Science Intelligence and InfoPros

Little things about Scientitic Watch and Information Professionnals


• Akel, Martin & Associates. FREE Web search Vs. PAID search tools: a comparison of productivity in the Research Process, 2007. White paper. Online:
– An important study that shows how paid tools improve the Research Workflow

• Akel & Associates. A Study of Correlation: The Effect of R&D Information Tools on Research Success. 2006. White paper: Online:
– Impact of the Librarians on the R&D process

• Amsen, Eva. Scientists and Web 2.0. Expression patterns: Monday, 27 April 2009. Online:
– Nothing new but a good summary

•Anonymous. It’s good to blog! Editorial. Nature, 457, 1058 (26 February 2009) | doi:10.1038/4571058a; Published online 25 February 2009. Online:

• Askey, Dale. We Love Open Source Software. No, You Can’t Have Our Code. The Code4Lib Journal, Issue 5, 2008, pp.12-15. Online:
– A pity: Librarians like Open software but don’t share their codes!

• Bellanca, Toni. Readership trends: how they affect journal usage (Carol Tenopirs’ interview), Elsevier Editor’s Update, Issue 21. February 2008.
– Relates important works of Carol Tenopir which are often used by the Elsevier Marketing.

• Brown, Barry N.. Research Methods for Comprehensive Science Literature Reviews. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, Spring 2009. Online:
– Methods and handouts to help researchers when they conduct bibliographic research

• Chartron, Ghislaine, Caillon, Elisabeth. Citations des ressources électroniques dans les publications scientifiques : Analyse comparée. Étude réalisée pour le Ministère de l’enseignement supérieur et de la recherche. Online:
– (In French). Scientists do not cite web resources.

• Crotty, David. Why Web 2.O is failing in Biology. Bench Marks blog, online, Feb. 2008:
– A fundamental article to understand why Scientists don’t use (yet) science blogs

• Evans, J. A. & Reimer, J. (2009). Open Access and Global Participation in Science. Science, 323 (5917), 1025-1025. Online:
– What is the real impact of Open Access on global Science Publishing.

• Fuld & Company. Intelligence Software Report 2006/2007: technology risk and reward. White paper, 2006. Online:
– I like the conclusion : even the best search engine requires the help of an Info-Pro

• International Association of STM Publishers. An overview of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishing and the Value it adds to Research Outputs. White paper, April 2008. Online:
– The Big STM Publishers are lobbying….

• Matuszak, Gary. Enterprise 2.0. The benefits and Challenges of Adoption. White paper. KPMG, 2007.
– One of the rare in-depth study about the low adoption of Web 2.0 by companies.

• Mark Ware Consulting Ltd. Scientific publishing in transitions: an overview of current developments. White paper, 2006. Online:
– A study funded by Publishers themselves.

• Mort, David (for the IRN). Tight budgets affect scholarly information market. Research Information, August/September 2009. Online:
– Economic downturn would encourage Scientists to switch to alternatives free tools

• Perry, Michelle. The applicance of science: Web 2.0. Information World Review, 03 december 2008. Online:

• Rowlands, Ian & Olivieri, René. Journals and Scientific productivity: a case study in immunology and microbiology. PRC Summary Papers 1, 2006. Online:


• Verheggen, Joep (Elsevier). Scientific communications: the role of the publisher. Library Connect Seminar Presentations:

• Unesco. Science Report, 2005. Online:

• Warr, Wendy. STM on the advance, Information WorldReview, 05 Dec 2008, Online :

Written by hbasset

April 9, 2009 at 7:47 pm

%d bloggers like this: