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 (10 May)

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

And finally…

Unlocking 100 years of scientific papers: How Scholarcy partnered with BMJ to further I4OC

Reference mining is fundamental to the creation of citation networks and rich, discoverable digital libraries. In recent years, a number of tools have been developed to address this need, but they are often limited by input format, infrastructure requirements and runtime performance. The most recent developments in this space have focused on reference mining PDFs from arts and humanities literature, but there’s a growing need for a fast, accurate way of extracting and parsing references from a wide range of documents and formats across the full research landscape.

Read more

What we read this week (14 September 2018)

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

Peer review

Artificial intelligence and machine learning

Continue reading “What we read this week (14 September 2018)”

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

Up ↑