New pricing and new features, coming Sept 15th

It’s been an active couple of weeks at Impactstory. We’ve been thrilled at all the feedback we’ve received on our sustainability plan announcement, and we really appreciate the time many of you have put into sharing your thoughts with us.

Inspired by some of this feedback we’ve made some new plans. To continue furthering our vision of Impactstory as a professional-grade scholarly tool, in one month we’ll be adjusting the subscription price for new subscribers, and to go with it, launching an exciting to set of features.  Read on!

The suggestions

Many have suggested we go back to a free or freemium model, or find someone to charge other than our core users. And though we understand the appeal of these approaches (they were actually our Plan A for a long time), we won’t be going down those paths in the foreseeable future.  We’ve written about why elsewhere, as have some of our users and other folks around the web (Stefan’s post on the Paperpile blog was particularly good).

There was also a second set of suggestions, from folks who argued we should be charging more for Impactstory. Now that caught us by surprise.

To let you in on some of the background for why we chose our current price, we actually started with the idea of two bucks monthly. We knew the jump from free to subscription would sting, so we wanted to make it small. And we knew that we still have a ways to go before we deliver really compelling value for many users, so we wanted to ask for as little as we could. After a lot of discussion and some interviews, we eventually dared to push a bit higher, but drew the line at five dollars.

Undercharging? Seriously?

To hear that we might be undercharging was a bit of a shock. But when we examined the arguments for a higher price point, they made a lot of sense:

  • Your price establishes the perceived value of your product.

  • Your price only makes sense in relation to your market. Impactstory doesn’t have direct competitors, but we can look at the market for generally similar services. When we do, you see clusters around two price points: (1) free, like ResearchGate, Facebook, and so on, and (2) about $10/mo like GitHub or Spotify or Netflix. Crucially, there’s almost no one charging $5 monthly.

  • If we’re the cheapest thing people pay for, we’re establishing our value as the least important thing they pay for. That’s not the niche we’re shooting for.

  • And worse, people always assume you’re worth a bit less than you charge. So if our cost is “cheapest thing that’s not free,” then people assume our real value is: free. Nothing, no value.

This last point was particularly compelling when we read it, because it gets to the heart of why we’re charging in the first place: if we’re going to change researcher behavior and change the world, we have to establish ourselves as a professional-grade tool.

We can’t afford to be just something fun and cheap. And so we need to set a price that says that, loud and clear.  It looks like we got that price a little wrong with our first shot, and so we we’re going to adjust it.

So we’re making a change

We’re raising our subscription price to $60/year or $10/month, effective September 15th (one month hence).

Anyone who subscribes between now and September 15 will lock in their subscription at $5/month.  Everyone’s free trial will be extended till then, and new users will receive a 30 day trial.  And of course the no-questions-asked waiver will still be available.

But there’s a second part of this, too. Because raising the price can’t be the whole plan.

We get that some have been hesitant to use Impactstory for free. Part of the issue is that altmetrics aren’t widely accepted yet. We also know that if we want to sell Impactstory as a professional-grade tool with practical value for cutting-edge researchers, we’re going to need some very significant upgrades to what Impactstory does. It’s got to be worth the high price. That’s the whole point.

And so we’re going to be worth it

That’s why September 15th will also mark the completion of a huge new set of Impactstory features, collectively code-named Five Meter. We’ll be rolling these out over the course of the next month. It’s going to be one of our biggest feature pushes ever, and it’s going to be awesome.

The Five Meter spec isn’t 100% decided yet, but it’ll include a new more customizable profile page, stats on your twitter account and blog, support for your own domain name, new badges, and more.  Once these new features ship on September 15, our entire team is going to delete our professional webpages and online CVs, because at that point, Impactstory will be doing everything our webpages and online CVs do but better.

We think that’s something a lot of other researchers will want too, and want hard. And after a lot of conversation with the vanguard of web-native scientists–the folks we’re focused on right now–we’re convinced that’s an Impactstory they’ll gladly pay for. An Impactstory they’ll use, in earnest. And an Impactstory that’s way closer to transforming the way science is evaluated and shared.

As always, we’d love to hear questions or feedback! Email us at team@impactstory.org or tweet us at @impactstory.

 

All our best,

The Impactstory Team

P. S. Want to lock down that $45/year rate we talk about above? Login to your Impactstory profile, then head to Settings > Subscription. And if you aren’t already an Impactstory user but want to check out all the awesome new features we’ll be rolling out this month, sign up for a 30-day free trial now. Cheers!

Open Science & Altmetrics Monthly Roundup (July 2014)

Don’t have time to stay on top of the most important Open Science and Altmetrics news? We’ve gathered the very best of the month in this post. Read on!

Impactstory announces a new sustainability model: $5/month subscriptions

Last week, we announced that we’re switching our non-profit sustainability model to a subscription plan: $5 per month after a free, 14-day trial period. From the Impactstory blog:

Our goal has always been for Impactstory to support a second scientific revolution, transforming how academia finds, shares, understands, and rewards research impact. Today we believe in that goal more than ever. That’s why we’re a nonprofit, and always will be. But this transformation is not going to happen overnight. We need a sustainability model that can grow with us, beyond our next year of Sloan and NSF funding. This is that model.

So what does five bucks a month buy you? It buys you the best place in the world to learn and share your scholarly impact. It buys you a profile not built on selling your personal data, or cramming your page with ads, or our ability to hustle up more funding.

Five bucks buys you a profile built on a simple premise: we’ll deliver real, practical value to researchers, every day. And we’ll do it staying a nonprofit that’s fiercely commitment to independence, openness, and transparency.

To read the full announcement, check out last Thursday’s post.

The K(ardashian)-Index debuts

Neil Hall has caused a stir with his paper, “The Kardashian index: a measure of discrepant social media profile for scientists” published last week in Genome Biology. The tongue-in-cheek article outlines Hall’s idea for a metric that identifies scientists whose presence on Twitter isn’t matched by a record of scholarly impact, evidenced by many citations to their work. Here’s how the index works:

pnO1N3W.png

Where “F(a) is the actual number of twitter followers of researcher X and F(c) is the number researcher X should have given their citations.”

While many viewed Hall’s paper as being all in good fun, some are concerned that by denigrating those with more Twitter followers than would be “appropriate” given their number of citations, it reinforces the idea that a very narrow type of scholarly impact is the type of impact that matters most, above and beyond one’s ability to communicate with others about the work they’re doing.

And by making fun of the idea that there might be more flavors of impact than traditionally assumed, we disincentivize researchers from ever breaking from the conservative approaches to measuring impact–approaches that no longer fully reflect reality for those practicing web-native science.

Huge progress made on 20+ Open Science projects at Mozilla Science Global Sprint

On July 22 New Zealand Standard Time, an international team of coders and scientists began a 52-hour sprint to improve Open Science lessons and learning materials, teaching tools, and software and standards for better science. The sprint was organized by Mozilla Science and coordinated virtually across the world using collaborative notepads, video conferencing software, and GitHub. Among the improvements made to Open Science software and standards was work done on Scholarly Markdown, the Open Access Button, and reproducible research guidelines. Improvements to teaching materials included bioinformatics, medical imaging, and oceanography capstone examples for Software Carpentry courses; Data Carpentry training materials like social science examples and lessons on Excel; and a great guide to using Excel for science. For more info, including can’t-miss links to other great Open Science projects, check out the Mozilla Science blog.

Other Open Science & Altmetrics News

  • Open Notebook Science marches on at the Jean Claude Bradley Memorial Symposium: In early July, Open Science advocates gathered for a one-day symposium celebrating the life and work of Jean Claude Bradley, Open Notebook Science pioneer. Some of Open Science’s finest minds presented at the meeting, including Antony Williams (Royal Society of Chemistry) and Peter Murray-Rust (Cambridge University). For more info, including links to the presentations, visit the JCBMS wiki.

  • 1:am altmetrics conference dates announced: The organizers of London’s first altmetrics conference released meeting dates and a preliminary lineup. 1:am will be held September 25-26, 2014 at the Wellcome Collection in London. Speaking will be publisher, researcher, and institutional representatives including Jennifer Lin of PLOS, Mike Thelwall of the University of Wolverhampton, Arfon Smith of GitHub, and Sarah Callaghan of the Research Data Alliance’s Metrics working group. Impactstory will also be in (virtual) attendance, outlining our non-profit’s vision for an Open altmetrics infrastructure. Sound interesting? Check out the 1:am website for more information and to purchase tickets.

  • Digital Science-backed startups had a big month: The innovative Macmillan Publishing subsidiary, Digital Science, had two cool announcements for the Open Science community in July: they invested in Write LaTeX, the startup responsible for Overleaf, a real-time, collaborative word processing environment for authoring scientific publications; and Figshare (who Digital Science also backs) was named Wired UK’s Startup of the Week. Congrats!

  • As WSSSPE2 approaches, killer papers on software sustainability and impacts are going online: The second Working towards Sustainable Software for Science: Practice and Experiences (WSSSPE) workshop is still months away, but we’re already seeing awesome papers like this one by Dan Katz (NSF) and Arfon Smith (GitHub) on creating mechanisms for assigning credit to software creators, and this one by James Howison (University of Texas at Austin) that proposes retracting bit-rotten publications in order to incentivize researchers to keep their research software accessible and usable. It’s obvious that excellent research will be shared at WSSSPE2 in November; for more information on the conference, check out the WSSSPE2 website.

  • The 2014 Open Knowledge Festival was a resounding success: Reports from the 2014 Open Knowledge Festival came streaming in across the Internet not long after the meeting ended in mid-July. Some highlights of the coverage: the OKFestival’s own Storify feeds describe the wealth of activities that happened at the Fest; festival goers were treated to excellent company and conversation at the ScienceOpen-sponsored ice cream break; and Lou Woodley’s apt write-up of the entire Festival, which drove home the point that in-person meetings are important–they bring like-minded people together and create opportunities for collaboration that you don’t often get by watching a meeting’s livestream.

Stay connected

Speaking of “bringing like minded people together”: we share altmetrics and Open Science news as-it-happens on our Twitter, Google+, Facebook, or LinkedIn pages. And if you don’t want to miss next month’s news roundup, remember that you can sign up to get these posts and other Impactstory news delivered straight to your inbox.

Starting today, Impactstory profiles will cost $5/month. Here’s why that’s a good thing.

Starting today, Impactstory profiles cost $5 per month.

Why? Because our goal has always been for Impactstory to support a second scientific revolution, transforming how academia finds, shares, understands, and rewards research impact. That’s why we’re a nonprofit, and always will be. But (news flash), that transformation is not going to happen overnight. We need a sustainability model that can grow with us, beyond our next year of Sloan and NSF funding. This is that model.

So what does five bucks a month buy you? It buys you the best place in the world to learn and share your scholarly impact. It buys you a profile not built on selling your personal data, or cramming your page with ads, our ability to hustle up more funding, or a hope that Elsevier buys us (nonprofits don’t get acquired).

Five bucks buys you a profile built on a simple premise: we’ll deliver real, practical value to real researchers, every day. And we’ll do it staying a nonprofit that’s fiercely committed to independence, openness, and transparency. Want to fork our app and build a better one? Awesome, here’s all our code. Want access to the data behind your profile? Of course: it’s one click away, in JSON or CSV, as open as we can make it. And that ain’t changing. It’s who we are.

We’ve talked to a lot of users that feel $5/month is a fair deal. Which is great; we agree. But we know some folks may feel differently, and that’s great too. Because if you’re in that second group, we want to hear from you. We’re passionate about building the online profile you do think is worth $5 a month. In fact, we’re doing a huge round of interviews right now…if you’ve got ideas, drop us a line at team@impactstory.org and we’ll schedule a chat. Let’s change the world, together.

New signups will get a 14-day free trial. If you’re a user now, you’ll also get a 14-day trial; plus if you subscribe you’ll get a cool  “Impactstory: Early Adopter” sticker for your laptop. If you’re in a spot where you can’t afford five bucks a month, we understand.  We’ve got a no-questions-asked waiver; just drop us a line showing us how you’re linking to your Impactstory profile in your email signature and we’ll send you a coupon for a free account.

We’re nervous about this change in some ways; it’s not exactly what we’d imagined for Impactstory from the beginning. But we’re confident it’s the right call, and we’re excited about the future. We’re changing the world. And we’re delivering concrete value to users. And we’re not gonna stop.

Open Science & Altmetrics Monthly Roundup (May 2014)

Don’t have time to stay on top of the most important Open Science and Altmetrics news? We’ve gathered the very best of the month in this post. Read on!

GitHub & co. continue working to incentivize open science software

This month, collaborative coding site GitHub updated the public on their work with Figshare, Zenodo, and Mozilla Science to create citable code for academic software. Now, you can make any GitHub repository more citable–and accessible over time–by minting a DOI for it.

Researchers at the SciForge project responded to the announcement with a list of “10 non-trivial things GitHub & friends can do for science.” In their post, they pointed out that minting DOIs for software code is just the tip of the iceberg. Other challenges include reconciling GitHub’s commercial interests with what’s best for the scientific community, maintaining metadata quality for metadata submitted to DOI registries via Figshare and Zenodo, and optimizing how DOIs are issued for software that has multiple versions.

Of course, not everyone uses GitHub to manage their research software to begin with. If you’re a GitHub beginner, check out Carly Strasser’s “GitHub: a primer for researchers” and the GitHub guide to getting started.

Originator of Open Notebook Science, Jean-Claude Bradley, Dies

Chemist and Open Science advocate Jean-Claude Bradley passed away this month. Bradley is most famous for coining the term Open Notebook Science, which he used to describe his practice of “making all your research freely available to the public, and in real time”. His lab did its work this way for years. The Open Science community has lost a giant. Jean-Claude will be greatly missed.

How many scholarly documents are on the Web?

According to research published this month in PLOS ONE, “the [lower bound] number of scholarly documents, published in English, available on the web is roughly 114 million.”

Why is this important? Well, with the large number of scholarly documents on the web, we can text- and data-mine at scale–so long as these documents are all Open Access. But as @openscience pointed out on Twitter, 3 in 4 scholarly documents on the Web aren’t Open Access–which brings us to our next news item.

Are most researchers Open Access poseurs?

A recent publisher survey of Canadian authors found that while 83% agreed that Open Access to scholarship is important, less than 10% of authors considered OA when deciding where to publish. And a recently tweeted JASIST article from 2013 shows that only around 36% of European authors are taking advantage of publishers’ permissions to post OA copies of otherwise paywalled scholarship.

Why the disconnect between beliefs and practice? It’s not clear from these sources, but we hope that the numbers continue to increase over time, so we end up in a fully Open Access future.

Other recent altmetrics news

  • PeerJ makes peer-reviews more citable: the publisher now issues DOIs for open peer-reviews of its articles, making it possible to cite peer reviews using a permanent identifier. In doing so, peer-review contributions will remain accessible over time, even as URLs change, and reviewers will now be able to more easily track citations to their reviews (thereby incentivizing open peer-review).

  • Altmetrics-themed workshop at SSP 2014 Meeting: some of the area’s brightest minds–including Euan Adie (Altmetric.com) and William Gunn (Mendeley.com)–participated yesterday in the “21st Century Research Assessment” panel at this year’s Society for Scholarly Publishing annual meeting. As you might expect, the event was highly tweeted: check out the #sspboston hashtag on Twitter to witness the debate.

  • Australian and New Zealander librarians sought for altmetrics survey: a team of researchers seeks participants for a survey on support for altmetrics at Australian and New Zealand academic libraries. Respond to the survey on SurveyMonkey before it closes on June 7, 2014.

  • Impactstory launches notification emails, Advisors program: Now, you no longer have to visit impactstory.org to find out when your research has received new citations, downloads, or tweets. Instead, we’ll send you an email alert. We’re really excited about this new feature and also about another big launch that happened this month: our Advisors program!

    Impactstory users have been asking us for months how they can help spread the word. So, in addition to launching a Spread the Word resources page, we’ve started an Advisors program, so motivated advocates can better host Impactstory workshops, help us understand their needs, and advocate for altmetrics at their institution.  To learn more–and apply!–visit our website.

Upcoming events you can’t miss

Two great events are happening in June: the Altmetrics14 workshop in Bloomington, Indiana and the Special Library Association 2014 Annual Meeting in Vancouver, British Columbia. Heather will appear on an altmetrics panel and at the closing session of SLA ‘14, and Stacy will be in attendance at Altmetrics14. We hope to see you at both events! But if you can’t make ‘em, follow along on Twitter at #sla2014 and #altmetrics14.

Stay connected

We share altmetrics and Open Science news as-it-happens on our Twitter, Google+, Facebook, or LinkedIn pages. And if you don’t want to miss next month’s news roundup, remember that you can sign up to get these posts and other Impactstory news delivered straight to your inbox.

Do you have what it takes to be an Impactstory Advisor?

Help us spread the word! (Photo licensed CC-BY-SA by Vacant Fever)

Help us spread the word!
(Photo licensed CC-BY-SA by Vacant Fever)

You’ve been asking for an opportunity to help spread the word about Impactstory. Here it is.

We’re recruiting a select group of researchers and librarians to become Impactstory Advisors!

Our advisors will:

  • Invite friends and colleagues to try out Impactstory

  • Give us feedback on features and report bugs

  • Host brown bag lunches and presentations on Impactstory at their school or library

  • Spread the word locally by hanging up our (soon to be released) cool new posters

  • Connect Impactstory to the rest of your online life–link to your profile from your Twitter bio, Facebook page, lab website, and anywhere else you can!

In return, we’ll foot the pizza bill for Impactstory workshops, give our Advisors access to Impactstory Premium (details coming soon!), send awesome swag, and share hot off the press news on planned features and other company developments.

The best benefit of all? Our community of like-minded, cutting edge Advisors will get the satisfaction of knowing they’re helping to change research evaluation for the better.

Think you have what it takes? Apply to be an Impactstory Advisor today!

Open Science & Altmetrics Monthly Roundup (April 2014)

Don’t have time to stay on top of the most important Open Science and Altmetrics news? We’ve gathered the very best of the month in this post. Read on!

Funding agencies denying payments to scientists in violation of Open Access mandates

Want to actually get paid from those grants you won? If you haven’t made publications about your grant-funded research Open Access, it’s possible you could be in violation of funders’ public access mandates–and may lose funding because of it.

Richard Van Noorden of Nature News reports,

The London-based Wellcome Trust says that it has withheld grant payments on 63 occasions in the past year because papers resulting from the funding were not open access. And the NIH…says that it has delayed some continuing grant awards since July 2013 because of non-compliance with open-access policies, although the agency does not know the exact numbers.

Post-enforcement, compliance rates increased 14% at the Wellcome Trust and 7% and the NIH. However, they’re still both a ways from seeing full compliance with the mandates.

And that’s not the only shakeup happening in the UK: the higher ed funding bodies warned researchers that any article or conference paper accepted after April 1, 2016 that doesn’t comply with their Open Access policy can’t be used for the UK Research Excellence Framework, by which universities’ worthiness to receive funding is determined.

That means institutions now have a big incentive to make sure their researchers are following the rules–if their researchers are found out of compliance, the institutions’ funding will be in jeopardy.

Post-publication peer review getting a lot of comments

Post-publication peer review via social media was the topic of Dr. Zen Faulkes’ “The Vaccuum Shouts Back” editorial, published in Neuron earlier this month. In it, he points out:

Postpublication peer review can’t do the entire job of filtering the scientific literature right now; it’s too far from being a standard practice….[it’s] an extraordinarily valuable addition to, not a substitute for, the familiar peer review process that journals use before publication. My model is one of continuous evaluation: “filter, publish, and keep filtering.”

So what does that filtering look like? Comments on journal and funder websites, publisher-hosted social networks, and post-pub peer review websites, to start with. But Faulkes argues that “none of these efforts to formalize and centralize postpublication peer review have come close to the effectiveness of social media.” To learn why, check out his article on Neuron’s website.

New evidence supports Faulkes’ claim that post-publication peer review via social media can be very effective. A study by Paul S. Brookes, published this month in PeerJ, found post-publication peer review using blogs makes corrections to the literature an astounding eight times as likely to happen than corrections reported to journal editors in the traditional (private) manner.

For more on post-publication peer review, check out this classic Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience special issue, Tim Gower’s influential blog post, “How might we get to a new model of mathematical publishing?,” or Faculty of 1000 Prime, the highly respected post-pub peer review platform.

Recent altmetrics-related studies of interest

  • Scholarly blog mentions relate to later citations: A recent study published in JASIST (green OA version here) found that mentions of articles on scholarly blogs correlate to later citations.

  • What disciplines have the highest presence of altmetrics? Hint: it’s not the ones you think. Turns out, a higher percentage of humanities and social science articles have altmetrics than for those in the biomedical and life sciences. Researchers also found that only 7% of all papers found in Web of Science had Altmetric.com data.

  • Video abstracts lead to more readers: For articles in the New Journal of Physics, video abstract views correlate to increased article usage counts, according to a study published this month in the Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication.

New data sources available for Impactstory & Altmetric.com

New data sources include post-publication peer review sites Publons and PubPeer, and microblogging site Weibo Sina (the “Chinese Twitter”). Since we get data from Altmetric, that means Impactstory will be reporting this data soon, too!

And another highly-demanded data source will be opening up in the near future: Zotero. The Sloan Foundation has backed research and development for the open source reference management software that will eventually help Zotero build “a preliminary public API that returns anonymous readership counts when fed universal identifiers (e.g. ISBN, DOI).” So, some day soon, we’ll be able to report Zotero readership information alongside Mendeley stats in your profile–a feature that many of you have been asking us about for a long time.

Altmetric.com offering new badges

Altmetric.com founder Euan Adie announced that for those who want to de-emphasize numeric scores on content, the famous “donut” badges will now be available sans Altmetric score–a move heralded by many in the altmetrics research community as being a good move away from “one score to rule them all.”

Must-read blog posts about ORCID and megajournals

We’ve been on a tear publishing about innovations in Open Science and altmetrics on the Impactstory blog. Here are two of our most popular posts for the month:

Stay connected

Do you blog on altmetrics or Open Science and want to share your posts with us? Let us know on our Twitter, Google+, Facebook, or LinkedIn pages. We might just feature your work in next month’s roundup!

And if you don’t want to miss next month’s news, remember that you can sign up to get these posts and other Impactstory news delivered straight to your inbox.

Come hangout with us this Thursday!

5QfWVlk.png

Are you curious about altmetrics? Want to learn more about Impactstory, the only non-profit company committed to helping you find all your research impact?

Follow us on Google+ and get your invitation to join Stacy at our official, one-hour Google Hangout this Thursday, March 27th at 2 pm EDT/11 am PDT.

Stay for a few minutes or the entire hour, it’s up to you! We just want to get to know you better and chat about our favorite topic, altmetrics.

Even if you can’t make it, follow Impactstory on Google+ to stay in the loop with our latest news and learn about future Hangouts!

 

Hello! I’m Stacy.

It is with much excitement that I write this post to introduce myself as Impactstory’s Director of Marketing & Research. Like many of you, I’ve watched with admiration as Heather and Jason built a great product that supports their vision of an Open Internet for scientists, where all scholarship gets the credit it deserves for moving knowledge forward.

I come to Impactstory from a tenure-track position at an academic library, where I spent the last few years supporting scientists’ research data management needs. Some of you might also be familiar with my research into how altmetrics can be adopted in research libraries, to the benefit of faculty and librarians alike.

Last week was my first with Impactstory. We spent many long days coding, writing, debating, and strategizing. I’m still exhausted, but also more inspired and happy than I’ve been in quite some time.

So happy, in fact, I’ll share with you some of our short-term plans:

  • Launching our research into the various impacts of scientific software, for which Impactstory recently won an NSF EAGER grant
  • Expanding our efforts to equip our supporters with the means to promote us–and altmetrics, more generally–within their campus and community
  • Continuing to roll out kick-butt features to Impactstory profiles

Stay tuned for more specific updates soon!

Welcome to our new hire: Stacy Konkiel!

We’re thrilled to announce that Stacy Konkiel will be joining Impactstory as our Director of Marketing and Research.

Stacy has been in the altmetrics vanguard from the beginning, contributing to PLOS’s early article-level metrics working group, and championing the use of altmetrics in libraries as part of her recent role as Science Data Management Librarian at Indiana University.

Stacy’s communication skills, credibility in the open science and altmetrics communities and–most importantly–her real passion for improving scholarly communication make her the perfect fit at Impactstory. We’re elated to have Stacy as our first hire.

More details to come when Stacy starts in March… we’re just really excited and couldn’t wait to share the news 🙂

New Impactstory Logo

new-impactstory-logo-no-typeWe’re excited to announce a new logo–and a chance to win a free shirt!

The new logo reflects our focus on building great impact profiles for individual scientists: the “i” in the middle stands for Impactstory of course, but it’s also the first-person pronoun. Your Impactstory profile is about you. We’re building something to represent you, the working scientist, better than anything else out there. It’s a place for information (hence the i-with-a-circle-around it iconography), but also identity.

Identity in science is pretty broken. In several ways, but one of the biggest is our growing reliance on one-dimensional, reductive currencies like the h-index and Impact Factor. We’re fixing that. Impactstory’s a place where you can tell your whole impact story, where your identity is more than a number. You are more than your h-index. We’ll be focusing hard on this message this year.

Finally, we love our new logo because it anticipates important upcoming features and product focus (Spoiler Alert!). We’re going to be adding a growing number of features that recognize scientific excellence along multiple dimensions, highlighting areas where our users are winning–the badge-esque scallops on the logo reflect these upcoming features.

To celebrate our new logo, we’re going to send out a cool new “I am more than my h-index” tshirt to a lucky Impactstory user — we’ll do a random drawing Friday of everybody who visits their profile this week.  We’re also happy to send some brand new stickers to anyone who wants them… drop us a line at team@impactstory.org and we’ll get some out to you.