What we read this week (6 December)

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

Publishing

AI and Machine Learning

Product Management

  • Continuous Foresight: Your Business Plan is Science Fiction
    Cool idea: “Why should a business utilize science fiction? What do you think your business plan is? That’s the message of Brian David Johnson, a leading expert on science fiction prototyping and threatcasting. Threatcasting is a sub-genre of forecast that details future threats and how the organization can track threat development and know when to respond. Brian David Johnson joins Continuous Foresight to walk us through why threatcasting is effective and how you can use it in your forecasting work.”

And finally…

 

What we read this week (19 July)

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

Publishing

  • Although the terminology is awkward (many publishers use syndication, aggregation, etc in a slightly different way) Diverting Leakage to the Library Subscription Channel is worth a read for a librarian perspective on Springer Nature’s approach to ResearchGate. As Mark Johnson comments: “If you want your content to be read as widely as possible, put the content where the readers are”.
  • Tables 8 and 9 in Do Download Reports Reliably Measure Journal Usage? Trusting the Fox to Count Your Hens? contain some interesting publisher platform comparison data which could be used as a measure effectiveness. BMJ, like many publishers, switched from taking Institutional users to an abstract page by default to automatically taking them to a full-text page a couple of years ago – whilst this does have the effect of triggering an HTML download it also greatly improves user experience and has proved popular with readers. The new COUNTER 5 standard probably addresses main concern of this paper.
  • Interesting perspective on the history of peer review in Managing the Growth of Peer Review at the Royal Society Journals, 1865-1965 “Our findings reveal interesting parallels with current concerns about the scale and distribution of peer review work and suggest the strategic importance of the management of the editorial process to achieve a creative mix of community commitment and professional responsibility that is essential in contemporary journals.”
  • Also on the theme of peer review Thinking in Bets by Annie Duke (using the principles of poker to make decisions) has an interesting section on peer review. When peer reviewers were asked to make a monetary bet on whether the research could be replicated they were far more accurate then when asked if they thought the research would replicate – unfortunately the audio book doesn’t have links to the original research on this.
  • Figshare have put together a useful webinar, led by Iain Hrynaszkiewicz from Springer Nature,  on ensuring your data policies are up to date and cover the FAIR principles .
  • How Faculty Demonstrate Impact: A Multi-Institutional Study of Faculty Understandings, Perceptions, and Strategies Regarding Impact Metrics  looks at what researchers think about research impact measures across disciplines and institutions. Be interesting to find out how location-specific this kind of research is.

Product development and innovation

And finally…

For those insanely hot summer afternoons when focusing on work is simple too much why not try Netflix Hangouts, a Chrome extension that disguises Netflix as a fake four-person conference call. During the “call,” your show of choice will appear in the bottom right grid, while three fake coworkers will appear in the other feeds.[H/T: Product Hunt]

What we read this week (30 November)

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

Publishing

Academic research and Open Science

Innovation

  • How Amazon Innovates
    “At the heart of how Amazon innovates is its six-page memo, which is required at the start of every new initiative. What makes it effective isn’t so much the structure of the document itself, but how it is used to embed a fanatical focus on the customer from day one. It’s something that is impressed upon Amazon employees early in their careers.”

Around the web

 

What we read this week (19 October)

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

  • Scribd Bundles New York Times With E-Books, Audio Books for $13 a Month. I guess the focus on Institutional subscriptions or society membership within academic publishing means that these kind of product bundles for personal subscribers are less common. Would students go for membership bundles which include a range of subscriptions and products such as a Grammerly (a phenomenon that has a number of university staff staying getting a sub to improve your essays is a must have)?
  •  asks if publishers will syndicate their content on Scholarly Kitchen? The comments are particularly interesting. I find it somewhat intriguing that STM publishers, particularly those that run advertising, haven’t gone down the route of creating a publisher alliance for access/data collection.
  • Elsevier Connect published the HEADT Centre article Combating image misuse in science: new Humboldt database provides “missing link” by Dr, Thorsten Beck. We’re sure that automated image checking will become routine within a few years, the real question is will there be an open solution or will all publishers need to purchase a service from Elsevier or one of the other big players to handle this?
  • Financial Times launches a new tool to help ‘knowledge-hungry’ subscribers track their reading  “The tool will track the articles that subscribers read, giving them an indication of the amount of information they have read on a topic, and suggesting further reads to them….”It’s about putting people in control of their knowledge-building process by allowing them to track progress on topics,” said Webb. Every article is worth a certain amount of points, displayed at the top of the page. When a reader gets to the bottom of the article, they will see four dots which flow into a progress bar, showing them how much they have now learned on that particular topic.”  It will be really interesting to see how many readers take advantage of this service and if the FT can really generate revenue from this service through increased usage.
  • Civil’s token sale closed without them hitting the $8 million minimum that they wanted to raise.  Using cryptoeconomics to create an open marketplace for journalists and citizens is an interesting business model. However, using the following helpful flowchart it’s less clear if blockchain technology is really needed for their newsroom platform.  (Does anyone know if this flowchart is really from the Department of Homeland security? We haven’t been able to find the original document). There are some really interesting STM applications being developed using blockchain technology such as Frankl, Blockchain for Peer Review, Orvium, etc. but we’re not convinced any of these really need to be built using blockchain tech.
  • The Journal of Informetrics has published a systematic comparison of Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus and found:
    “GS consistently found the largest percentage of citations across all areas (93%–96%), far ahead of Scopus (35%–77%) and WoS (27%–73%). GS found nearly all the WoS (95%) and Scopus (92%) citations. Most citations found only by GS were from non-journal sources (48%–65%), including theses, books, conference papers, and unpublished materials. Many were non-English (19%–38%), and they tended to be much less cited than citing sources that were also in Scopus or WoS.”

What we read this week (4 May 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.

Publishing

The Harvard Digital Publishing Collaborative explore what publishing production and editorial functions can learn from how software developers with Andrew Savikas, former CEO of Safari  who also ran the Tools of Change for Publishing conferences. Andrew talks about the difficulties of XML first workflows and newer approaches which particularly resonated with us. Continue reading “What we read this week (4 May 2018)”

Things we read this week (5 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.

  • Research Workflows
    Investing in researcher workflow tools is an obvious next step for publishers seeking to increase revenues. It’s not hard to imagine, as Roger C. Schonfeld does, a future world in which Institutions drift into buying bundles of products and services alongside their institutional subscriptions. I think it’s more useful to follow Hax’s Delta model (see below) and think of these as total customer solutions strategies rather than lock-in strategies. A bundle which includes journal subscriptions, a research evaluation tool, an institutional repository and a reference management tool thrown in for free is likely to be cheaper and more efficient than purchasing and running all of those products from different vendors. Although this is likely to lead to lock-in/competitor lock-out.
    The “Delta Model” of Arnoldo Hax ...Not sure what Researcher Workflows are? Terry Clague also has a useful post trying to define the term “researcher workflow”.  LabWorm’s roundup of the Top 17 trending research tools/sites of 2017 that were most appreciated and used by the LabWorm community is an interesting insight into what researchers are actually using. (H/T: @pluto_network). Not on LabWorm’s list is ContentMine  which claims to provide tools for getting papers from many online sources, normalising them, then processing them to lookup and/or search for key terms, phrases, patterns, statements, and more – something to try next week.

Continue reading “Things we read this week (5 January 2018)”

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

Up ↑