What we read this week (16 August)

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

Publishing

Libraries

  • Tony Zanders on Libraries and The Vendor Conundrum is worth a read for anyone involved in selling/supplier management “Over the years I’ve learned that there is pretty substantial distance between the world of a vendor and the world of a librarian. And the points of intersection between these worlds are actually few and far in between.”
  • iNODE, the unofficial weblog of the Digital Strategies and Systems Division of University Libraries, George Mason University, has posted a full month’s worth of data about how scholars access articles at a large research university:

Research

  •  Aubrey Clayton on the flawed reasoning behind the replication crisis in @NautilusMag
  • Elizabeth Gadd, Chris Morrison and Jane Secker on  The Impact of Open Access on Teaching—How Far Have We Come? “Key findings include the fact that no interviewees incorporated OA searches into their acquisitions processes. Overall, 38% of articles required to support teaching were available as OA in some form but only 7% had a findable re-use licence; just 3% had licences that specifically permitted inclusion in an ‘electronic course-pack’. Eighty-nine percent of journal content was written by academics (34% by UK-based academics). Of these, 58% were written since 2000 and thus could arguably have been made available openly had academics been supported to do so. ”  See also Aaron Tay’s comments on Twitter.

Innovation

  • Awesome toolbox of toolboxes “A curated list of the best business, design, and organisational change toolboxes built by some of the most influential companies, institutions and thinkers.”

 

 

 

What we read this week (9 August)

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

Publishing

Data management

Product Management

  • The Mom TestRob Fitzpatrick has produced an awesome (and short!) book on how to talk to customers & learn if your business is a good idea. There’s also a free email course to help audit your customer conversations and spot the big mistakes.  “The belief that any question is a good question and any data is good data is called the feedback fallacy. It’s simply not true. And if you’re collecting bad data, then 100% of the time you’ve spent on customer learning is worthless. Fortunately, the problem is easily fixed. By asking good questions and running a good process, you can avoid the bad data, collect the good data, and also save a ton of time. “

Future thinking

  • Amy Webb on How to Do Strategic Planning Like a Futurist. “Deep uncertainty merits deep questions, and the answers aren’t necessarily tied to a fixed date in the future. Where do you want to have impact? What it will take to achieve success? How will the organization evolve to meet challenges on the horizon? These are the kinds of deep, foundational questions that are best addressed with long-term planning.”

Innovation

And finally…

An awesome ‘edible abstract’ from Michele Melchior….

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.

Things we read this week (26 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.

Continue reading “Things we read this week (26 January 2018)”

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

Up ↑