Archive for February 2012
In spite of constant media attention around new forms of technology and especially e-books students still appear to be reticent about embracing new technologies in their studies. (…)
The students in the group, who studied a range of subjects at universities in and around London, felt there was a constant push for them to move to digital but they were resisting it. Although respondents were seeing increasingly more iPads and e-readers at university and they expected more use of e-books in the future, they were unanimous in the hope that this wouldn’t come at the expense of face-to-face time and hard-copy texts. (…)
The students in the focus group said that they used a wide range of online sources and databases (mentions included JSTOR, Project MUSE, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Athens, Emerald journals, LexisLibrary, Westlaw UK, ISI Web of Knowledge and Inspiration). They also used search resources including Google Scholar and Wikipedia. However, it was startling (and distinctly disheartening to the publishers watching the group) how little the students bought digital study resources and e-books. (…)
Medical students had by far the greatest use of apps for their studies…
Kedros, Jenny. Focus group reveals reticence about move to digital. Research Information, 28th of February 2012.
Peer-review and Impact factor are the factors which influence the most the pharma companies for their journals selection.
McGuire, Ryan. Medical journal selection: pharma’s real estate search. PharmaPhorum, Online on 20th of February 2010.
Update February 2012:
Users ‘don’t like’ Google’s new search tool.
According Martin Belam, Google has promised to add some pieces of social information into its algorithms.
Anyway, it looks like that the new “Search Plus Your World” function tends to “forget” Twitter, Facebook, Flickr… and is likely to favour its own social network Google+…
Belam, Martin. Would you like some social with your search? Google launches “Search, plus Your World”. FUMSI, online the 16 th of January, 2012.
70% of organisations in the Western world have adopted SharePoint. Is the organisation you work in one of those, or are you one of the 30% who are still considering whether SharePoint is a tool that you could use?
Read further: Mullan, James. SharePoint 2010 do’s and don’ts. FUMSI, 21st of February, 2012.
Mark Owen wonders what means Pharma 3.0:
“When I first heard the term “Pharma 3.0” I thought that it was the latest in the trend to put “x.0” (where x = 2, or higher) after everything. I was delighted to find out that it wasn’t, and there is a (reasonably) well-defined “Pharma 1.0, and 2.0” (…)
This is what defines “Pharma 1.0” - the age of the “Blockbuster”.
However, Pharma companies also realized that there is more than just having a “really great product”. “Pharma 2.0” is a period where there was a recalibration to do business leaner, nimbler and more focused on emerging realities. Effectively, the focus was on redefining the business model.
There are no precise dates when the next “Pharma x.0” period is entered, but “Pharma 3.0” has started to emerge.
Pharma 3.0 can be described loosely as “Pharma + Web 2.0”. (…)
That is, “social media” plays a big role. The advent of social media has brought a voice to the end consumer. With a greater wealth of knowledge at their hands, the patient has become more knowledgeable about their ailments, and more critical of the medicines they are taking. Insurance companies and governments are also now starting to look for real value in the medicines that they are paying for, rather than just relying on the claims of the pharmaceutical company.
As a result, the pharmaceutical company has had to redefine who the “customer is”. No longer is the customer the Medical Doctor. Now more focus is put on delivering real value to the patient.
Owen, Mark. Pharma 3.0, AIIM, Posted on 30th of January 2012.
Obvious results after a public consultation, open from from 15.07.2011 to 09.09.2011, which concerned access to scientific publications and scientific data as well as the preservation of scientific information. Stakeholders were given the opportunity to comment on the state of play, barriers and potential policy actions in these areas.
Nearly 90 percent of respondents supported the idea that publications resulting from publicly funded research should, as a matter of principle, be in open access (OA) mode and that data from publicly funded research should be available for reuse free of charge on the internet. Furthermore, 83 percent called for policy formulation at the EU level and 86 percent agreed on the development of an EU network of repositories.
Asked about barriers to accessing scientific publications the high price of journals/subscriptions (89 percent) and the limited budget of libraries (85 percent) were identified as key issues. The main barriers to access research data were identified as lack of funding to develop and maintain the necessary infrastructures (80 percent); the insufficient credit given to researchers for making research data available (80 percent); insufficient national/regional strategies/policies (79 percent) as well as the lack of incentives for researchers (76.4 percent).
Self-archiving (‘green OA’) or a combination of self-archiving and OA publishing (‘gold OA’) were identified as the preferred ways for increasing the number and share of scientific publications available in OA mode. The majority (56 percent of respondents) prefer an embargo period (that is the period of time during which a publication is not yet open access) of six months.
Finally, respondents were also concerned that the preservation of scientific information is currently insufficiently addressed.
The survey on scientific information in the digital age is available at