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 (12 July)

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

Publishing

Product development and innovation

Technology

 

And finally…

  • Katie Sehl writes about Canadian doctors prescribing a visit to the art museum for patients to reduce stress and anxiety and increase feelings of well-being. In a partnership between the Médecins Francophones du Canada (MFdC) and the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts physicians have been given prescription slips that patients can present at the ticket booth for entry.  Which reminds me that the Barbican has an exhibition on at the moment called AI: More than Human that looks like it’s worth a visit. The website claims,“this major centre-wide ‘festival-style’ exhibition explores creative and scientific developments in AI, demonstrating its potential to revolutionise our lives. Bringing together artists, scientists and researchers, this interactive exhibition offers an unprecedented survey of AI with which you are invited to engage head-on.”

What we read this week (21 June)

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

Publishing

Data

Innovation and strategy

And finally…

Researchers at the University of the Sunshine Coast in Queensland, Australia, argue that shifting body posture brought about by the use of modern technology is causing young people to develop hornlike spikes at the back of their skulls — bone spurs caused by the forward tilt of the head, which shifts weight from the spine to the muscles at the back of the head, causing bone growth in the connecting tendons and ligaments.  They say smartphones and other handheld devices are contorting the human form, requiring users to bend their heads forward to make sense of what’s happening on the miniature screens. [H/T: Washington Post]

Figure 1

What we read this week (17 May)

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

And finally…

 

 

 

What we read this week (18 January)

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

Publishing

Open Data

Medicine

Technology

  • John Thornhill talks to Vivienne Ming, a theoretical neuroscientist, entrepreneur and artificial intelligence guru about her work in trying to make technology work for the benefit of humans on the FT Tech Tonic podcast.
  • The blockchain backlash begins, McKinsey on Blockchain’s Occam problem and its struggle to move projects out of Proof of Concept mode. We’re looking forward to what ALPSP have to say in their upcoming blockchain seminar.
  • Screens might be as bad for mental health as… potatoes “In the latest issue of Nature Human Behavior, Przybylski and coauthor Amy Orben use a novel statistical method to show why scientists studying these colossal data sets have been getting such different results and why most of the associations researchers have found, positive and negative, are very small—and probably not worth freaking out about.”

What we read this week (4 January)

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

Publishing

AI

Innovation

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 (6 July 2018)

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

Publishing and Open Science

Slate discuss the impact of Facebook’s retreat from the news business.

There’s a great quote in this article:

“The internet is a completely different place every 18 months, and that’s been true since we launched in 1996,”

Which brings us onto  Is the Research Article Immune to Innovation? From Sarah Andrus in Scholarly Kitchen and the glacial pace of change in the presentation of scholarly articles online. Continue reading “What we read this week (6 July 2018)”

What we read this week (9 Feb 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.

Voice UI

Voice UI is definitely coming but the big question is what will researchers use it for? We have plenty of anecdotal evidence that users are listening to academic articles via a range of apps and browser functionality . BMJ is experimenting with voice driven interactions but even simple things like indexing the BMJ in TuneIn to allow users to ask Alexa to play them has proved tricky. “Alexa play Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery podcast” usually works but “Alexa play Heart podcast” isn’t going to bring up the Heart Journal podcast – especially near Valentine’s Day! Continue reading “What we read this week (9 Feb 2018)”

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

Up ↑