Introducing…New RefWorks!

You might be about to embark on a research project, perhaps a dissertation, a case study or longer assignment which requires you to collect, store, manage and use a large amount of references. Or you might be a second-year student realising that as you are progressing through your degree you are expected to use more references. If you are, there is no need to panic as there are some handy tools available to help you manage all this information.


Proquest RefWorks logo

There are many different types of reference management software, each with its own special features. In practice, whichever tool you use, it can substantially increase the speed and efficiency with which you manage your references.

Here at SGUL, we support RefWorks, which is perfectly suited to those preparing longer pieces of academic writing. This term we have moved away from using Legacy RefWorks to (new) Refworks!  RefWorks is freely available to all SGUL students and staff. We also provide training to people who want to learn how to use RefWorks effectively and efficiently. There is a lot of online support available too, like our recently updated Libguide.

What is RefWorks?

RefWorks is one of the most popular reference management applications and it allows users to:

  • collect references – no need to type details in manually
  • store references
  • organise references
  • link to full text, web pages and documents
  • cite your references and create bibliographies in different styles

How does it work?

Unlike other reference management tools, RefWorks is a web-based software, so no need to download anything!

Go to http://refworks.proquest.com and click on “Use login from my institution”. Then, under Shibboleth find or search for “St George’s, University of London”. All you need is your SGUL username and password to log in.

Use login from my institution

The first time you do this you have to fill in some information about yourself and then you’re all set to start collecting references.

There are multiple ways to populate your RefWorks account with reference data. Depending on the search tool or database(s) you are using, there are different ways to add references:

  • Direct export from a database
  • Downloading and importing a text file from a database
  • Drag and drop PDFs into RefWorks
  • Adding references manually
  • Use the ‘Save to RefWorks’ browser extension

For more information on how each of these options work, have a look at our RefWorks Libguide.

Be sure to always check if the information that was added is correct and complete! As you start adding more references, you will want to organise them so that they stay manageable. You can for example assign references to different folders and subfolders. You can also deduplicate them, if you are in the habit of adding big batches of references in one go.

Top tips

  • Quality check your references by looking at citation view, that way you can see what details are missing. Make sure to select Harvard – SGUL & FHSCE and save this as the default setting to ensure that you are using the right citation style. It is a good idea to double-check your reference in citation view immediately after adding it, so you can compare it to the original document without having to retrieve it.
Citation View
  • Refworks can generate an in-text citation in the correct style for you and it can create a bibliography too. Just click on the “Create Bibliography” icon at the top of the page. Follow the guidance on the screen and copy/paste what you need, done!
  • Much easier and more effective is using Write-N-Cite which is a small separate programme you can download which connects your Refworks account to Word. An equivalent is available for Word on Mac devices as well. On SGUL computers, this programme is built into Word so no need to download anything!

Legacy RefWorks vs (New) RefWorks

The new RefWorks is intuitive to use and has better functionality than Legacy RefWorks. However, if you have used RefWorks before, you will have created a Legacy RefWorks account. If you are interested in migrating your references from the old to the new version, please be aware that it is currently not possible to edit documents in new RefWorks if they have previously been used in Legacy RefWorks.

We recommend that you continue to use your Legacy account until you have finished the projects you are currently working on. More information on migrating from Legacy RefWorks can be found here.

Referencing styles at St George’s

Screen capture of Cite Them Right website

We have also updated our guidelines around using the Harvard referencing style, which is the referencing style used across St George’s, in line with the recent new edition of Cite Them Right (2019). Although the new edition doesn’t contain big changes, it includes a lot more examples, including of a NICE guideline and a systematic review published on the Cochrane Library. For more information, have a look at our user help sheet for Harvard.

If your lecturer requires you to use the Vancouver style, you can have a look at this help sheet. Vancouver at SGUL is based on Citing medicine: The NLM style guide for authors, editors, and publishers (2007) by Patrias.

Further help

Make sure to have a look at our Libguide on RefWorks and Reference Management and check out RefWorks’ own YouTube tutorials.

Many of you will receive RefWorks training as part of your degree, but if you want to get ahead or missed out on training, get in touch by emailing liaison@sgul.ac.uk to book a session with us in which we cover the basics of using RefWorks.


For general research and referencing questions, be sure to make use of the Research Enquiries Desk (RED) located in the Library and staffed every weekday from 11 am to 2 pm.

The Changing Face of Peer Review

To coincide with Peer Review Week Sept 16-20, this is an overview on current developments in peer review, with some thoughts on the future, and information on how Library Services can offer support to our researchers.

Three people sitting around a table talking to one person standing next to the table pointing with a pen at a tablet.

What is peer review and why is it important?

Peer review is the process by which scholarly work is submitted to the scrutiny of other experts in the same field. It’s thought to date back to the seventeenth century1, but has become increasingly standardised since the mid twentieth century2. It’s now an important part of the scholarly publications process, helping to assess and improve research papers before formal publication. A report published last year by Publons3 (part of Clarivate Analytics) found that peer review was overwhelmingly valued by researchers. There are different models of peer review, such as blind review (where authors and reviewers may not be known to each other) through to more open models of reviewing (see below, fig 2 in the Publons report)3.

Why is there a “peer review crisis”?

Peer review is far from perfect, however. Research that contains errors or fraud isn’t always picked up, and reviewers aren’t always objective: unconscious bias can affect peer review4, and even double blind reviewing isn’t always completely anonymous, especially in smaller fields where reviewers are more likely to be able to identify authors based on topic or writing style. Peer review also often goes unrewarded: reviewers are not usually paid for their work, and researchers may not cite this work as part of their scholarly profile when applying for jobs or promotions.

Recent research in PLoS One has also suggested that some reviewers can lazily accept low-quality manuscripts, bringing down the overall quality of research5.   That the website Retraction Watch exists highlights that peer review does not always fulfil the functions expected.

How is the open research agenda changing peer review?

Open peer review refers to a variety of different models that broadly support the principles of open research. The features of these models might include:

  • Named, identifiable reviewers.
  • Reviews that are published alongside the final article.
  • Participation by the wider community as opposed to just a small number of invited reviewers, whether on pre-review manuscripts or on the final version.
  • Direct discussion between authors and reviewers.
  • Reviews taking place on a different platform to publication6.

The different models have in common a desire to improve the peer review process, making it more transparent, accountable and accessible7.

Recent research has found that publishing peer review reports doesn’t compromise the review process, though only 8.1% of reviewers were willing to publish their identity alongside the report8.

Peer reviewing data

Data sharing has exploded in recent years. It is becoming commonplace in the academic publication process in light of the huge volumes of data being created in research and the challenges of irreproducible research. But while data sharing is becoming routine, peer review of data underlying publications is not always common.

Leading the way in data peer review are data journals. Data journals specialise in publishing descriptions of high value scientific datasets or analyses/meta-analyses of existing datasets. Submissions to data journals are peer-reviewed.

Other journals are quickly catching up. Peer reviewers may be asked to appraise the data underlying any publication, not just data-focused papers. Journals may have their own guidance for assessing datasets but PLOS provides some very practical criteria:

  1. Is the data accessible?
  2. Can you tell what you’re looking at?
  3. Does the data you see match the data referenced in the manuscript?
  4. Does the presentation of the data make sense?
  5. Does the data itself make sense?

The SGUL research data management service can help you to prepare your data for sharing and peer review. Contact us at researchdata@sgul.ac.uk for more information.

What might drive developments in the future to improve peer reviewing – for researchers, and for science?

Logo of DORA (Declaration on Research Assessment)

The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment of 2012, commonly known as DORA, and to which St George’s University of London is a signatory, sets out a statement of intent and some guiding principles around a move away from a narrow set of metrics such as journal impact factor as a measure of assessment. Acknowledging that researchers may undertake a wide range of scholarly activities, and produce outputs other than journal articles, could lead to better recognition of and reward for peer reviewing.

In 2017, the DOI provider Crossref announced that they would now support registering peer reviews as well as other types of research outputs9. Other services such as Publons and ORCiD10,11 also offer ways for researchers to track and get credit for their reviews, where these reviews are openly available12.  

Given the known problems with peer review, and the growing number of manuscript submissions, it’s no surprise that as noted by Nature13, publishers are starting to employ Artificial Intelligence to try and improve those processes that can be automated – without taking away from decision making by human editors. For example, Frontiers journals have announced the use of AI to help with quality control and reviewer identification14.

While as the Publons report finds, “the scholarly community lacks a robust measure of review quality”, more openness of the peer reviewing process, and wider use of identifiers to link reviewers and their reviews, could enable more analysis and agreement of what constitutes good peer review.

In conclusion, new technologies, publishing models and funder mandates present opportunities for the scientific community to improve the peer review process – a process which at its best allows researchers to engage in a constructive dialogue to improve research and the communication of research findings.

Queries about open research?

Contact us

CRIS & Deposit on acceptance: sora@sgul.ac.uk

Open Access Publications: openaccess@sgul.ac.uk

Research Data Management: researchdata@sgul.ac.uk

We look forward to hearing from you.

Michelle Harricharan, Research Data Support Manager
Jenni Hughes, Research Publications Assistant
Jennifer Smith, Research Publications Librarian

If you are interested receiving updates from the Library on all things open access, open data and scholarly research communications, you can subscribe to the Library Blog using the Follow button or click here for further posts from us.

References

1. Tennant JP, Dugan JM, Graziotin D et al. (2017) A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review [version 3; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research, 6:1151 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12037.3)

2. Ware M. Peer review: benefits, perceptions and alternatives. Publishing Research Consortium. 2008; p. 6. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.214.9676&rep=rep1&type=pdf [accessed 12/09/19]

3. Publons (2018) Global state of peer review https://doi.org/10.14322/publons.GSPR2018 [accessed 12/09/19]

4. Meadows, A (2018), “Eight Ways to Tackle Diversity and Inclusion in Peer Review” The Scholarly Kitchen. Available at https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2018/09/13/eight-ways-to-tackle-diversity-and-inclusion-in-peer-review/ [Accessed 12/09/19]

5. D’Andrea R, O’Dwyer JP (2017) “Can editors save peer review from peer reviewers?” PLoS ONE 12(10): e0186111. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186111 [accessed 12/9/19]

6. Ross-Hellauer, T (2017), “What is open peer review? A systematic review” [version 2; peer review: 4 approved]. F1000Research, 6:588 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.2) (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.1)

7. Ross-Hellauer, T (2017), “Open peer review: bringing transparency, accountability and inclusivity to the peer review process”, LSE Impact Blog. Available at https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2017/09/13/open-peer-review-bringing-transparency-accountability-and-inclusivity-to-the-peer-review-process/ [accessed 12/09/19]

8. Bravo, G; Grimaldo, F; López-Iñesta, E; Mehmani, B; Squazzoni, F (2019), “The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals”, Nature Communications 10:322 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-08250-2

9. Lin, J (2017), “Peer reviews are open for registering at Crossref”. Available at: https://www.crossref.org/blog/peer-reviews-are-open-for-registering-at-crossref/ [accessed 12/09/19]

10. ORCID Support (2019), Peer Review https://support.orcid.org/hc/en-us/articles/360006971333-Peer-Review

11. PLOS Blog (2019), You’ve completed your review – now get credit with ORCID  https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/youve-completed-your-review-now-get-credit-with-orcid/ [accessed 16/09/2019]

12. Tennant, JP (2018), “The state of the art in peer review”, FEMS Microbiology Letters, Volume 365, Issue 19, fny204, https://doi.org/10.1093/femsle/fny204

13. Heaven, D (2018), “AI peer reviewers unleashed to ease publishing grind”, Nature 563, 609-610 (22 Nov 2018) http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-07245-9

14. Frontiers, Science News (2018) AI-enhanced peer review: Frontiers launches next generation of efficient, high-quality peer review Dec 14 2018; https://blog.frontiersin.org/2018/12/14/artificial-intelligence-peer-review-assistant-aira/

Challenging but rewarding – Wellcome Trust Data Re-use Prize winner, Quentin Leclerc, on reusing open data

Last November the Wellcome Trust launched the Data Re-use Prize to celebrate innovative reuse of open data either in antimicrobial resistance (AMR) or malaria. Entrants were asked to generate a new insight, tool or health application from two open data resources, the AMR ATLAS dataset or the Malaria ROAD-MAP dataset.

MRC-LID PhD student and member of the winning team for AMR, Quentin Leclerc, dropped by the SGUL RDM Service to talk about the prize and the challenging but rewarding process of reusing open data.

Quentin, congratulations on the win. Can you tell me a little bit about your team’s entry for the Data Re-Use Prize?

Sure. We developed a tool to help inform empiric therapy. Empiric therapy is basically when physicians pool multiples sources of data together to make the best informed guess about how to treat a patient. This is before they know exactly what bacteria a patient is infected with and its potential resistance to antibiotics. Say, for example, a patient has sepsis and needs to be treated right away. A physician might determine the most likely causes as E.coli and S. aureus infection and then make an informed guess about the best antibiotic to prescribe to treat both of these bacteria, bearing in mind regional estimates of each of pathogen’s resistance to different antibiotics. The physician is basically thinking, “given what we know about the common causes of this condition and antibiotic resistance, which antibiotic is likely to work best?”

Our proof of concept web app integrates data from a range of open data sources to visualise antibiotic resistance rates for common infections to help physicians prescribe faster and more accurately. If developed, the tool can potentially be used to inform national guidelines on how to treat common infections in many countries, particularly in low and middle income counties where data aren’t always available to inform empiric therapy at the local or hospital level.

app screenshot
Some visualisations from the team’s AR.IA app

Sounds very exciting. As a first year PhD student, what was it like to win a prize like this?

It was really unexpected. We didn’t expect to win, we just thought, ‘we’ll publish our findings anyway so let’s see how this goes’. The other entries for the prize were very specific while our entry was pretty broad so we weren’t very confident. It was a real surprise and a great effort from everyone on the team.

Team photo
Team photo (l to r): Gwen Knight, Quentin Leclerc, Nichola Naylor and Alexander Aiken
Missing: Francesc Coll

As a PhD student, it was an interesting experience overall. This project is very different from my PhD but working on this tool helped me to get used to the various datasets out there and to look at the big picture of antimicrobial resistance and antibiotic prescribing. It was an enlightening process.

Can you tell me a little bit more about the process of reusing existing data? What was it like?

It was surprising. The thing with data is that it’s collected for a purpose. When someone comes in trying to use that data for a different purpose, they start to see what’s missing. They start to make approximations and assumptions to use the data for something it wasn’t intended for. The ATLAS dataset is very accurate and it’s very rich but it suits its original purpose. For example, we needed to group the data in increasingly complex ways. Once we started doing this, the sample sizes started to look quite small. The dataset wasn’t suited to those kinds of groupings.

When we started comparing the ATLAS dataset to other datasets, the AMR data appeared to show slightly different information. So we started to ask, who collected this data? In what contexts would this data have been collected? Might there be a sampling bias that explains this difference we’re seeing between the datasets? There was a legitimate reason for the difference we were seeing, but that’s why it’s really important to think about why you’re using a dataset and exactly what you want to achieve because the data may not suit your purpose.

Also, we integrated data from a range of sources. When you start doing this, comparing available datasets, you realise the heterogeneity of the data that’s out there; they are all in different formats, they have different naming conventions, even the bacteria aren’t named in the same way and we had to work out exactly which bacteria different datasets were referring to. There aren’t any standards across the different sources to make integrating the datasets easy.

So there were a lot of challenges to reusing data that someone else created?

Yes, we needed to keep in mind that the data was not created to answer our research question. We also found that there was a lack of information in the available literature around the common causative pathogens of several infections to help us understand and use the data correctly.

What advice would you give to researchers wanting to reuse open datasets but are hesitant?

It is important to look at the dataset and really understand it. Ask yourself why it was collected, where it was collected, how it was collected. Don’t take anything for granted. Open datasets are incredible resources but you can’t blindly go in there.

Once you understand the dataset you’ll naturally get the confidence to use it and ask the right questions of it. You won’t be scared or overwhelmed by it. You’ll also save a lot of time once you start working on the data and better understand how to combine it with other datasets.

Quentin and his team’s winning entry, Antibiotic Resistance: Interdisciplinary Action (AR:IA), is openly available here. The team was led by Dr Gwen Knight at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and included Nichola Naylor, Francesc Coll and Alexander Aiken.    

If you have any questions about finding and reusing open data contact Michelle Harricharan, Research Data Support Manager.

UPDATE 03/05/2019: You can read the official SGUL news release on this prize here.

St George’s Library in Numbers: 2018

2018 was a year of change for St George’s Library. We introduced a new library management system, which underpins the circulation of library items. In the summer, we upgraded Hunter’s interface for a more intuitive search tool. Alongside these changes, we introduced automatic renewals and additional loans. This means our users can now borrow more books for longer.

As well as improving access to resources, we continued to offer support to our users. Our new Subject Library Guides provide targeted online support to students and our refreshed information skills training sessions offer face-to-face workshops on a range of topics. Our institutional open access and research data repositories have continued to expand.

It’s not just the library staff who were busy in 2018. Our users made great use of the library: there was more footfall in the library, searches in Hunter and downloads of e-resources than in 2017. The info-graphic below shows some stats from the library in 2018. Click on the link underneath to download the PDF.

Resources

We developed our collection throughout the past year. We purchased 2246 new books which were added to the library shelves. After a successful trial of JOVE (Journal of Visualized Experiments) we added this resource to our subscribed databases. Library members ran 353,069 Hunter searches 2018 – that’s 29, 422* searches every single week! Well over half a million journal articles were downloaded, 691,858 to be precise, and 26,784 books were borrowed.

Services

Footfall was high last year and 45,000* of you visited the library every month. Over 1000 new students attended library inductions at the start of the year and many more students attended further library sessions throughout the year. The NHS Liaison team conducted 88 Cares searches to support clinical activity and decision making.

Research

St George’s Data Repository, powered by figshare, was launched in 2017. Last year, it gained 24 new public deposits and had 661* monthly views. St George’s Online Research Archive (SORA) had 2325* downloads per month and 2980 full-text items publicly available.

We’ve enjoyed looking back on 2018 but we’re also excited for what 2019 will bring. It’s not even mid-way through January and already we’ve seen the arrival of new self-service machines. These machines will make it easier to borrow multiple items – simply stack your books on top of each other and they will all be issued. As we increased the number of items that you could borrow last year, this new feature should come in handy!

*approximate average based on 2018 figures

Open Access: Green and Gold

St George’s researchers: read on to find out how to make research open access, and how to win a £30 Amazon voucher…

There are two different ways to make your research articles open access: the green route and the gold route.

Green Open Access

Green Open Access: What is it?

Green open access means making your research articles freely available via a subject or institutional repository (such as SORA, SGUL’s institutional repository), after any embargo period required by the publisher has passed.

What do I need to do?

When your article is accepted for publication, create a basic record in the CRIS (Current Research Information System for St George’s Researchers) and upload your author’s accepted manuscript to it. . (This is the version after any changes resulting from peer review, but before the publisher’s formatting and copy editing.) We will then check the record and apply any embargo period before making it live in SORA.

For more guidance, please log in to your CRIS profile and click on the Help tab at the top right hand side.

If you have any questions, see our website or contact sora@sgul.ac.uk

 

Gold Open Access

Gold Open Access: What is it?

Gold open access means making your research articles freely available on the publisher’s website when they’re published, usually under a license which allows for reuse.

What do I need to do?

Find out if the journal you’re publishing in has an open access option, and then see if you have any funding available to pay for it.

Some publishers offer discounts or waivers for SGUL researchers: check our page on open access fees to see if any of them apply to you.

If your research is funded:

RCUK and COAF (a partnership of six health research charities) have provided us with funds to make articles arising from that research open access. To find out if you’re eligible, see our website or email openaccess@sgul.ac.uk

If your research is funded by another grant, check with your grants officer to see if there are any funds in it for open access publications.

If your research is unfunded:

Consider applying to our new Institutional Fund for open access publication fees – see the link on our open access webpage.


 

Open Access Week Competition

Win a £30 Amazon voucher: follow our Twitter account @sgullibrary to enter our competition on this year’s OA week theme “Open in order to…”  – tell us why you think ‘Open’ is good. (See our blog post and Terms and Conditions for how to enter).


If you are interested receiving updates from the Library on all things open access, open data and scholarly research communications, you can subscribe to the Library Blog using the Follow button or click here for further posts from us.

Open Access Open Research

SGUL’s open access institutional repository SORA now has over two thousand full text publications written by SGUL researchers freely available online, a great milestone for SGUL to celebrate in International Open Access Week 2017.

On average there are over 1800 downloads of papers per month from SORA, the papers are indexed in SGUL’s Hunter, and in Google for maximum discoverability:

Screenshot of St George's Online Research Archive website

Win a £30 Amazon voucher: follow the library’s Twitter account @sgullibrary to enter our competition on this year’s OA week theme “Open in order to…” – tell us why you think ‘Open’ is good. (See our blog post and Terms and Conditions for how to enter).

Open access publication is a requirement of many of the big funders in biomedical and life sciences research due to its role in making research more accessible, more discoverable and more impactful1.

On the 4th October the Wellcome Trust released a new science strategy, Improving health through the best research. In it, they reaffirm their commitment to open research:

“Scientific knowledge achieves its greatest value when it is readily available to be used by others. And if knowledge generated with Wellcome support can be used for the improvement of health, it should be.”

Open research is an umbrella term bringing together a variety of efforts to make scientific research transparent and reproducible, and to increase its impact on policy, practice and technological advances. Open access publication is an important part of open research, helping to make research outputs accessible and useable by anyone. Another key tenet of open research is open data, and St George’s has recently launched a data repository to enable researchers to share, store and preserve their research content.

Queen’s University, Belfast, has put together some examples of how open access has benefitted their researchers.


For further information, please visit our open access webpage or contact openaccess@sgul.ac.uk.

1 The Open Access Citation Advantage Service, SPARC (Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition) Accessed 19 October 2017


If you are interested receiving updates from the Library on all things open access, open data and scholarly research communications, you can subscribe to the Library Blog using the Follow button or click here for further posts from us.

Open in order to…

The theme of this year’s International Open Access Week, which runs from 23rd-29th October, is “Open in order to…”. This year the focus is on thinking about possibilities are opened up by making research outputs open access.

Win a £30 Amazon voucher: follow the library’s Twitter account @sgullibrary to enter our competition on this year’s OA week theme “Open in order to…” – tell us why you think ‘Open’ is good. (For terms and conditions, and how to enter, see the end of this post.)

Open in Order to Open Access banner for 2017

Here are some reasons why research is made “open in order to…”

…improve public health

Breakthroughs in medical science are frequently in the news, but the research publications underpinning the headlines are often locked away behind a publisher’s paywall. For example, the research article referred to in this recent article from the BBC  is currently only available to subscribers to the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and many publications cited in the recent award of the Nobel Prizes for Chemistry and Physics are not publicly accessible. By contrast, a recent study by SGUL researchers on meningitis in children was published in an open access journal, meaning that the full article can be read by anyone, anywhere in the world, at any time.

Open access research allows anyone who is interested to read and evaluate the research for themselves. This might include:

  • Medical professionals wanting to improve patient care;
  • Members of the public wanting to learn more about a condition they have;
  • Journalists wanting to report more accurately on the story;
  • Policy makers;
  • Researchers whose institutions don’t subscribe to the journal the research is published in, or who are operating outside an institution.

Opening up research helps improve public health by increasing access to academic research.

 

…raise the visibility of my research

Studies1 have consistently shown a citation advantage for open access publications over closed access ones. Depositing your work in a repository increases the avenues by which your research can be discovered, as well as helping readers to follow your research from paper to paper more easily by collecting them all together.

 

…enable global participation in research

Making research open enables all researchers to access it and removes the financial barrier for those working in less well funded institutions, as well as independent researchers working outside institutions. Making your data and publications accessible for free and licensing it under terms which allow for reuse means that other researchers can pick up on and build on your research, benefitting the global research community as a whole.

 

…find new collaborators

Making your work open helps researchers on related topics find it and identify possibilities for collaboration. Open access can also promote cross-disciplinary working by making it easier for researchers to access work outside their own discipline.

1 The Open Access Citation Advantage Service, SPARC (Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition) Accessed 19 October 2017

 

How to enter:

Follow @sgullibrary on Twitter and complete the phrase “Open in order to…” using the hashtag #openinorderto and @sgullibrary’s Twitter handle.

Terms and Conditions:

  1. The competition will run from Monday 23 October 2017 until Sunday 29 October 2017.
  2. The prize draw is open to anyone with a valid SGUL ID.
  3. Winners will be chosen from all valid entries once the competition has closed on Sunday 29 October 2017.
  4. Winners will be contacted via Twitter. Be sure to check your account.
  5. The prize can only be collected in person from St George’s Library on production of a valid ID card.
  6. Prizes must be collected within two weeks of notification.
  7. The Judges’ decision is final and no correspondence will be entered in to.
  8. Photos of the prize winners will be taken to be used in publicity on Library media channels.
  9. One prize winner will be selected, unless the prize is not collected by the deadline, in which case the uncollected prize will be reselected (once only).
  10. Your tweets may be reused by St George’s Library for future promotional or informational purposes.
  11. Entries must contain the hashtag #openinorderto and must tag the library’s Twitter account @sgullibrary.

 


To find out more about open access, contact openaccess@sgul.ac.uk or visit the Library open access webpages.


If you are interested receiving updates from the Library on all things open access, open data and scholarly research communications, you can subscribe to the Library Blog using the Follow button or click here for further posts from us.

SORA has passed 1000 full text publications freely available online!

The logo for SORAWe’re pleased that SGUL’s open access institutional repository, SORA (St George’s Online Research Archive) has now made over one thousand full text publications written by researchers at SGUL freely available online.

Many of the big funders in biomedical and life sciences research require publications reporting the results of research they’ve funded to be available on open access, because open access will

  • Allow research to have maximum impact around the world, by letting researchers read and build on work already done ( You Tube How Open Access Empowered a 16-Year-Old to Make Cancer Breakthrough)
  • Increase citation advantage (PLOS One article on citation advantage)
  • Increase visibility and discoverability of your research (SHERPA FAQs explain how Google & Google Scholar search favours OAI-repository material and normally ranks it higher than an individuals’ websites)
  • Engage more members of the public with your research (podcast with Peter Suber)

For more information on open access please visit the Library open access webpages, or contact openaccess@sgul.ac.uk

Nora Mulvaney
Jennifer Smith
Research Publications and Open Access


If you are interested receiving updates from the Library on all things open access, open data and scholarly research communications, you can subscribe to the Library Blog using the Follow button or click here for further posts from us.

Useful books for Researchers

We’ve put together a selection of books that would be useful to researchers. Please click on the image to access the book details on the Library Catalogue.

Managing and sharing research data: a guide to practice
Managing and Sharing Research Data: H62 COR

Research design explained
Research Design Explained: H62 MIT

Doing a literature review in health and social care: a practical guide
Doing a Literature Review in Health and Social Care: LB2395 AVE

Conducting research literature reviews: from the internet to paper
Conducting Research   Literature Reviews:   LB2395 FIN

Getting Research Published: an A-Z of publication strategy
Getting research published: PE1475

How to write a grant application
How to write a grant application: W20.5 HAC

Introduction to research methods and data analysis
Introduction to Research Methods and Data Analysis in the Health Sciences: W25 HAG

Searching skills toolkit: finding the evidence
Searching Skills Toolkit: Finding    the Evidence:  WB25 DEB

Beyond Bibliometrics: harnessing multidimensional indicators of scholarly impact.
Beyond Bibliometrics:       Z669 CRO

7 ways we support researchers

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

7  ways we support researchers

1. We offer a literature search service (CARES) to help you manage your research.

2.  Use interlibrary loans to get you that important article.

3. SCONUL access is your key to resources in other libraries.

4.  We run critical appraisal workshops to show you how to assess the quality of your sources.

5.  Our IT Trainer can get Excel spreadsheets working for you.

6.  We have Open Access FAQs to tell you all about funder requirements.

7.  Our Liaison Librarians can give you one-to-one help.