Skip to content

Category: Scholarly Publishing

Published on
Picture of a roll of stickers that say "Citation Needed"
(Wikimedia Commons, n.d.)

Do you need to get or create citations, but aren’t sure how to get them quickly? Himmelfarb Library has resources that can help you get and create the citations you need for your resources. 

Citations are a means of giving proper credit to the sources you use, allow your audience to look up the sources you use, and add credibility and transparency to your work. In addition, failing to cite your sources is plagiarism, and can have serious consequences to your academic and professional career. Himmelfarb Librarian Tom Harrod provides an excellent explanation about why it’s important to cite your sources in this Why Cite video.

Many of Himmelfarb’s resources provide citations with the click of a button! Himmelfarb’s library catalog, which can be searched by using the search bar on the library’s homepage, provides citations for most of our resources by simply clicking the citation button. You can then select your desired citation style, and copy and paste the citation to your document.

Screenshot of a citation provided by Himmelfarb's library catalog.

Many Himmelfarb databases including PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, and AccessMedicine also provide citations for resources. While these automatically generated citations are extremely convenient and can be a great time-saver, it’s important to double check citations before including them in your work. You may find that the formatting is slightly off and corrections may be necessary.

Do you need an easy place to gather, manage, store and share your citations and bibliography? RefWorks may be the tool for you! It’s easy to upload documents and bibliographic information to your RefWorks library. The Reference Citation Manager allows you to import citations and format your paper. If you are new to RefWorks and want to learn more about using this tool, be sure to watch our Introduction to RefWorks video taught by Himmelfarb Librarian Paul Levett.

Are you ready to tackle creating your own citations from scratch? Or perhaps you need to check to make sure those automatically generated citations are formatted correctly. Himmelfarb’s APA, AMA, Harvard citation style guides are excellent tools for creating citations or checking formatting of existing citations. We also have citation tutorials available to provide additional help. 

Himmelfarb even has resources to help with more complicated citation needs. Do you have a list of citations in one format, but need to convert them into a different format? Learn how to change between citation styles with Himmelfarb Librarian Stacy Brody in our From AMA to APA: Quickly Changing Citation Styles video. Do you want to learn how to use citations to find related articles, identify influential articles, or track the impact of your own work? Learn how to use citations to accomplish these goals with Himmelfarb Librarian Tom Harrod in this Tracking Citations with Scopus video.

Whether you just need a quick citation to a journal article or book, need to create a citation from scratch, need a tool like RefWorks to help you organize your resources and format your paper, or want to watch a short tutorial on one of many different citation related topics, Himmelfarb is here to help! Still have questions about citations? Contact us through the Ask Us feature on our website, or email us at himmelfarb@gwu.edu. 

Published on
Flow chart of research lifecycle: plan & design; collect & capture; collaborate & analyse; manage, store & preserve; share & publish; discover, reuse & cite

Do you have a question about some aspect of the research lifecycle? Perhaps you need help putting together a systematic review or are looking for tools that will help you select a journal for your manuscript. Or maybe you want help tracking citations for your published research. The Himmelfarb Library’s Scholarly Communications Short Video Series can help you with these questions. These brief (~5 minute) tutorials cover topics related to all aspects of the research lifecycle from project planning to publishing to promotion and preservation. The series currently includes 15 video tutorials that cover the following topics: 

Project Planning and Development Tutorials: 

Publishing Related Tutorials: 

Project Promotion and Preservation Tutorials: 

Look for more video tutorials in January 2022 on topics including post-publication promotion tips, advanced literature searches using the MeSH search builder, open access publishing, and more. Have a suggestion for a video tutorial? Complete this brief survey. 

Image citation: Pinnock, G. (2018). The Research Data Management (RDM) lifecycle at the University of Cape Town (UCT). Retrieved from: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:UCT_RDM_lifecycle_(all_icons).svg

Published on
Images of a smartphone with the Twitter logo (blue background and a white bird) on the screen.
Photo by Jeremy Bezanger on Unsplash

Are you looking for ways to increase the impact and visibility of an upcoming publication? Would you like to use social media to get the word out, but aren’t sure how to do so effectively? One option is to include a ‘Tweetable Abstract’ in your paper’s abstract when you submit it for publication. In today’s world, Twitter can be a fantastic tool to help promote your research. Twitter can help you share your research with other researchers, journalists, decision makers, and the general public.

A tweetable abstract is a one or two line summary of your research, 280 characters or less, that communicates the main conclusion or the key message of your paper. Many publishers are now asking authors to include tweetable abstracts alongside traditional abstracts so the publisher can promote your article online. Tweetable abstracts are even showing up as part of article abstracts in databases such as PubMed and Scopus!

Screenshot of record from PubMed that includes a tweetable abstract.

Once readers find your article, this tweetable abstract makes it easy for them to share your work on Twitter, thus expanding your potential audience even further. Here are some tips and tricks to help you create a tweetable abstract:

  • Keep it short! Twitter has a 280 character limit (characters - not words). Your abstract must be within this limit. That said, when it comes to Twitter, less is more. Shorter tweets tend to have more engagement with users.
  • Communicate the main conclusion or the key message of your paper. Here’s an example of a Tweet that does this from JAMA:
Screenshot of a JAMA tweet: "Randomized trial among patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest found that administration of vasopressin and methylprednisolone, compared with placebo, significantly increased the likelihood of return of spontaneous circulation"
  • Consider using a leading question to attract interest. You can provide a short answer in your tweet if you have space. Here’s an example of a tweetable question based on an article from the Journal of Advanced Nursing Twitter account:
Screenshot of a tweet from the Journal of Advanced Nursing: "How can we ensure future nurses have the skills & knowledge to give #EquitableHealthCare?"
  • Avoid jargon - a tweetable abstract should be approachable, not intimidating.
  • Use relevant tags and hashtags to increase the number of people who see your tweet.
  • Turn buzzwords into hashtags.
  • Be strategic about when you post your tweetable abstract. Post it during times you know people are active on Twitter. Avoid posting in the middle of the night. 
  • Include your Twitter handle in your tweetable abstract! This will allow others to reach out to you about your work. Here’s a good example of an author’s Twitter Handle being used in a tweet by the American Journal of Public Health (AJPH):
Screenshot of tweet from American Journal of Public Health: "A study by @ajmilammdphd and @DrKMSimon et al., suggests a health data disparity - the excessive classification of opioid-involved overdose deaths (OODs) is likely attributable to the race/ethnicity of the decedent."

Want more information on how to create effective tweetable abstracts? Watch this short video from the Society for Conservation Biology to learn more about content, using hashtags, and including your Twitter Handle in your tweetable abstract.

Published on

Months or maybe years ago you set up an ORCID. That’s a great first step to having a unique identifier for your research and work. It allows others to find, link to, and credit you for your work even if you have a common name. Some major scientific publishers and funders now require an ORCID to publish with them or submit grant proposals.

ORCiD logo

Setting up your ORCID is just the first step (if you haven’t taken that step yet, here’s how!) Your ORCID needs care and feeding to maximize the benefits to you. Here’s some tips for keeping your ORCID up to date and maximizing its usefulness:

  1. Make sure to add all the variants for how your name appears in works.  Do you sometimes use two initials and sometimes use just one? Do you sometimes use a shortened version of your first name (ex. Jon for Jonathan). Make sure all these versions get added to your account - here’s how.
  1. Published something new or gotten a new grant? Add it!  You can link your ScopusID (here’s a brief tutorial) or figshare to automatically add new works to your ORCID account. 
  1. Add your ORCID to My NCBI or your SciENcv Biosketch and let your ORCID account keep those accounts up to date.
  1. Include your ORCID on your CV, email signature, LinkedIn, ResearchGate and Twitter profiles. It allows others to easily see all of your works.
  1. Need a quick print record of your work? Generate a printable CV using your ORCID URL plus “print”, i.e. https://orcid.org/your_ORCID_here/print

For more information on creating and maintaining ORCIDs, check out our Research Guide or watch our YouTube tutorial.

Published on
Himmelfarb Library has a variety of resources to help you publish your research confidently. From citation assistance to avoiding publishing with a predatory publisher, there are many considerations when preparing to publish your research. Himmelfarb Library can help you identify a reputable source and navigate the publication process. Make sure to check out the guides, videos, tutorials and reference services available through Himmelfarb Library!

Research and Publishing Resources:
● Resources for Early Career Researchers Guide:
https://guides.himmelfarb.gwu.edu/EarlyCareerResearchers
● Scholarly Publishing Guide: https://guides.himmelfarb.gwu.edu/scholarlypub
● Predatory Publishing Guide: https://guides.himmelfarb.gwu.edu/PredatoryPublishing
● APA Citation Guide: https://guides.himmelfarb.gwu.edu/APA
● AMA Citation Guide: https://guides.himmelfarb.gwu.edu/AMA
● Case Reports: https://guides.himmelfarb.gwu.edu/casereports
● Copyright: https://guides.himmelfarb.gwu.edu/copyright
● Measuring Scholarly Research Impact:
https://guides.himmelfarb.gwu.edu/JudgingYourImpact
● Researcher Profile Audit Service: https://guides.himmelfarb.gwu.edu/ProfileAudit
 
Services: Researcher Profile Audit Service (RPAS) 
https://guides.himmelfarb.gwu.edu/ProfileAudit
 
Video Tutorials:
https://guides.himmelfarb.gwu.edu/scholarlypub/video
 
Other assistance:
-Journal Selection assistance (on request; shoover@gwu.edu or tph@gwu.edu ) 
-Publication metrics assistance (on request; shoover@gwu.edu or tph@gwu.edu ) 

Published on
Hand putting paper in trashcan

The rapid evolution of evidence and constant press coverage during the COVID-19 pandemic shone a spotlight on an issue that has continued to dog librarians, evidence synthesists, and database creators: how to track and display retractions, comments of concerns, and other, related notices, while maintaining the completeness of the scientific record. 

Science is, as is often said, a self-correcting process. We have measures in place to ensure the soundness and quality of research published. We use peer review. We have reporting standards. Journals and publishers are adding more and more transparency guidelines, for instance around funding disclosures and data and software/code sharing. 

Still, retractions happen. So do corrections. And comments of concern. Other scientists, editors, and readers in general (even students (see Reardon, 2021) flag issues in published research. “Part of the iterative process of scientific research is calling out and remembering the mistakes so as not to repeat them” (Berenbaum, 2021, p.3).

Once that research is published, how do we manage these concerns? “Removing a discredited paper from the literature entirely isn’t possible [and] isn’t necessarily desirable; doing so removes part of the record of the self-correcting iterative process by which science advances” (Berenbaum, 2021, p.2). How do we at once preserve the scientific record, keeping the original article for historical and/or meta-research purposes, and ensure that readers are alert to larger concerns about the article?

This has been highlighted during the COVID-19 pandemic and the accelerated research, writing, review, and publication cycles. The retractions from premier journals, and their subsequent reuse and citation, had potential for very real consequences in decision-making and "challenge authors, peer reviewers, journal editors, and academic institutions to do a better job of addressing the broader issues of ongoing citations of retracted scientific studies" (Lee, et al., 2021).

In conversations with other librarians conducting COVID-19 literature searches, we all encountered instances of retractions, comments of concern, withdrawals, and even disappearances of articles we were responsible for identifying and sharing with decision-makers and clinicians.

In one email thread, librarians shared strategies to specifically identify retractions in literature searches. The tools at our disposal are necessarily limited by the publishers’ practices and the metadata in our databases. For instance, a withdrawn preprint remains difficult to capture. 

That said, we can devise, from the documentation provided by PubMed, a strategy to identify retractions and concerns when conducting systematic reviews, developing guidelines, and participating in other projects requiring comprehensive searches. When conducting such projects, the time between the original search and export of results, writing, submission, and actual publication can be months. Within that time, articles can be corrected or retracted for a variety of reasons, ranging from updating an author’s affiliation to the uncovering of fabricated data. 

In the email thread of librarians discussing retraction searching in the context of COVID-19, one suggested searching “Expression of concern for: [article title].” Not all articles are formally retracted. Others may be published as errata or expressions of concern. The reasons for each can vary. To fully cover the breadth of potential concerns, I used this suggestion as a starting point to identify potentially problematic articles within a set of search results. 

In Ovid MEDLINE, AND the following to your search strategy 

"Expression of concern for".m_titl.

"Erratum in".mp.

"Retraction in".mp.

retracted publication.pt.

1 or 2 or 3 or 4

*Please note, this search approach has not been formally tested.*

Line 1 aims to capture expressions of concern, which are written by journal editors and often use the phrase “Expression of concern” in their titles. 

Line 2 aims to capture errata. Errata are published to correct or add information in a published article and to address errors arising in either the publication process or from missteps in methodology. Note, errata include a range of corrections and additions, from correcting an author’s job title (BMJ, 2008) to accidental duplication of a figure (Silva-Pinheiro, et al. 2021). 

Lines 3 and 4 aim to capture retractions. According to the Committee on Publication Ethics, retractions should be considered when there is reason to believe a publication presents unreliable findings or unethical research, plagiarises, uses material without proper authorization, or fails to note major competing interests (Barbour et al., 2009). 

Lines could be added to specifically capture comments, corrected articles, and updated articles. 

Additional resources are available to help identify and monitor retractions in the literature. Retraction Watch maintains a searchable database. If you use Zotero, you are automatically alerted to retracted papers saved in your library. 

When in doubt, reach out to your Himmelfarb librarians for assistance searching!

References

Reardon, S. (2021). Flawed ivermectin preprint highlights challenges of COVID drug studies. Nature, 596(7871), 173–174. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02081-w

Berenbaum, M. R. (2021). On zombies, struldbrugs, and other horrors of the scientific literature. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(32), e2111924118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2111924118

Lee, T. C., Senecal, J., Hsu, J. M., & McDonald, E. G. (2021). Ongoing citations of a retracted study involving cardiovascular disease, drug therapy, and mortality in covid-19. JAMA Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.4112

BMJ. (2008). 3360-b. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a402

Silva-Pinheiro, P., Pardo-Hernández, C., Reyes, A., Tilokani, L., Mishra, A., Cerutti, R., Li, S., Rozsivalova, D. H., Valenzuela, S., Dogan, S. A., Peter, B., Fernández-Silva, P., Trifunovic, A., Prudent, J., Minczuk, M., Bindoff, L., Macao, B., Zeviani, M., Falkenberg, M., & Viscomi, C. (2021). Correction to 'DNA polymerase gamma mutations that impair holoenzyme stability cause catalytic subunit depletion'. Nucleic Acids Research. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkab837

Barbour, V., Kleinert, S., Wager, E., & Yentis, S. (2009). Guidelines for retracting articles. Committee on Publication Ethics. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.4

1

Published on 1 Comment on Where There’s Smoke, There’s Fire: The Juul Journal Controversy
Image of shopping cart with $20 bills inside next to a stack of books.
Photo by Karolina Grabowska from Pexels

A July 2021 post on MedPage Today discussed the fact that e-cigarette maker Juul had spent $51,000 to publish an entire special issue of articles in the American Journal of Health Behavior (AJHB) that promote the use of e-cigarettes. The special issue includes 11 studies focused on “the implications of switching from cigarettes to Juul systems, and dual use of cigarettes and Juul products” (Torjesen, 2021). 

Juul partnered with Pinney Associates and the Centre for Substance Use Research (CSUR) to conduct these studies (Basen, 2021). According to the Pinney Associates website, they help “pharmaceutical companies and consumer healthcare clients to reduce their regulatory risk and enhance the commercial value of their life sciences products” (Pinney Associates, 2021). The company began working exclusively with Juul Labs, Inc. in 2019 “to advance relative risk-based regulation of nicotine and tobacco products” because “smokers should not have to suffer unnecessarily and risk dying prematurely because of how they get their nicotine” (Pinney Associates, 2021). 

CSUR’s website states that they are an “independent research centre” with a goal of ensuring that those within the e-cigarette industry “have access to high quality behavioural research that can further their own goals of reducing the harms associated with the use of combustible tobacco products” (CSUR, 2021). The CSUR website even touted the recent special issue of AJHB as “reporting on the impact of the JUUL e-cigarette on adult smoker behavior” and later praised Juul’s commitment to “strengthening the evidence base around the contribution of electronic nicotine delivery systems in reducing the multiple harms of smoking” (CSUR, 2021). 

According to MedPage Today, “Juul staff contributed to every article...while Pinney staff worked on 10 of them and CSUR staff conducted data analyses for seven” of the 11 articles published in this AJHB special issue. While AJHB policy is to charge researchers to publish in their journal, it is unusual for a company to purchase an entire issue. 

A Juul news release from April 2021 stated that following Juul’s Premarket Tobacco Product Applications (PMTA) filing in July 2020, the 11 studies published in this special issue were a result of Juul’s regulatory team shifting their focus to publishing “key research underlying our application through peer-reviewed manuscripts.” The FDA is currently considering this filing and was expected to announce a ruling yesterday (September 9, 2021) on whether or not Juul vaping products could remain on the market. However, the FDA delayed this decision saying it needed more time to rule on Juul’s products according to an article published in The Washington Post and an NPR story that aired on All Things Considered yesterday.

AJHB has faced criticism following the publication of the special issue. The backlash has resulted in the retirement of Elbert Glover, the journal’s executive editor at the time of the issue’s publication, and the resignation of three editorial board members. While Juul claims that the company “must engage with the public health community on the science and facts underlying our products,” critics including David Dayen, executive editor of The American Prospect, point out that all articles published in the AJHB special issue “take the Juul party line that e-cigarettes help convert smokers away from combustible tobacco products, and thus aid public health” (Basen, 2021). 

“After decades of tobacco companies paying previously credible scientists to produce studies designed to reach a predetermined outcome to foster their marketing goals and mislead the public about the overall state of the evidence, one thing should be abundantly clear: research funded by tobacco companies cannot be treated as a credible source of science or evidence. No credible scientific journal should allow a tobacco company to use it for this purpose.”

Matthew Myers, president of Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids (Torjesen, 2021)

Elbert Glover, AJHB’s now retired editor-in-chief, defended the journal's decision to publish the special issue in a recent BMJ news article and explained that “to reject a paper [based] on who funded the work rather than science is wrong '' (Torjesen, 2021). Glover also claimed that all manuscripts went through the full review process with no special treatment, and nothing was hidden during the review process (Torjesen, 2021). However, this claim was refuted by a reviewer who alleged that “reviewers were not informed of Juul’s role until they questioned ‘fishy’ aspects of the studies” (Redden, 2021). The unnamed reviewer explained she even recommended one study be rejected because it was so biased and made her think there was “No way it wasn’t funded by Juul” (Redden, 2021). 

This situation is a reminder of the importance of thinking critically about research. Publication itself in a peer-reviewed journal is not enough to ensure that the research is good research. Things to consider when evaluating research include: potential conflict of interest (i.e. author affiliation and/or funding sources), bias, appropriate study design, sample size (and if the sample is representative of the wider population), data collection methods, and the use of appropriate statistical measures and methods.

The funding source of research that produced an article is perhaps the most relevant of these criteria in the case of the AJHB Juul special issue. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis analyzed articles published in peer-reviewed journals and assessed whether or not funding sources supported or opposed substitution of tobacco or nicotine products as harm reduction (Hendlin et al., 2019). Of the 826 articles reviewed, “23.9% disclosed support by industry; 49% of articles endorsed THR [tobacco harm reduction]; 42% opposed it, and 9% took a neutral or mixed positions” (Hendlin et al., 2019). The article concluded that “non-industry funded articles were evenly divided in stance, while industry-funded articles favored THR” and that “public health practitioners and researchers need to account for industry funding when interpreting the evidence in THR debates” (Hendlin et al., 2019).

Do you want to learn more about how to evaluate a resource’s credibility? Himmelfarb Library can help! Check out the following video for more information about evaluating a resource's credibility

References:

Aubrey, A. (2021, September 9). The FDA will take more time to determine if benefits of Juul Products Outweigh Harm. All Things Considered. https://www.npr.org/2021/09/09/1035610408/the-fda-will-take-more-time-to-determine-if-benefits-of-juuls-products-outweigh-

Basen, R. (July 13, 2021). Juul bought out medical journal for $51K: E-cig maker sponsored nearly a dozen studies, took over journal as it awaits FDA ruling. Medpage Today. https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/93555?xid=nl_mpt_investigative2021-07-21&eun=g1151854d0r&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=InvestigativeMD_072121&utm_term=NL_Gen_Int_InvestigateMD_Active

CSUR: Centre for Substance Use Research. (2021). Centre for Substance Use Research website. https://www.csures.com/

Hendlin, Y. H., Vora, M., Elias, J., & Ling, P. M. (2019). Financial Conflicts of Interest and Stance on Tobacco Harm Reduction: A Systematic Review. American journal of public health, 109(7), e1–e8. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2019.305106

Perrone, M. (2021, September 9). FDA delays decision on e-cigarettes from vaping giant Juul. The Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/fda-delays-decision-on-e-cigarettes-from-vaping-giant-juul/2021/09/09/3bb84966-119e-11ec-baca-86b144fc8a2d_story.html

Pinney Associates. (2021). Pinney Associates homepage. https://www.pinneyassociates.com/

Redden, E. July 13, 2021. Buying Off an Academic Journal? Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/07/13/e-cigarette-maker-juul-pays-51000-fund-special-issue-juul

Torjesen I. (2021). Academic journal is criticised for publishing special issue funded by tobacco industry. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 373, n1247. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n1247

Published on
  • Interested in performing a systematic review, but don’t know how to get started?  
  • Want to learn the basic steps in completing a systematic review?

If you answered ‘yes’ to these questions, then the Himmelfarb Library’s ‘Systematic
Review Seminar Series’ is for you!

This series will be composed of brief, biweekly lunchtime sessions covering a variety of
topics which will take you from the development of a systematic review project all the
way through to the creation and submission of a manuscript. 

To learn more, please visit the series guide: https://guides.himmelfarb.gwu.edu/SR_Seminar_Series

The live sessions will be held every other Wednesday at 12 p.m. via WebEx and they
are designed to last around 30 minutes.  The sessions will be recorded and those
recordings will be posted to the series guide linked above.

The first session in the series will be:
Title: Types of Reviews
Location: https://gwu.webex.com/meet/tph
Day: Wednesday August 18, 2021
Time: 12 p.m.- 12:30 p.m. EST

If you have any questions or if you’d like your email address to be added to the series
distribution list, please contact series instructor, Tom Harrod at tph@gwu.edu.

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

Published on

As we wrap up another school year, prepare for summer classes and the start of the 2021-2022 academic year, the Scholarly Communications Committee is here to help you answer your burning research and publishing questions! Our micro-lecture series video library now includes seven additional lectures that covers a range of topics related to scholarly research and publishing!

Do you want to learn more about an institutional repository (IR) and how to archive your research in an IR? Then watch Archiving Scholarship in an Institutional Repository (IR) where you’ll learn “how to archive items in the Health Sciences Research Commons (HSRC), the institutional repository for the George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, the Milkan Institute School of Public Health, and the School of Nursing.” 

Are you curious about how editors critique manuscripts? In Screening: What do Editors Look For? Stacy Brody, the Reference and Instruction librarian, “breaks down the key criteria editors use, including novelty, significance, relevance, ethics and reporting, transparency and openness, and technical guidelines.”

Or you may be interested in collaborating with researchers, but aren’t sure where to look or where to begin. Well the Basics of Collaboration Tools in the Research Process lecture offers resources and tips on “how to find collaborators who can bring a fresh perspective and expand the impact of your research.”  These are just three of the many short lectures available now in our Scholarly Communications Short Video Library! Be sure to watch all of the videos and explore our Scholarly Publishing libguide that offers additional resources and tips that will assist you with your research needs.

Published on

Himmelfarb Library extends congratulations to all the GW Research Showcase prize winners, and the residents and students who participated in this year’s event! Formerly GW Research Days, the Showcase highlights research and innovations across all GW disciplines. This year’s presentations were held via Zoom April 12th-14th.

If you participated and would like to provide a way for those who couldn’t Zoom in to see your poster/presentation, consider making it available in Himmelfarb’s Health Sciences Research Commons (HSRC). The HSRC has a space dedicated to Research Days/Showcase content and will make presentations searchable not only within HSRC, but also in Google Scholar.

HSRC record of a 2017 GW Research Days poster

Depositing presentations in a searchable, open access archive helps you build a CV and easily share and promote your work. Posters and presented papers are great candidates for HSRC as they are often not published in other sources. If you have published posters, presentations, or research articles, it can still be advantageous to include them in HSRC. Many publishers allow pre-prints of works to be archived for sharing. Even if this is not allowed, having citations linking to your works in one centralized space provides a unified online CV where others can see all of your research activities and interests.

Information on how to contribute works to HSRC is in the Author FAQ. If you have additional questions, please contact Sara Hoover, Metadata and Scholarly Publishing Librarian at shoover@gwu.edu.

Viewing Message: 1 of 1.
 Notice

This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. Visit GW’s Website Privacy Notice to learn more about how GW uses cookies.