What we read this week (20 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.


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:

HBR have a new series on reality wars and fake news. From the article What do we know about fake news?

“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.”

Open Science

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.”

JDI Open have put together a handy open science (no reading) reading list.


Search Engines

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.

Get the research, a search engine designed to help the general public get the peer-reviewed research for free is launching soon thanks to Unpaywall and a $850k grant from the Arcadia Fund.


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…

Best beats first
Visit Pubtechgator to find more publishing technology news stories. You can also find us on Medium.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

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

Up ↑