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 (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 (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 (5 July)

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

Publishing

Open Science

Blockchain

  • The bloxberg infrastructure, a secure global blockchain established by a consortium of leading research organizations to provide scientists with decentralized services worldwide, has launched. “The bloxberg Consortium aims to fosters collaboration among the global scientific community, empowering researchers with robust, autonomous services that transcend institutional boundaries. For example, with consented transactions on the bloxberg infrastructure, research claims need not be limited to one institution alone, but can be confirmed by the whole trusted network.”
  • BMJ’s Helen King has an excellent round-up of publishing related blockchain projects,  Blockchain in Publishing and Open Science, What’s the state of play?
  •  The Blockchain for Peer Review initiative and Publons are organizing a seminar to discuss the following:
    • Can we develop common standards in order to improve the transparency, efficiency, recognition and transportability of the peer review process?
    • What is the ideal technology and infrastructure to achieve that, and how can we prevent the duplication of effort? Is blockchain the preferred solution, or would we prefer centralized services? Or perhaps a combination of the two?

And finally…

John shares his take on what makes the difference between success and failure: “Objectives and Key Results, or OKRs, are a simple goal-setting system and they work for organizations, they work for teams, they even work for individuals. The objectives are what you want to have accomplished. The key results are how I’m going to get that done. Objectives. Key results. What and how. But here’s the truth: many of us are setting goals wrong, and most of us are not setting goals at all. A lot of organizations set objectives and meet them. They ship their sales, they introduce their new products, they make their numbers, but they lack a sense of purpose to inspire their teams.”

What we read this week (28 June)

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

Publishing

Social Media

And finally…

What we read this week (10 May)

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

And finally…

What we read this week (14 September 2018)

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

Peer review

Artificial intelligence and machine learning

Continue reading “What we read this week (14 September 2018)”

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

Things we read this week (26 January 2018)

Welcome to Things we read this week, a weekly post featuring articles from around the internet recommended by BMJ’s Digital Group members. These are articles we’ve read and liked, things that made us think and things we couldn’t stop talking about. Check back every Friday for a new post.

Continue reading “Things we read this week (26 January 2018)”

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

Up ↑