What we read this week (6 September)

Welcome to Things we read this week, a weekly post featuring articles from around the internet recommended by BMJ Labs.

Publishing

Peer review

  • Elsevier Connect has a write up of the  Elsevier’s Research Funders Summit in Combating bias, preserving research integrity – it’s all part of scientific review including the following comment from Dr. Sally Amero at NIH: “Some of the things we’re dealing with now include threats and bribes to reviewers or against reviewers … cabals and networks of people across the country who are looking out for each other’s welfare, embellished bio sketches, reciprocal and requested favors. Incomplete conflict of interest certifications is becoming more and more of a concern. Leaks of information before the meeting, inappropriate access to our secure review site, and applications being shared outside of our review meeting.”

Discovery

Conferences and dissemination

And finally…

Great article about statistics in the New Yorker. It covers Shipman, statins, and aspirin:

“The dangers of making individual predictions from our collective characteristics were aptly demonstrated in a deal struck by the French lawyer André-François Raffray in 1965. He agreed to pay a ninety-year-old woman twenty-five hundred francs every month until her death, whereupon he would take possession of her apartment in Arles.

At the time, the average life expectancy of French women was 74.5 years, and Raffray, then forty-seven, no doubt thought he’d negotiated himself an auspicious contract. Unluckily for him, as Bill Bryson recounts in his new book, “The Body,” the woman was Jeanne Calment, who went on to become the oldest person on record. She survived for thirty-two years after their deal was signed, outliving Raffray, who died at seventy-seven. By then, he had paid more than twice the market value for an apartment he would never live in.”

What we read this week (30 August)

Welcome to Things we read this week, a weekly post featuring articles from around the internet recommended by BMJ Labs.

Research, data, publishing and promotion of research

 

Privacy

Innovation

  • Brittni Bowering on what happens after you run a design sprint –  Design sprints need iteration
    “An iteration sprint is a simplified version of the first design sprint week where we take all the feedback and insights from the user tests and make small (or big) changes to the idea. This gives us the time and framework to rework the solution and bring it closer to something that the target user would love to use. The outcomes were overwhelmingly positive—so now, these are a crucial part of our design sprint process.”
  • Also on design sprints Stéphane Cruchon looks at How to Make Design Sprints Work at Big Companies. “How, in this case, does one manage what comes after, and build on the positive energy of the Sprint? How to maintain that energy as everything becomes blurry, slow, bureaucratic again?” The proposed, interesting solution, is the design sprint quarter:
    The Design Sprint Quarter Timeline
  • More on design sprints in Jake Knapp’s newsletter.
  • Jeanne W. Ross, Cynthia M. Beath and Martin Mocker share some insights into how larger companies are managing ideas for innovation and learning in Creating Digital Offerings Customers Will Buy
  • NYCML Innovation Monitor considers the technological social responsibilities of companies: “The most important element of TSR: Management needs to take responsibility for technology’s impact on society at large. Once again, similarly to Corporate Social Responsbility, organizations must address the externalities of their technological decisions. They must staff C-suites accordingly and imbue this ethos at every level of the organization.”

Product Manager

We are looking for an experienced digital Product Manager to lead research and planning for developing BMJ’s open research publishing model, defining the strategic direction based on evidence generated from market intelligence, user and customer feedback.

Responsibilities include:

  • Defining the infrastructure and workflows to offer an end-to-end solution for open researchers that is attractive to authors, readers and funders
  • Meeting funder and researcher needs for:
  • greater openness throughout the research pathway
  • More credit to be given for interim and non-traditional research outputs
  • Wholly open workflows, alongside open access research publication
  • Ensuring BMJ’s open research offering is continuously evolved to generate value for its customers, readers and BMJ within the changing research landscape, understanding and articulating what this value is and setting KPIs to measure progress against them.
  • Explore options for switching from a ‘pay-to-read’ subscription-based business model to new, more transparent, payment models for open research

Apply

What we read this week (16 August)

Welcome to Things we read this week, a weekly post featuring articles from around the internet recommended by BMJ Labs.

Publishing

Libraries

  • Tony Zanders on Libraries and The Vendor Conundrum is worth a read for anyone involved in selling/supplier management “Over the years I’ve learned that there is pretty substantial distance between the world of a vendor and the world of a librarian. And the points of intersection between these worlds are actually few and far in between.”
  • iNODE, the unofficial weblog of the Digital Strategies and Systems Division of University Libraries, George Mason University, has posted a full month’s worth of data about how scholars access articles at a large research university:

Research

  •  Aubrey Clayton on the flawed reasoning behind the replication crisis in @NautilusMag
  • Elizabeth Gadd, Chris Morrison and Jane Secker on  The Impact of Open Access on Teaching—How Far Have We Come? “Key findings include the fact that no interviewees incorporated OA searches into their acquisitions processes. Overall, 38% of articles required to support teaching were available as OA in some form but only 7% had a findable re-use licence; just 3% had licences that specifically permitted inclusion in an ‘electronic course-pack’. Eighty-nine percent of journal content was written by academics (34% by UK-based academics). Of these, 58% were written since 2000 and thus could arguably have been made available openly had academics been supported to do so. ”  See also Aaron Tay’s comments on Twitter.

Innovation

  • Awesome toolbox of toolboxes “A curated list of the best business, design, and organisational change toolboxes built by some of the most influential companies, institutions and thinkers.”

 

 

 

What we read this week (9 August)

Welcome to Things we read this week, a weekly post featuring articles from around the internet recommended by BMJ Labs.

Publishing

Data management

Product Management

  • The Mom TestRob Fitzpatrick has produced an awesome (and short!) book on how to talk to customers & learn if your business is a good idea. There’s also a free email course to help audit your customer conversations and spot the big mistakes.  “The belief that any question is a good question and any data is good data is called the feedback fallacy. It’s simply not true. And if you’re collecting bad data, then 100% of the time you’ve spent on customer learning is worthless. Fortunately, the problem is easily fixed. By asking good questions and running a good process, you can avoid the bad data, collect the good data, and also save a ton of time. “

Future thinking

  • Amy Webb on How to Do Strategic Planning Like a Futurist. “Deep uncertainty merits deep questions, and the answers aren’t necessarily tied to a fixed date in the future. Where do you want to have impact? What it will take to achieve success? How will the organization evolve to meet challenges on the horizon? These are the kinds of deep, foundational questions that are best addressed with long-term planning.”

Innovation

And finally…

An awesome ‘edible abstract’ from Michele Melchior….

What we read this week (2 August)

Welcome to Things we read this week, a weekly post featuring articles from around the internet recommended by BMJ Labs.

Publishing

Health Technology

  • KQ Labs, an intensive accelerator programme offered to high growth potential startup teams in the area of data-driven biomedical science, has opened up applications. Apply by 15 September.

User experience

 

Innovation

And finally…

A new approach to copyright – copying allowed providing you only write it out in green crayon :-):

What we read this week (26 July)

Welcome to Things we read this week, a weekly post featuring articles from around the internet recommended by BMJ Labs.

Platforms and technology

Lots happening in the world in publishing platform and technology development this week:

Publishing

Data

User Experience

Product management

What we read this week (19 July)

Welcome to Things we read this week, a weekly post featuring articles from around the internet recommended by BMJ Labs.

Publishing

  • Although the terminology is awkward (many publishers use syndication, aggregation, etc in a slightly different way) Diverting Leakage to the Library Subscription Channel is worth a read for a librarian perspective on Springer Nature’s approach to ResearchGate. As Mark Johnson comments: “If you want your content to be read as widely as possible, put the content where the readers are”.
  • Tables 8 and 9 in Do Download Reports Reliably Measure Journal Usage? Trusting the Fox to Count Your Hens? contain some interesting publisher platform comparison data which could be used as a measure effectiveness. BMJ, like many publishers, switched from taking Institutional users to an abstract page by default to automatically taking them to a full-text page a couple of years ago – whilst this does have the effect of triggering an HTML download it also greatly improves user experience and has proved popular with readers. The new COUNTER 5 standard probably addresses main concern of this paper.
  • Interesting perspective on the history of peer review in Managing the Growth of Peer Review at the Royal Society Journals, 1865-1965 “Our findings reveal interesting parallels with current concerns about the scale and distribution of peer review work and suggest the strategic importance of the management of the editorial process to achieve a creative mix of community commitment and professional responsibility that is essential in contemporary journals.”
  • Also on the theme of peer review Thinking in Bets by Annie Duke (using the principles of poker to make decisions) has an interesting section on peer review. When peer reviewers were asked to make a monetary bet on whether the research could be replicated they were far more accurate then when asked if they thought the research would replicate – unfortunately the audio book doesn’t have links to the original research on this.
  • Figshare have put together a useful webinar, led by Iain Hrynaszkiewicz from Springer Nature,  on ensuring your data policies are up to date and cover the FAIR principles .
  • How Faculty Demonstrate Impact: A Multi-Institutional Study of Faculty Understandings, Perceptions, and Strategies Regarding Impact Metrics  looks at what researchers think about research impact measures across disciplines and institutions. Be interesting to find out how location-specific this kind of research is.

Product development and innovation

And finally…

For those insanely hot summer afternoons when focusing on work is simple too much why not try Netflix Hangouts, a Chrome extension that disguises Netflix as a fake four-person conference call. During the “call,” your show of choice will appear in the bottom right grid, while three fake coworkers will appear in the other feeds.[H/T: Product Hunt]

What we read this week (12 July)

Welcome to Things we read this week, a weekly post featuring articles from around the internet recommended by BMJ Labs.

Publishing

Product development and innovation

Technology

 

And finally…

  • Katie Sehl writes about Canadian doctors prescribing a visit to the art museum for patients to reduce stress and anxiety and increase feelings of well-being. In a partnership between the Médecins Francophones du Canada (MFdC) and the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts physicians have been given prescription slips that patients can present at the ticket booth for entry.  Which reminds me that the Barbican has an exhibition on at the moment called AI: More than Human that looks like it’s worth a visit. The website claims,“this major centre-wide ‘festival-style’ exhibition explores creative and scientific developments in AI, demonstrating its potential to revolutionise our lives. Bringing together artists, scientists and researchers, this interactive exhibition offers an unprecedented survey of AI with which you are invited to engage head-on.”

Proudly powered by WordPress | Theme: Baskerville 2 by Anders Noren.

Up ↑