Archive for May 2012
Everyday tens of millions of information professionals visit journal websites looking for mission critical articles — only to abandon the process when confronted and confounded by a pay wall.
For those users that decide to open their wallets, many times they become frustrated when a misleading abstract leads to a “wasted” article purchase. Aside from the actual out of pocket expense, valuable time is also expended searching across dozens of publisher sites, remembering (or more likely forgetting) account IDs and passwords, and dealing wtih the myriad of different shopping and checkout procedures.
DeepDyve was created to serve these millions of information professionals who are “unaffiliated” with an academic or governmental institution and therefore lack funded access to this content. Our users are knowledge workers in businesses large and small who need affordable and convenient access to authoritative research that is vital to their profession.
With DeepDyve, users can “rent” an article from anywhere they have a browser and an internet connection — for as little as $0.99.
What exactly is “renting”? Renting an article means you can read the full article as much as you like until it expires (7 days or longer), but it cannot be downloaded or printed.
Financial and ideological backing from EUREKA Eurostars, an R&D initiative funded by the European Community and the UK’s Technology Strategy Board, has reportedly helped rapidly establish Mendeley as a serious player in the academic industry.
The Eurostars project brought together Mendeley with the Estonian Technology Competence Centre in Electronics-, Info- and Communication Technologies (ELIKO) and Austria’s Competence Centre for Knowledge Management (Know-Center). Building on their complementary fields of expertise, the three organisations collaborated with one another to produce a number of Web 2.0 services for researchers that operate efficiently at large scale. The services leverage the wisdom gained from crowdsourcing in combination with exploiting modern semantic technologies (e.g. Latent Dirichlet Allocation) to produce novel tools that provide researchers with information on the impact of their research. This is done in real time.
The resulting technological improvements and subsequent funding received from Eurostars and the UK Technology Strategy Board have allowed Mendeley to create a database of more than 225 million indexed documents. Mendeley has also signed up over 1.6 million users from across academia and industry world-wide. It has now reportedly become the largest crowd-sourced academic research database in the world.
EUREKA Eurostars is the first European funding and support programme specifically directed at small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) working in R&D. Since 2009, the UK funding body, the Technology Strategy Board, has invested over £3 million into projects as part of the Eurostars programme.
During the PEER End of Project results conference in Brussels, Neelie Kroes, vice-president of the European Commission (EC) responsible for the Digital Agenda, began the meeting with a strong message of support from the EC for open access.
‘We need more timely access to scientific articles in Europe. We need open access to scientific information,’ she said, and extended her support beyond journal articles to include access to research data.
‘Open access is growing: today representing well over 7500 journals, and 20 per cent of scientific articles. But that is slow growth…Why are we still at 20 per cent instead of 100 per cent? Because even though scientists accept the principle of free online access, there are barriers to putting it into practice,’ she continued.
‘Still today many public funding bodies and research institutes do not do enough to ensure open access to their results. Still today, some publishers continue to impose restrictive conditions on researchers. Still today, only 60 per cent of publishers allow for self-archiving.’
Nonetheless, she acknowledged the economic pressures involved in open access. ‘Of course, that transformation also needs to take place in the real world, based on real economics,’ she said. ‘Publishing 1.5 million articles per year doesn’t happen for free. Nor does organising peer review, a process which remains – and needs to remain – the hallmark of quality science. As everywhere, service providers in this space, whether private or public, can only keep on providing services if their business models are sustainable. We can expect investments only where returns are likely: that is normal.’
Reported by: Weighing up gold and green. Research information, 30 may 2012, Available from: http://www.researchinformation.info/news/news_story.php?news_id=954
[Accessed 31 May 2012]
A few words on the soft revolution that might happen on the search giant…
The Google blog announces, at last, the release of some developments (known as Google Graph) that were studied by the R&D of Mountain View for years.
“The Knowledge Graph enables you to search for things, people or places that Google knows about—landmarks, celebrities, cities, sports teams, buildings, geographical features, movies, celestial objects, works of art and more—and instantly get information that’s relevant to your query. This is a critical first step towards building the next generation of search, which taps into the collective intelligence of the web and understands the world a bit more like people do. (…)
1. Find the right thing
Language can be ambiguous—do you mean Taj Mahal the monument, or Taj Mahal the musician? Now Google understands the difference, and can narrow your search results just to the one you mean—just click on one of the links to see that particular slice of results:
2. Get the best summary
With the Knowledge Graph, Google can better understand your query, so we can summarize relevant content around that topic, including key facts you’re likely to need for that particular thing. For example, if you’re looking for Marie Curie, you’ll see when she was born and died, but you’ll also get details on her education and scientific discoveries:
3. Go deeper and broader
Finally, the part that’s the most fun of all—the Knowledge Graph can help you make some unexpected discoveries. You might learn a new fact or new connection that prompts a whole new line of inquiry.
We’ve always believed that the perfect search engine should understand exactly what you mean and give you back exactly what you want. And we can now sometimes help answer your next question before you’ve asked it, because the facts we show are informed by what other people have searched for.
We’ve begun to gradually roll out this view of the Knowledge Graph to U.S. English users. It’s also going to be available on smartphones and tablets…
Singhal, Amit. Introducing the Knowledge Graph: things, not strings. Google Blog, 16th of May 2012. Available from: http://googleblog.blogspot.fr/2012/05/introducing-knowledge-graph-things-not.html [Accessed 30th of May 2012]
UTOPIA is a disruptive science article reader which integrates some sexy technos such as Altmetric, a comment editor, an integrated semantic search, an interactive figure browser…
The Utopia Documents PDF reader, developped by Lost Island Labs Ltd (LIL) has, in collaboration with Academic Concept Knowledge Ltd. (AQnowledge), seeks to bridge – while online – the ‘linkability gap’ between HTML and PDF, …
It allows readers to experience dynamically enriched scientific articles. The tool is publisher-independent and is providing ‘article-of-the-future-like‘ enrichment for any modern PDF.
The tool is free.
* Based on :
S. Pettifer, P. McDermott, J. Marsh, D. Thorne A. Villeger and T.K. Attwood Ceci n’est pas un hamburger: modelling and representing the scholarly article. Learned Publishing, 24:3, July 2011.
Web 2.0 and vaccines: opportunities and activism, where expertise and legitimacy of science are questioned
To read: 2 recent articles
1 is by the Canadian Anna Kata who already pusblished on vaccination misinformation
Anti-vaccine activists, Web 2.0, and the postmodern paradigm – An overview of tactics and tropes used online by the anti-vaccination movement. Vaccine, Volume 30, Issue 25, 28 May 2012, Pages 3778-3789. DOI:10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.11.112
Websites opposing vaccination are prevalent on the Internet. Web 2.0, defined by interaction and user-generated content, has become ubiquitous. Furthermore, a new postmodern paradigm of healthcare has emerged, where power has shifted from doctors to patients, the legitimacy of science is questioned, and expertise is redefined. Together this has created an environment where anti-vaccine activists are able to effectively spread their messages. Evidence shows that individuals turn to the Internet for vaccination advice, and suggests such sources can impact vaccination decisions – therefore it is likely that anti-vaccine websites can influence whether people vaccinate themselves or their children. This overview examines the types of rhetoric individuals may encounter online in order to better understand why the anti-vaccination movement can be convincing, despite lacking scientific support for their claims. Tactics and tropes commonly used to argue against vaccination are described. This includes actions such as skewing science, shifting hypotheses, censoring dissent, and attacking critics; also discussed are frequently made claims such as not being “anti-vaccine” but “pro-safe vaccines”, that vaccines are toxic or unnatural, and more. Recognizing disingenuous claims made by the anti-vaccination movement is essential in order to critically evaluate the information and misinformation encountered online.
The second is by Cornelia Betsch, (et al.)
Opportunities and challenges of Web 2.0 for vaccination decisions. Vaccine, Volume 30, Issue 25, 28 May 2012, Pages 3727-3733. DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.02.025
A growing number of people use the Internet to obtain health information, including information about vaccines. Websites that allow and promote interaction among users are an increasingly popular source of health information. Users of such so-called Web 2.0 applications (e.g. social media), while still in the minority, represent a growing proportion of online communicators, including vocal and active anti-vaccination groups as well as public health communicators. In this paper, the authors: define Web 2.0 and examine how it may influence vaccination decisions; discuss how anti-vaccination movements use Web 2.0 as well as the challenges Web 2.0 holds for public health communicators; describe the types of information used in these different settings; introduce the theoretical background that can be used to design effective vaccination communication in a Web 2.0 environment; make recommendations for practice and pose open questions for future research. The authors conclude that, as a result of the Internet and Web 2.0, private and public concerns surrounding vaccinations have the potential to virally spread across the globe in a quick, efficient and vivid manner. Web 2.0 may influence vaccination decisions by delivering information that alters the perceived personal risk of vaccine-preventable diseases or vaccination side-effects. It appears useful for public health officials to put effort into increasing the effectiveness of existing communication by implementing interactive, customized communication. A key step to providing successful public health communication is to identify those who are particularly vulnerable to finding and using unreliable and misleading information. Thus, it appears worthwhile that public health websites strive to be easy to find, easy to use, attractive in its presentation and readily provide the information, support and advice that the searcher is looking for. This holds especially when less knowledgeable individuals are in need of reliable information about vaccination risks and benefits
The impact of academic research has long been measured using citations, mainly with the Journal Impact Factor being used to assess individual publications within it, it has been observed. However, the Impact Factor is a journal level – not an article level – metric and, as academic publishing and the surrounding discussion move increasingly onto the web, new tools to track and assess the impact of individual scientific publications have emerged.
These web-based approaches are starting to offer an article-level perspective of the way research is disseminated, discussed and integrated across the web. The hope is that a broader set of metrics to complement citations will eventually give a more comprehensive view of article impact, and help to make the most relevant and important publications discoverable to individuals, based on their interests.
Altmetric.com is seen as one of a growing number of web-based tools taking a novel approach to the assessment of scholarly impact – it aggregates the mentions on Twitter and social media sites, and coverage in online reference managers, mainstream news sources and blogs to present an overview of the interest a published article is receiving online.
To take impact factor to the article level, open access publisher BioMed Central has reportedly added the Altmetic.com ‘donut’ to the about page of published articles. The donut will display for articles receiving coverage which has been tracked by Altmetric.com, along with an article score.
BioMed plans to keep adding to this range of metrics and indicators as they continue to expose a fuller image of research impact.
McCasland, Carla. Best Practices for Twitter for Healthcare and Pharma Professionals. May 2012, Presentation, available from: http://www.slideshare.net/carlamcasland/best-practicesfortwitterfinal [Accessed 25 May 2012]
If you’re not paying the for it, YOU are the product…
An interesting note from a finish researcher:
“As an author I am in favour of open access (OA) as a concept for medical publishing. When drafting manuscripts, accessing articles freely from any computer without any passwords is very convenient. However, I have never submitted to an OA journal – partly because of more cautious views of other research group members. (…)
However, many researchers collect their meagre funding from small supporters, and the costs of OA publishing may be intolerable to them. (…)
The increase of OA publishing is supposed to lower the subscription expenses of institutional libraries. Therefore, the universities and other research institutions should use the saved money to support their researchers to submit in OA journals.
Saloheimo, Pertti. Switching to open access publishing is challenging. International Journal of Clinical Practice. May 2012, Vol. 66, N°5, pp. 515-517. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1742-1241.2012.02913.x/pdf [Accessed 24th May 2012]