#recognition part 1

Now that you have your work published, how do you become recognized? Of course, there are many different possibilities to distribute your profile and display your work. How do you get started with this process? Is it helpful to have profiles on LinkedIn, VIVO, Mendeley, BioMedExpert. Which tool is the best place to post your profile and published works? In the present time, there is not one leading place where people post and search for experts, making the process of recognition more challenging. Since there is not one leading service, it is necessary to use multiple sources and technologies to gain recognition in your field. 

In light of the fact, that most people will use more than one service, probably at least three. We have identified areas as good places to start for a researcher seeking to gain recognition: 

1. University homepage

As a part of a univeristy community taking adavantage of the systems that are offered by can increase your research transparency to your local community. Some systems have made this process easy by integrating prepopulating profiles such as the VIVO system.  However, sometimes these have restrictive formats.

2. Social Networking sites:

Social networking sites increase researchers’ opportunities to make connections to others in their fields of work. For example, maintaining a Mendeley profile, you can receive personalized statistics on your papers and connect to like-minded scholars within the network and discover new potential colleagues. 

3. Personal webpage or blog

Personal webpages and blogs allow you to personalize your profile and list your works in your own fashion. You have more “freedom” on a personal webpage or blog than you would in one of the above options. It does take a little more work to custom make a webpage, but is worth the time and effort. Of course, you can also link to your other sites and profiles from this page. 

4. Reference Mangers

Reference management tools can be an initial step to help researchers aggregate their publications. Some will also integrate online.

In each of the above areas we have compiled resources that fit into each category, see our Appendix below. It is important to note that some services integrate with each other, in most other cases information will be transferred via files, e.g. in BibTeX or RIS format. At the present time maintaining multiple outlets is standard, however there are also aggregation tools for some of the social media outlets where researchers can take advantage of integrating all of their outlets. 

A profile page should list the scholar activities of the researcher. You should try to give the following information - of course depending on your individual situation:


    It helps to spend some time to present a nice photo.

Contact form, email address (obfuscated) 

    Having the email readable to all is not recommended because of spam.

    Affiliation, past affiliations

Short description of your work and research interests, including a list of research interests/areas of expertise

     This could also included some personal information


    Papers, book chapters, books, posters, dissertations, presentations, etc. If possible, indicate Open Access and/or link to fulltext in institutional repository

Other scholarly activities: grants, patents,datasets, software development, peer review as reviewer or editor, as well as work in progress.

People working for you, collaborating with you

Awards, H-index and similar metrics, including (readership/download stats)

    It depends on social factors whether or not this information is appropriate

 Professional and public service activities

 Languages (including  computing resources), research sites, and experience working abroad.

Links to other services

    Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Google+ - where appropriate

Events/conferences that you attended and will attend

Networking is important to build a reputation, this can be done a variety of ways; Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, and attending physical events and conferences. In order to be found by others researching you, it is necessary to have a web presence that can be found via a google search. Part of social networking is knowing your audience, it is important to learn how to describe your work orally in 1, 3, and 10 minute versions; learn to describe your work textually in 3, 10, and 25 sentences.

Challenge: Note that these practices can vary significantly by employment sectors (governments, industries, academia), institutions, sub/fields of research, and countries. We need strategies for crossing these tacit boundaries.

Challenge: Prepopulation of content and portability of the content to other services.Currently it is difficult to port content from one profile to another system. 

Challenge: The format of articles in scholarly research journals has been stable for about 300 years; the goal of such articles is to represent research results in a highly formuaic way. The new technologies/techniques under discussion here are representing the process of making knowledge in various ways.  Perhaps it is best to see the new tools as additions to the traditional practices, rather than displacing them.

Appendix of Tools: Based on the recommended areas for researchers, we have included a list of resources within each category. 

1- University Content Management System:

VIVOWeb: http://vivoweb.org/

Catalyst: http://catalyst.harvard.edu/

Ednode http://ednode.com/people/

generic content management system


2-Social networking sites (for scientists):





LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/





3- Blogs, personal websites:




Wordpress or other blog hsoted on personal domain

4- Reference Managers: 

Mendeley: http://www.mendeley.com/

Papers: http://www.mekentosj.com/papers/


Endnote: http://www.endnote.com

Zotero: http://www.zotero.com

ColWiz http://colwiz.com

Author identifier services:

AuthorClaim: http://authorclaim.org/

Microsoft Academic Search: http://academic.research.microsoft.com/

Researcher ID (ScienceCard): http://www.researcherid.com/

Scopus Author Profile: http://www.scopus.com/

Aggregation tools

Hootsuite: http://hootsuite.com/

ifttt.com: http://ifttt.com/

ScienceCard: http://sciencecard.org

TotalImpact: http://www.total-impact.org

Educational Vignette: How to gain recognition for your research from the wider community

The following is addressed to a researcher seeking to understand how they can best present themselves and their research capabilities, skills, and expertise to the wider world.

You do great work, but the contribution you can make to the wider community isn’t always clear. How do people find you? What can you do to take the work you do and represent that to the wider public, whether you are looking for a job outside of research, contributing to discussions in the media, or providing your expertise to the courts? 

The bottom line is people will find you first via search — first through google, and second through facebook, LinkedIn, and other widely used social networks.  The same way that you seek out information on the web is the way many, or most, people will come to you. What happens when you do a search on your name?  Do the links there represent the best of what you have done? Do the web pages linked to provide summaries of your work in non-specialized language?  And if not, what can you do? Having an online profile, either your own website, or on a recognised service like LinkedIn is a great way to rise up the search results. You will have presentations that you’ve given. Do you share those on a service like SlideShare? Many researchers have presentations that have been viewed thousands of times, reaching a much larger audience than the people who were in the room. Done well these presentations are a powerful way to demonstrate your communication skills.

Writing is a skill you can take anywhere, and writing online, whether on blogs, forums, or places like Wikipedia is an effective way to improve those skills. If you write online about your research you can both promote your research work and raise its profile as well as hone and demonstrate those more generic writing and communication skills. The content you create will help people to find you. People who are looking for speakers, people who are looking for experts, and people who are looking for the right collaborators for their team. Also if you have a common name it is this online content that will differentiate you from all those others with similar names.

You can monitor your online presence with automated google alerts and similar services. Moreover, these forms of online work — slides on SlideShare, blogposts, etc — generate forms of metadata and usage metrics that can be aggregated by services such as Total Impact, which pull together information about how that work has been used, allowing a researcher to demonstrate their influence on other researchers in the field. These tools can help you to decide what is working for you, as well as help you to show people how your work compares to that of others. And what is more you can start using this information to enrich your CV, give evidence to mentors writing letters of recommendation, to demonstrate to the world who you are and what you can do. 

Notepad for the Recognition Group

The working notes for the recognition group can be found at:


Rough Transcript of my Opening Remarks

Dear Colleagues:

 It is an honor to be asked to address this group, some of whom I seem to see more than my own family, to set the stage for this 2011 Microsoft Research sponsored eScience workshop on Transforming Scholarly Communication.

 The first fundamental question to ask is, do we need a transformation in the first place? Obviously we all believe we do otherwise we would not be here, but what about the majority of scholars? I use my colleagues up and down the corridor as a benchmark to answer that question. A group currently oblivious to much of what we will show tomorrow. But nevertheless a group increasingly not oblivious to the changes going on around them – data sharing policies, cuts in library budgets, open access, and our students. Let me illustrate this latter point with a recent example of something remarkable that happened to me.

 A couple of months ago I received by email a paper to PLoS Comp Biol. This happens from time to time as authors try and circumvent the standard submission procedure and contact me as Editor in Chief directly. It was a paper in pandemic modeling, which appeared to question conventional approaches to such modeling. Not being an expert here I sent the manuscript to Simon Levin in Princeton who is on our Editorial Board for his opinion. Simon is a Kyoto Prize winner and an expert in large-scale biological modeling. He indicated there was something special about this well written paper. Since the sole author was living in San Diego I agreed to meet with her and discuss the work. Simply by asking she had received a large amount of free computer time from the San Diego Supercomputer Center (SDSC), got free access to Mathamatica and had clearly benefited from the open access literature as well as resources like Wikipedia. I encouraged her to submit the work to Science, which she has done, and it is currently under review.


The sole author’s name is Meredith.  What makes this story remarkable, is that she is 15 years old and a senior at La Jolla High School in San Diego. She subsequently presented her work at my lab meeting, which I must say was much better attended than usual. Sitting there with my eyes closed I thought I was in the presence of a professor deep into their area of expertise. It was only when I opened my eyes and saw the braces did reality sink in.

Clearly this is an extreme case, but lets not be modest, what we are trying to do here is enable anyone with an Internet connection and a will to learn, achieve what Meredith has achieved. I cannot think of a more noble cause. While we have seen this possibility for a long time, what is new is that others are now seeing it too.

We all have our own Meredith stories or at the very least some driver that moves us in the same way. For some it is the glacial pace at which knowledge exchange takes place; for others it is the sense of unease about the lack of reproducibility in our own science; for others it is the inaccessibility of knowledge; and for others still it is the totally qualitative way quantitative scientists measure the value of scholarship.

With Meredith as our motivation, let us take a minute to analyze the path we are on towards transforming scholarship through what has happened this past year and then what might happen as a result of this workshop.

2011 may well be remembered as the year that stakeholders – scientists, publishers, archivists and librarians, developers, funders, and decision makers went from working in isolation to beginning to work together. What started with Beyond the PDF in January had become a “movement” by the time the summer meetings were over. The Dagstuhl meeting captured the spirit in a manifesto that should become a living document for us all to consider. Movements have transformed entrenched systems before and it remains an open and very exciting question as to whether that will happen here. For a small group to cause change to many requires that the many believe that change is needed and gradually get on board. I believe that time has come.

The driver of change is the ground swell towards open science. When I first heard that a group of prominent life scientists got together and agreed to start a new open access journal I was disappointed – such vision coming up with something that we had already. But if the effort by HHMI, Wellcome Trust and Max Plank does indeed compete with Science and Nature it will precipitate change. My sense is that Publishers see the writing on the wall, or more appropriately the screen and the smart ones are gearing up to a future with different business models. The winning publishers will move from serving science through scientific process and dissemination to doing that plus enabling knowledge discovery, more equitable reward systems and improving comprehension by a broader audience. Interestingly, it is not clear to me, based on my interactions with OAPSA, that open access publishers see it that way. Many simply see delivering papers as before, but with a different revenue model. Ironically even if they see the promise of change, they do not have the resources to make it happen. We must help them and that is why meetings like this one are so important. A serious example of what we must fix is the lack of consistent representation of their papers in XML. PubMed Central will come back to haunt us when developers begin to seriously try and use the content. This is history repeating itself – look at the biological databases. We should learn from history.

Open science is more that changing how we interface with the final product it is interfacing with the complete scientific process – motivation, ideas, hypotheses, experiments to test the hypotheses, data generated, analysis of that data, conclusions and  awareness. This is a tall order and I believe we need to proceed in steps. Clearly access and effective use of data is a valuable next step. Funders are demanding it, scientists (to some degree) are providing it and repositories exist to accept it. But right now it is a mess, but we have an opportunity. Ontologies exist, some tools exist and so we have the opportunity NOT to repeat the horrible loss of productivity we see in the publishing world of rehashing the same material for different publishers. Let us define and implement data standards and input mechanisms that capture the generic metadata, provide the hooks for more domain specific deeper content and allow a more universal deposition and search. We need to do this now before systems become entrenched. Otherwise Google, Bing and the like will be our tools for data discovery – we need deep and meaningful search of data.

Let me conclude with a couple of thoughts on what I believe should come from the workshop. 

1.     We will hear about some wonderful tools and innovative software developments to support scholarly communication – we must define a way to aggregate these efforts to facilitate uptake by others around a focused and shared development effort.

2.     We need to define ways to recruit to the movement – it will take more than tools to do so – are there clear wins for all concerned? If so what are they? Platforms to disseminate scholarship, new reward systems, knowledge discovery from open access content, proven improved comprehension.

What can we do so that more 15 year olds are active contributors to scholarship? This is our challenge. Thank you very much.







Bios of the Organizers

Bio sketches of the meeting organizers, who will float from group to group:

  1. Alyssa Goodman, Harvard University
  2. Alberto Pepe, Harvard University
  3. Mary Lee Kennedy, Harvard University
  4. Malgorzata (Gosia) Stergios, Harvard University
  5. Lee Dirks, Microsoft Research
  6. Alex Wade, Microsoft Research
  7.  Joshua M. Greenberg, Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
  8. Chris Mentzel, Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation

Bios of attendees in #recognition theme

  1. Micah Altman, Harvard University, IQSS
  2. Patrick Brown, Co-founders/representatives of PLoS
  3. Martin Fenner, Hannover
  4. Kathleen Fitzpatrick, Pomona College & NYU
  5. Daniel Goroff, Sloan Foundation
  6. Sinisa Hrvatin, Labtiva / ReadCube
  7. Jessica Mezei, Mendeley
  8. Cameron Neylon , STFC (UK)
  9. Rafael Sidi, Elsevier
  10. Peter Suber, Berkman Center
  11. Sharon Traweek, UCLA
  12. Jevin West, University of Washington

Demonstrations on RECOGNITION on Meeting Day 1

RECOGNITION How can we best enable cooperation and adoption?
Facilitator: Cameron Neylon, Senior Scientist at Science and Technology Facilities Council

  • Jevin West, University of Washington (Demo of Eigenfactor)
  • Jessica Mezei, Mendeley Community Liaison (Demo of Mendeley)
  • Rafael Sidi, VP, Product Management at Elsevier (Demo of SciVerse)
  • Lee Dirks, Director, Microsoft Research Connections (Demo of Microsoft Academic Search)