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.

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.”

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

Up ↑