [1].
If social media is unfamiliar, that first dip of your toe into new waters can be daunting. However, Elsevier has a range of subject-specific pages available you can join. And below we have outlined some tips for setting up and maximizing the potential of your own social media profile.
Broadly, the term social media covers people having a conversation online. Conversations can take place in online forums, online communities, social bookmarking sites, user ratings and also as part of multimedia sharing sites.
91% of mobile Internet use is now for social activities. On average, over the course of 12 months, Internet users will:
- Share 415 pieces of content on Facebook
- Spend an average of about 23 minutes a day on Twitter
- Tweet a total of around 15,795 tweets
- Upload 196 hours of video on YouTube
Sharing research, accomplishments and ambitions with a wider audience makes you more visible in your field. With greater visibility, you are more likely to be cited, you cultivate a stronger reputation and you promote your research, your journal and your career. Some of the more popular networking sites include:
Every second, one new user joins LinkedIn and 81% of users belong to at least one group.
At Elsevier, we have more than 160 social media channels (including The Lancet and Cell Press) covering all subject areas. We use these to promote new research, increase traffic to journal articles, gauge opinions on new journals and special issues and give more than 360,000 followers a chance to interact with us directly.
As an editor, your contribution to these social media communities, by starting or joining in with discussions, may even highlight new hot topics or bring an up-and-coming researcher to your attention. These communities also offer a great opportunity to call for new papers.
We invite you to follow or join Elsevier's social media channels to keep abreast of the latest research in your area, share your ideas, and ask the questions you want to discuss with your peers and colleagues.
Signing up for an account is easy, but having a professional and personable profile takes a little foresight and effort to build. While each social platform has different specifications and limitations, here are some steps that will work for all:
There is one further step that can help to define your profile, a step that defines your communication style with social media tools in general:
5. Personality: What should your audience know about you that makes you a real person?
Below is an example of how these principles have been used to build a Twitter profile:
When communicating through social media, you are having conversations with the people that read your publications, potential and current authors, colleagues and peers, industry specialists, and more. Just as in any form of communication, some rules apply and these are even more enhanced in the social realm. You should be:
With a little practice, interacting in social networks can become as natural as emailing or talking in person. It can even be fun!
Angelina Ward
Angelina (@angelinaward) leads social business efforts throughout the organization. These include forming policy, guidelines and centralized resources, and driving corporate-level campaigns. She speaks at industry events on social media topics and has been recognized as one of the Top 50 Women in Technology on Twitter who truly "gets" social media and social business. She is based in Atlanta.
Rachel Guest
Rachel is based in Elsevier's Oxford office. She is the social media project lead for Elsevier's Science, Technology and Medical Journals with responsibility for more than 150 subject social media channels with a following of more than 250,000 individuals. Her role is to ensure that Elsevier's social media content engages with and meets the needs of researchers.
[1] All statistics quoted in this article have been taken from the following:
The Growth of Mobile Marketing and Tagging, Holly Richmond, Microsoft Tag
100 more social media statistics for 2012, Cara Pring, The Social Skinny
The LinkedIn Profile, Market Research – the latest social media and market research news, Lab42
An email alert created to help editors identify manuscripts requiring action has led to a reduction in overall decision time of 8%. Launched as a pilot in 2012, results from the project have proved so encouraging we are now making the Empower traffic light email available to all editors. 100 journals took part in the […]
An email alert created to help editors identify manuscripts requiring action has led to a reduction in overall decision time of 8%.
Launched as a pilot in 2012, results from the project have proved so encouraging we are now making the Empower traffic light email available to all editors.
100 journals took part in the pilot last year and a further 200 journals recently rolled out Empower. The initial 100 pilot journals saw the average time taken to reach a first decision decrease from around 12 weeks just before the pilot started, to around 11 weeks after six months - a reduction of 8%. This compares with a 2.8% reduction across all Elsevier journals over the same period.
The Empower traffic light email is an automatically generated report showing you how papers assigned to you are progressing compared to your journal's median turnaround time. The slower papers are shown in red, while the faster ones are coded green. Papers close to your journal median are indicated in amber. The traffic light email can be sent daily, weekly or monthly.
What our pilot journal editors have to say:
"Gives me an overview of our efficiency in handling submissions."
"Gives a good overview - better than that found in EES."
"Sometimes a manuscript has been delayed too much and I did not realize it. The process is then accelerated."
"The traffic code is simple and intuitive."
"It is a very good new initiative and I would very much welcome this as a permanent tool."
"It significantly helps to detect late reviewers, etc..."
The traffic light email is different from the system notifications you currently receive, in fact it is complementary to these. While the notifications tell you the specific action needed for a paper, the traffic light email compares the progress of your papers to others submitted to your journal. You can think of the traffic light email in terms of a dashboard – it enables you to quickly identify slower papers and to determine by checking their full status info in EES whether there is any action you can take to speed up their progress. Should you find out, over time, that some of the system notifications are no longer needed, you can ask your Journal Manager to turn them off.
If you are interested, just contact your Publisher and he or she will take this further. More information can also be found at www.elsevier.com/empower.
Dear [editor name]
Angelique Janssen
Angelique works in the Publishing Services department in Amsterdam. She is responsible for projects that deliver tools and services to both internal and external Elsevier audiences. Since joining Elsevier in 2002, Angelique has worked in various positions, such as Associate Publishing Editor. She has a Master's degree in Language Didactics from Utrecht University and is certified as a PRINCE2 Practitioner.
Andrés Villavicencio
Andrés works in the department that runs the Elsevier Electronic System (EES) in Amsterdam. He manages key EES projects in cooperation with Publishing. He is the EES point of contact for Publishing of Science & Technology as well as Health Sciences in Europe, the Middle East and Latin America. Andrés joined Elsevier in 2002, and has experience in both EES and journal production training and journal management roles.
In this webcast on "Marketing your Journal" we provide you with information on Elsevier's journal marketing strategy, and how our activities help to increase visibility, accessibility and readership for your journal and the articles published within it.
The newly launched Elsevier GLOBALEVENTSLIST aims to provide a central online directory of conferences, symposia, exhibitions and meetings.
Helena Stewart | Commercial Solutions Marketing Manager, Elsevier
Scientific and medical events provide an ideal opportunity to disseminate new research and network with peers. However, keeping track of upcoming events can be a challenge, especially with details spread far and wide across the web.
The newly launched Elsevier GLOBALEVENTSLIST aims to provide a central online directory of conferences, symposia, exhibitions and meetings.
Researchers can post information about their upcoming events, free of charge, as well as create personalized alerts.
The website allows visitors to:
Alerts can be personalized by:
If you sign up to set your alert preferences by 31st March, you could win an Apple iPad.
The website also offers a range of support services to help with the organization and promotion of events.
Authors can now create online presentations about their papers that are displayed on SciencDirect. If you would like your journal to offer AudioSlides, read on…
Hylke Koers | Content Innovation Manager, Elsevier
New initiative will allow authors to create online presentations about their papers for display alongside their article on ScienceDirect. If you would like to offer this for your journal, read on...
Do you feel that too much research is being published these days? The answer to that question is usually a whole-hearted "yes" – an answer you will surely recognize. But when the same researchers are asked whether they feel they have published too much lately, that "yes" often becomes a "no".
What is this telling us? I take this as an indication that researchers are increasingly struggling to keep up with the literature available but, at the same time, want to make sure that their paper gets the attention it deserves. Recent research by Elsevier [1] shows that scientists, on average, spend 9.3 hours per week browsing, searching and reading the literature on offer; that is a substantial portion of their time and it's not surprising that useful papers are sometimes missed. With the volume of research output continuing to grow, this problem is only going to increase unless new tools are developed that will make it easier for researchers to find the articles most relevant to them.
We believe we can help. In 2011, Elsevier announced the Article of the Future project - a new, online article format offering better support for digital content, and a better online reading experience with a user-friendly, clean presentation.
Research has also shown that, thanks to the new format, readers are able to more efficiently determine if a paper is relevant for them. The biggest time-save (up to 34%) is in identifying and discarding irrelevant papers, which leaves more time to focus on the ones that matter [2].
We are now adding a new feature to the online article that offers a whole new dimension to this process by giving authors the possibility to explain in their own words what their paper is about: AudioSlides.
AudioSlides are brief, five-minute presentations created by the authors of the article using slides (PDF and PowerPoint) and voice-over recordings. This gives authors the opportunity to explain their paper in their own words in an appealing, easily accessible presentation format. The resulting video is displayed alongside the article on ScienceDirect. Authors can share personal insights into their research, highlight the paper's salient points and, more importantly, explain why the paper is relevant for other researchers. This helps to make the paper stand out from the crowd and attracts readers that are interested in the subject. In particular, it can help to boost appeal to the younger generation of researchers, who have grown up with YouTube and enjoy using this format for learning.
To help authors create AudioSlides presentations, Elsevier has developed an easy-to-use, web-based tool. Authors can log in at any time to upload slides, and record a voice-over per slide. The tool works with all modern browsers, so only a computer, internet connection, and a microphone are required. Authors can make as many recordings as needed, and add, remove, or delete slides until they are happy with the result. AudioSlides is offered as a complimentary service for authors and the presentations will be made freely available on ScienceDirect.
The AudioSlides project was launched as a pilot mid-2012, and the initial response from both authors and readers has been very positive. Authors who have created a presentation tell us that they spend a few hours on it and are happy to recommend it to their peers. Based on this positive feedback, we will be rolling out the AudioSlides service to more titles throughout 2013. If you are interested in offering AudioSlides to your authors and readers, please reach out to us to nominate your journal for fast-track inclusion.
For more information and examples, please visit www.elsevier.com/audioslides
[1] Researcher Insights Index - Reading Behaviour; Research & Academic Relations, Elsevier. More than 50,000 individuals were randomly selected from across 1.2 million authors that published in 2009 (source: Scopus). They were approached to complete the study in Jan 2012. There were 4,225 respondents. Data has not been weighted, responses are representative of the Scopus data by discipline and country. Error margin is ± 1.3%, at 90% confidence levels.
[2] IJsbrand Jan Aalbersberg et al., "Elsevier's Article of the Future enhancing the user experience and integrating data through applications", UKSG Insights 25 (1), March 2012, DOI: 10.1629/2048-7718.104.22.168
The recent Research Trends and Elsevier Labs virtual seminar, The Individual and Scholarly Networks, is now available to view in archive.
Sarah Huggett | Publishing Information Manager, Elsevier
Research Trends and the Elsevier Labs recently co-hosted their first virtual seminar: The Individual and Scholarly Networks. The event, held on 22nd January, attracted more than 500 attendees from all over the world, and featured six compelling external speakers. We used a novel format aimed to maximise engagement: in addition to audio and slides, we showed videos of the speakers and Twitter feed.
Materials from the event, including recordings of each session and discussion, presentations, and a Q&A transcript for those questions that we were unable to address live, are now all freely available on the Research Trends website, although unfortunately we were not able to get rid of some of the technical issues affecting audio in the second part of the event. A summary of the event and highlights of the discussion are also available.
There were two components to the event. The first part focussed on building networks, and the ways in which relationships are formed and maintained, as well as how they are changing the nature of scholarly relationships. In this session, Professor Jeremy Frey discussed how varying degrees of openness aid scientific collaboration, while Gregg Gordon presented an overview of the Social Science Research Network. Then, Dr William Gunn talked on building networks through information linking, using Mendeley as an example. The second part was about evaluating network relationships, exploring the related areas of alternative metrics, contributorship and the culture of reference. In this session, Dr Gudmundur Thorisson discussed digital scholarship and the recently launched ORCID initiative, while Kelli Barr questioned the purpose of and objectivity of evaluations. Finally, Dr Heather Piwowar explored various impact flavours, in particular ImpactStory. Each session was followed by lively discussions amongst the presenters, spurred by questions and comments from our remote audience.
Elsevier introduces a new electronic signature system to the editorial contract process. Find out more…
Angelina Jokovic | Team Leader Publishing Assistants
Electronic signatures are rapidly becoming an integral part of the business world, accelerating contracting processes and making the status of an agreement clear to all parties involved. So this year we took the decision to introduce an electronic signature system to our own editorial contract process - Adobe EchoSign. This automated service specifically manages the business process of getting contracts signed, tracked and filed. As a global company with editorial contracts needing to be signed in multiple countries, Adobe EchoSign offers a useful alternative to the exchange of print documents, which can be time consuming, error prone and non-transparent. Adobe EchoSign has the added benefit of being eco-friendly.
As an Elsevier Editor, when you are negotiating a new agreement with your Publisher, the stage at which the contract is ready for reviewing and signing is when you will receive an email from Adobe EchoSign. A link in this email will take you directly to your contract and, after you have signed, the contract will automatically be sent onto the next signer. Once all required signatures are complete a copy of the contract will be sent to all signees, including a full audit trail. If you don't wish to sign your contract via Adobe EchoSign you simply need to inform your Publisher and a print contract will be sent in its place.
We see benefits with this new system for all parties involved. Adobe EchoSign
We have also had positive reactions to Adobe EchoSign from our Editors, with one of our first signers, Victor Paquet, Scientific Editor of Applied Ergonomics, informing us that, "the electronic signature process couldn't have been any easier from my end!"
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at email@example.com.
Find out more about ElsevierJobs.com and how it can help with your recruitment/job seeking needs.
Helena Stewart | Commercial Solutions Marketing Manager, Elsevier
ElsevierJobs.com helps employers and recruiting agencies find the best candidates for a variety of roles, regardless of the specialty or expertise required.
In addition to the broad reach offered by posting your vacancy on our ElsevierJobs.com jobs board, we offer targeted recruitment solutions on ScienceDirect.com, accessed by 80% of global scientists. With 16 million unique visitors per month your job advert will be visible to active and qualified researchers in precisely the right discipline and will be seen by passive job seekers.
If you are looking to recruit, our job advertising options include:
Case study:
Hiring an Immunologist in German speaking countries
Or perhaps you are looking for your next career move?
Register to receive job alerts, share your CV with recruiters and apply for science and research jobs.
"The launch of CrossMark offers a significant benefit to researchers." Egbert van Wezenbeek, Director Publication Process Development One of the challenges researchers face is a lack of clarity around whether they are consulting the most up-to-date version of an article or research. As an Editor of an Elsevier journal, you work closely with authors and […]
"The launch of CrossMark offers a significant benefit to researchers." Egbert van Wezenbeek, Director Publication Process Development
One of the challenges researchers face is a lack of clarity around whether they are consulting the most up-to-date version of an article or research.
As an Editor of an Elsevier journal, you work closely with authors and reviewers to ensure that articles have been thoroughly checked prior to publication. However, despite even the most careful scrutiny, corrections, updates and errata, as well as retractions and withdrawals, are sometimes still necessary. The challenge is that many versions of the article may still exist out on the web.
To combat this problem, Elsevier and other Publishers have banded together with CrossRef to create the CrossMark identification service. By clicking on the CrossMark logos in online PDF or HTML documents, readers can quickly learn the current status of a document. If the one they have opened is not the most up-to-date, the logo will help them to navigate to the most recent version available.
Often, copies of documents are posted on a variety of sites which can make it more difficult for the Publisher to notify readers when a correction or other change materially affects the interpretation of the work. CrossMark can help with that communication.
Elsevier and other Publishers will display the new logo on journal content that has been assigned a CrossRef DOI. It will only appear on final published versions, not on Articles in Press.
Readers simply need to click on the logo and, if they are connected to the internet, a pop-up box will appear showing the current status of the document. This will work whether the reader is on the Publisher's website, a third-party site or is viewing a PDF downloaded at an earlier date.
The most common pop-up will be the message that the document is still current. Occasionally, however, readers will discover that the document has updates and a CrossRef DOI will link to the update on the Publisher's site.
We are aiming to roll this service out to all Elsevier journals. We began piloting it with 40 journals at the end of September and plan to roll it out to 1,250 of our 2,000 journals by the end of the year. Some journals have unique requirements and Publishers will be reaching out to those journals' Editors to discuss these in the coming weeks and months.
Egbert van Wezenbeek, Director Publication Process Development, has been responsible for leading the CrossMark project at Elsevier. He commented: "The launch of CrossMark offers a significant benefit to researchers. Not only does it create a standard across scholarly publishing for recognizing changes, it can also highlight important publication record information. This can include publication history, the location of supplementary data, access policies, funding sources, peer-review processes and other useful information."
Find out more about the Elsevier Policy on CrossMark.
Egbert van Wezenbeek
Egbert is responsible for the design, development and implementation of improvements to the publication process of journal articles. The aim is to improve the experience of our authors, editors and reviewers in their interaction with us and our systems. We also attempt to adapt and innovate processes so that we are able to add more value to the whole publication process and to the final published articles. Egbert has been working with Elsevier for more than 20 years. Prior to his current role he worked in various positions in Publishing. He has a PhD in Theoretical Chemistry from the Free University Amsterdam.
An innovative new scheme launched this month could signal the end of concerns over author ambiguity. Since October 16, academics, researchers and contributors can register for a unique ID with ORCID (the Open Researcher and Contributors ID repository). These identifiers can be used by editors, funding agencies, publishers and institutions to reliably identify individuals in […]
An innovative new scheme launched this month could signal the end of concerns over author ambiguity.
Since October 16, academics, researchers and contributors can register for a unique ID with ORCID (the Open Researcher and Contributors ID repository). These identifiers can be used by editors, funding agencies, publishers and institutions to reliably identify individuals in the same way that ISBNs and DOIs identify books and articles.
What does an ORCID look like?
An ORCID is a 16-digit number which will usually be presented in the form of a web address that leads to the researcher's profile, for example http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8534-5985.
To register, researchers should visit the ORCID website, www.orcid.org, where they can create a complete online record of their research and publications. This is made open and freely available via a web page and data feeds. More importantly, once created a researcher's unique ORCID can be used as a linking identifier throughout the entire chain of the scholarly communication process to allow reliable attribution of research.
ORCID is freely available to individuals and has an easy-to-use application programming interface (API) to encourage integration with existing systems, development of new tools and to inspire novel uses of the repository data. The advantages of the new ORCID are numerous:
ORCID hopes that by creating a registry of unique identifiers for individual researchers, the name ambiguity problems that have hindered the development of interoperable scholarly tools and networks will be solved. Even the inclusion of email data with submissions has only recently become common in the US and Europe, and for articles written in Asia we still rarely receive complete email information. We also face challenges around name distribution, particularly in Asia. According to the 1990 US census, there are 1,713 family names that represent 50% of the population (take a bow, anyone called Spangler, family name number 1,713), whereas in Korea there are three: Kim, Park and Lee.
ORCID and Elsevier
Elsevier is a founding sponsor of ORCID and helped to fund the initiative through donations and loans. We have also contributed significant staff time towards its launch.
We expect to integrate ORCIDs into many of our products and services, including Scopus the world's largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature. Initially researchers will be able to link their Scopus author profiles with their ORCID records, saving them time when setting up their ORCID profiles and allowing Scopus to automatically keep their ORCID bibliography up to date. Next year, we hope to begin incorporating ORCID data into the Scopus author profiling process to increase the accuracy of the Scopus profiles and automatically propagate work that researchers do to clean up their ORCID profiles. ORCID data will be added to our SciVal products, enabling increased interoperability with your own data.
We are also planning to integrate ORCIDs into the manuscript submission process; this will save authors time when going through the submission process, and enable us to automatically update their bibliographies when articles are published.
ORCID is a not-for-profit organization founded by academic institutions, professional bodies, funding agencies and publishers. It has been launched with the help of donations, sponsorships and grants from across the scholarly communication sector and will sustain itself through membership fees for institutions and organizational members. ORCID has declared a set of principles committing itself to openness, transparency and the protection of scholars' privacy.
There have been several earlier attempts to create unified ID systems, none of which have enjoyed the universal adoption essential to become established as a standard: they have either been perceived as proprietary (owned by an organization or corporation and not truly open), have emerged from a specific discipline with particular characteristics, or they have not been truly international.
Altmetrics and ORCID
ImpactStory (formerly total-impact.org) is one of ORCID's launch partners. Currently if you want to receive a report of all the times your publications have been shared via Twitter, Mendeley and other social networks, you must upload a list of all your publications. With ORCID, when you visit www.impactstory.org, you'll be able to login and automatically import all your publications using your ORCID profile.
To succeed, ORCID has to build upon the community's experience and, to date, the team behind the repository has worked closely with experts in researcher identification systems from across academia and industry. Looking ahead, ORCIDs are compatible with the ISNI (International Standard Name Identifier). By mutual agreement, ORCIDs and ISNIs will not conflict, so future co-operation is possible.
The computer code that runs ORCID has been released under the MIT Open Source License framework, and is available to anyone for re-use and addition. Public data in the repository will be deposited with partners on a regular basis. We hope that the cross-community structure, the open and international nature of the organization, data, interface and code, and the guarantee of permanence will establish ORCID as the standard in scholarly IDs.
Organizations participating in the ORCID Launch Partners Program include:
- The American Physical Society
- Aries Systems
- Avedas
- Boston University School of Medicine
- The California Institute of Technology
- CrossRef
- Elsevier
- Faculty of 1000
- Figshare
- Hindawi
- JMIR Publications
- Nature Publishing Group
- SafetyLit
- Symplectic
- Thomson Reuters Scholar One Manuscripts
- Thomson Reuters ResearcherID
- ImpactStory
- The Wellcome Trust
Many organizations have announced tools and applications that interface with the ORCID repository. Participating in the ORCID Launch Partners Program are research institutions, publishers, research funders, data repositories, and third party providers.
ORCID will also soon have the ability to link to grant application systems and add book and data records.
The next year will be an exciting time for ORCID. With a major release already in the pipeline and developer days planned, we expect to see increasing integration across the scholarly community, with ORCID data being used to power CV / resume / grant application forms automatically, and with connections being built to institutional systems and research tools.
We hope that the community will benefit from the work that has been invested in ORCID to date, and that you will join us on www.orcid.org.
Mike Taylor
Mike has worked at Elsevier for 16 years. He has been a research specialist in the Labs group for the last four years, and has been involved with ORCID (and previous projects) throughout that time. Mike's other research interests include altmetrics, contributorship and author networks. Details of his research work can be found on http://labs.elsevier.com.
Chris Shillum
Chris is responsible for the platform and systems which power online products such as ScienceDirect and Scopus. He has worked in various capacities on ScienceDirect since its inception in 1997, and currently represents Elsevier on a number of industry organization boards, including ORCID, CrossRef and the International DOI Foundation. Chris holds a Masters in Electronic Systems Engineering from the University of York in the UK.
Editor Dr David L Schriger muses on what can be done to improve both the quality of science and its reporting.
Dr David L Schriger| Deputy Editor, Annals of Emergency Medicine
As well as his role as Deputy Editor of the Annals of Emergency Medicine, Dr Schriger is also a member of the CONSORT and EQUATOR initiatives. His research focuses on improving the credibility of medical literature through the detailed presentation of results via figures and tables.
The last 20 years have seen much written about the poor quality of medical literature1. Recent endeavors such as EQUATOR (and its component reporting guidelines) and the Peer Review Congress (which has fostered interest in journal quality) have sparked considerable improvement. However, there is more to be done to improve both the quality of the science and the quality of the reporting of the science. Journals can play an important role in both areas. The first step for journals interested in doing so is to step beyond three common misconceptions.
First, there is a misguided obsession with statistics, a misconception that distracts authors, reviewers, and readers from more fundamental issues2. Classical statistics is concerned with differentiating observations expected by chance alone from those unlikely to be due to chance, thereby suggesting a potentially important association. While random error is a legitimate concern, particularly for small studies with positive results, in clinical research, concerns about random error are dwarfed, or should be dwarfed, by concerns about non-random error which is also known as confounding or bias3.
When problems occur in clinical studies they are typically related to the methodology of the study, not the statistics. In reviewing more than 2,500 papers for Annals of Emergency Medicine and other journals over the past 25 years, I have seldom found a paper for which the main deficiency was the use of the wrong statistic or the miscalculation of a statistic. In contrast, I routinely read studies that are poorly designed or fail to account for the presence of confounding in their analyses or conclusions. I also commonly find studies that devote multiple paragraphs in the Methods and Results sections to statistical concerns but fail to include even a single sentence about non-random error. A skeptic might think that the obsession with statistics is a diversionary smokescreen designed to distract readers from fundamental problems with confounding and bias.
Second, journals often have ill-defined goals for their review process. Review processes can ask several questions including:
a) Is the topic paper appropriate for our audience?
b) Is the reporting of the science complete? Does the paper provide all of the information that a knowledgeable, critical reader needs to reach a conclusion about the work
c) Is the science correct?
A common misconception is that c) is a legitimate goal of peer review. While it is certainly appropriate that the peer-review process filters out abject garbage (papers whose claims are unsubstantiated or ludicrous), caution should be taken to ensure that reviewers are critiquing the research design, analytic methods, and the quality of the reporting of the results, not the conclusion. Otherwise, journals will reject articles that conclude that ulcers are caused by bacteria just because the conclusion is unexpected. Instead, peer review should focus on ensuring that readers have all the information they need to reach their own decisions about the paper's conclusion. From this perspective, peer review's purpose is to bring to readers complete presentations that meet methodological standards and standards for comprehensive reporting. Don't worry whether the authors have found truth, worry about whether they have told a complete story. The scientific process will take care of the rest4.
The third misconception is that article quality is the responsibility of the authors, not the journal. While it is certainly true that better journals tend to get better papers, there is ample evidence that the papers of the highest impact journals have problems with incomplete or suboptimal reporting5-6. Research suggests that these problems are only corrected if the journal identifies them and insists that they be fixed7-8. A journal must take an active role in setting expectations and enforcing them if the reporting of science is to be improved.
At Annals of Emergency Medicine, we recognized these issues and have taken a series of steps to improve our journal. I share with you a number of them so you may consider whether they would be appropriate for your journal.
In 1997, the editors recognized that bias was the greatest threat to the veracity of the work being published and decided that all research papers would be reviewed by one of a small cadre of 'methodology/statistics' reviewers in addition to the typical content reviewers. Experience had shown us that the ideal person to perform this function is not a full-time statistician but a clinician-researcher who thoroughly understands methodology and knows enough statistics to know when formal statistical review is needed. This program has proved successful - the quality of reviews has improved as has the quality of the published papers9-11. Starting six years ago, this program was supplemented by a check for the appropriateness and quality of tables and figures in papers about to be offered acceptance or revision12-13.
These two programs have improved the journal and have slowly trained the author community about the journal's standards (which are stated in detailed Instructions for Authors initially composed in 200314-15). Over time, the methodology/statistical reviewers have had an easier time because papers come in with many of our requirements already met. In summary, our experience leads me to offer the following guidance to journals trying to improve their quality:
1) The main problem is study methodology, not statistics. Put your efforts into carefully critiquing each paper's methodology. Do not assume that regular reviewers will do this well. Identify reviewers who are capable of doing this job and use them. With more and more physicians getting clinical epidemiology training in public health and other graduate programs, finding such reviewers is getting easier. If you want them to do lots of reviews, compensate them.
2) The second problem is the quality of reporting. Get familiar with EQUATOR-network.org and the reporting guidelines for different types of research (CONSORT, STAR-D, PRISMA, STROBE...). Recognize, however, that these guidelines may be insufficiently detailed regarding specific nuances of your field and are not as strong on the presentation of results as they are on the presentation of methods. Augment them as needed.
3) Discourage papers that hide behind a torrent of statistics and models instead of showing readers the actual data. Editors and reviewers should ask "are methods and results presented in sufficient detail that learned readers can decide whether they agree or disagree with the conclusion"? Focus on whether the paper is fully reported rather than whether the science is correct or not.
By refocusing peer review on the paper's methodology - as opposed to its statistics - and on the quality of the reporting of the science, editors can improve the quality of research articles in their journals.
1 DG Altman. The scandal of poor medical research. BMJ 1994;308:283–284
2 Schriger DL. Problems with current methods of data analysis and reporting, and suggestions for moving beyond incorrect ritual. Eur J Emerg Med. 2002;9:203-7.
3 Goodman, S.N. Toward evidence-based medical statistics. 1: The p-value fallacy. 1999 Ann. Int. Med;130:995–1004.
4 Ziman JM. Reliable Knowledge: An Exploration of the Grounds for Belief in Science. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1978.
5 Glasziou P, Meats E, Heneghan C, Shepperd S. What is missing from descriptions of treatment in trials and reviews? BMJ 2008; 336:1472–1474.
6 Hopewell S, Dutton S, Yu LM, Chan AW, Altman DG. The quality of reports of randomised trials in 2000 and 2006: comparative study of articles indexed in PubMed. BMJ 2010; 340:c723.
7 Plint AC, Moher D, Morrison A, Schulz K, Altman DG, Hill C, Gaboury I. Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review. Medical Journal of Australia 2006; 185:263–267.
8 Goodman SN, Berlin J, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH. Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine. Ann Intern Med. 1994;121:11-21.
9 Schriger DL, Cooper RJ, Wears RL, Waeckerle JF. The effect of dedicated methodology and statistical review on published manuscript quality. Ann Emerg Med. 2002;40:334-337.
10 Goodman SN, Altman DG, George SL. Statistical reviewing policies of medical journals: caveat lector? J Gen Intern Med. 1998;13(11):753-6
11 Day FC, Schriger DL, Todd C, Wears RL. The use of dedicated methodology and statistical reviewers for peer review: A content analysis of comments to authors made by methodology and regular reviewers. Ann Emerg Med. 2002;40:329-33.
12 Cooper RJ, Schriger DL, Tashman D. An evaluation of the graphical literacy of the Annals of Emergency Medicine. Annals of Emergency Medicine. 2001;37(1):13-19.
13 Cooper RJ, Schriger DL, Close RJ. Graphical literacy: The quality of graphs in a large-circulation journal. Ann Emerg Med. 2002;40:317-22.
14 Cooper RJ, Wears RL, Schriger DL. Reporting research results: recommendations for improving communication. Ann Emerg Med. 2003 Apr;41(4):561-4.
15 Schriger DL. Suggestions for improving the reporting of clinical research: the role of narrative. Ann Emerg Med. 2005;45:437-43.
4 Jun 2012 10 Comments
As many of you know, Elsevier is currently building Evise, our next generation online submission and peer-review system. The rollout of Evise is planned to begin in the second half of 2013 and to prepare for a smooth transition, 2012 will see the introduction of new features to our current system, EES. These include something […]
As many of you know, Elsevier is currently building Evise, our next generation online submission and peer-review system. The rollout of Evise is planned to begin in the second half of 2013 and to prepare for a smooth transition, 2012 will see the introduction of new features to our current system, EES.
These include something we know you have been keen to see – a single username and password across all EES journal sites.
Researchers have multiple roles in publishing: many authors are also reviewers; many Editors are also authors and reviewers. And researchers can perform these roles for multiple journals. We know that EES does not recognize that sufficiently so, later this year, we will begin the task of consolidating all user accounts.
Once the change has been rolled out, when you log into EES you will receive a prompt to consolidate your accounts. EES looks for matching associated email addresses when deciding which accounts to group together. If you have used different email addresses per EES site, you can indicate this during consolidation. Once you have selected the accounts to consolidate, you will receive a confirmation email. This is sent to ensure that only the account owner can give approval.
During consolidation, you will also be asked to choose a security question and answer. You will need these to reset your password if you forget it.
You will have 30 days to consolidate your accounts. After this period, you will only be able to use EES if you have consolidated your accounts.
After you have followed the consolidation procedure, you will be able to use the same username and password to access each EES journal site you use. Your primary email address in EES will be your username. You will continue to log into each EES journal site separately.
If you have multiple roles for a single journal, you will need to log off and log in again if you want to switch your user role.
The new user consolidation functionality will be piloted in July and August 2012, with roll out activity ramping up from September 2012 onwards. We will keep you informed of our progress by email.
We are also working on consolidating the online support available for EES. This is currently spread across the Elsevier website but going forward generic information on EES will be available on Elsevier.com, while EES support information will be presented in EES. That means that if you click on Help in EES, a pop-up window will open up in which you will be able to quickly access the right support content. The content will be presented per role and per phase in the editorial process to make it easier for you. The search function will also be available in the window.
Elsevier has a number of user feedback programs and the results of these, along with the questions end users ask Elsevier customer support, are just some of the sources we call on when determining which improvements we should introduce. You can also provide feedback via email@example.com.
Edward O'Breen
Edward has worked on the development and launch of new products and services since 1997. Prior to joining Elsevier in 2011, he worked for telecom operators, utilities and publishers. He has a MSc degree in Business Administration from the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam.
29 May 2012 3 Comments
Elsevier has created a Permissions Helpdesk to support editors, authors, freelancers, and support staff with the permission seeking process. Learn more…
Hop Wechsler | Permissions Helpdesk Manager, Elsevier
Permissions - what material can be re-used where, by whom, in what format, and under what circumstances - is an area of publishing that has become more complex if not confusing in recent years.
Elsevier regularly re-uses content owned by third parties including publishers, authors, illustrators, and institutions. The legal risks involved with not obtaining permission, or not obtaining the proper permission for the full extent of rights required, can be substantial, especially in an electronic environment where the re-use of copyrighted material can easily be tracked.
Elsevier is dedicated to protecting our intellectual property, which includes copyright, as the foundation of our business. If we fail to follow the necessary procedures to acknowledge other publishers' and authors' rights, Elsevier's integrity as a defender of our own rights will be threatened. Similarly, failing to obtain the full extent of rights that we need can jeopardize the integrity of our products in other ways, for example by forcing us to 'black out' the online version of images for which we were only able to obtain permission for the print version, thereby detracting from the professional appearance and usability of the online product.
With these concerns in mind, Elsevier has created a Permissions Helpdesk to support editors, authors, freelancers, and support staff with the permission seeking process. Based in our Philadelphia office and staffed by Hop Wechsler and Laura Stingelin, the Helpdesk will respond in a timely and constructive manner to fundamental and frequently asked questions such as: What rights do I need to request from another publisher? What can I do if my permission request is denied? How can I obtain contact information for an out-of-print title? Do I need permission to re-use my own work?
Since its launch in April this year, the Permissions Helpdesk has:
Please encourage your fellow editors, authors, and support staff to contact the Permissions Helpdesk at +1-800-523-4069 x 3808 or firstname.lastname@example.com with any permissions questions. Questions about the permissions process may be unavoidable, but confusion about the permissions process need not be. We look forward to hearing from you!
11 Apr 2012 2 Comments
Find out more about Elsevier's Ambassador Program which offers complimentary access to the SciVerse platform.
Elizabeth Zwaaf | Marketing Communication Specialist, Community Engagement Team, Elsevier
Elsevier's Ambassador Program ensures that all receiving editors of a journal are granted complimentary access to the SciVerse Platform – the repository of ScienceDirect and Scopus.
At Elsevier, we immensely value the dedicated work of receiving Editors who between them have helped to publish more than 12 million journal articles. And to acknowledge this, Elsevier has committed itself to providing them with complimentary access to some 2,500 journals and 14,000 electronic book titles published on ScienceDirect.
Editor-in-Chief of the journal International Immunopharmacology, Professor James E Talmadge, comments: "The complimentary access to ScienceDirect and Scopus is very powerful at an academic center that does not have full access to Elsevier publications."1
Sir Gordon Duff, Editor-in-Chief of the Journal Cytokine, adds: "This makes checking references and source materials much easier and quicker."2
In exchange for activating a unique code given to them by the journal's Publisher, an Editor will receive an automated user login to enable them to access the SciVerse Platform from any computer, tablet or smart phone using the single-user-login functionality.
Eligible Editors are also able to utilise the features of Scopus for free, the world's largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature, and qualify web-sources.
Professor Talmadge adds: "Scopus is particularly useful in the identification of reviewers, as well as potential ethical concerns."
Whilst still logged into SciVerse, an Editor can perform and save advanced searches across ScienceDirect and Scopus content via the SciVerse Hub as well as other web content and refer to it for future use and also take advantage of using the SciVerse Applications, a marketplace and developer network.
If you need any further information on the Ambassador Program, please contact your publisher.
For all login issues, password reminders etc, please send an email to: email@example.com
Please visit the SciVerse InfoSite for online tutorials and newsletters or to read up on the latest developments.
1 Professor James E Talmadge is the Director Laboratory of Transplantation Immunology, Department of Pathology and Microbiology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center.
2 Sir Gordon W Duff is a Florey Professor of Molecular Medicine, University of Sheffield.
Jean-Claude Kader, Editor-in-Chief of Environmental and Experimental Botany (EEB), suggests that building virtual special issues can be an exciting way for editors to highlight the strengths of a journal.
Jean-Claude Kader, PhD | Honorary Research Director of the (CNRS) Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique | Editor-in-Chief, Environmental and Experimental Botany
Environmental and Experimental Botany (EEB) publishes research papers and reviews on the responses of plants to their environment. I have been Editor-in-Chief since 2004 and, in 2010, Dr Kari Taulavuori (University of Oulu, Finland) joined me as the second Editor-in-Chief, specializing in the ecophysiology of northern plants under global change.
Launching virtual special issues
In 2011, we agreed on an editorial policy to annually publish thematic special issues covering hot topics within the scope of EEB. In addition to these, we decided to launch a series of virtual special issues; special issues brought together around a theme using content already published on SciVerse ScienceDirect. Once a theme has been selected, we use ScienceDirect and Scopus to make a search based on keywords. We focus our search on papers published in recent years and select papers which are highly cited and which provide novel advances in their domains.
Once compiled, the virtual special issues are hosted on our EEB journal homepage on Elsevier.com, with the articles linking directly to the full-text articles on ScienceDirect. Marketing campaigns are then carried out promoting the virtual special issues to authors. The aim in launching this series was to emphasize particular topics where papers published in EEB had been highly cited. And through promoting these papers, we wished not only to increase downloads and citations to the papers included, but to encourage authors to submit more papers in these areas.
Choosing the themes
In agreement with Kari and with Ursula Culligan (our Publisher) I decided upon four themes for the virtual special issues; salt tolerance in plants; temperature; light quality and intensity; and water dynamics. These themes were some of the key topics covered by papers published in regular issues and had not been covered by special issues published in the Journal. These four virtual special issues are hosted on our EEB journal homepage.
Response to the campaigns
We have had positive responses to the four email campaigns which can be gauged from the high opening rates of the emails, the increase in downloads on ScienceDirect for the articles included, and the positive responses from individual authors who have contacted us. The graph below, prepared by Helena Stewart (Senior Marketing Manager), shows the ScienceDirect full-text downloads per month for the articles included in each of the four virtual special issues. The numbers in black show the actual number of full-text downloads the articles received the month each virtual special issue was promoted. For each of the virtual special issues we can see a clear surge in usage.
Positive aspects
My experience is that virtual special issues have been a useful tool in highlighting content to our authors. The varying interest in the different virtual special issues has also indicated to us the topics our readers are particularly interested in. We plan to continue with the series and, in the long term, we are hoping that they will lead to an increase in citations for the papers involved and will encourage authors to submit papers in these areas to our Journal.
In conclusion, I think that building a virtual special issue is an exciting way for an Editor to highlight the strengths of a Journal and I welcome any comments you may have.
Discover new ways to identify and retain the best reviewers in your field; how to motivate them to do a good job and encourage them to repeat review for you.
An introduction to your support teams within Elsevier. Meet the editorial and publishing staff who will help make your job easier and learn more about a number of additional resources at your disposal.
An examination of the roles and responsibilities of editors covering topics such as establishing the direction and scope of your journal, managing peer review and engaging with the community.
Love it or loathe it the journal Impact Factor remains a widely-used benchmark by authors to decide which journal to submit to. Whilst we recognize the Impact Factor at Elsevier, we also nurture the idea of using other indicators of journal performance.
Editors today are confronted with a number of challenges to the peer-review process, for example finding reviewers. That means new and different approaches are required, Frank H Arthur writes.
Frank H Arthur | USDA, Agricultural Research Service, Center for Grain and Animal Health Research | Regional Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Stored Products Research
I have been a Regional Editor of the Journal of Stored Products Research since November of 2006, and continue to serve as a reviewer for other scientific journals. Editors today are being confronted with a number of challenges to the peer review process, including obtaining the peer reviews necessary to evaluate scientific studies for journal publication. New and different approaches are necessary to cultivate and maintain a solid base of reviewers.
First, editors must become more active in pre-screening manuscripts before they are sent out for review. As a reviewer, I regularly receive manuscripts that are severely deficient in English grammar and construction, along with the stated or implicit assumption that it is also my responsibility to re-write these manuscripts in addition to evaluating the scientific content. This expectation places an unfair burden on reviewers and editors, who are usually serving on a volunteer basis. Related issues include being sent manuscripts that are obviously lacking in scientific quality for that journal, out of scope, or in a completely different format from what is specified. Receiving these types of manuscripts increases frustration on the part of reviewers, and editors can, and should, simply return those manuscripts to the authors and let them address the deficiencies. The authors are ultimately responsible for the quality of the manuscript.
Second, editors should focus on obtaining reviews from scientists who are actively publishing in their journal. Every month I receive several automatic 'invitation to review" emails from journals where I have not published in the past, nor am I likely to do so in the future, including various new online journals. Many scientists will decline those invitations unless there is overwhelming interest in the topic of the paper. I also receive numerous requests for reviews from journals where I have published only sporadically as a submitting or lead author, and often not at all for the past several years. Regular contributors have a more vested interest in the journal but, at the same time, editors must not continually ask the same people to review because "they cannot find anyone else". Efforts must be made to broaden the review base and increase participation in the review process.
Third, assuming reviews are being solicited from regular contributors to a journal, editors should first make personal contact with reviewers instead of just generating an "invitation to review" email. However, if the reviewer declines a review because of their current workload, the editor should go to someone else, rather than asking the reviewer for a suggested alternative. In my experience, many scientists will not do a review if they know a colleague has declined because he or she was "too busy", because they are busy as well. I do not suggest colleagues when I decline a review unless that person is more appropriate because of their expertise, and I generally let them know that I have, or will, recommend them as a reviewer.
Within many biological disciplines, the number of professional scientists is declining, pressure to obtain outside funding is increasing, and research scientists are being required to perform administrative functions as well. The steps discussed above are just a few ways editors can facilitate the peer review process to ease the burden on journal reviewers.
4 Dec 2011 7 Comments
"The automatic reminders are prompting reviewers to respond as well as get overdue reviews done." Editor, Journal of Molecular Graphics and Modelling We know that journal editors have witnessed a substantial increase in their workloads over the past few years, largely due to the rise in submissions. However, with authors now actively seeking journals promising […]
"The automatic reminders are prompting reviewers to respond as well as get overdue reviews done." Editor, Journal of Molecular Graphics and Modelling
We know that journal editors have witnessed a substantial increase in their workloads over the past few years, largely due to the rise in submissions.
However, with authors now actively seeking journals promising a quick turnaround of papers, offering a fast publication process has never been more vital.
With help from journal managers, publishers within Elsevier have launched a program of initiatives providing our editors with the tools and best practices to help them achieve that goal.
These initiatives are based on the wealth of knowledge and experience of our extensive network of editors. We believe that they can be of use to you and your colleagues, as well as to authors and reviewers.
If you would like to explore any of the initiatives in more detail, please do not hesitate to give your publisher a call.
It is clear from the feedback we have received that many of you spend a large proportion of your time on administrative activities, such as checking the status of papers. In response, we have developed a regular 'traffic light' email and best practice that focus on five key steps in the Elsevier Editorial System (EES) editorial process. According to our data, these steps cause the largest variation in publishing times between journals. They are:
The traffic light email
A best practice document is available to help editors get the most out of the traffic light email. It outlines the tips and tricks of editors of Elsevier journals that EES has identified as having the fastest turnaround times for these steps.
We expect this document could be of particular interest to new editors, but its contents may also inspire more experienced editors to revisit their procedures.
Results so far
While it is still early days, the first positive results have been reported. For example, the editors of the Journal of Molecular Structure have managed to reduce the editorial time for the 'revision to decision' step by 47%. Comments from editors using the traffic light email make it clear that it helps them to swiftly identify which actions are needed first.
Traditionally, academic articles have been published in journals, issue by issue. With the onset of digital publishing, articles have become available sooner as articles-in-press, however, there is still an average wait of 15 weeks before they are assigned an issue and receive a full and final citation (still preferred by authors in place of the DOI number, according to our observations).
To address this, we have introduced Article-Based Publishing, a contemporary publication model assigning final citation data on an article by article basis.
"Article-Based Publishing is a key part of Elsevier's efforts to find new ways to speed up and enhance the publication process," explains Martin Tanke, Managing Director of Science & Technology Journals for Elsevier.
Article-Based Publishing, what does it mean?
- Articles immediately receive a page number and are published one by one in an Issue in Progress.
- If multiple volumes are available for a journal, multiple Issues in Progress can be opened and filled with articles simultaneously. Final articles will appear online sooner which allows for faster citations (see figure 2).
- Article-Based Publishing has already resulted in reductions in publication times of up to seven weeks for final articles.
- This change in process reflects the industry shift from print to electronic publishing.
Since its introduction, more than 280 journals have implemented Article-Based Publishing, and another two sets of 50 journals were due to join the program in November and December this year. Professor René Janssen, Editor of Organic Electronics, comments: "Article-Based Publishing is a major step forward which I really like. Now the article is in its final form just a few weeks after acceptance and this will give the journal an important advantage compared to others. I am sure that our authors will like it too. As far as I am aware, Organic Electronics is now one of the very few journals with rapid publication of full papers."
As an editor, you can probably identify with the time-consuming task of reminding reviewers of deadlines, and chasing late reviews. Did you know that EES can do this for you? In an effort to reduce your workload, EES provides an Automated Reviewer Reminders tool.
Editors who have already implemented the reminders report that the tool has helped them to reduce reviewing times, which our studies indicate is an important factor for authors when deciding which journal to submit to. An editor on Journal of Molecular Graphics and Modelling says: "Aside from the traffic light and best practice, what has helped me are the constant reminders to individuals who have not responded to the review invitation request as well as past due reviews. The automatic reminders are prompting reviewers to respond as well as get overdue reviews done."
While it is important to give all authors a fair chance, we do recognise that not all submitted papers are suitable for peer review. Such papers should be rejected upfront by the editor.
There are four main benefits to these so-called 'desk rejects':
We have gathered together best practice tips and tricks from editors whose journals have a well-established process in place for this initial screening of papers. Your publisher will be able to provide you with a copy of this document.
Because more and more papers are submitted by authors whose native language is not English, editors spend an increasing amount of their time on language editing. This leaves them less time for the actual management of the review process.
However, it is Elsevier's policy that the author is responsible for language editing and that this should happen prior to submission. Our advice to editors is that they should refer authors to a language-editing agency, or to a colleague who is a native English speaker. Elsevier also offers language editing services directly to the author via the Author Webshop. Other services available include SPI and Asia Science Editing. In exceptional cases, the journal may pay for the language editing. Your publisher can give you more information.
Angelique Janssen
Angelique works in the Strategy and Journal Services department in Amsterdam. She is responsible for projects that deliver tools and services to both internal and external Elsevier audiences. Since joining Elsevier in 2002, Angelique has worked in various positions, such as Associate Publishing Editor. She has a Master's degree in Language Didactics from Utrecht University and is certified as a PRINCE2 Practitioner.
Andrea Hoogenkamp-O'Brien
Andrea joined Elsevier in 2009 and works in the Strategy and Journal Services department in Amsterdam, where she is part of a team responsible for developing new initiatives to improve services for authors, editors and reviewers. She joined Elsevier from FEMS in Delft where she had worked as the Editorial Coordinator, responsible for managing the publications unit, which publishes five FEMS Microbiology journals. Prior to that, Andrea held the position of Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the University of Amsterdam.
Of interest to: Journal editors (key), additionally authors and reviewers Archive views to date: 310+ Average feedback: 4.4 out of 5
No-one is better placed to offer advice about Asia than those who live and work there. Below, Elsevier employees in China, Taiwan and India talk about research developments in their countries and share tips for editors wanting to build closer links with Asia. Q. What is your role within Elsevier and how long have you worked for the company? […]
No-one is better placed to offer advice about Asia than those who live and work there.
Below, Elsevier employees in China, Taiwan and India talk about research developments in their countries and share tips for editors wanting to build closer links with Asia.
Q. What is your role within Elsevier and how long have you worked for the company?
A. I have worked in Elsevier for four years. Currently I'm a Journal Publisher.
Q. Do you manage any journals?
A. Yes, a portfolio of 11 journals in Physical & Theoretical Chemistry, e.g. Electrochimica Acta, Journal of Chemical Thermodynamics, Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology A, B & C, etc…
Q. What is the general view of Elsevier in China?
A. From my personal experience, people within the scientific research community do know Elsevier and respect it. They associate Elsevier with top quality and feel honored to publish in (some of) our journals. But of course, I can't speak for all.
Q. Have you encountered any cultural differences working in an international environment?
A. Researchers in Asia (e.g. China and Japan) sometimes progress on to a political career. Inevitably they then have no time to devote to research, which is a pity for us because they could have been good candidates for journal editors, editorial board members or authors.
Q. Do you have any tips for editors who would like to attract papers/editors from China?
A. Promote the journal, know the market (what are the strong subject areas, who is leading the projects), and build connections. Of course, that is our job as publishers too.
Q. What are your thoughts about the scientific progress made in China in the last five years? What do the developments mean for the country?
A. From an overarching point of view, the number of researchers has now reached 1.4 million, just second to the US. Other figures have also seen a big increase, e.g. the number of papers, expense on R&D. Investment in Science & Technology in the past 10 years has increased by a CAGR (compound annual growth rate) of 24%. The Chinese government has also developed a few national programs to attract high level researchers back to China.
Q. What are some of the biggest scientific changes you think we will see in your country in the coming five years?
A. I think it's foreseeable that there will be further growth in research output and improvement in paper quality.
Q. Are there any other observations you would like to make?
A. The rating system in Chinese institutions puts too much emphasis on the Impact Factor – that's already widely known and discussed. In the meantime, some universities require research students to publish papers to graduate. The incentive for professors and researchers to do real science is therefore eliminated. And problems like plagiarism are still an issue.
Q. What is your role within Elsevier and how long have you worked for the company?
A. I joined Harcourt in 2000 handling the local publishing (translation & reprint) business for HS books in Taiwan and China. I entered journal publishing in 2003 as a coordinator between the Singapore and Taiwan offices a year after Elsevier acquired Harcourt. We only had three Taiwan journals and four Hong Kong journals then. I've learnt a lot about this business and the society clients; it's what I'm truly fond of. I took full responsibility for this area in 2005 (acquisitions, profits and loss, marketing, customer service, etc…). We continue to sign up more new journals year after year and now have 22 journals in Taiwan and five in Hong Kong.
Q. Do you manage any journals?
A. Our team handles a total of 27 journals in Taiwan and Hong Kong. They include Kaohsiung Journal of Medical Sciences (KJMS), Journal of the Chinese Medical Association (JCMA) and Asian Journal of Surgery (ASJSUR).
Q. What is the general view of Elsevier in Taiwan?
A. Most societies and doctors/professionals know about Elsevier. We're a prestigious international publisher. Many of them have submitted to Elsevier journals themselves or have had experience reviewing articles for Elsevier journals.
Q. Have you encountered any cultural differences working in an international environment?
A. I like the working culture and environment in international companies which allow one to work independently and at the same time in a big team.
Q. Do you have any tips for editors who would like to attract papers/editors from Taiwan?
A. Since we're not a native English-speaking country, authors in Taiwan would like to know more about how to publish in international journals and especially in the high IF journals. They need to be connected to the global resources and channels.
Q. And any tips for Asian researchers/editors who want to work for Elsevier?
A. I think a lot of them are interested in working with, or for, Elsevier. First, they need to be informed of such opportunities. Second, they should know clearly what they are expected to do and what resources they have to accomplish their tasks.
Q. What are your thoughts about the scientific progress made in Taiwan in the last five years? What do the developments mean for the country?
A. From the scholar's perspective: "The biggest progress is the governmental investment in the scientific development. The Government has granted 1.7 billion (USD) in five years to encourage the enhancement of scientific researches and advancement of the technologies. The salaries of scholars have improved too. This has allowed Taiwan to be more competitive in the scientific development. As far as the publication quantity, it's been quite stable for the past few years. As the non-native English speaking country, the quality of the papers is also improving. We've seen more papers got published in prestigious international journals like Nature & Science." Prof. Huang, Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Formosan Medical Association (JFMA).
The number of journals in Taiwan has also grown beyond expectation and last year we contracted four new ones. Many existing local journals have also decided to publish with Elsevier. The mindset of Taiwan medical societies has changed; they would like to contribute to the international health science community. The internationalization of Taiwan journals helps to bring attention to the research and scientific works done in Taiwan. Our society partners all rely heavily on Elsevier's global resources and channels to promote their journals to the world.
Q. What are some of the biggest scientific changes you think we will see in your country in the coming five years?
A. The governmental scientific investment will continue. This has stimulated the private sector and we expect investment from the "biopharma" industry to increase. This will certainly help to enhance the R&D environment in Taiwan.
Q. Are there any other observations you would like to make?
A. As Asia rises, the researchers and scientists in our regions hope to play a more active role in the international community. The Editors' Conferences are a good opportunity for them to do that. Those who attended the Hong Kong event last year all had a wonderful experience with Elsevier. Thanks to Gerrit Bos, Managing Director Health Science APAC, all our journals are now in the Production Tracking System (PTS) for journal workflow and benefit from the full scope of our publishing services. My purpose is to connect our editors to our global resources, so that they can truly benefit from Elsevier's brand name, which will also ensure Elsevier's leading position in the Taiwan market.
Elsevier is the only international journal publisher who has local publishing support in Asia and that is one of the reasons we have had no competition in Taiwan until now. To sum up, our strength in the Taiwan market is really "pay locally and publish internationally".
I'm also looking forward to EVISE, the new online submission Elsevier Editorial System (EES), which takes into consideration the needs of Asian journal editors.
Q. What is your role within Elsevier and how long have you worked for the company?
A. I work as a Product Manager for the Elsevier India Journals Program. I have been associated with the company for two years now.
Q. Do you manage any journals?
A. Elsevier India has built up a journal portfolio over the last couple of years and my role includes, but is not limited to, setting up the journal production workflow for both online and print so as to ensure a seamless production process, timely delivery and quality output. The journals I have established include Indian Journal of Rheumatology and Medical Journal Armed Forces India.
Q. What is the general view of Elsevier in India?
A. People, especially students pursuing medicine as a career and specialists, are very well aware of Elsevier and look up to it for providing them with world class content. They recognize Elsevier as a high class brand that publishes breakthrough content written by some of the best people in the world.
Q. Have you encountered any cultural differences working in an international environment?
A. I have been interacting regularly with our international colleagues, specifically in the APAC region. From what I have gathered, markets and societies in countries like Australia and Taiwan etc… are mature, have established publishing programs and follow a very structured approach and standard workflow. In the Indian market, since the societies are fairly new, they are bit reluctant to follow a standardized approach. We have been trying to convince them to follow workflows such as the Elsevier Production Tracking System (PTS) and are hopeful that our publishing program will soon be on a par with international standards.
Q. Do you have any tips for editors who would like to attract papers/editors from your country?
A. Yes I do.
Q. And any tips for Asian researchers/editors who want to work for Elsevier?
A. Asian researchers / editors who work for Elsevier will have the unique privilege of being part of the Elsevier family. Almost all our systems are automated and we use user-friendly online interfaces. Elsevier has a very transparent system in which the researchers / editors are well informed at every stage of the manuscript lifecycle. They also get access to the world's largest scientific repository – ScienceDirect – and get an opportunity to have their work cited in Scopus and Embase etc… Elsevier believes in improving their systems and services continually by capturing the customers' feedback via, for example, the author and editor feedback programs.
Q. What are your thoughts about the scientific progress made in India in the last five years? What do the developments mean for the country?
A. India is one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Over the years the Indian government has invested a lot of money in R&D and creation of infrastructure, as well as institutional capacity and instrument and laboratory facilities. The institutional participation in research has almost doubled. Indian authors' contributions to quality journals have improved, resulting in an increase in their average impact per paper. Also, the average citations received per paper have improved marginally over time. There has been a substantial rise in publication output in emerging areas, such as biotechnology, drugs and pharmaceuticals, material sciences, and medical sciences, to name but a few. The number of peer-reviewed international journals reporting India's research output has increased consistently. More and more scientists are publishing in medium & high impact journals, there has been a strengthening of current arrangements for international collaboration and institutes have set up open access archives to make their research more widely accessible. All these developments highlight India's potential to become a significant contributor to the growth of science.
Q. What are some of the biggest scientific changes you think we will see in your country in the coming five years?
A. I believe that India has the potential to deliver and sustain much higher publication growth. The Indian government is setting up more and more premier institutions along the lines of the Indian Institute of Technology & All India Institute of Medical Sciences. With this increasing emphasis on research, there will be a phenomenal increase in the amount of contributions and publication of research findings. India will probably catch up with other leading countries in the world by encouraging greater institutional participation. I think we will also:
I also feel that more research programs will be initiated to attract bright young talent into the field of science.
Q. Are there any other observations you would like to make?
A. Communication with the Indian authors should be more sensitive and culturally compatible.
Of interest to: Authors (key), additionally journal editors and reviewers Archive views to date: 160+ Average feedback: 4.3 out of 5
"While everyone has the possibility to submit a paper and become an author, editors are selected by their networks…" — David Clark, Senior Vice President, Physical Sciences There is no doubt the number of papers submitted by Asia-based authors is increasing, and increasing fast. But what are the possible consequences of this influx, not only […]
"While everyone has the possibility to submit a paper and become an author, editors are selected by their networks..." — David Clark, Senior Vice President, Physical Sciences
There is no doubt the number of papers submitted by Asia-based authors is increasing, and increasing fast.
But what are the possible consequences of this influx, not only for editors, but for journals and the scientific community at large?
Philippe Terheggen, Elsevier Senior Vice President of Physical Sciences II, is confident this sea-change bodes well for the future of publishing.
He explains: "The birth of new internet technologies and the growth in these countries are two of the biggest trends in science and scientific publishing; they have transformed the landscape. Global collaboration with Asian scientists is rife and academics are regularly travelling. We are witnessing the emergence of one single academic community and that is fantastic."
According to Terheggen, Elsevier has an obligation to ensure these prospective authors can fully participate in the publishing process. An obligation it shares with the authors' parent institutions.
He acknowledges: "Yes, that brings challenges. Right now the rejection rate needs to be high and there are language problems that require editors and reviewers to spend too long on their evaluations. However, the papers that are published are often highly-cited and the overall quality is good. We know reviewers are doing some fantastic filtering and are choosing the right articles."
He adds: "The danger is that poor language and presentation could be a recipe for under-publishing with good quality research lost. However, I see this as a temporary problem because the English language skills of the younger researchers are often really strong and improving fast."
Concerns have been raised that the rate of duplicate submissions is higher in some Asian countries than those of more established scientific communities. Terheggen responds: "All countries have authors who show that sort of behavior. It's probably more apparent in Asia because of the relatively large numbers of eager, early-career researchers who are not familiar with international codes of conduct. Don't forget, a professor in China may have 100 PhD students, while in Germany that figure could be as low as 10. That makes it more challenging for the Chinese professor to get important messages across.
"But even if eagerness is to blame, duplicate submissions are highly undesirable as they double the workload for peer reviewers.
"We try to explain that to prospective authors and the initiative CrossCheck is also proving useful. It makes it relatively simple to pick up researchers who engage in plagiarism or multiple submissions."
He adds: "Sometimes the duplicate submission is deliberate, just a couple of items are changed before the second submission. That is the worst form of 'salami slicing' but it's not typical."
Terheggen says Elsevier is continuing to build its presence in Asia, both in publishing and support roles.
"Nothing can replace that on-the-spot contact. We are therefore investing in the relocation of senior publishers to our Beijing office for periods of one month or six weeks. While our China-based professional expertise is growing, the visiting publishers gain deeper Asian knowledge. That two-way learning curve is also created by extended stays of Asian staff in Europe and the US."
Disciplines witnessing an Asian boom
Asia's expansion has closely followed a pattern established in other emerging countries. Subject areas such as chemistry, material sciences and engineering typically experience the first growth. This is usually followed by life sciences, social sciences and some of the inter-disciplinary sciences.
David Clark, Elsevier Senior Vice President of Physical Sciences, agrees that Elsevier has an important support role to play in Asia.
"We have seen a significant increase in the number of submissions from emerging countries and a larger universe of authors brings its own set of problems. We know the new authors are not necessarily up to date with the 'dos and don'ts' of publishing so it is up to us to help them."
Clark has some practical tips for editors swamped by papers from Asia.
"Talk to your publisher. Ask them how other journals are coping and about the services we have in place to help.
"For example, we run author workshops*, which are often visited by hundreds of early career researchers. These can be hosted by an editor and publisher, or by an editor alone and there is material available for use.
"It is not the editor's job to rewrite a paper and there is a danger errors can creep in during the process. We encourage authors to ask a native English speaker to read their article prior to submission so they can make the corrections themselves. We certainly don't feel that editors should be spending time on papers that they struggle to understand or follow – it is the author's job to get that right."
According to Clark, while the spread of countries represented on the editorial boards of Elsevier journals is 'reasonable', countries such as India and China are under-represented in comparison with their share of published articles. For example, the percentage of Elsevier editors from China is 3.3% while nearly 13% of published articles originate there.
Clark admits: "Some countries are also significantly over-represented, for example, 40% of our editors come from the US while only 18% of published articles originate there.
"This discrepancy can partly be explained by market shifts that are not reflected yet in editor representation, e.g. China has gained more article share in Elsevier journals at the cost of the US, UK, Japan, and Germany.
"Culture and politics also play an important role. While everyone has the possibility to submit a paper and become an author, editors are selected by their networks and people tend to turn to those they know.
"Levels of appropriate expertise can also be a stumbling block.
"I know some editors worry communication will prove problematic. This concern stems from a time when we dealt with paper but new communication technologies make international boards easier to run.
"Sometimes it is simply a case of hesitating to make changes to the current board."
He adds: "This gap needs to be addressed, not for reasons of political correctness, but because of the practical advantages. It eases the burden on traditional academic communities and it offers access to good new people coming up through the system. Just look at the high standard of work already coming out of some institutes in China.
"However, the quality of a journal rests with the people editing it. We know that means that in some fields there will not be board members from emerging countries, while in other fields they might comprise half the editorial board.
"Many journals have already appointed editors in Asia and there are clear benefits for doing so. For example, the editors we do have from China do seem to accept, on average, better-cited papers than those from other countries. That suggests they do a good job and my own experience supports that."
Clark has advice for editors keen to attract an Asia-based editor onboard.
"As I've mentioned, there can be concern about changing the current board. Remember, board members aren't permanent and your publisher can announce member changes on your behalf.
"And if you want to identify potential Asian editorial board members we can help with that too. Using Scopus we can identify the best authors to approach. We can also give suggestions based on our experience with Asia-based guest editors. Our network can help...publishers can help, so please use us."
* Asian countries are not the only venues to play host to our growing workshop programs. Learn more about recent successful events held in Brazil.
Seeking the solutions – Elsevier-supported initiatives that can help
Elsevier Language Editing Services
We will ensure that your manuscript is free of grammatical and spelling errors within four business days.
Elsevier Author Workshops
Training authors and research students in emerging academic communities to write world class papers. Modules on ethical and copyright issues are included.
Elsevier Reviewer Workshops and Mentorship Program
Together with the editorial community, journal publishers at Elsevier have created a number of programs to develop and nurture the pool of future reviewers.
Cross-publisher initiative with CrossRef to screen published and submitted content for originality.
Philippe Terheggen
Originally a medical scientist and author, Philippe has an international background in book and journal publishing, marketing, production, and product innovation. In an earlier role, he was responsible for implementing the online article submission system to Elsevier journals. His current role is focused on chemistry and chemical engineering, engineering, energy and renewable resources, environmental sciences, agricultural and water management, as well as oil & gas and geological sciences.
David Clark
David oversees our program in physics, mathematics, computer science and materials which includes both some of the newest and longest-standing Elsevier journal titles. Previously he was a publishing director for physics and mathematics, publishing director for economics and a publisher for economics and for geography. David was educated at Oxford and London Universities.