Webinar: How to write an excellent review article – an editor’s guide

By My Pham

Writing a compelling review article is an opportunity to contribute to the development of your field by creating a synthesis of the best resources available and potential new research areas to explore in the future.

Webinar How to write an excellent review articleYet, writing a review article is not at all an easy task. How to best structure it? Is an editor’s invitation a must to write reviews? How to distinguish an adequate review from an excellent one? Those are among many questions that researchers often have in mind when it comes to writing review articles. To help address these concerns, Lindsey Drayton, Editor at Trends in Cognitive Sciences, and Matt Pavlovich, Editor at Trends in Biotechnology, will offer their editorial perspective on what they’re looking for in a review in Researcher Academy’s upcoming webinar on June 27th, 1pm (UTC). The experts will discuss how to both conceptualize and write a review, how to distinguish your review by making a strong statement, and why writing a review is worth your time. They will also dispel some common myths about review articles and give advice for how to propose a review to an editor.

You can now send the speakers questions in advance by joining the Researcher Academy Mendeley group and post your queries there.

Register for the webinar here

Mendeley’s vision for supporting researchers

Gaby-Appleton-at-MendeleyGaby Appleton is the Managing Director for Mendeley and Researcher Products at Elsevier. She leads an expert product management team in a mission to support millions of researchers with better digital information systems. The aim is to help them have more impact with their work and effectively demonstrate that impact, to stay up to date, to organize and share their knowledge, and to advance their career. She brings over 15 years’ experience to her role along with a passion for the world of research. We met with her to discuss the development vision for Mendeley.

Thank you for taking the time to discuss the development vision for Mendeley. How would you define that vision?

Our vision for Mendeley and indeed for all the Elsevier solutions is to contribute to improving the information system that supports research — an ecosystem of tools and data that addresses real challenges in researchers’ daily reality.

What informs that vision?

Above all, it’s informed by conversations with researchers, which is something I spend a lot of time on. Not that it is a hardship! Spending time with them is truly one of the highlights of my job. Hearing about ground-breaking research from people who are so enthusiastic about what they’re doing is inspirational.

But it’s also essential. The Mendeley team that is responsible for defining our vision needs that open, honest contact with researchers.

Why are those conversations so important?

Because our development strategy has to focus on the problems we can solve for users. If we were doing something because it was exciting technologically but it didn’t address real challenges, then we’d be completely missing the point. We need to ground our development in researchers’ needs.

That’s why we start by listening to gain insight into their challenges, then look at what the technology can do, and finally design solutions to those challenges.

What is the vision for Mendeley’s development that has come out of conversations with researchers?

Based on all the challenges researchers have talked about, we’ve adopted four principles to guide our development strategy: source neutrality, interoperability, transparency, and user control.

Source neutrality means that researchers can use this information system to retrieve, store and disseminate information regardless of the publisher. An unbiased view is the essence of good research and we want to ensure that our platforms and tools are open to content beyond Elsevier’s. Mendeley users can receive recommendations on what to read next (Mendeley Suggest) based on what they’ve already added to their library, and funders-imagethese recommendations are not limited to Elsevier – they can be from any publisher. And we don’t restrict that to papers. Researchers have talked about challenges with staying abreast of funding opportunities, so we’ve worked to provide one of the largest aggregations of funding information, maintaining source neutrality and transparency. The same applies to career postings.

Interoperability is about ensuring that applications, tools and data sets from different providers can work together. The Mendeley API represents our commitment to interoperability with any tools that researchers need.

Transparency is vital to researchers. If they receive an alert or recommendation, they need to know what prompted it. Otherwise, they can’t know if it’s relevant without spending time assessing it. If they are looking at search results, it’s great if they can see how their search string relates to those results. That helps with filtering and refining the hit set. An example of how we maintain transparency is in the functioning of Mendeley Suggest. It makes recommendations for further reading based on what a user and their colleagues are reading, but crucially, it includes information about why that article is relevant.

Control is all about giving researchers control of their own data, where it’s shared and how it’s used by the system. If they don’t want their data to be visible beyond a select group of users, or they don’t want their behavior to provoke recommendations, they should be able to opt out of those features. User control is all about making it easy for an individual to find the settings for preferences. A good example in our system is Mendeley Data, which makes it easy for users to define exactly who sees their data. Similarly, the organization, privacy and recommendation settings of researchers’ reference manager library are easy to control. What displays in a Mendeley Profile is entirely at the user’s discretion.

That’s where our development team constantly strives to take Mendeley: to keep it open to content from any source; to make sure its application programming interface is compatible with multiple tools and platforms; to give users insight into how its features make recommendations; and to ensure that it’s easy for users to set their preferences.

You’re currently developing a new reference manager, now available in BETA, which is a completely re-platformed and updated version of Mendeley’s core reference management function. How does it align with this vision for Mendeley?

I’ll leave it to my colleague Laura Thomson, our Head of Reference Management, to talk about the new Mendeley Reference Manager in more detail in her upcoming interview. Briefly, reference management tools are what we’re best known for. Mendeley Desktop is now ten years old and, while it’s developed incrementally over that time, to really act on users’ feedback and make some big improvements, we felt we needed to take a new RNS_963_a.General version image (2)approach and take advantage of new technologies that have become available since the original Mendeley Desktop was built.

The new Mendeley Reference Manager remains free-to-use and publisher agnostic. The Mendeley API remains open, allowing researchers and developers to create interoperability with multiple tools. We’ve ensured that the settings for the library, recommendations and so on are transparent and in researchers’ control. It’s unique in satisfying those four aspects of the vision for an information system supporting research.

Every aspect of Mendeley follows the same principles and is informed by real-world conversations: from reference management through data sharing to showcasing impact.

We would never pretend that we have all the answers, but we listen. We’ll continue to communicate with researchers as we work on each application of Mendeley. Our goal at Elsevier is an information system that supports research, and Mendeley aims to remain a core part of that.

Thank you very much for your time.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Find out more about all-things Mendeley here

Find out more about the information system supporting research here 

Researchers’ Choice Communication Award 2018 – “Science is not finished until it’s communicated”

RCCA2018_151_RGBScience is the engine of prosperity and change. How do we ensure that it changes society for the best? As the UK government’s former Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Sir Mark Walport said, “science is not finished until it’s communicated.” Without scientists communicating their findings to a wider audience, the life-changing research they do would remain a mystery to society. And early career researchers are the key to unraveling this mystery and pushing for tomorrow’s progress.

Making science more open is at the center of it all. We’re talking about encouraging collaborations, but also breaking down barriers and reaching more people. Brilliant scientists are already leading the way. Take Mat Allen, for example. Day to day he is completing a Ph.D. at Cardiff University on Galaxy research, but online he becomes UKAstroNut, explaining to tens of thousands of YouTubers why we can see the moon during the day, and developing virtual and augmented reality apps, all designed to educate and inspire children about science.

Mat is the winner of the inaugural Researchers’ Choice Communication Award. Now, we’re on the hunt for this year’s winner. We know that alongside producing amazing life-changing research, researchers do a huge amount of behind the scenes communication outreach, to help put science at the forefront of the public mind. The Researchers’ Choice Communication Award is here to provide the recognition that these researchers deserve.

LinkedWe’re looking for early career researchers who are fantastic at communicating their scientific work to the public, going above and beyond the publication of their academic advances. To be eligible for the award they must be currently living in the UK, affiliated with a UK university, and have begun publishing no earlier than 2015. We want to see evidence of their amazing communications skills, demonstrating they have gone beyond the publication of their research papers and used any kind of public activity to help people make sense of complex scientific topics, or address misleading information about scientific or medical issues.

Nominating a researcher for the RCCA – How does it work?

  • Nominations open on Wednesday 28th March 2018
  • Post the nomination directly to the dedicated Mendeley group
  • Those new to Mendeley will either need to sign up for a free account or email nominations to ecrawards@kaizo.co.uk
  • You cannot nominate yourself
  • Include the following information as part of the nomination:
    • Name
    • Age
    • Institution
    • Summary of nomination (250 words max)
    • Links to evidence of good work (e.g. research, speeches, blog posts, Twitter, YouTube, etc.) Only content clearly listed as part of the nomination will be used for final review
  •  Nominations deadline extended to Friday 29th June 2018

Voting

  • Invite peers and colleagues to ‘like’ the nomination;
  • Every ‘like’ counts as a vote;
  • Nominations with the most ‘votes’ will be shortlisted.

Three shortlisted candidates and their nominators will be invited to the Early Career Researcher UK Awards 2018 ceremony.

A panel of judges will review a shortlist of candidates, and the winner will be announced at this year’s Awards ceremony at the Royal Society in London on 4th October 2018.

If you have any questions relating to the Awards or the nomination process, feel free to post on the group and we’ll get back to you.

Mendeley & E-PIC event in Austria on November 21st and November 22nd

What helps researchers to do their jobs? How can you best organize your documents, generate citations and bibliographies in a whole range of journal styles with just a few clicks? We offer you the chance to get to know Mendeley in Austria – at TU Vienna (Nov 21st) and TU Graz (Nov 22nd).  You will hear about the enablement of reference management, support of international collaborations and researcher data insights.

Register Now

 The program:

  1. Welcome and Introduction
    Presented by: Jürgen Stickelberger, Account Manager Elsevier
  2. Overview of researcher and institutional solutions
    Presented by: Giovanna Bartens, Market Development Manager, Mendeley

    • Mendeley at a Glance
    • Mendeley Institutional Edition (MIE)
    • Live demo – Mendeley key features
    • Your research community within Mendeley
  3. Break
    • Mendeley Updates – Roadmap and Developments
    • Presented by: Virginie Wagenaar, Product Manager MIE
  4. Introduction to Elsevier Product Insights for Customers (E-Pic)
    Presented by: Chinmay Panigrahi, Product Manager E-Pic Q&A

 

TU Vienna:

Tuesday, November 21st
13:00 am– 16:00 pm

Contact person:
Ingrid Haas

Location:
Vortragsraum der Universitätsbibliothek
der TU Wien
Resselgasse 4, 5. OG
1040 Vienna

Austria

TU Graz:

Wednesday, November 22nd
10:00  am – 13:00 pm

Contact person:
Dr. Ulrike Kriessmann

Location: 
Bibliothek und Archiv der TU Graz,
Seminarraum BZK1012, 1.KG
Technikerstr. 4
8010 Graz

Austria

 

For further question please contact:

Tanja Giessner
Customer Marketing Manager
A&G Europe (Europe Central)
t.fischer.1@elsevier.com
t + 31 20 485 2366

Webinar Series for Researchers: October webinars in French and German

Webinar in French: De la visibilité des laboratoires français : quels bénéfices pour les chercheurs ?

18 October 2017, 11:30 -12:00 CEST

Presenter: Anne Catherine Rota, Research Intelligence, Elsevier

Comme vous le savez, les multiples tutelles des laboratoires français ne facilitent pas la visibilité de leurs publications scientifiques, élément pourtant crucial. Cette session a pour objectif de présenter l’optimisation du repérage des laboratoires français et de leurs multiples affiliations dans Scopus afin de refléter au mieux la réalité de la recherche française.

Register Now

Webinar in German: Multidimensionale Metriken zur Auswertung und Messung von Publikationsleistung

23 October 2017, 11:30 -12:00 CEST

Presenter: Tomasz Asmussen, Customer Consultant Research Intelligence, Elsevier

In diesem Webinar werden folgende Themen anhand konkreter Fallbeispiele erläutert:

  • Erstellung bibliometrischer Auswertungen für einzelne Forscher oder Forschergruppen
  • Transparente Journal-Metriken (CiteScore, SJR, SNIP) als zentrale Messgrößen
  • Wissenschaftlichen Impact auf Basis von Nutzungs- und Zitationsdaten im Zeitverlauf analysieren
  • Forschungsthemen/-felder mit Keywords frei definieren, weltweit suchen, auswerten, beobachten
  • Einsatz alternativer PlumX Metriken zur Ergänzug der Auswertung
  • Export von Scopus-Daten in andere Tools (SciVal), Datenbanken oder in Forschungsinformationssysteme (FIS)

Register Now 

Can’t make the live event? You can still register and you will be notified once the webinar recordings are available!

 

Webinar Series for Researchers now in German and French

Researchers are working hard, but what does the internet think of what they do?

Researchers are working hard to achieve results that matter. But what happens to the scientific output, and how does it receive attention? Since the beginning of this year, Elsevier provides PlumX Metrics. These metrics measure the awareness and attention your research receives online. In our first webinar of the series, we want to demonstrate how PlumX Metrics are used, and give you a crash course on alternative metrics.

Join the webinar: “What does the internet think about your research? Alternative metrics to measure research output”:

In German: Scopus Bootcamp – Was denkt das Web über Ihre Forschung? Alternative Metriken zur Messung von Forschungsoutput.”

25 September 2017, 11:30-12:00 CEST

Speakers:

–          Christina Lohr, Product Manager, Research Products

–          Eva Podgorsek, Customer Consultant

–          Anja Zimmermann, Customer Consultant

Register Now

In French: Qu’est-ce que le Web dit de vos publications de recherche ? Des alternatives pour mesurer leur impact.

26 September 2017, 11:30-12:00 CEST

Speaker: Anne-Catherine Rota, Relations Instiutionnelles, Research Intelligence

Register Now

Can’t make the live event? You can still register and you will be notified once the webinar recordings are available!

 

New Look, New Sign In

Updates to your Mendeley Sign In Experience

Starting this month, we’ll be making upgrades to your sign in experience; this will take place across our entire product range: web, mobile, and desktop.

New look Mendeley sign in

You’ll now only need one account to access the entire Mendeley and Elsevier ecosystem, thus minimising the number of sign in credentials you’ll need to remember.  It will also streamline your user experience, and allow us to deliver improved services to you in the future.

Some users will need to update their accounts. If you do, you’ll be prompted to go through our quick and easy verification process to ensure the security of your account and update your details.

If you experience any issues signing into your Elsevier account please check out the FAQs here or contact the Support Team.

If you have any feedback about the new sign in experience, please feel free to reply directly on this thread!

Webinar: Gender bias in academic publishing

Join Publishing Campus for this highly anticipated webinar in which three industry experts explore the issue of unconscious bias and its role in academic publishing.

About the webinar

Unconscious gender bias in academia can have a real impact on women’s careers. Whether it’s obtaining a job or publishing a paper, quick judgments made subconsciously by reviewers can have very tangible consequences. In this webinar, you’ll learn the ins and outs of identifying and avoiding the pitfalls of gender bias. You’ll come away with clear evidence of the influence of unconscious bias in peer review, and hear about some of the recent efforts by publishers to reduce it, making the publishing process fairer and more equitable for all.

Attend this event – Thursday 11 May, 2017 – 2 pm BST / 3 pm CEST / 9 am EST

Ask the experts

Join the Gender Bias in Academic Publishing Mendeley group to field your questions to the experts and engage in deeper conversation with other attendees.

Presenter bios

Joanne Kamens is the Executive Director of Addgene, a mission-driven nonprofit dedicated to helping scientists around the world share useful research reagents and data. She holds a PhD in Genetics from Harvard Medical School and founded the Boston chapter of the Association for Women in Science. In 2010, she received the “Catalyst Award from the Science Club for Girls” for her longstanding dedication to empowering women in the STEM fields.

Nicole Neuman holds a PhD in biochemistry from Tufts University, which was followed by a post-doctoral fellowship at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, studying cell signaling. She joined Cell Press in 2012 as Editor of Trends in Biochemical Sciences. Nicole has enjoyed engaging Cell Press in community conversations around gender in the STEM fields, first by organizing a symposium around gender and science and now by co-leading the “The Female Scientist,” a column in the Cell Press blog Crosstalk.

Kate Hibbert holds a degree in Earth Sciences from the University of Oxford and a PhD in Isotope Geochemistry from the University of Bristol. She joined Elsevier in 2015 as a Publisher for its Geochemistry and Planetary Science Journals and has been a true champion for women in STEM.

Beyond ‘Download Science’: Or How to Not Drown in Data at the AGU

Topic-specific conferences are no longer just focused on research; Data sharing initiatives are now a major part of the discussions happening in research. With Mendeley Data and other Data Management initiatives, we are always looking to learn more, directly from the researchers. Anita DeWaard, Vice President of Data Research and Collaboration for Elsevier, shares how she learned data repositories often struggle with similar issues — and how collaboration can help address those issues.

Beyond ‘Download Science’: Or How to Not Drown in Data at the AGU

I attended my first AGU meeting in New Orleans last fall, with the intention to learn more about informatics, metadata and research data in the Earth and Planetary sciences. For a newbie, this meeting is an intimidating affair where over 25,000 scientists gather to discuss topics ranging from plate tectonics to probabilistic flood mapping, and from solar prominences to paleoclimatology.

Informatics and metadata played a huge role in the program sessions. The Earth and Space Science Informatics Section alone, for example, amounted a staggering 1,200 talks and posters on that topic alone. And that by no means comprises the full extent of sessions about informatics and metadata: for instance, the Hydrology Section has not one but two sessions (with 10 – 20 papers each) on  ‘Advances in Data Integration, Inverse Methods, and Data Valuation across a Range of Scales in Hydrogeophysics’, and the Public Affairs Section hosts ‘Care and Feeding of Physical Samples and Their Metadata’.

It is easy to feel overwhelmed. Yet once I stopped focusing on watching the endless streams of people moving up and down escalators to more and more rooms full of posters and talks (and once I finally retrieved my Flat White after the seemingly endless fleece-clad line at the Starbucks!) I learned that if you just jump in the stream and go with the flow, the AGU is really just a great ride.

I was involved in three events: a session about data discovery, one on Unique Identifiers, and the Data Rescue award, which Elsevier helped organize, together with IEDA, the Interdisciplinary Earth and Data Alliance (http://www.iedadata.org/).

Data Repository issues; Or, how to come up with a means of survival

In the Data discovery session, we had 8 papers pertaining to searching for earth science data. Siri Jodha Khalsa and myself are co-chairing a nascent group as part of the Research Data Alliance on this same topic, very is quite relevant to us in developing our Datasearch platform. It struck me how very comfortable and aware of various aspects of data retrieval the earth science community seems to be, compared to repositories in other domains, who are just starting to talk about this.

The data repositories that presented were struggling with similar issues; how to scale the masses of content that need to be uploaded, how to build tools that provide optimal relevancy ranking over heterogeneous and often distributed data collections, keep track of usage, provide useful recommendations, and offer personalisation services when most search engines do not ask for login details, all with a barebones staff an an organisation that is more often than not asked to come up with means for its own survival.

The end of download science

At the Poster session that evening, it was exciting to see the multitude of work being done pertaining to data discoverability. One of the most interesting concepts for me was in a poster by Viktor Pankratius from MIT, who developed a ‘computer-aided discovery system’ for detecting patterns, generating hypotheses, and even driving further data collection from a set of tools running in the cloud.

Pankratius predicted the ‘end of download science’: whereas in the past, (earth) scientists did most of their data-intensive work by downloading datasets from various locations, writing tools to parse, analyze and combine them, and publish (only) their outcomes, Pankratius and many others are developing analysis tools that are native to the cloud, and are shared and made available together with the datasets for reuse.

Persistent Identifiers

On Thursday, I spoke at a session entitled:“Persistent Identification, Publication, and Trustworthy Management of Research Resources”: two separate but related topics. The first three talks focused on trustworthiness, Persistent identifiers are a seemingly boring topic, that, however, just got their own very groovy conference, PIDaPalooza (leave it to Geoff Bilder to groovify even the nerdiest of topics!).

One of the papers in that session (https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm16/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/173684) discussed a new RDA Initiative, Scholix, which uses DOIs for papers and datasets to enable a fully open linked data repository that connects researchers with their publications and published datasets. Scholix represents a very productive collaboration, spearheaded by the RDA Data Publishing Group, involving many parties including publishers (including Thomson Reuters, IEEE, Europe PMC and Elsevier), data centres (the Australian National Data Service, IEDA, ICPSR, CCDC, 3TU DataCenter, Pangaea and others) and aggregators and integrators (including CrossRef, DataCite and OpenAIRE).

Persistent identifiers combine with semantic technologies to enable a whole that is much more than the sum of its parts, that surely points the way forward in science publishing; it allows, for instance, Mendeley Data users to directly address and compare different versions of a dataset (for some other examples see my slides here).

Celebrating the restoration of lost datasets

A further highlight was the third International Data Rescue Award. This award, the third so far, is intended to reward and celebrate the usually thankless task of restoring datasets that would otherwise disappear or be unavailable. This reward brings together (and aims to support the creation) of a community of very diverse researchers, who all have a passion for restoring data.

This year’s winners, were from the University of Colorado in Boulder. Over a period of more than fifteen years, they rescued and made accessible the data at the Roger G. Barry Archive at the National Snow and Ice Data Center, which consists of a vast repository of materials, including over 20,000 prints, over 100,000 images on microfilm, 1,400 glass plates, 1,600 slides, over 100 cubic feet of manuscript material and over 8,000 ice charts. The material dates are incredibly diverse and date from 1850 to the present day and include, for instance, hand-written 19th century exploration diaries and observational data. Projects such as these tell us the incredible importance of data, especially in times like these, where so much is changing so quickly. Looking at the pictures in the Glacier Photograph Collection shows the incredible extent of glacial erosion between, for instance, 1941 and today, when an entire glacier has simply vanished and offers a grim reminder of the extent to which global warming is affecting our world.

In short, there is a lot out there for all of us to learn from going to the AGU. Earth science is abuzz with data sharing initiatives: there are exciting new frontiers to explore, important lessons to be learned, and invaluable data to be saved.

2017 Reaxys PhD Prize

Open for Submissions: the 2017 Reaxys PhD Prize

Today marks an important day in the chemistry calendar: the launch of the 2017 Reaxys PhD Prize! From now until March 13, talented and ambitious chemistry PhD students from all around the world will be sending their submissions, all hoping to show the Review Board that they deserve a place on the list of finalists.

It’s considered a high honor to be a Reaxys PhD Prize finalist. Each entry is judged in terms of originality, innovation, importance and applicability of the research. The reviewers also look at the rigor of approach and methodology and the quality and clarity of related publications. Recommendation letters and CVs are also considered. Hundreds of applications come in each year, with students from over 400 institutions having participated to date, and the Review Board have consistently praised the quality of the submissions.

It is the Review Board’s task to select the 45 finalists, who are invited to present their research at the Reaxys PhD Prize Symposium. This year’s event will be held in Shanghai in October, with travel bursaries and accommodations provided to ensure that the finalists can attend. The 2016 symposium was in London—you can see the highlights in this short video:

In addition to gaining recognition for their research excellence and an opportunity to present their work, all the finalists are invited to join the Reaxys Prize Club, a unique, international network of chemists from all researchers and career paths. Now with over 300 members, the Club has proven to boost the careers of young chemists, helping them to meet with other chemists, attend conferences, and organize events. Prize Club members also receive personal access to Reaxys and Reaxys Medicinal Chemistry and discounts on Elsevier books.

Being a finalist is an accolade in itself, but the participants all certainly hope to be selected as one of the three winners. The shortlisted best finalists make a final oral presentation of their research at the Reaxys PhD Prize Symposium, based on which, the Review Board Chairs select the winners. Each winner receives a prize of $2000 in addition to all the benefits that finalists get.

The competition is open to anyone who has just finished or is currently engaged in a PhD program where the research focus is related to chemistry. Previous finalists have hailed from institutions in Asia, the Americas, Europe and the Middle East—and they are all members of the Reaxys Prize Club, meaning it is a global network of dedicated and talented chemists.

Could you or someone you know be one of this year’s finalists? All the details about applying can be found here.