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 (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 (5 April)

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

Publishing

On the theme of publishers switching to workflow businesses:

  • Lindsay Ellis writes about how Elsevier’s Presence on Campuses Spans More Than Journals and that this has some scholars worried.
    “It just got me thinking,” [Colleen Lyon] said. Elsevier had it all: Institutional repositories, preprints of journal articles, and analytics. “Elsevier, Elsevier, Elsevier, Elsevier, Elsevier.”
  • On a similar theme SPARC’s (the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition) new report on the transition of some publishers from  moving from content-provision to data analytics and what this might mean for the future of academic publishing:
    “We are at a critical juncture where there is a pressing need for the academic
    community – individually and collectively – to make thoughtful and deliberate
    decisions about what and whom to support – and under what terms and conditions.
    These decisions will determine who ultimately controls the research and education
    process; and whether we meaningfully address inequities created by legacy players
    or simply recreate them in new ways. These decisions will shape libraries’ role in the
    scholarly enterprise, now and for the future.”
  • Whilst the tone and questions might be a little inflammatory Richard Poynder’s questions for eLife raise some interesting questions about the future of open scholarly infrastructure, how it will be funded, and how it will compete against the larger players such as Elsevier.

The robots are definitely coming…

Product management

  • Bar for the ironic start, see tweet below, Adobe’s Experience Festival contained some really good talks on a wide range of digital marketing related topics. Recorded sessions can be found here.

And finally….

Liz Fosslien and Mollie West-Duffy  have spent the last three years studying the science of emotions on the job for our new book, No Hard Feelings. We particularly liked their hierarchy of remote work needs:

More in this MIT Sloan Review article.

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

Up ↑