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 (18 January)

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

Publishing

Open Data

Medicine

Technology

  • John Thornhill talks to Vivienne Ming, a theoretical neuroscientist, entrepreneur and artificial intelligence guru about her work in trying to make technology work for the benefit of humans on the FT Tech Tonic podcast.
  • The blockchain backlash begins, McKinsey on Blockchain’s Occam problem and its struggle to move projects out of Proof of Concept mode. We’re looking forward to what ALPSP have to say in their upcoming blockchain seminar.
  • Screens might be as bad for mental health as… potatoes “In the latest issue of Nature Human Behavior, Przybylski and coauthor Amy Orben use a novel statistical method to show why scientists studying these colossal data sets have been getting such different results and why most of the associations researchers have found, positive and negative, are very small—and probably not worth freaking out about.”

What we read this week (26 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

Open access

Blockchain

Ian Mulvany has some useful notes from the RAVE publishing conference where Blockchain seems to have been discussed at length. The Columbia Journalism Review has a nice summary of a meeting about what can blockchain actually do for journalism which discusses many of the same issues. The final comments,

“Ultimately, the panel said, the fate of blockchain journalism may hang on on whether the community of journalists keeps asking the hard questions about how to ensure that blockchain-based journalism serves and informs the public—and that control of the technology doesn’t fall into hands of the few.”

echo Ian’s reflection, “The claim of independence, in my mind does, not hold water. I think that would lead to vendor lock in as I don’t think that publishers will implement this tech on their own, without some standardisation we are going to end up depending on a vendor.”

Innovation

Bill Buxton explains why Marcel Proust and TS Eliot can be instructive for computer scientists, why the long nose of innovation is essential to success in technology design, why problem-setting is more important than problem-solving, and why we must remember, as we design our technologies, that every technological decision we make is an ethical decision as well in the Microsoft Research Podcast.

And finally…

A pair of smart glasses that you might actually want to wear:

What we read this week (29 June 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

Molecular and Cellular Biology (MCB) have published a preprint describing their program to screen images of accepted papers prior to publication which identified 12 manuscripts out of 83 with image concerns in two months. The screening and correction of papers before publication required an average of 30 min of staff time per problematic paper but  6 hours of journal staff time to resolve after publication. (H/T Phil Davis’s Tweet ) Continue reading “What we read this week (29 June 2018)”

What we read this week (22 June 2018)

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

Blockchain

As the Frankl token sale and the Scienceroot bounty program draw near Ian Mulvany has a thoughtful piece about blockchain technology in STEM. I’ve yet to see a killer application for blockchain, I can see how a blockchain based experimentation platform which uses smart contracts, something like breadboard, could be useful but it’s a fairly niche application. Perhaps The Remarkablz  team  can build a CryptoKitties style trading game where we can trade scientists and do strange breeding experiments to see what happens if you take Mary Anning (English paleontologist) and merge her with Zhang Heng (Chinese inventor and Astronomer)… or perhaps not! Continue reading “What we read this week (22 June 2018)”

What we read this week (27 April 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. It’s an eclectic mix this week:

Publishing:

We’re really interested to see how the FT’s experiment with :CRUX to use Knowledge Acquisition as an approach to content recommendation will work out. We could see this approach working well for some of our audience segments.

Other things that caught our interest included, David Matthews writing about the split over how publishers should tackle ResearchGate, Ruth Wells is thinking about applying agile to publishing processes outside of Tech Departments, Ryan Regier’s flowchart looking at how at to manage access to unsubscribed content in an Institutional library.

Continue reading “What we read this week (27 April 2018)”

What we read this week (13 April 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.

The future of scientific article formats

Following on from James Somers excellent piece in the Atlantic about the future of scientific papers.  Luis Pedro Coelho has put together a more pessimistic, but probably more realistic, response suggesting that the future of the scientific papers is probably a PDF. In a slightly older post Björn Brembs outlines the seven functionalities that he thinks the scholarly literature should have. Björn makes some good suggestions and submission should be easier.  We did some experiments many years ago with a “people who read this article also read this” service but it was a flop. TrendMD’s more sophisticated recommendation algorithms work much better for BMJ. How to best support for TDM is something we would really like input from the community on.  Continue reading “What we read this week (13 April 2018)”

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

Up ↑