Category Archives: Springer Nature

Springer Nature

We’re delivering on open access. Will you join us?

Posted on by

This blog comes from Steven Inchcoombe, Chief Publishing Officer, Springer Nature

At the start of 2017 Open Access Week, today we’re delighted to announce that we have reached a significant milestone in advancing discovery through open research. In four European countries, over 70% of Springer Nature’s journal articles are being immediately published (gold) open access.

This includes:

  • Over 77% of corresponding authors based in the UK
  • Over 90% of corresponding authors based in Sweden
  • Over 84% of corresponding authors based in the Netherlands
  • Over 73% of corresponding authors based in Austria

The rise of open access as a publishing model is not surprising, because the benefits are clear. Today globally, 27% of all research published by Springer Nature is now published under an immediate gold open access model. This is good, but it can and should be better. We will continue to strive to make it so. Why? Because we believe that open approaches benefit the whole scientific and research community, facilitate collaboration, aid the application of research to solve real-world problems, and foster economic growth, increase the public’s appreciation of research and in summary, advance discovery.

What might be surprising is the scale of this achievement in the four markets listed above, which has been made possible through a unique environment, with four key factors in the recipe for success:

  • Support from governments and institutions who back open access
  • Funders who fund APCs
  • Authors who are willing to publish via open access
  • A publisher providing authors with a wide range of attractive publishing options,

….together they make the transition to open access a reality.

Springer Nature has a long history of innovation across journals, books, and databases, our publishing platforms and ways in which content can be discovered, used, re-used and shared by humans and machines. Of course at the same time we believe in academic freedom and respect author choice, so we will continue to offer a range of traditional models for as long as there is demand, and indeed today many of these continue to be the most widely used in our portfolio.*

But we’ve now developed and offer open access options for authors at all levels (via BMC, Springer, Nature Research and Palgrave Macmillan) and across all disciplines. We’ve also taken risks by flipping some of our best-known journals to open models (for example Nature Communications) and will continue to push the boundaries with our fast-developing open access books program and  new open data and data management  services.

We now publish 630 fully open access journals, and over 1800 Springer Open Choice (hybrid) journals. All of the countries where we have achieved this phenomenal result are where we have Compact agreements. Compact offers our partners significantly more value and reduces their administrative burden by taking a holistic approach and combining their local Publishing Fees with their global Access/Reading Fees, facilitating the transition that we are trying hard to support.

Liam Earney, Director of Jisc Collections said: “Since its launch in 2016, the Springer Compact agreement has seen an almost complete flip in the number of articles from UK authors made open access instead of paywalled in Springer journals. This growth has only been possible because of the work done by colleagues at Jisc, Springer Nature and most importantly institutions to review and improve the workflow for institutions and authors and the efforts made to ensure that the Springer Compact agreement was affordable and sustainable.”

As a result, we are now uniquely placed among publishers to show it is possible to ‘flip’ entire countries, not just journals.

It wouldn’t work in every country, nor will it work in every discipline (not yet anyway) but we are making progress. We are on a journey, from traditional publishing methods to open access, open research, and beyond. But we can’t succeed alone. We’re calling for the research community, from funders to institutions, authors and editors to partner with us in making that happen.

We’re open in order to advance discovery. Will you join us?

*We continue to extend access to our subscription-only titles via our Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative, which provides authors and subscribers with shareable links to view-only versions of their published papers; via our liberal self-archiving policy, which permits authors to self-archive their accepted manuscript from shortly after first online publication; and through our collaboration with the Research4Life programme to provide access to institutions in low-income countries.

Peer Review Week 2017: Transparency in Review, and other innovations

Posted on by

By Steven Inchcoombe, Chief Publishing Officer, Springer Nature

Installation of a water filter in Haiti © Filter of Hope

Installation of a water filter in Haiti © Filter of Hope

At Springer Nature every week is Peer Review Week.

Each week our dedicated in-house editorial staff spend thousands of hours co-ordinating the process of peer review, to ensure and improve the quality of the scientific literature we publish and in doing so, advance discovery. We support our Editors in Chief, Editorial Board Members, Section Editors, peer reviewers and authors by providing guidance and systems to enable them to improve manuscripts. Furthermore, we’re trialling innovative new practices through small-scale pilots, while also exploring grander ideas such as the potential role of Artificial Intelligence.

But as it’s so integral to what we do and the service we provide for our authors, its not something we  shout about every week. Therefore, Peer Review Week 2017, an annual celebration of the essential role that peer review plays in maintaining scientific quality, provides the perfect opportunity for us to update the academic community on what we’re doing, and to celebrate the work of the peer reviewers who generously give their time to examine manuscripts, offering help and advice.

Transparency in Review

 The theme of this years’ Peer Review Week is Transparency in Review.  BMC, part of Springer Nature, was one of the pioneers of open peer review and earlier this year, issued a report based on the discussions at the SpotOn conference in London that examined how peer review might be improved for future generations. The report is well worth reading – it offers key recommendations to the academic community that include finding and inventing new ways of identifying, verifying and inviting peer reviewers; investing in reviewer training programs, and recognizing reviewers.

This year, BMC has also been experimenting with more new initiatives to improve transparency in peer review. If successful, these pilot projects could become standard offerings across Springer Nature.

Registered Reports is a good example. This is a new publication format in which the research question and the quality of methodology are peer reviewed before the data is collected and analysed and has been endorsed by Chris Chambers, Chair of the Centre for Open Science Registered Reports Committee, said: “This is a tremendous step forward for transparency and reproducibility in medical research. BMC Medicine will be the first major medical journal to offer Registered Reports, and the first to adopt a model specially tailored for clinical trials. The impact of this advance is potentially game-changing, eliminating hidden outcome switching and publication bias against negative results.”

I’m also pleased to announce that Genome Biology is following in the footsteps of other journals including Nature Communications to offer an option for transparent peer review.

Other developments

 Time and time again, researchers tell us that they don’t receive enough training in how to conduct thorough and constructive peer review. Which is why this week, we’ve announced that we are launching a new free online course called Focus on Peer Review.

‘Focus on Peer Review’, on the Nature Masterclasses platform, features video interviews with Nature Research journal editors, experienced peer reviewers, and published authors. The course contains key and relevant insight into the complexities of peer review, going beyond the usual ‘how-to’ training available elsewhere. The course is made up of 4 modules, which you can either work through in a single sitting or use it as a ‘dip in and out’ reference resource. Total course duration, including reflection time, is around 3 hours.

On completion of the course, participants will have the opportunity to download a Nature Masterclasses course completion certificate. If you’re interested, simply register on the Nature Masterclasses website.

Update from last year

Finally, I’d like to give a happy update from one initiative that we launched last year. In 2016 we announced that a Springer journal, Environmental Earth Sciences, would enable people in developing countries to gain access to safe drinking water. For every review completed for a paper in the journal in 2017, Springer Nature donated one household water filter – on behalf of the peer reviewers of this journal – to the non-profit humanitarian organization Filter of Hope.

I’m delighted to say that since the inception of our partnership with Filter of Hope, over 600 filters have been distributed to the countries of Liberia, Nicaragua, Haiti, Honduras, Russia, Cuba and India. The water filters remove the bacteria, protozoa and micro-organisms from contaminated water sources making it completely safe to drink. This is a wonderful example of peer review making a real-world difference.

 

At Springer Nature we are constantly striving to advance discovery though the acceleration of scientific research and development, investing in technology to ensure ongoing quality and a better user experience, and by positively contributing to the scientific ecosystem that includes researchers, editors, librarians, funders, authors, publishers and networks.  And an enhanced, improved peer review system which is transparent and gives reviewers the recognition they deserve is a fundamental part of this.  I’m delighted that in 2017 we have explored and introduced new ways to make the process more transparent, to ensure our reviewers get the recognition they deserve, as well as developed new free tools and services, in the hope of serving our customer better. I’m looking forward to updating you on the improvements we’ll have seen by Peer Review Week 2018!

Open access compliance: supporting Springer Nature authors

Posted on by

This blog comes from Jessica Monaghan and Charlie Coyte from Springer Nature’s Open Research Group

Meeting the open access (OA) requirements of research funders and institutions can prove a real challenge for authors. As the increase in records in the registry of OA repository mandates and policies (ROARMAP) demonstrates, the number of organisations with OA requirements is increasing every year, meaning more and more researchers are subject to such policies.

OA policies can also vary widely in their requirements, leaving authors unsure or unaware of the steps required to achieve compliance. In a 2016 survey of Springer Nature authors who had published via the gold open access route, we found that 40% of authors were unable to identify any of their main research funder’s open access policy requirements, and only 15% correctly identified all requirements.

At Springer Nature, we’ve been exploring ways to help our authors comply with the OA requirements of their research funders and institutions, through raising awareness, adapting our policies, and carrying out checks to identify potential compliance issues.

Chart: Awareness of OA requirements of main research funder among Springer Nature OA authors

Source: Survey of Springer Nature authors who had published open access, conducted in 2016 (n =1,111). - Respondents were asked to select their main research funder’s OA requirements from a range of options, and responses were then matched to actual funder requirements to determine accuracy of authors’ understanding. - Incorrect identification includes all authors who incorrectly identified their funder’s green and gold OA requirements, or incorrectly identified one of these, and selected ‘I don’t know’ for the other. - Partial identification includes all authors who correctly or partially identified their funder’s green and/or gold OA requirements.

Source: Survey of Springer Nature authors who had published open access, conducted in 2016 (n =1,111).
– Respondents were asked to select their main research funder’s OA requirements from a range of options, and responses were then matched to actual funder requirements to determine accuracy of authors’ understanding.
– Incorrect identification includes all authors who incorrectly identified their funder’s green and gold OA requirements, or incorrectly identified one of these, and selected ‘I don’t know’ for the other.
– Partial identification includes all authors who correctly or partially identified their funder’s green and/or gold OA requirements.

Raising awareness and reducing opportunities for non-compliance

Continue reading →

Keeping up-to-date with the primary literature just got a little easier

Posted on by

With over 4,000 primary research papers published every day within the natural sciences, it can be overwhelming to try to keep up-to-date with the literature in a research field.

When we spoke with researchers – whether they were professors, PHD students, working for pharmaceutical companies or in government departments – they shared a common frustration: with limited time, they were struggling to find relevant papers.

The majority of these nature.com users that we surveyed in 2015 agreed that staying up-to-date takes a lot of hard work. And despite their best efforts, often juggling journal table of contents alerts, PubMed, Twitter and feeding from lab peers, most said that in a typical month they probably miss relevant papers.

Today, Springer Nature is pleased to announce the launch of an innovative service which we believe will significantly improve the workflows of researchers by saving time and enabling access to the most relevant content, allowing users to access a new way to keep up to date without visiting any new websites.

Recommended is a service which we believe will help all primary researchers in the natural sciences keep up to date with the literature that really matters to them.  It is a personalised service that suggests relevant papers for users, regardless of publisher, based on what they have previously read across all Springer Nature services.

If we believe the paper is the right one for the reader, then we will recommend it.

Developing this service, a first for any publisher,  has been a long careful journey – and all along the way we have worked with groups of researchers to ensure the service we develop actually makes a difference to the people whowill use it.

Powered by an adaptive algorithm, Recommended learns about users individual research interests by analysing the last 100 papers read across nature.com, SpringerLink and BioMed Central. Recommended then searches for similar primary papers to the users reading history, utilising over 45,000 journals (and 65 million papers) from CrossRef and PubMed.

These are then combined with data from other sources, such as Altmetric, to create a recommendation score that our service uses to pick the top primary research papers recommendations to deliver to users. Recommended continually learns and improves based on how the users interact with its suggestions.

Since March 2016 a beta version of Recommended has been running across selected journals and pages on our websites, and based on exceptional user statistics, backed up by extensive quantitative and qualitative user research, we are now pleased to roll out the service more widely.

Recommended is a unique service in the researcher’s toolkit as it learns about users individual research interests and doesn’t just match papers based on keyword analysis;  this ensures our users get the best possible recommendations – irrespective of publisher.

To learn more about Recommended and sign up for personalised research recommendations please visit recommended.springernature.com

Recommended is a service in continual development, based on the needs of the researcher community, so please let us know what you think of the service at: recommended@springernature.com

Sharing research in three minutes: A shorter timeframe to see the bigger picture

Posted on by
Joshua Chu-Tan

Joshua Chu-Tan{credit}Jane Duong{/credit}

Joshua Chu-Tan is a second-year PhD student in the Provis Group at the John Curtin School of Medical Research at the Australian National University (ANU).

His presentation of his thesis, “Targeting the Root of Vision Loss”, won him top prize at the ANU’s Three Minute Thesis (3MT) competition. This event challenges PhD students to present their research in three minutes to a non-specialist audience. Joshua also went on to win the 2016 Asia-Pacific 3MT, which drew 50 contestants from six countries.

We ask him about his research and his experience competing in the 3MT.

1. Tell us about your research. What is its significance and what are your main findings?

Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) is the leading cause of blindness in developed countries with a global cost of over US$340 billion per year. Our group looks at the dry form of AMD, which accounts for 90% of all AMD cases. This happens when light-sensitive cells deteriorate, causing a loss in central vision. There is currently no cure.

We work on gene therapies for dry AMD using microRNA. These molecules are masters in gene regulation: a single microRNA molecule can bind to multiple targets, all of which often work within the same cellular pathway. In this way, we can theoretically regulate entire pathways, rather than single genes. This could prove fruitful for complex, multifactorial diseases such as AMD.

I’ve been able to characterise a number of microRNA in our AMD model and through injections of a specific anti-inflammatory microRNA into the eye, we’ve seen a decrease in inflammation, as well as a slowing in the damage progression of the retina, which has been very promising.

Joshua Chu-Tan speaking at the 2016 Asia-Pacific 3MT competition

Joshua Chu-Tan speaking at the 2016 Asia-Pacific 3MT competition{credit}University of Queensland{/credit}

2. How did you hear about the Three Minute Thesis (3MT) competition and why did you choose to enter?

In 2015, I went to watch the ANU 3MT finals. The experience was phenomenal: hundreds of people came to watch students from all departments and faculties condense years of work into a three minute pitch. The interest that people outside of academia showed was inspiring and as I listened to all these brilliant students talk about the bigger impact of their work, I was enthralled. The whole time I was there, I kept thinking of ideas for my own 3MT—I knew I had to give it a crack.

3. Why do you think events like the 3MT are important? What did you gain from your involvement?

I believe the value of science communication is often overlooked in research, especially medical research. As researchers, we’re often invested in a single aspect of a holistic problem, which can result in tunnel vision within our niche. The work we publish uses highly specialised jargon, which is necessary for us to discuss specific problems, but isn’t very accessible for the general public.

Participating in events like the 3MT give us an avenue to convey our work to people outside of our field. We can take a step back and look at the bigger picture: Why should people outside of this field care about our work? What’s the real goal? Even the process of writing a speech for something like the 3MT is rewarding in that it gets us to consider these questions.

The ANU and Asia-Pacific events were also incredible opportunities for me to find out about other people’s research from around the world and consider new ways of looking at a problem. I really think the future of research will be interdisciplinary. We’re all trained to look at a problem in our particular way, but there’s only so much we can achieve within our specialties. Having experts from different fields approach a challenge together will greatly benefit research.

Winning the Asia-Pacific 3MT

Winning first prize at the Asia-Pacific 3MT{credit}Joshua Chu-Tan{/credit}

4. Do you have advice for other students preparing for a 3MT event?

  1. Enjoy it! It’s not an easy task and there will be nerves but really enjoy the moment, be confident in yourself, and take pride in your research.
  2. Only mention the key points of your work and make the audience relate to it. Write it like a story with a beginning, middle and end, and be true to yourself and how you would like to present it.
  3. At the events, truly listen to everyone’s work. Soak in all the amazing research that’s being conducted by your peers. This journey wouldn’t have been as rewarding if it wasn’t for everyone I met along the way.

5. What’s next for you?

With the Asia-Pacific win, I now have the incredible opportunity to attend and present at the Falling Walls Lab/Conference in Berlin. It’s a chance to rub shoulders with the world’s brightest minds so I intend to make the most of it.

After this remarkable 3MT journey ends, it’s full steam ahead to complete my PhD with a bang. I intend to stay in the field and attain fellowships that will allow me to complete my postdoctoral training overseas. Hopefully I can then return to Australia to contribute towards the strong research environment here.

You can watch Joshua’s winning 3MT speech, “Targeting the Root of Vision Loss”, here.

Founded by the University of Queensland in 2008, 3MT events are now hosted by over 400 institutions across six continents. The 2016 Asia-Pacific 3MT was sponsored by Springer Nature.

Celebrating Peer Review Week at Springer Nature

Posted on by

By Steven Inchcoombe, Chief Publishing Officer, Springer Nature

Peer review is at the heart of the research process. Academics generously dedicate hours of their week, to examine each other’s work, offer much-valued constructive criticism and improve the published science (or maths, or social science, etc.). Reviews take time, but peer review is mostly anonymous, meaning it is difficult for reviewers’ colleagues, publishers, institutions or funders to recognise it properly.

Of course, peer review has its faults. Regardless, it is the best system we have right now for maintaining high standards and accuracy. In an age when information is everywhere, plagiarism is sadly too common and a stamp of quality is highly valued, peer review is still celebrated as a kitemark for rigor.

peer-review-week

To celebrate peer review, a group of organizations including Springer Nature is working collaboratively to plan a week of activities and events. Today marks the first day of Peer Review Week 2016. This year’s theme is Recognition for Review, exploring all aspects of how those participating in review activity – in publishing, grant review, conference submissions, promotion and tenure, and more – could be better recognized for their contribution.

At Springer Nature we’re constantly looking to improve our peer review systems, and to find new and better ways of recognizing peer reviewers for their hard work. Our existing methods of recognition might take the form of monetary reward in the case of monographs, or incentives such as free subscriptions or discounts on Article Processing Charges. The methods of recognition researchers most commonly ask for are those which simply acknowledge the name of the reviewer, as the process is so often anonymous.

In a recent survey completed by 3886 of our reviewers, only 26% of reviewers agreed that they would like to be paid. Many expressed concerns that a monetary reward would introduce bias into the process. 67% of reviewers believed they should receive non-monetary compensation, and, rather inspirationally, 68% agreed that the knowledge of the contribution they have made to the body of scientific research is enough compensation for their time as a reviewer, confirming what we’ve always thought: academics are a generous lot.

We believe their work shouldn’t go unnoticed. Many of our journals publish lists celebrating our most frequent reviewers. At BioMed Central, 70 of our journals offer open peer review, encouraging transparency. Open peer review is also a valuable educational resource for training future peer reviewers. In the last year, BioMed Central have published over 40,000 open peer review reports, allowing 24,000 peer reviewers to be recognized for their contribution to research.

Nature Editor-in-Chief Philip Campbell writes a letter of thanks to anyone that has peer-reviewed three papers or more for the combined Nature Research portfolio. Since 2015 all of the Nature-branded research journals have offered authors the option to choose double-blind peer review. In 2016 we have additionally piloted the following initiatives: optional publication of peer-reviewer reports in Nature Communications; optional publication of peer-reviewer identities in Nature; optional transfer of peer-reviewer reports and identities from Nature Communications to other selected Springer Nature academic journals.

Another way we’re experimenting is through partnering with Publons, a network of over 75,000 experts showing their commitment to speeding up science through superior peer review. Publons is a free service for academics that lets you effortlessly track, verify and showcase your peer review activity across the world’s journals. This month we’ve started a Publons pilot across 13 of our journals. We’re also proud sponsors of their Sentinels of Science Awards which celebrate frequent peer reviewers.

We have two more pilots launching this week, experimenting with two very different types of peer review; one from BioMed Central is exploring removing potential bias from the system, the other from Springer experimenting with a new type of recognition. Watch this space for more information!

And finally, to all our reviewers around the world: in case we haven’t said it recently, thank you from the team at Springer Nature.