Welcome to Things we read this week, a weekly post featuring articles from around the internet recommended by BMJ’s Digital Group members.
First up are two pieces about Crossref. Christine Cormack Wood’s post on the SciELO blog summarises why Crossref exists and persists and Enago Academy, as part of their interview series on Connecting Scholarly Publishing Experts and Researchers, ask Crossref team how they add value to research outputs and explains the important work Crossref does.
We’re slowly working our way through the iAnnotate conference videos. Lots of interestings things in the interview with Benjamin Young, Solutions Architect, John Wiley & Sons about how they are using annotations. Thanks to @highwirepress for making the videos available so we can watch from afar.
Julie Baldwin and Stephen Pinfield have a new paper entitled “The UK Scholarly Communication Licence: Attempting to Cut through the Gordian Knot of the Complexities of Funder Mandates, Publisher Embargoes and Researcher Caution in Achieving Open Access” which maps out the key stakeholders and relationships involved in the United Kingdom Scholarly Communication Licence (UK-SCL) implementation from a higher education institution perspective:
Platform related news:
- F1000 are providing technology and editorial services to Emerald Publishing and running Emerald Open Research to enable as many authors as possible to publish on an open research platform. More here.
- Hindawi’s have made a submission to the European Commission’s tender to launch a new open science publishing platform.
- The publishing technology known as Chorus that powers the platforms of Vox Media —including The Verge, Vox and Recode, is now available for use by other publishers, reports Benjamin Mullin from WSJ. (H/T: WNIP). It would be great to see some of this technology incorporated into STM platforms.
“In general, fake news consumption seems to be a complement to, rather than a substitute for, hard news — visits to fake news websites are highest among people who consume the most hard news and do not measurably decrease among the most politically knowledgeable individuals.”
Who benefits from sharing data asks Nature Communications? “The scientists of future do, as data sharing today enables new science tomorrow. Far from being mere rehashes of old datasets, evidence shows that studies based on analyses of previously published data can achieve just as much impact as original projects.”
We’ve been having a play with the new Sci-napse (a free, not for profit academic search engine for papers). Here’s a Sci-napse query for Digital Innovation. In our informal tests we thought it was pretty good and we were getting more helpful or similar results than Scopus and Google Scholar.
Around 43 minutes into this video from the MPS Leadership and Innovation summit there’s a section on what panel members think innovation means in Wiley, Elsevier and McGraw Hill..
Finally, McKinsey research on how people frame their innovation stories to create differentiation and attract attention is worth a read. “The ability to frame ideas in an attractive way is important for reaching customers and employees, too, but it’s particularly so in the world of innovation because of the enormous levels of uncertainty involved in creating something new.” Here’s an example…