Archive for April 2012
According Wikipedia, Pinterest is a pinboard-style social photo sharing website that allows users to create and manage theme-based image collections such as events, interests, hobbies and more. Users can browse other pinboards for inspiration, ‘re-pin’ images to their own collections and/or ‘like’ photos. Pinterest’s mission is to “connect everyone in the world through the ‘things’ they find interesting” via a global platform of inspiration and idea sharing. Pinterest allows its users to share ‘pins’ on both Twitter and Facebook, which allows users to share and interact with a broad community.
As it is sometimes presented as the new Facebook, Pharma companies have started to join the ride…
John Mack, PharmaGuy, maintains a list of pinterest sites that are already designed by some companies.
Among the early adopters, were:
– Novo-Nordisk: http://pinterest.com/NovoNordisk/
– Bayer: http://pinterest.com/bayerus/
See the PharmaGuy blog:
MedAdNews reports a study done by PTS:
“Well, according to the researchers at PTS, what physicians want is digital. On page four, the authors list ten key takeaways from their physician survey; of these, five are related to digital and another is an outcropping of the digital revolution. To wit:
2. Want more use of iPads in detailing
3. Want more electronic access to materials and representatives
4. Want less mailed print materials
7. Want more HCP-focused Websites
8. 88% now own smartphones (vs. 70% in 2010), and 54% use iPads (or other tablets) in daily work
9. Doctors communicate with patients primarily via phone (70%), email (66%), and mail (46%) (…)
Field representatives are increasingly using iPads as their eVisual aid platform in their conversations with physicians. iPads are a clear hit with doctors; 82% of survey respondents want to see “more” or “significantly more” use of iPads or other tablets by representatives calling on their practices. (…)
Slatko, Joshua. What physicians want? It’s spelled D-I-G-I-T-A-L. MedAdNews, April 2012. Available from: http://pharmalive.com/magazines/medad/view.cfm?articleID=11171 [Accessed 26th April 2012]
The original report: http://www.touchpointsolutions.com/whitepapers/wp-WhatPhysWant.html
By the Guardian: simplistic but radical
“For Elsevier, the biggest of the barrier-based publishers, we can calculate the total cost per article as £1,605m subscription revenue divided by 240,000 articles per year = £6,689 per article.
By contrast, the cost of publishing an article with a flagship open access journal such as PLoS ONE is $1,350 (£850), about one eighth as much.
No one expects open access to eliminate costs. But we can expect it to dramatically reduce them, as well as making research universally and freely available”
Taylor, Mike. Persistent myths about open access scientific publishing. The Guardian, 17th of April 2012. Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2012/apr/17/persistent-myths-open-access-scientific-publishing [Accessed 24th April 2012]
Taylor, Michael P. Opinion: Academic Publishing Is Broken. The Scientist, 19th of March 2012. Available from:
http://the-scientist.com/2012/03/19/opinion-academic-publishing-is-broken/ [Accessed 24th April 2012]
“Since its launch in 2001 Wikipedia has seen incredible growth worldwide, counting more than 21 million articles published in around 280 languages (including nearly 4 million articles in English) in 2012 (1).
Wikipedia has grown in size (number of Wikipedia entries/articles have been increasing over time) and is showing high reliability: a recent study (2) of historical entries found 80% accuracy for Wikipedia, compared to 95-96% for other sources. This means that for the entries checked in the study, Wikipedia contain on average only about 15% more errors than other sources including traditionally perceived authoritative sources such as Encyclopaedia Britannica. The research found that this difference was negligible. Adding to this Wikipedia’s ease of access and wide coverage of topics explains why for many people it has become the first port of call for instant general knowledge on a variety of subjects. (…)
What is perhaps surprising is that Wikipedia appears to be increasingly used by scholars for their research. (…)
More interestingly, there has also been a dramatic increase in the number of publications referring to Wikipedia as a source. The aforementioned recently published study limited the search results to mentions of Wikipedia as a reference title, but extending the search to all reference fields reveals much wider use even with restrictions to scholarly content published in journals . CAGR was an unbelievable 88% per annum since the first paper in 2002 to the 4006 papers published in 2011. Focusing on the past 5 years (2007-2011) CAGR was still impressive at more than 31% per annum.
Huggett, Sarah. The influence of free encyclopedias on science. Research Trends, March 2012. Available from: http://www.researchtrends.com/issue-27-march-2012/the-influence-of-free-encyclopedias-on-science/ [Accessed 23rd April 2012]