Archive for the ‘01: Gathering’ Category
Unfortunately, there is a negative effect of the widely success of the Open Access movement, the emergence of pseudo journals.
Jeffrey Beall maintains a list of these predatory publishers that “ exist only to make money off the author processing charges that are billed to authors upon acceptance of their scientific manuscripts“…
This list is available on:
Steve Miron, from Wiley, interviewed by Sian Harris:
What role does open access play in research publishing?
It’s clear that open access (OA) is becoming a big trend. However, I see that for the foreseeable future we’ll live in a mixed economy with green OA, gold OA, subscription and approaches that have not been invented yet. It is fun and exciting, with many experiments by publishers. (…)
There has been some great communication between the research community, publishers and policy makers in developing OA policy. It has been done in an enlightened, positive way but I think there’ll be some serious issues that still need to be considered. (…)
How might relationships between researchers and publishers be improved?
We work hard to nurture and maintain a positive relationship with researchers and libraries. No relationship is without some tension or disagreement but we do actively listen to authors, whether what they say is positive or negative.
We get around 450,000 article submissions a year and publish about a third of them. Some good science is not being published because the materials budgets do not keep pace with R&D spend. I hope as funded OA becomes more part of the scholarly landscape these tensions are addressed and that budgets for publications will be more aligned with the R&D spend.
Announcement from the reputed PLOS:
On the eve of our tenth anniversary, we’re pleased to announce that the redesign of all PLOS journals is now live. The three goals of this initiative were to:
- Ensure that readers can quickly assess the relevance and importance of an article through a figure browser and highly visible Article-Level Metrics
- Improve site navigation to help users discover content more easily
- Launch a flexible platform from which to build out future innovations
This refresh offers users more effective ways to access and read content, updates the overall appearance of the sites and harmonizes them with our new PLOS look announced earlier this year.
Read further on:
Open access (OA) publisher BioMed Central has launched a new semantically-enriched search tool, Cases Database, which aims to enhance the discovery, filtering and aggregation of medical case reports from many journals. OA to journal articles published under Creative Commons licences, which permit text mining, enable the literature to be reused as a resource for scientific discovery
More than 11,000 cases from 100 different journals are reportedly available to be freely searched with Cases Database.
Cases Database uses text mining and medical term recognition to filter peer reviewed medical case reports and provide a semantically enriched search experience. The database offers structured search and filtering by condition, symptom, intervention, pathogen, patient demographic and many other data fields, allowing fast identification of relevant case reports to support clinical practice and research. Registered users can save cases, set up e-mail alerts tonew cases matching their search terms, and export their results. Cases Database will be free to access and is expected to be of particular interest to practicing clinicians, researchers, lecturers, drug regulators, patients, students and authors.
To read this nice post by the KraftyLibrarian:
If you haven’t heard about the Mayan civilzation’s calendar predicting the end of the world on December 21, 2012, then you have been living under a rock. Personally I believe the Mayans were on to something. Instead, I believe the end of the world will happen on January 1, 2013. Why?
As of January 1st NCBI will no longer support Internet Explorer 7 and all the hospitals that haven’t upgraded will begin to have problems searching PubMed. (…)
Read the full article at:
KraftyLibrarian. Internet Explorer, PubMed and the End of the Year. Posted on 12 December 2012, Available from:
Most academic journals insist that papers submitted to them conform to the journals own, idiosyncratic citation style. This has led to a proliferation of thousands of different citation styles, often with only minuscule differences in the placement of commas, or the use of quotation marks and italics. To support their users in this arduous task, modern reference management tools like Mendeley ship with 2,789 different citation styles that can be used when formatting a bibliography in Word or Open Office.
It turns out that 2,789 was still not enough. Being able to edit and create new citation styles easily was the top-ranked feature request by a wide margin on Mendeley’s user feedback board. Users frequently lamented that the one particular style they needed was not covered, or that they were unable to switch from tools such as EndNote or RefWorks as long as a particular style was lacking. The citation styles in EndNote or RefWorks are built in a closed, proprietary format, which prevents their re-use in other referencing tools. In response, scholars have created the open source CSL (Citation Style Language) standard, which has since been implemented in tools such as Mendeley, Zotero, Papers, Docear, and Qiqqa. (…)
Mendeley’s global community of 2 million academics have collectively uploaded more than 300 million research documents to the platform, making it one of the world’s largest academic databases. Now, Mendeley will apply the same principle of crowdsourcing to citation styles.
Mendeley Introduces Open Source Citation Style Editor. Information Today, the 6th of December 2012.
Brilliantly introduced by Robin Neidorf, there is a white paper this month at Freepint that is worth reading . It explains how is could be risky for a company to rely only on free news service.
“Free sources of news are increasingly used in the enterprise as “good enough” for most purposes. However, there are times when “good enough” isn’t enough, and it’s essential for a researcher to know when those are… and to have the right tools to hand. (…)
Information professionals report to us that they know premium news providers offer better search, more targeted results, more flexible output options and a host of other features that save them and their client time. (…)
There are plenty of times when “good enough” is distinctly not enough.
Read the full story at:
Neidorf, Robin. News Diligence: When “Good Enough” Just Isn’t, Freepint, 28th of November 2012. Available from:
A nice presentation including disruptive features such as applications, etc.
If you cannot show the video above, go to:
In the latest issue of Research Information, David Stuart is wondering how researchers now can evaluate the impact of these new ways of publishing, including social channels.
One of the answer is Altmetrics, the growing application that you will find now in every science journals and databases (like Scopus for e.g.) and which measures popularity of an article on Facebook, Twitter, etc.
Use of this way to measure the research performance is still controversial (but still is Impact Factor 50 years after its beginning!) and “there is a long way to go before altmetrics fully answer any of the questions that are being raised by the new research environment“, says David.
However, altmetrics fast adoption shows that “research landscape is much more than journal articles, and there is a lot of value to be created by measuring the connections between the new types of publication“.
Stuart, David. Making metrics more relevant. Research Information, Dec. 2012/ Jan 2013. pp.13-16. available from:
“Physicians are more likely to read the print version of new medical journals versus any type of digital version, including full digital reproductions, the publication’s website as well as tablet and smart phone applications, according to the Kantar Media Sources & Interactions Study, September 2012 – Medical/Surgical Edition.
The study reveals that 90% of doctors read the print version of current issues of medical journals, far more than the 48% reading journals digitally. Of all doctors surveyed, 98% read current issues of journals and 44% utilize two or more platforms for reading. (…)
Unsurprisingly, younger doctors are more inclined to be digital readers than their older colleagues. However, even among the youngest demographic, print is still the most-used platform for reading current issues of journals”.
Publishers and Advertisers Can’t Go 100% Digital If They Want to Reach Majority of Doctors. PharmaLive, November 2012, Available from: