What we read this week (8 February)

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

Publishing

  • First up are two articles about commenting. The Ringer has a piece about ‘how the New York Times Cooking became the best comments section on the Internet‘ by calling the section Notes. ““The call to action was to leave a note on the recipe that helps make it better. That’s very different from ‘Leave a comment on a recipe.’”  PLOS, on the other hand, are struggling to attract comments. A new study in the Journal of Information Science found “that publishers are yet to encourage significant numbers of readers to leave comments, with implications for the effectiveness of commenting as a means of collecting and communicating community perceptions of an article’s importance.” (H/T: InfoDocket). Perhaps a tweak to the wording asking for notes rather than comments might help?

Innovation

 

 

What we read this week (11 January)

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

Publishing

And finally…

We liked this infographic of The 20 Internet Giants That Rule the Web showing how much has changed over the last 20 years. (This ranking uses ComScore data which is focused on the U.S. and looks at unique visitors/viewers). Our guess is that a similar chart for academic publishing would show surprisingly little change.

The 20 Internet Giants That Rule the Web (1998-Today)

What we read this week (14 December)

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

Publishing Technology

Publishing

  • Create ‘rebuttal’ unit to counteract fake news, scientists told
    “In a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Professor Massey and Professor Iyengar say that, in the US, the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine could “form a consortium of professional scientific organisations to fund the creation of a media and internet operation that monitors networks, channels, and web platforms known to spread false and misleading scientific information so as to be able to respond quickly with a countervailing campaign of rebuttal based on accurate information through Facebook, Twitter, and other forms of social media”.”
  • What These Medical Journals Don’t Reveal: Top Doctors’ Ties to Industry

Innovation

What we read this week (19 October)

Welcome to Things we read this week, a weekly post featuring articles from around the internet recommended by BMJ’s Digital Group members.

  • Scribd Bundles New York Times With E-Books, Audio Books for $13 a Month. I guess the focus on Institutional subscriptions or society membership within academic publishing means that these kind of product bundles for personal subscribers are less common. Would students go for membership bundles which include a range of subscriptions and products such as a Grammerly (a phenomenon that has a number of university staff staying getting a sub to improve your essays is a must have)?
  •  asks if publishers will syndicate their content on Scholarly Kitchen? The comments are particularly interesting. I find it somewhat intriguing that STM publishers, particularly those that run advertising, haven’t gone down the route of creating a publisher alliance for access/data collection.
  • Elsevier Connect published the HEADT Centre article Combating image misuse in science: new Humboldt database provides “missing link” by Dr, Thorsten Beck. We’re sure that automated image checking will become routine within a few years, the real question is will there be an open solution or will all publishers need to purchase a service from Elsevier or one of the other big players to handle this?
  • Financial Times launches a new tool to help ‘knowledge-hungry’ subscribers track their reading  “The tool will track the articles that subscribers read, giving them an indication of the amount of information they have read on a topic, and suggesting further reads to them….”It’s about putting people in control of their knowledge-building process by allowing them to track progress on topics,” said Webb. Every article is worth a certain amount of points, displayed at the top of the page. When a reader gets to the bottom of the article, they will see four dots which flow into a progress bar, showing them how much they have now learned on that particular topic.”  It will be really interesting to see how many readers take advantage of this service and if the FT can really generate revenue from this service through increased usage.
  • Civil’s token sale closed without them hitting the $8 million minimum that they wanted to raise.  Using cryptoeconomics to create an open marketplace for journalists and citizens is an interesting business model. However, using the following helpful flowchart it’s less clear if blockchain technology is really needed for their newsroom platform.  (Does anyone know if this flowchart is really from the Department of Homeland security? We haven’t been able to find the original document). There are some really interesting STM applications being developed using blockchain technology such as Frankl, Blockchain for Peer Review, Orvium, etc. but we’re not convinced any of these really need to be built using blockchain tech.
  • The Journal of Informetrics has published a systematic comparison of Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus and found:
    “GS consistently found the largest percentage of citations across all areas (93%–96%), far ahead of Scopus (35%–77%) and WoS (27%–73%). GS found nearly all the WoS (95%) and Scopus (92%) citations. Most citations found only by GS were from non-journal sources (48%–65%), including theses, books, conference papers, and unpublished materials. Many were non-English (19%–38%), and they tended to be much less cited than citing sources that were also in Scopus or WoS.”

What we read this week (15 October)

Welcome to Things we read this week, a weekly post featuring articles from around the internet recommended by BMJ’s Digital Group members.

Publishing

Innovation

Health Tech

 

And finally…

  • 11 Scoops or 12? Coffee Wars Come to the Office  contains some great coffee war stories. “Victor Olausson, an IT consultant in Gothenburg, Sweden, said coffee arguments break out daily in his office. In one recent skirmish two colleagues faced off over whether to use 11 or 12 scoops of coffee in the office machine. They argued for 20 minutes about this,” Mr. Olausson recalls. Victory went to the employee holding the scoop.”

 

 

 

 

What we read this week (5 October 2018)

Welcome to Things we read this week, a weekly post featuring articles from around the internet recommended by BMJ’s Digital Group members.

Publishing Technology

More on Plan S and the future of publishing

Health Technology

And finally…

What we read this week (3 August 2018)

Welcome to Things we read this week, a weekly post featuring articles from around the internet recommended by BMJ’s Digital Group members.

Publishing

Education

Product Management & innovation

And finally…

  • The creative team at JSTOR have come up with some downloadable colouring pages to celebrate #NationalColoringBookDay #awesome !!!

 

What we read this week (27 July 2018)

Here’s the round-up of what we’ve been reading this week written before the UK heatwave begins to turn our ‘naturally ventilated’ office into an oven and our brains to mush.

Publishing

  • Sally Rumsey, Head of Scholarly Communications & Research Data Management at the Bodleian Libraries explains how complicated research sharing processes hurt the interests of authors, scholarly societies and publishers.

Crowdsourcing, crowdfunding and open science

  • Enago Academy write about G-Med, the world’s largest community for physicians.  G-Med wants to promote digital global collaboration between physicians in order to improve and shorten diagnostics, improve clinical trials, and increase knowledge and practice methods.
  • We also came across Therapoid and the Knowbella Platform this week. Therapoid, from Open Therapeutics, aims to facilitate and enable collaboration among life science researchers.  The platform includes a preprint server for open access publishing, open data and a system for managing grant funds via blockchain. Whilst  the Knowbella Platform, a researcher community for open source IP projects. Is doing something similar and aims to make use of the $4T of idle intellectual property  languishing in institutions, universities, and companies by allowing scientists to develop it into new directions and applications.
  • In the same space, Scienceroot wants to help science flourish and why invest in their Initial Token Offering. They are trying to bring together  time stamped scientific repositories, crowdfunding service and a collaboration platform.

Product Development

Future thinking

What we read this week (20 July 2018)

Welcome to Things we read this week, a weekly post featuring articles from around the internet recommended by BMJ’s Digital Group members.

Publishing

First up are two pieces about Crossref. Christine Cormack Wood’s post on the SciELO blog summarises why Crossref exists and persists and Enago Academy,  as part of their interview series on Connecting Scholarly Publishing Experts and Researchers, ask Crossref team how they add value to research outputs and explains the important work Crossref does. Continue reading “What we read this week (20 July 2018)”

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

Up ↑