What we read this week (1 November)

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

Publishing

  • Thousands of grant peer reviewers share concerns in global survey “Based on a survey of 4,700 researchers worldwide — also found that recognition is an important incentive for reviewers. More than half said that they are more likely to agree to review grant applications if funders acknowledge their efforts.”
  • ROR is seeking donations. “ROR aims to raise $175,000 in donations over the next two years. As a supporter, you’ll have an opportunity to be part of this exciting community effort from the beginning and to ensure its long-term growth and success. Our first fundraising target is $75,000 by the end of 2019 in order to secure enough funds to hire a technical lead and to organize an in-person ROR Community planning meeting at PIDapalooza in January 2020. “
  • Richard Wynne comments on the Insight Report by Outsell, Inc. published in collaboration with Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) “The Scholarly Communications Ecosystem is Bracing for the Full Impact of the Digital Age”, articulates a growing unease spreading through the scholarly ecosystem. This time the barbarians really do seem to be at the gate. But even more alarming, maybe the barbarians are right!
  • In Are you TikTok ready? Andy Miah says there is a vast world of creative media that can help academics cut through the noise of the internet.

AI and Machine Learning

Podcasting

Innovation

 

 

What we read this week (25 October)

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

Publishing

Innovation

  • Steve Blank on why Companies Do “Innovation Theater” Instead of Actual Innovation. Those who view STM publishers as not being innovative will find much to support their view here: “If the company is large enough it will become a “rent-seeker” and look to the government and regulators as their first line of defense against innovative competition. They’ll use government regulation and lawsuits to keep out new entrants with more innovative business models. The result of monopolist behavior is that innovation in that sector dies — until technology/consumer behavior passes them by. By then the company has lost the ability to compete as an innovator.”
  • This graphic from The Passion Economy and the Future of Work caught my attention. It’s awkward to think about academics as “knowledge influencers” but once you do the potential value of services like Kudos become much more obvious.

What we read this week (4 October)

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

Publishing

User experience

And finally…

  • Digital product agency MSCHF must have had fun building M-Journal. A website that will turn any Wikipedia article into a “real” academic article. [via @broderick]

What we read this week (20 September)

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

Publishing

  • Yvonne Campfens asks what does AcademicTech success look like and has created the following hypothetical model. This is version: version 1.0:
    No alt text provided for this imageThe article reminded me of Joseph Esposito’s piece on When Is a Feature a Product, and a Product a Business? on Scholarly Kitchen. My impression is that most front-end feature/service development within academic publishing is created by start-ups and then adopted by Publishers. Publishers/platform providers are innovating but it tends to be more behind the scenes and involve workflow efficiencies.
  • Having said that, Atypon are launching a new personalized content discovery, targeted content promotion and discovery tool for researchers and publishers. Filling a gap in their portfolio of services and joining services like SpringerNature’s Recommended, and Elsevier’s Mendely Suggest tools and other (currently) publisher independent tools like Researcher.
  • Hindawi introduce Phenom Review, an Open Source Scholarly Infrastructure solution, in this post. “This month, a second Hindawi journal will move onto the Phenom Review system, our new peer review platform built entirely open source. Phenom Review is part of Hindawi’s collaboration with Coko utilizing their open source PubSweet framework. This is a significant milestone because while creating a peer review system and workflow for a single journal is relatively straightforward, making it flexible enough to accommodate multiple journals is much more complex. Once we can use it effectively and efficiently for two journals, it is easy to expand to more. The migration of our remaining 230 journals is expected to be completed early in the new year.”
  • Martin Paul Eve has an excellent ‘thinking things through’ post on The Problems of Unit Costs Per Article. Also see comments on twitter. In her post, Yvonne Campfens, pointed out that although the path to success appears to be linear the reality it is very messy. Switching from subscription models to APCs is going to be messy and some more thinking around what else might happen in the ecosystem is needed. Although it’s hard to argue against transparency as a value, transparency can work both ways. One of the potential unintended consequences of APC could be that the same data is turned around to measure the unit cost/value of authors.

Medicine and research Impact

  • The Knowledge Nudge focuses on all things knowledge translation (KT) such as the science of KT, patient engagement, and media & dissemination and including this one on Knowledge brokers — often the ‘doers’ of knowledge translation — are increasingly used to close the gap between research and practice, and facilitate the development of relationships that are critical to effective knowledge translation. 
  • The Research Impact online summit is back on 21-22 October. If even this isn’t your area it’s a really interesting way to hear about researcher concerns and motivations.
  • Based On Science from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine aims to answer common, everyday questions that people have about science and human health. It uses the community of experts to provide the most up-to-date, evidence-based information about science and health questions that affect the decisions we make each day.
  • We came across Hippomedics at a conference this week. They create easy to understand medical physiology animations/videos. We liked this one about What happens when humans drink seawater?

Innovation and product management

  • All kinds of interesting innovation ‘things’ with voice tech and storytelling in the talks from ONA19.
  • Erik Starck writes about King for a Day vs Internal Hackathons. I heard Kevin Hale talk about King for a Day in another talk and it seems like a really good idea. “They pick a person at random from the employees and make her or him “King/Queen for a Day”. That person then get to decide what features to work on during the King for a Day-hackathon. The entire company gets behind the feature, from marketing to sales and R&D. At Wufoo, this lead to a boost in company morale. Everyone felt they worked on something meaningful to the product.”
  • Stuck for a way to test your idea? Steve Glaveski has come up with 12 Types of Prototypes to Test Your Idea
  • Steve Blank on AgileFall in real life and what to do about it.

What we read this week (13 September)

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

Publishing

Research space

  • Lizzie Gadd describes how seeing research evaluation as a food chain where participants are both the evaluators and the evaluated may help us understand, and solve, some of the problems inherent within in The research evaluation food chain and how to disrupt it.
  • Daniela Duca, Product Manager at SAGE Ocean asks Who’s disrupting transcription in academia? and covers a range of tools and services used by researchers.
  • In Comment, reply, repeat: Engaging students with social annotation Alice Fleerackers, Juan Pablo Alperin, Esteban Morales, and Remi Kalir share a sneak peek of their study of student annotation using Hypothesis  on the ScholCommLab blog:students reported that annotating with hypothesis helped them learn (bar chart)
  • We came across two newish image based search engines this week,  GrepMed is an image based medical reference search engine which aims to democratize professional medical reference information through clinically relevant crowd-sourced inforgraphics and Grafiti, a search engine to discover and share charts from top publishers.

Innovation and product development

  • Jim Bilton uses data from the Media Futures benchmarking project to look at media’s biggest obstacle to innovation – technology.
  • Evidence-based profiles of roles across the translational workforce are now available through CTS-Personas, a project of the CTSA Program National Center for Data to Health (CD2H), led by Sara Gonzales at Northwestern University. Each profile details key responsibilities, motivators, goals, software use, pain points, and professional development needs. The Persona profiles cover the spectrum of the translational ecosystem, from basic science to clinical research to community implementation. Personas can be integrated locally to help inform local resources, training opportunities, and communication strategies.
  • Point Nine Capital partner Christoph Janz suggests three questions that companies should ask themselves before they choose to launch a freemium SaaS product:
    1. Does your paid plan have a gross margin of 80—90%?
    2. Does your free plan attract the right audience?
    3. Is your product inherently viral?

    Interesting read about the pros and cons and freemium business models.

And finally…

Love this Kanban cartoon and the HIPPO fast track section:

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.”

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 :-):

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

Up ↑