Science Intelligence and InfoPros

Little things about Scientitic Watch and Information Professionnals

Archive for November 2009

NextBio: Expertise of an author

leave a comment »

Filter terms in NextBio offer a fast way to know the expertise of an author at a glance.

Tags size are proportional to relevance of keywords…

For e.g.:

A. Yonath is one of the 3 latest Nobel (Chemistry) for mapping
the ribosome at the atomic level.

P.S.: NextBio clustering features are also used in ScienceDirect…

Written by hbasset

November 25, 2009 at 8:12 pm

Posted in 02: Analysis

Tagged with , ,

Social Bookmarking

leave a comment »

David Crotty already said that there are too many redundant services on Science 2.0… Indeed, look at this page where an article can be collected in different online services:

from left to right: CiteULike, Complore, Connotea,, Digg, Facebook, Reddit, Technorati, Twitter

Written by hbasset

November 23, 2009 at 8:10 pm

Knol Vs Biomedical Journals

with one comment

An interesting tentative from a Consultant to compare publishing in free wikis instead of peer-reviewed channels.

The article starts with te list of well-known issues of the traditional publishing system.

Traditional article publication in top rated peer reviewed biomedical journals suffers from low acceptance rates, high page and public view charges, long delays from submission to publication, variable citation impact, loss of copyright and negligible returns to authors. (…)

The second problem is the delay in publication in traditional journals, due to editorial and referee review, comments and changes. For an article dealing with fast moving incoming data and changes, it means that the article is outdated even before publication? (…)

Many biomedical journals have strict limitation on number of word count, Tables, figures, photos and references based on classification of articles. (…)

Editors of top 5 medical journals with high impact factor, aggressively court top pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to publish results of clinical trials of new drugs, known drugs in new indications and landmark or outcome trials (…) Almost all medical journals print Special Supplement Issues for a new drug or its new uses and indications. (…)

Biomedical journals with high Citation and Impact Factor charge authors over $1000 per page for publishing (…)

Then, the author advocates for Knol as a promising alternative:

“The launch of the Knol project offered an alternative test medium for instant publication” (…)

Ability to instant knol publication helps establish priority for authors and their ideas” (…)

BUT the author concludes

For me the knol project remains experimental and needs cleanup and improvements. I will continue to publish articles in traditional biomedical journals covering biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry

Maggon, Krishan. Publishing in knol vs Biomedical Journals. Online:

N.B.: according the platform, in several knols, over 30-50% of the readers are from the pharmaceutical/biotechnology industry. In this article, the author gives also a list of sources about plagiarism in Science

Written by hbasset

November 19, 2009 at 8:32 pm

Scopus: 85% of users are satisfied

leave a comment »

85% of 2,000 end-users, recently surveyed by Elsevier, are satisfied or very
satisfied with Scopus.

These are the “Top Five” reasons why users are satisfied with Scopus:
1. Broad and comprehensive coverage of journals and other publications
2. User-friendliness
3. Ability to refine searches and the search options
4. Speed of Scopus to get to information fast
5. Citation counts

Written by hbasset

November 18, 2009 at 6:45 pm

Posted in literature

Tagged with

Science 2.0: sources

leave a comment »

A nice list of useful (obviously done by a Librarian!) sources to start a review on Science 2.0:

Source: Emerging Technologies Librarian:

Written by hbasset

November 17, 2009 at 7:15 pm

Pharmas on Social Media

leave a comment »

To complete my previous post on this topic (, look at this presentation where a social media consultant listed the Top Ten Pharma Efforts in Social Media:

This could be completed by this post devoted to Social Media in Research: 


Written by hbasset

November 17, 2009 at 6:57 pm

Patents are under-used

leave a comment »

Why do scientists not use the vast technical information disclosed in patent literature?” asked a Patent attorney in the Biotech & Pharma Professionnals Network at Linked-In.

” (…) scientists do not explore the patent literature. The risk of reinventing the wheel is therefore very high, and many valuable man-hours are lost. About 80% of scientific technical information disclosed in patents is not disclosed elsewhere. (…) What can we do to change the perception that patent literature is not just legal documents?”

Amongst comments, ones suggested:

  • lack of trainings during scientist’s education
  • technical and legal jargon as a barrier
  • doubts on the reliability (not peer-reviewed; too much information, like numerous formulations, to protect the perimeter
  • disclosed information is minimal because of confidentiality risks
  • freedom of information is very new on this field and there is not yet a medline-like database to cover the worlwide information

Written by hbasset

November 16, 2009 at 8:10 pm

Posted in Patents