KUDOS: A Researcher Tools

An online platform that helps any kind of reader find your work: whether colleagues, researchers inside and outside of your field, the scientific news media, or the general public.

After thousands of hours of hard work, you carefully wrote up the results, polished your manuscript through rounds of revisions, and received the good news that your article was accepted and published. You can turn the page and start the following task. Or you could act, instead of waiting for the world to discover your groundbreaking work.

Kudos aims to help authors increase readership. Rather than waiting for people to find your article or hoping that your journal will effectively promote it, you can use a tool like Kudos to increase your article’s reach. It is currently free for authors and paid for by participating publishers.

Kudos co-founder Melinda Kenneway at the 2014 Society for Scholarly Publishers (SSP) conference in Boston, said that she wants to give authors more “control” over the post-publication reach of their work:

In the past, authors were almost entirely dependent on their publishers to make sure their work gets found, read and cited. But with almost 2 million new articles being published every year, it’s becoming ever more critical for authors to use their own networks and expertise to ensure their publications get noticed.

Kenneway

In an extensive article published in AJE  by Amy Beisel, four Kudos’ features are highlighted:

  1. An editable plain-text field to summarize your work and its importance to the general audience.
  2. Space for adding links to data sets, photos, graphs, media coverage… or to point readers to coverage or blog mentions of your work
  3. Integrated social media (incl. Facebook, Twitter) to easily share a link either your enriched Kudos article profile or the version on the publisher’s website.
  4. Impact evaluation from publisher data and activity on your Kudos article page (similar than in researchgate, Kudos shows the n# times your publication is viewed and downloaded, and the article citations). It has also integrated with Altmetric, a service that quantifies interest in your article beyond citation metrics. For each publication you’ve claimed on your Kudos dashboard, you can view its Altmetric score and the various inputs into that score, including blog posts, tweets, and comments on publisher sites that mention your article.

From the home page, you can search for any of your publications that has a registered DOI  in CrossRef, using the built-in search feature. By creating an user account, you can then manage your publications: first click the “claim” button next to each of your articles, then the article appears in your dashboard.

Kudos account dashboard

Your account dashboard displays a summary view of your claimed publications; the actions you have taken to enrich and share each publication; and various measures of your publication’s reach, including article views, article downloads, and Altmetric score (see below). By clicking on an article from your dashboard, you will open your article’s profile page hosted by Kudos.

Your article profile page includes several components: title, authors, and journal; a link back to the article’s version of record on the publisher’s website; and editable fields where you can place additional context to help readers understand the importance of your article.

Pint of Science 2019

Monday 20 May to Wednesday 22 May 

Pint of Science is an annual festival that takes place over three evenings in multiple cities around the world.

The aim is to present fun, interesting and relevant talks and activities based on the latest science research in an accessible format to the public, in a pub setting. For that, researchers prepare fun and engaging talks and demonstrations aimed at a non-specialist, general public audience and based on their real research. 

In Sheffield, topics like Have we got time to waste?, Sound and vision and The future of healthcare, among others, will be represented.

Retractionwatch: an indispensable tool in scholarly publishing

Since August 2010, there is a place for recording  studies no longer reliable. The blog retractionwatch.com created the first database of retractions, with nearly 18,000 retractions so far, stretching back decades. There are well over a thousand retractions each year and this database inform about scientific misconducts.

Retractionwatch is doing deeper dives, prompting to file public records requests for reports of misconduct investigations and other materials (and their co-founders to urge universities to do a better job with them). In the past year, retractionwatch has collaborated together with journalism organizations, to bring readers stories that go deep and reach larger audiences than retractionwatch can on the blog. There are their established partnerships with STAT and Science, where they continue to break news and help readers make sense of developments.

Some of the most impressive stories related to retractions and academic misconduct include:

Can you share yours in the comments below?

This non-profit organization have received some foundation support from MacArthur Foundation, the Helmsley Trust, and the Arnold Foundation. The founders, Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus, are not taking salaries from the organization. One can contribute with a tax-deductible donation to The Center For Scientific Integrity or contribution, follow them on Twitter, like them on Facebook, add them to your RSS reader, sign up for an email or subscribe to daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in their database, you can let them know here. For comments or feedback: team@retractionwatch.com.

Pseudo science and bias information

Fake news is everywhere. Science-related pseudo facts have taken over the gossip sites and social media. And we are only at the beginning of an uphill battle to set the record straight. In this contribution, Melissa Hoover, shares her investigation on how people’s response to fake news makes it easier for such inaccurate stories to propagate at a rate that is way more important than fact-based news. Continue reading here.

“With the right ingredients, life seems to form very quickly” Mark Harrison

The origin of life started much earlier than scientists thought. The 19th of October 2015,  a research supporting that our planet’s first form of life was originated at least 4.1 billion years ago was published in the online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. That means 300 million years earlier than previous research suggested, shortly after, almost instantaneously, the planet formed (4.54 billion years ago) and prior to the massive bombardment of the inner solar system that formed the moon’s large craters (3.9 billion years ago).

Scientists had long believed the Earth was dry and desolate during that time period. However, the new research, carried out in UCLA, showed that the planet was probably much more like it is today than previously thought. Simple life appears to have formed quickly and it would evolve to photosynthesize after many millions of years.

The scientists identified and revealed primary inclusions in a mineral, namely dark specks contained in zircons, that were analyzed with Raman spectroscopy. The zircons had a specific ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-13 that indicates the presence of photosynthetic life. The graphite is older than the zircon containing it, being the latter 4.1 billion-years old.

Video: Dark specks contained in zircons.

Read more here