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.


  • 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 (6 September)

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


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.”


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 (9 August)

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


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.”


And finally…

An awesome ‘edible abstract’ from Michele Melchior….

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.


Open access


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.”


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 (6 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.

Visit Pubtechgator to find more publishing technology news stories.

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

Up ↑