Archive for October 2009
BMC, now owned by the commercial Springer, claims over 1,000,000
The BioMed Central Online portfolio offers a rich and diverse range of
electronic products. With scientific and medical databases, review
journals and 202 peer-reviewed research journals, BioMed Central
publishes an extensive online platform of products for the biology and
medical research community
“Researchers spend 10.7 hours per week in 2009 finding information compared to 5.5 hours in 2006″
According an Outsell study: STM End-User Survey Part 1 – Scientists and Engineers: http://www.outsellinc.com/store/products/838
(reported by Elsevier Marketing into: http://www.slideshare.net/fkersten/elsevier-scopus-value-story-09-2175368 )
Everything you must know about Science publishing is in the STM report 2009: the STM market figures, readers’ behaviors, new trends, web 2.0 impact, etc.
It is a follow up to the 2006 report, ‘Scientific publishing in transition: an overview of current developments,’ ‘The STM Report’ collected the available evidence and provides a comprehensive picture of the trends and currents in scholarly communication.
Ware, Mark and Mabe, Michael. The stm report : An overview of scientific and scholarly journals publishing. September 2009. Online: http://www.stm-assoc.org/news.php?id=255&PHPSESSID=3c5575d0663c0e04a4600d7f04afe91f
Some facts and findings:
- The annual revenues generated from English-language STM journal publishing are estimated at about $8 billion in 2008, up by 6-7% compared to 2007.
- There were about 25,400 active scholarly peer-reviewed journals in early 2009, collectively publishing about 1.5 million articles a year.
- Although this report focuses primarily on journals, the ebook market is evolving and growing rapidly.
- Despite a transformation in the way journals are published, researchers’ core motivations for publishing appear largely unchanged, focused on funding and furthering the author’s career.
- Reading patterns are changing, however, with researchers reading more, averaging 270 articles per year, but spending less time per article, with reading times down from 45-50 minutes in the mid-1990s to just over 30 minutes. Access and navigation to articles is increasingly driven by search rather than browsing.
- The research community continues to see peer review as fundamental to scholarly communication and appears committed to it despite some perceived shortcomings. The typical reviewer spends 5 hours per review and reviews some 8 articles a year.
- The vast majority of STM journals are now available online, with 96% of STM.
- Social media and other “Web 2.0” tools have yet to make the impact on scholarly communication that they have done on the wider consumer web. Most researchers do not for instance read blogs regularly or make use of emerging social tools. This may be for a variety of reasons: a reluctance to introduce informal processes into the formal publication process; because the first wave of tools did not take sufficient account of the particular needs of researchers; a lack of incentives for researchers, including the lack of attribution for informal contributions; a lack of critical mass; and simply a lack to time to experiment with new media.
- There are between 3400 (according to the Open J-Gate directory) and 4300 (DOAJ) open access peer reviewed journals. It is estimated that about 2% of articles are published in full open access journals, another 5% in journals offering delayed open access within 12 months, and under 1% under the optional (hybrid) model.
Elsevier is entering an educational market that has, now, adopted these new management techniques and tools for internal assessment of productivity and for external comparative assessment. (…)
SciVal Spotlight (www.info.spotlight.scival.com) is intended to provide research administrators with a “strategic analysis tool that enables academic executives to make informed strategic decisions by measuring and evaluating an institution’s research performance. (…)
Elsevier sees the SciVal Spotlight as helping administrators in six key areas:
- Identify specific areas of research excellence and emerging strengths
- Identify areas of interdisciplinary research
- View their relative standing to their peers in various disciplines
- Uncover and identify new research opportunities
- Determine areas of research leadership that may be at risk of being overtaken by others
- Search for top candidates for external recruitment or retention within an organization
SciVal Funding (www.info.funding.scival.com), the company’s latest product, is a “web-based solution that gives research administrators and researchers in the pre-award stage immediate and comprehensive access to current research funding opportunities and award information.” Citing the lack of a single source that melds funding opportunities with competitive information and local research data, Elsevier calls this “the most comprehensive funding intelligence solution” on the market.
SciVal Funding is intended to help researchers locate the most appropriate and most likely grant opportunities to maximize their potential for receiving funding. The product integrates information on existing award winners, based partially on published articles and other results of past winners, as well as other historic information on awards and information from the foundations, or other sources, on their priorities and goals.
Herther, Nancy. Elsevier’s New SciVal Products Target Academic Accountability and Strategic Planning. Information Today, Online (Posted On October 8, 2009): http://newsbreaks.infotoday.com/NewsBreaks/…
Whatever initiatives to compete the famous Impact Factor owned by Thomson, IF still dominates small world of the Research evaluation, says an article in IWR.
“Journal impact factors (IFs) have become a status symbol in the world of research. With libraries facing severe budget cuts in the recession, IF scores can help decide which journals remain essential to a collection. (…)
More important than the IF number itself is the ranking position it gives a journal, enabling the identification of high-impact or must-have journals. In a survey, 49% of respondents believed the IF was an “important” factor when judging a journal and 26.7% said it was a “very important” factor.
Venkatraman, Archana. Impact factors dominate citation metrics. Information World Review. Online (10th of September 2009): http://www.iwr.co.uk/information-world-review/analysis/2249258/journals-cherish-status-symbol
Once again, an excellent review (including important players’ interviews) by David Bradley about the low adoption of social networks by Scientists.
If uptake is “up to 88%” within the business world, “a mere 1 in 7 research scientists use such tools as part of their work“.
“We are just now in the early evolution of scientific networks” says a pro. Other think “that the pure social networking sites for researchers just don’t work“.
Some services have reached good score in terms of members enrollement. “But, despite their best efforts and a lot of hard work, I’m sure many of them recognise that they are yet to reach a critical mass of the kind achieved by an offline networking community, such as the American Chemical Society, for instance.”
Arguments are well known: no career incentives, no added-value, no killer-application, no time to waste, too many registration to do, etc.
Read the full article:Bradley, David. Gen-F scientists ignoring social networking. Online (october 7, 2009): http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/gen-f-scientists-ignoring-social-networking.hml
ChemSpider is a free access service providing a structure centric
community for chemists. Providing access to millions of chemical
structures and integration to a multitude of other online services,
ChemSpider is the richest single source of structure-based chemistry
My opinion: again a new player into the Chemistry area. Its intuitive
interface and associated links to commercial providers of compounds
could be appreciated by PubChem or SciFinder users.