Science Intelligence and InfoPros

Little things about Scientitic Watch and Information Professionnals

Archive for November 2012

Google News: when “good enough” is not enough

leave a comment »

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: http://web.freepint.com/go/features/69549

https://web.freepint.com/library/FP-Features-article-logo-100×49.gif

 

 

 

 

 

 

Written by hbasset

November 30, 2012 at 8:30 pm

Posted in Tools

Tagged with , ,

The new Sciverse ScienceDirect: a good marketing by Elsevier

leave a comment »

A nice presentation including disruptive features such as applications, etc.

 

If you cannot show the video above, go to:

http://www.info.sciverse.com/sciencedirect-video.html?utm_source=sciencedirect&utm_medium=banner&utm_campaign=sciencedirectcom_banner

sciencedirect_go

Written by hbasset

November 30, 2012 at 6:03 pm

Posted in Journals

Tagged with ,

leave a comment »

Written by hbasset

November 30, 2012 at 6:03 pm

Posted in Science 2.0

Altmetrics: a new impact factor for new publishings

leave a comment »

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: http://content.yudu.com/A1zwzg/RIDEC12JAN13/resources/13.htm

Written by hbasset

November 28, 2012 at 8:34 pm

Posted in Journals, Science 2.0

Tagged with

Doctors still prefer print journals Vs digital!!!

leave a comment »

“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: http://pharmalive.com/news/index.cfm?articleid=867937&categoryid=43

 

Written by hbasset

November 28, 2012 at 8:15 pm

Posted in Journals

Tagged with

Europe PubMed Central: not only a new Medline

with one comment

Europe PubMedCentral = 25 million abstracts from Medline + 2 million OA full-text articles + Agricola + biological Patents + thesis + clinical guidelines…

Unlike PubMed Central, Europe PMC provides a single point of access to not only full-text articles but additionally the abstracts available through PubMed. The Europe PMC interface also offers novel features and functionality, including links to other relevant content, integrated text and data mining tools and grant reporting services through Europe PMC plus.

http://europepmc.org/

 

 

Written by hbasset

November 28, 2012 at 8:07 pm

Posted in Tools

Tagged with

After Big Pharma, welcome to Open Pharma

leave a comment »

It seems that Open Pharma is really gaining momentum in the industry, even with Big Pharma. Every week sees news showing Open innovation initiatives…

Janssen Research & Development, LLC (Janssen R&D) today announced the establishment of a global cross-pharmaceutical Investigator Databank designed to improve efficiencies of industry-sponsored clinical trials. Merck and Eli Lilly and Company are the first two companies to join Janssen in this effort. The new Investigator Databank, established as part of this novel industry collaboration, will serve as a one-stop repository where key information about clinical trial sites, such as infrastructure and Good Clinical Practice (GCP) training records, is housed.   This will allow participating pharmaceutical companies to reduce  time-consuming and sometimes redundant administrative work involved in identifying appropriate clinical trial sites.  ”

Janssen Research & Development Announces Establishment of Global Cross-Pharmaceutical Clinical Trial Investigator Databank. Drugs.com, 15 November 2012. Available from: http://www.drugs.com/news/janssen-research-amp-development-announces-establishment-global-cross-pharmaceutical-clinical-trial-41551.html

 

Written by hbasset

November 21, 2012 at 8:29 pm

Don’t know where to publish?! Click on “Journal Advisor” and type your abstract!

with one comment

(A very nice initiative using the Springer’s JournalSuggest and reported by Research Information, October/November 2012 )

Journal Advisor: http://www.edanzediting.com/journal_advisor

Edanz’ free-to-use Journal Selector indexes over 18,000 journals and uses Parity Computing’s Semantic Profiling Engine to match an author’s research to journals that publish articles on similar topics using natural language processing.

Authors enter an abstract (if they have already written one), some keywords or some text from a similar paper into the tool and it comes up with a list of suggestions that can be narrowed by, for example, impact factor or publishing frequency. There are visualisation tools so that authors can see similar articles and when they were published. This helps them to know, for example, if similar papers have been published in the journal but not for several years, said Shaw.

Currently, the tool, which is available as a beta version, uses as its sources PubMed and Springer’s API. Edanz hopes that more publishers’ APIs will be added now that the beta version is available.

Written by hbasset

November 16, 2012 at 8:51 pm

Posted in Journals

Tagged with

Open Access: still in progress (Research Information)

leave a comment »

2 articles in the latest issue of Research Information show that OA is still growing but also needs to improve some processes.

Some findings from a survey made by Wiley:

  • 79 % of surveyed authors see open access as more prevalent in their discipline than it was three years ago
  • Reasons that authors gave for not yet having published under an open-access model included a lack of high profile open-access journals (48 per cent), lack of funding (44 per cent) and concerns about quality (34 per cent). Authors said they would publish in an open-access journal if it had a high impact factor, if it were well regarded and if it had a rigorous peer-review process.
  • The highest proportion of open-access authors came from a medical background (28 per cent), closely followed by biological sciences (24 per cent)

and a discussion around the new model of publication, the CC-BY license:

The CC-BY licence condition, defined by Creative Commons, allows modification and reuse of content, including commercially, provided that the original author is properly attributed. (…) However, there are concerns with the implications of the licence. Because CC-BY allows for commercial reuse of content it could theoretically be published again, behind a paywall, which might seem to contradict some of the aims of open access. And there may be some uses that researchers are uncomfortable with. For example, medical researchers might be unhappy with parts of their papers being used to promote a particular drug

 

OA gains ground with authors, says study. Research Information, 30 october 2012. Available from: http://www.researchinformation.info/news/news_story.php?news_id=1041

More publishers move towards CC-BY licence for OA articles. Research Information, 15 november 2012. Available from: http://www.researchinformation.info/news/news_story.php?news_id=1047

Written by hbasset

November 16, 2012 at 8:34 pm

Posted in Journals, Science 2.0

Tagged with

Pharma companies: not seen as the most innovative (but don’t compare apples to medicines!!)

leave a comment »

A fair analysis by PhRMA of this recurrent report on Innovation by Booz & Company…

Booz surveyed trends in R&D spending and innovation strategies, looking at whether a company’s fluctuating investments had any long term effects on their brand’s innovation standards.

From the report:

“There is no long-term correlation between the amount of money a company spends on its innovation efforts and its overall financial performance. Instead, what matters is how companies use that money and other resources, as well as the quality of their talent, processes, and decision making.”

In Booz’s report, the list the top 20 spenders on innovation; eight of them are biopharmaceutical companies:

  • N°2,  Novartis, $9,6 billions
  • N°3, Roche
  • N°4, Pfizer
  • N°7, Merck
  • N°12, J&J
  • N°13, Sanofi
  • N°16, GSK
  • N°20: AstraZeneca

That pharmaceutical companies’ investments represent some of the highest R&D spending but still aren’t viewed as highly innovative by other industries…

Part of the discrepancy lies in a public perception problem. Industries that generate a constant stream of new products are hard to compare to pharmaceutical companies who make incremental progress researching a new medicine over the course of several years. A billion dollars invested into gadget technology can create multiple new products; the same amount spent on molecular biology means you might hopefully understand Alzheimer’s disease only slightly better than you did before.

Look through Booz’s report – it’s a worthwhile read – but remember that it’s tough to compare Apples to medicines.

And someone to comment:

what constitutes innovation? incremental change larger screen on iphone or innovative healthcare?

Hollon, Kaelan. New Report Ranks World’s Most Innovative Companies. PhRMA, 13/11/12, Available from: http://catalyst.phrma.org/new-report-ranks-worlds-most-innovative-companies/

 

Written by hbasset

November 14, 2012 at 9:27 pm

Posted in Pharmaceutical Industry

Tagged with