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 (31 August 2018)

Welcome to Things we read this week, a weekly post featuring articles from around the internet recommended by BMJ’s Digital Group members. Eclectic mix of items as we catch up from our holidays.

Technology and publishing

Publishers’ are increasingly closing down their Chatbots reports Digiday: “The Guardian shut down its chatbot on Facebook’s Messenger earlier this year “in line with our strategy to engage more with readers on our own platforms. We remain committed to experimenting with ways to deliver the best of our journalism according to our readers’ changing habits,” said a spokesperson.”

Google has announced a new markup system that’s going to make content more accessible through voice search. he search giant has been working with schema.org to create a new markup property that allows you to wrap parts of your content in tags that Google can ‘read’ aloud to users for relevant queries, much like an audible version of instant answers.

Digiday report on a new study by Chartbeat which shows that only a third of publishers actually see clear evidence of a traffic increase from Google’s AMP services. The study looked at 159 publishers that adopted AMP in 2017. Most were U.S. publishers and represented a mix of national, local, news and lifestyle.

Continue reading “What we read this week (31 August 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

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

Up ↑