Does web 3.0 help drug dicovery?

According these chines study, Web 3.0 could help in drug discovering.

Basicaly, the semantic web vision is to create a web of data by
interlinking, mapping and combining disparate data sources based on machine-understandable ontologies.

This data sharing especially could enable scientific networks and efficient retrievable systems.

Summary:

The semantic web, developed on the web technology, provides a common, open framework capable of harmonizing diversified resources to enable networked and collaborative drug discovery.

Authors surveyed the state of art of utilizing web ontologies and other
semantic web technologies to interlink both data and people to support
integrated drug discovery across domains and multiple disciplines.

Particularly, the survey covers three major application categories including:

1. semantic integration and open data linking;
2. semantic web service and scientific collaboration and
3. semantic data mining and integrative network analysis

Chen, H.a , Xie, G.b. The use of web ontology languages and other semantic web tools in drug discovery. Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery. Volume 5, Issue 5, May 2010, Pages 413-423
http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1517/17460441003762709

Medicine 2.0: what does that mean?!

What are health 2.0 and medicine 2.0?

Health 2.0/Medicine 2.0 is still a developing concept.

This  study identified 46 unique definitions of Health 2.0 and Medicine 2.0 with seven recurrent topics:

• Web 2.0/technology
• patients professionals, social networking,
• health information/content,
• collaboration,
• and change of health care.

There is no general consensus of the definition of Health 2.0/Medicine 2.0 yet.

Van De Belt TH, Engelen LJ, Berben SAA, Schoonhoven L
Definition of Health 2.0 and Medicine 2.0: A Systematic Review
J Med Internet Res 2010;12(2):e18
URL: http://www.jmir.org/2010/2/e18/

Web 2.0: will they come?

Once again, the RIN (Research Information Network, London) publishes a fundamental report on real usage of Web 2.0 by the Research community in U.K.

This report seeks to improve our currently limited understanding of whether, and if so how, UK researchers are making use of various web 2.0 tools in the course of their work, the factors that encourage or inhibit adoption, and researchers’ attitudes towards web 2.0 and other forms of communication.

Key findings:

Usage/Adoption:

The study indicates that a majority of researchers are making at least occasional use of one or more web 2.0 tools or services for purposes related to their research:

• for communicating their work
• for developing and sustaining networks and collaborations
• or for finding out about what others are doing.

But frequent or intensive use is rare, and some researchers regard blogs, wikis and other novel forms of communication as a waste of time or even dangerous.

Regarding blog, wikis, and file-sharing services, the study found that current levels of take-up are relatively low, with 13% of respondents using such tools frequently (once a week or more), 45% using them occasionally, and 39% using them not at all.

It also found that – contrary to the perception that use of web 2.0 is of special interest to a younger, Facebook, generation – the differences between various demographic groups are relatively small,…

web 2.0 tools are for the most part not considered to be particularly important. This is unlikely to change until significant numbers of researchers see clear benefits from the use of web 2.0.

Scholarly Communication:

Researchers who use web 2.0 tools and services do not see them as comparable to or substitutes for other channels and means of communication. When deciding when, where and how to publish their work, researchers place the highest value on well-established channels of communication including scholarly journals, conference proceedings and monographs.

Open science (blogs, data sharing, etc.) : very few researchers are as yet operating in this way.

Social networking: 13% of respondents use SN services at least once a week for purposes related to their work.

Conclusion:

Web 2.0 services are currently being used as supplements to established channels, rather than a replacement for them.

While a small number of researchers are making frequent and innovative use of web 2.0 tools, the majority use them only sporadically, or not at all. There is relatively little hostility to new mechanisms…

———-

Procter, Rob. If you build it, will they come? How researchers perceive and use web 2.0. White paper, July 2010, 64 p.
http://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/communicating-and-disseminating-research…

Web 2.0 different visions over the world

A huge survey of more than 50,000 social platforms users “mapped by country how people are sharing information about themselves online“.

Asian users are more engaged with the social web then users in the West. Up to 45% of Asian internet users blog (to compare with the 15% in the U.S.): “blogging is a vehicle for keeping in touch with family and friends“.

European, North american and Australian users are more active than Eastern users when it comes to photo sharing and managing a social-network profile, but they’re less active for microblogging.

Piskorvski, M.J. Mapping the social internet. Harvard Business Review, July-August 2010, pp. 32-33
http://hbr.org/2010/07/vision-statement-mapping-the-social-internet/ar/1

Free Thomson service to identify experts

Thomson Reuters introduces ISI Highly Cited as an expert gateway to the most highly influential scientists and scholars worldwide.

This freely accessible Web site gives research professionals working in a variety of occupations an invaluable tool to identify individuals, departments and laboratories that have made fundamental contributions to the advancement of science and technology in recent decades.

These individuals are the most highly cited within each category, and comprise less than one-half of one percent of all publishing researchers–truly an extraordinary accomplishment.
ISIHighlyCited.com highlights the top 250 preeminent individual researchers in each of 21 subject categories who have demonstrated great influence in their field as measured by citations to their work–the intellectual debt acknowledged by their colleagues.

The information for each researcher is as follows:

• Biographical information: education, faculty and professional posts, memberships and/or offices, current research interests, and personal Web sites.
• Full listing of publications: journal articles, book or book chapters, conference proceedings, web sites and other Internet resources
• Bibliography enhanced by links to the full bibliographic information indexed in the Web of Science

When visiting ISIHighlyCited.com, one can:

• Search for the top researchers by name, category, country, or institutional affiliation
• Track research trends through literature references using links to and through the Web of Science
• Learn about or stay current on the research authorities and trends in a number of fields
• Identify key individuals, departments and laboratories
• Locate colleagues and experts
• Discover new dimensions of a researcher’s work
• Show students the development of scientific ideas

ISIHighlyCited.com is the only online forum in the world for this type of communication and research.

A good place to start an experts identification…
http://hcr3.isiknowledge.com/home.cgi

Is 2Collab still alive?

Since it has experienced spam attacks in October 2009, the Elsevier
collaboration tools seems to be sleeping.

A French customer reports that Elsevier advised him to look for another
tool: “Given the current spam problems, it is probably best for you to look
for a solution other than 2collab, at the present time. ” !
(cf: http://delicious.com/bibliothecaire/2collab )

2collab icon has also disappeared from ScienceDirect interface…
Is it the first official failure of Elsevier in Web 2.0 applications engagement?

Social networks: Researchers prefer Personal Relationships

It is one of the main findings of this interesting study, conducted for the OCLC Research in a few prestigious american universities.

“It does not appear that professional networking Websites will attain a high level of regard or participation. (….)

Technology cannot replace that human factor…

Junior faculty rightly recognize the imperative to attend professional conferences as they establish themselves and develop their personal network for the remainder of their career.

Personal introductions, conversations at meeting or hearing someone present a paper were cited as key in choosing collaborators.

Researchers rely on that one-on-one opportunity to assess the other person and the degree of compatibility, something that cannot ocur when looking at Internet sources or formal publications.

———–
Other findings:

• Electronic journals continue to reshape the information landscape and the research process
  • all faculty mentioned the importance of online journals and how they are changing information access and retrieval
• Researchers ignore alternative forms of dissemination
  • Despite they know global impact of open access model, authors prefer journals that have high impact rankings and the prestige of being in the top tier in a subject domain
• Store the knowledge is an unsolved issue
  • Researchers report that they struggle unsuccessfully with storage and management of a burgeoning volume of documents
  • No one has control over no plans for managing the storage, maintenance, and retrieval of documents and data sets over time
• The Google effect:
  • The majority of researchers interviewed for this study use online tools – and commercial services – related to their discipline rather than tools or library services provided by their university.
  • Researchers adopt information tools and services that are easy to use and that simplify their work, even when those tools and services are not optimal, comprehensive, or on the “approved” list preferred by their university

Kroll, Susan and Forsman, Rick . A slice of Research Life: information support for research in the United States. Report commissionned by OCLC Research in support of the RLG Partnership.

Available online:
http://www.oclc.org/research/news/2010-06-16.htm

Library 2.0: a lower adoption in Europe

In examining six common Web 2.0 applications and 120 library websites,
a study found that libraries in North America lead significantly in the adoption of Web 2.0 applications compared to their European and Asian counterparts.

Across all libraries, the order of popularity of Web 2.0 applications implementation is as follows:

• blogs,
• RSS,
• instant messaging,
• social networking services,
• wikis,
• and social tagging applications

Blogs are commonly used to generate interest in subject-specific topics as well as to engage users.

Libraries use wikis in their websites to cull resources thematically from users.

Libraries that adopt RSS mostly use it to communicate news and events, updates of resources or collection on their websites.

Libraries that promote social tagging provide a link to websites such as Connotea, del.icio.us, and Digg

Libraries use social networking services such as Facebook and MySpace as an alternative channel of communication as well as to forge personalized connections with their users.

Chua, Alton Y.K. & Goh, Dion H. A study of Web 2.0 applications in library websites. Library & Information Science Research, Vol.32, 2010, pp. 203-211

Thomson InCites: new release

Via one convenient, web-based platform, InCites delivers objective measures of institutional research performance allowing professionals to make strategic choices to effectively further their research, budgetary, hiring, and market positioning goals.

InCites now creates institution and author profile reports that provide top-level snapshots of performance and gives users the ability to dive into core data for deep analysis.

It also supports customization of the data and flexible tools to manage, refine, share, and save reports.

Now InCites users can easily create a picture of their research output and impact at the author and department level, as well as the institution level available in previous versions.

Press release: http://thomsonreuters.com/content/press_room/sci/New-Version-InCites

Web site:
http://incites.thomsonreuters.com/