Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Open access’


e-Recognition via Friction-free Collaboration over the Internet: “Open Access to Curation of Scientific Research”

Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

Journal Site Statistics UPDATED on 7/22/2014

Scientific Journal Site Statistics

http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com

 

415,392 Views

2,093 Posts

241 Categories

6,066 Tags

6,755 Comments

 

Referrer Views
Search Engines 175,831
linkedin.com 14,321
Facebook 3,586
Twitter 1,223
investorshub.advfn.com 1,058

 

 

 3/05/2014  338,938  1,717  1,830  965

Date

Views to Date

# of articles

NIH Clicks

Nature Clicks

6/24/2013

 199,857

 1,034

 1,275

 661

 7/29/2013  217,356  1,138  1,389  705
 12/1/2013  287,645  1,428  1,676  828
 2/09/2014  325,039  1,665  1,793  892
 7/22/2014  415,392  2,093  2,014  1,132

Top Authors for all days ending 2014-03-05 (Summarized)

AUTHOR ID

VIEWS

Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN [2012pharmaceutical]

131,222

larryhbern

59,751

tildabarliya

22,372

Dr. Sudipta Saha

14,737

Dror Nir

11,550

sjwilliamspa

12,059

ritusaxena

10,210

aviralvatsa

5,428

zraviv06

3,170

Demet Sag, Ph.D., CRA, GCP

3,741

anamikasarkar

2,360

pkandala

1,908

zs22

1,895

Alan F. Kaul, PharmD., MS, MBA, FCCP

1,420

megbaker58

1,107

Aashir Awan, Phd

945

jdpmdphd

569

UPDATED on 10/14/2013 

Cardiovascular Original Research: Cases in Methodology Design for Content Curation and Co-Curation

UPDATED on 4/8/2013

This article has three parts.

Part 1,  presents a pioneering experience in Curation of Scientific Research of three forms:

Part 2, presents Views of two Curators on the transformation of Scientific Publishing and the functioning of the Scientific AGORA (market place in the Ancient Greek CIty of Athena).

Part 3, presents the

“Beall’s list” a blacklist of “predatory” journals: Scientific Articles to be Accepted for Publications followed by a Bill to Pay for been Published

Part One

e-Recognition for Author Views is presented below of a pioneering launch of the ONE and ONLY web-based Open Access Online Scientific Journal on frontiers in Biomedical Technologies, Genomics, Biological SciencesHealthcare Economics, Pharmacology, Pharmaceutical & Medicine.

Friction-free Collaboration over the Internet: An Equity Sharing Venture for “Open Access to Curation of Scientific Research” launched THREE TYPES of Scientific Research Sharing

Type 1:

“Open Access to Curation of Scientific Research – Online Scientific Journal

 http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com

The venture, Leaders in Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence, operates as an online scientific intellectual EXCHANGE – an Open Access Online Scientific Journal for curation and reporting on frontiers in Biomedical, Genomics, Biological SciencesHealthcare Economics, Pharmacology, Pharmaceutical & Medicine. The website,  http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com , is a scientific, medical and business multi expert authoring environment  in several domains of  LIFE SCIENCES, PHARMACEUTICAL, HEALTHCARE & MEDICINE INDUSTRIES.

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/open-access-scientific-journal/about/

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/contributors-biographies/

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/contributors-biographies/aviva-lev-ari/

Our organic in growth ONTOLOGY includes ~ 90 Research Categories, i.e.,

  •  Advanced Drug Manufacturing Technology
  •  Alzheimer’s Disease
    •  Etiology
    •  Medical Device Therapies for Altzheimer’s disease
    •  Pharmacotherapy
  •  Bio Instrumentation in Experimental Life Sciences Research
  •  Biological Networks, Gene Regulation and Evolution
  •  Biomarkers & Medical Diagnostics
  •  BioSimilars
  •  Bone Disease and Musculoskeletal Disease
  •  CANCER BIOLOGY & Innovations in Cancer Therapy
  •  Cancer Prevention: Research & Programs
  •  Cardiovascular Pharmaceutical Genomics
  •  Cell Biology, Signaling & Cell Circuits
  •  Cerebrovascular and Neurodegenerative Diseases
  •  Chemical Biology and its relations to Metabolic Disease
  •  Chemical Genetics
  •  Coagulation Therapy and Internal Bleeding
  •  Computational Biology/Systems and Bioinformatics
  •  Disease Biology, Small Molecules in Development of Therapeutic Drugs
  •  Drug Delivery Platform Technology
  •  Ecosystems & Industrial Concentration in the Medical Device Sector
    •  Cardiac & Vascular Repair Tools Subsegment
    •  Exec Compensation in the Cardiac & Vascular Repair Tools Subsegment
    •  Massachusetts Niche Suppliers and National Leaders
  •  FDA Regulatory Affairs
    •  FDA, CE Mark & Global Regulatory Affairs: process management and strategic planning – GCP, GLP, ISO 14155
    •  ISO 10993 for Product Registration: FDA & CE Mark for Development of Medical Devices and Diagnostics
  •  Frontiers in Cardiology
    •  Medical Devices
      •  Stents & Tools
      •  Valves & Tools
    •  Pharmacotherapy of Cardiovascular Disease
      •  HTN
      •  HTN in Youth
      •  Resident-cell-based
    •  Procedures
      •  Aortic Valve: TAVI, TAVI vs Open Heart Surgery
      •  CABG
      •  Mitral Valve: Repair and Replacement
      •  PCI
      •  Renal Denervation
  •  Genome Biology
  •  Genomic Endocrinology, Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis and Reproductive Genomics
  •  Genomic Testing: Methodology for Diagnosis
  •  Glycobiology: Biopharmaceutical Production, Pharmacodynamics and Pharmacokinetics
  •  Health Economics and Outcomes Research
  •  Health Law & Patient Safety
  •  HealthCare IT
  •  Human Immune System in Health and in Disease
  •  Human Sensation and Cellular Transduction: Physiology and Therapeutics
  •  Imaging-based Cancer Patient Management
  •  Infectious Disease & New Antibiotic Targets
  •  Innovations in Neurophysiology & Neuropsychology
  •  International Global Work in Pharmaceutical
  •  Interviews with Scientific Leaders
  •  Liver & Digestive Diseases Research
  •  Medical and Population Genetics
  •  Medical Devices R&D Investment
  •  Medical Imaging Technology, Image Processing/Computing, MRI
  •  Metabolomics
  •  Molecular Genetics & Pharmaceutical
  •  Nanotechnology for Drug Delivery
  •  Nitric Oxide in Health and Disease
  •  Nutrigenomics
  •  Nutrition
    •  Nutritional Supplements: Atherogenesis, lipid metabolism
  •  Origins of Cardiovascular Disease
    •  Atherogenic Processes & Pathology
  •  Pain: Etiology, Genetics & Innovations in Treatment
  •  Patient Experience: Personal Memories of Invasive Medical Intervantion
  •  Personalized Medicine & Genomic Research
  •  Pharmaceutical Analytics
  •  Pharmaceutical Industry Competitive Intelligence
  •  Pharmaceutical R&D Investment
  •  Pharmacogenomics
  •  Population Health Management, Genetics & Pharmaceutical
  •  Population Health Management, Nutrition and Phytochemistry
  •  Proteomics
  •  Regulated Clinical Trials: Design, Methods, Components and IRB related issues
  •  Reproductive Biology & Bio Instrumentation
  •  Scientist: Career considerations
  •  Statistical Methods for Research Evaluation
  •  Stem Cells for Regenerative Medicine
  •  Systemic Inflammatory Response Related Disorders
  •  Technology Transfer: Biotech and Pharmaceutical

Open Access Online Scientific Journal Site Statistics: Site Launched in February 2012, first post Published on 4/30/2012

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2012/04/30/93/

On 4/2/2013, less then one year since the first post was published as a CURATED article, we achieved the following results:

150,339 Views

766 Posts

87 Categories

3,908 Tags

3,706 Comments

Referrer Views
Search Engines 43,238
linkedin.com 9,865
Google 2,171
Facebook 1,591

URL    Clicks

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov    1,014

nature.com    513

genomeweb.com    215

medicregister.com    177

sciencedirect.com    156

pnas.org    145

nejm.org    125

Author        Views

2012pharmaceutical        51,214 <<<<—- Aviva

larryhbern    Following    19,819

tildabarliya        6,924

Dr. Sudipta Saha    Following    6,859

ritusaxena    Following    5,795

Dror Nir    Follow    4,190

sjwilliamspa    Following    3,369

aviralvatsa    Following    3,216

anamikasarkar    Following    1,682

pkandala    Follow    1,595

Alan F. Kaul, PharmD., MS, MBA, FCCP    Following    1,068

megbaker58    Following    826

zs22    Following    444

zraviv06    Following    438

Aashir Awan, Phd    Following    413

howarddonohue    Following    297

Ed Kislauskis    Following    157

Demet Sag    Follow    130

jukkakarjalainen    Follow    130

anayou1    Following    128

jdpmdphd    Follow    124

Dr.Sreedhar Tirunagari    Follow    92

S. Chakrabarti, Ph.D.    Following    49

apreconasia    Follow    43

Most Viewed Posts

Is the Warburg Effect the cause or the effect of cancer: A 21st Century View? More stats 1,945
Perspectives on Nitric Oxide in Disease Mechanisms More stats 1,925
About More stats 1,836
Contributors’ Biographies More stats 1,639
Founder More stats 1,026
Future of Calcitonin…? More stats 854
Treatment of Refractory Hypertension via Percutaneous Renal Denervation More stats 851
‘Gamifying’ Drug R&D: Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Eli Lilly More stats 835
Biosimilars: Intellectual Property Creation and Protection by Pioneer and by Biosimilar Manufacturers More stats 824
The mechanism of action of the drug ‘Acthar’ for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) More stats 737
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI): Risky and Costly More stats 691
Closing the Mammography gap More stats 667
Nitric Oxide has a ubiquitous role in the regulation of glycolysis -with a concomitant influence on mitochondrial function More stats 659
Assessing Cardiovascular Disease with Biomarkers More stats 629
Introduction to Tissue Engineering; Nanotechnology applications More stats 613
Novel Cancer Hypothesis Suggests Antioxidants Are Harmful More stats 602
Paradigm Shift in Human Genomics – Predictive Biomarkers and Personalized Medicine – Part 1 More stats 597
Mitochondria: Origin from oxygen free environment, role in aerobic glycolysis, metabolic adaptation More stats 593
DNA – The Next-Generation Storage Media for Digital Information More stats 588
“The Molecular pathology of Breast Cancer Progression” More stats 563
Zithromax – likely to ‘max’ Heart Attack More stats 557
TransCelerate BioPharma Inc. to Accelerate the Development of New Meds More stats 554
Sunitinib brings Adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) to Remission – RNA Sequencing – FLT3 Receptor Blockade More stats 549
Mitochondria: More than just the “powerhouse of the cell” More stats 537
Big Data in Genomic Medicine More stats 531
Get Rid of the Randomized Trial; Here’s a Better Way More stats 522
Biosimilars: CMC Issues and Regulatory Requirements More stats 521
Biosimilars: Financials 2012 vs. 2008 More stats 513
New England Compounding Center: A Family Business More stats 507
Every sperm is sacred: Sequencing DNA from individual cells vs “humans as a whole.” More stats 501

Most Commented 

Post Comments
Macrovascular Disease – Therapeutic Potential of cEPCs: Reduction Methods for CV Risk 25
Knowing the tumor’s size and location, could we target treatment to THE ROI by applying imaging-guided intervention? 24
Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) and the Role of agent alternatives in endothelial Nitric Oxide Synthase (eNOS) Activation and Nitric Oxide Production 24
Is the Warburg Effect the cause or the effect of cancer: A 21st Century View? 23
Differentiation Therapy – Epigenetics Tackles Solid Tumors 22
Nitric Oxide and Immune Responses: Part 1 22
Nitric Oxide: Chemistry and function 22
Targeted delivery of therapeutics to bone and connective tissues: current status and challenges- Part I 21
Nano-particles as Synthetic Platelets to Stop Internal Bleeding Resulting from Trauma 21
Prostate Cancer Cells: Histone Deacetylase Inhibitors Induce Epithelial-to-Mesenchymal Transition 20
Personalized medicine gearing up to tackle cancer 19

Type 2:

“Open Access to Curation of Scientific Research” – BioMed e-Books Series

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/biomed-e-books/

Launch on Amazon-KINDLE, KINDLE FIRE: 2013, 2014

Eight Authors: 40 articles — Any day on Amazon’s e-Books List

Volume 1: Seven Authors, 29 articles

Volume 2: Six Authors, 28 articles

Volume 3: Eight Authors, 43 articles

Volume 1: Eight Authors, 154 articles [65 posts by Larry, 56 posts by Aviva]

Volume 2: [Work-in-Progress]

Volume 3: [Work-in-Progress]

Type 3:

“Open Access to Curation of Scientific Research” – Scoop.it!

medical imaging of the heart

Cardiovascular Disease: Pharmaco-therapy

Drug Therapy for Heart Disease 

Curated by Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

“Open Access to Curation of Scientific Research” – Articles on this Topic covered in http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com

“Open Access Publishing” is becoming the mainstream model: “Academic Publishing” has changed Irrevocably

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2012/10/25/open-access-publishing-is-becoming-the-mainstream-model-academic-publishing-has-changed-irrevocably/

Digital Publishing Promotes Science and Popularizes it by Access to Scientific 

Open-Access Publishing in Genomics

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2013/01/14/open-access-publishing-in-genomics/

Part Two

Comprehensive analysis of the phenomena of “Open Access to Curation of Scientific Research” is presented below by two curated articles:

Views of Thomas Lin, NYT, 1/17/2012 – Cracking Open the Scientific Process

A GLOBAL FORUM Ijad Madisch, 31, a virologist and computer scientist, founded ResearchGate, a Berlin-based social networking platform for scientists that has more than 1.3 million members.
Published: January 16, 2012 

The New England Journal of Medicine marks its 200th anniversary this year with a timeline celebrating the scientific advances first described in its pages: the stethoscope (1816), the use of ether foranesthesia (1846), and disinfecting hands and instruments before surgery (1867), among others.

Timothy Fadek for The New York Times

LIKE, FOLLOW, COLLABORATE A staff meeting at ResearchGate. The networking site, modeled after Silicon Valley startups, houses 350,000 papers.

For centuries, this is how science has operated — through research done in private, then submitted to science and medical journals to be reviewed by peers and published for the benefit of other researchers and the public at large. But to many scientists, the longevity of that process is nothing to celebrate.

The system is hidebound, expensive and elitist, they say. Peer review can take months, journal subscriptions can be prohibitively costly, and a handful of gatekeepers limit the flow of information. It is an ideal system for sharing knowledge, said the quantum physicist Michael Nielsen, only “if you’re stuck with 17th-century technology.”

Dr. Nielsen and other advocates for “open science” say science can accomplish much more, much faster, in an environment of friction-free collaboration over the Internet. And despite a host of obstacles, including the skepticism of many established scientists, their ideas are gaining traction.

Open-access archives and journals like arXiv and the Public Library of Science (PLoS) have sprung up in recent years. GalaxyZoo, a citizen-science site, has classified millions of objects in space, discovering characteristics that have led to a raft of scientific papers.

On the collaborative blog MathOverflow, mathematicians earn reputation points for contributing to solutions; in another math experiment dubbed the Polymath Project, mathematicians commenting on the Fields medalistTimothy Gower’s blog in 2009 found a new proof for a particularly complicated theorem in just six weeks.

And a social networking site called ResearchGate — where scientists can answer one another’s questions, share papers and find collaborators — is rapidly gaining popularity.

Editors of traditional journals say open science sounds good, in theory. In practice, “the scientific community itself is quite conservative,” said Maxine Clarke, executive editor of the commercial journal Nature, who added that the traditional published paper is still viewed as “a unit to award grants or assess jobs and tenure.”

Dr. Nielsen, 38, who left a successful science career to write “Reinventing Discovery: The New Era of Networked Science,” agreed that scientists have been “very inhibited and slow to adopt a lot of online tools.” But he added that open science was coalescing into “a bit of a movement.”

On Thursday, 450 bloggers, journalists, students, scientists, librarians and programmers will converge on North Carolina State University (and thousands more will join in online) for the sixth annual ScienceOnline conference. Science is moving to a collaborative model, said Bora Zivkovic, a chronobiology blogger who is a founder of the conference, “because it works better in the current ecosystem, in the Web-connected world.”

Indeed, he said, scientists who attend the conference should not be seen as competing with one another. “Lindsay Lohan is our competitor,” he continued. “We have to get her off the screen and get science there instead.”

Facebook for Scientists?

“I want to make science more open. I want to change this,” said Ijad Madisch, 31, the Harvard-trained virologist and computer scientist behind ResearchGate, the social networking site for scientists.

Started in 2008 with few features, it was reshaped with feedback from scientists. Its membership has mushroomed to more than 1.3 million, Dr. Madisch said, and it has attracted several million dollars in venture capital from some of the original investors of Twitter, eBay and Facebook.

A year ago, ResearchGate had 12 employees. Now it has 70 and is hiring. The company, based in Berlin, is modeled after Silicon Valley startups. Lunch, drinks and fruit are free, and every employee owns part of the company.

The Web site is a sort of mash-up of Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn, with profile pages, comments, groups, job listings, and “like” and “follow” buttons (but without baby photos, cat videos and thinly veiled self-praise). Only scientists are invited to pose and answer questions — a rule that should not be hard to enforce, with discussion threads about topics like polymerase chain reactions that only a scientist could love.

Scientists populate their ResearchGate profiles with their real names, professional details and publications — data that the site uses to suggest connections with other members. Users can create public or private discussion groups, and share papers and lecture materials. ResearchGate is also developing a “reputation score” to reward members for online contributions.

ResearchGate offers a simple yet effective end run around restrictive journal access with its “self-archiving repository.” Since most journals allow scientists to link to their submitted papers on their own Web sites, Dr. Madisch encourages his users to do so on their ResearchGate profiles. In addition to housing 350,000 papers (and counting), the platform provides a way to search 40 million abstracts and papers from other science databases.

In 2011, ResearchGate reports, 1,620,849 connections were made, 12,342 questions answered and 842,179 publications shared. Greg Phelan, chairman of the chemistry department at the State University of New York, Cortland, used it to find new collaborators, get expert advice and read journal articles not available through his small university. Now he spends up to two hours a day, five days a week, on the site.

Dr. Rajiv Gupta, a radiology instructor who supervised Dr. Madisch at Harvard and was one of ResearchGate’s first investors, called it “a great site for serious research and research collaboration,” adding that he hoped it would never be contaminated “with pop culture and chit-chat.”

Mike Peel

EVOLUTION Michael Nielsen, a quantum physicist, says that as online tools slowly catch on, open science is coalescing into “a bit of a movement.”

Travis Dove for The New York Times

COME TOGETHER Bora Zivkovic, a chronobiology blogger, is a founder of  the ScienceOnline conference.

Dr. Gupta called Dr. Madisch the “quintessential networking guy — if there’s a Bill Clinton of the science world, it would be him.”

The Paper Trade

Dr. Sönke H. Bartling, a researcher at the German CancerResearch Center who is editing a book on “Science 2.0,” wrote that for scientists to move away from what is currently “a highly integrated and controlled process,” a new system for assessing the value of research is needed. If open access is to be achieved through blogs, what good is it, he asked, “if one does not get reputation and money from them?”

Changing the status quo — opening data, papers, research ideas and partial solutions to anyone and everyone — is still far more idea than reality. As the established journals argue, they provide a critical service that does not come cheap.

“I would love for it to be free,” said Alan Leshner, executive publisher of the journal Science, but “we have to cover the costs.” Those costs hover around $40 million a year to produce his nonprofit flagship journal, with its more than 25 editors and writers, sales and production staff, and offices in North America, Europe and Asia, not to mention print and distribution expenses. (Like other media organizations, Science has responded to the decline in advertising revenue by enhancing its Web offerings, and most of its growth comes from online subscriptions.)

Similarly, Nature employs a large editorial staff to manage the peer-review process and to select and polish “startling and new” papers for publication, said Dr. Clarke, its editor. And it costs money to screen for plagiarism and spot-check data “to make sure they haven’t been manipulated.”

Peer-reviewed open-access journals, like Nature Communications and PLoS One, charge their authors publication fees — $5,000 and $1,350, respectively — to defray their more modest expenses.

The largest journal publisher, Elsevier, whose products include The Lancet, Cell and the subscription-based online archive ScienceDirect, has drawn considerable criticism from open-access advocates and librarians, who are especially incensed by its support for the Research Works Act, introduced in Congress last month, which seeks to protect publishers’ rights by effectively restricting access to research papers and data.

In an Op-Ed article in The New York Times last week,Michael B. Eisen, a molecular biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, and a founder of the Public Library of Science, wrote that if the bill passes, “taxpayers who already paid for the research would have to pay again to read the results.”

In an e-mail interview, Alicia Wise, director of universal access at Elsevier, wrote that “professional curation and preservation of data is, like professional publishing, neither easy nor inexpensive.” And Tom Reller, a spokesman for Elsevier, commented on Dr. Eisen’s blog, “Government mandates that require private-sector information products to be made freely available undermine the industry’s ability to recoup these investments.”

Mr. Zivkovic, the ScienceOnline co-founder and a blog editor for Scientific American, which is owned by Nature, was somewhat sympathetic to the big journals’ plight. “They have shareholders,” he said. “They have to move the ship slowly.”

Still, he added: “Nature is not digging in. They know it’s happening. They’re preparing for it.”

Science 2.0

Scott Aaronson, a quantum computing theorist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has refused to conduct peer review for or submit papers to commercial journals. “I got tired of giving free labor,” he said, to “these very rich for-profit companies.”

Dr. Aaronson is also an active member of online science communities like MathOverflow, where he has earned enough reputation points to edit others’ posts. “We’re not talking about new technologies that have to be invented,” he said. “Things are moving in that direction. Journals seem noticeably less important than 10 years ago.”

Dr. Leshner, the publisher of Science, agrees that things are moving. “Will the model of science magazines be the same 10 years from now? I highly doubt it,” he said. “I believe in evolution.

“When a better system comes into being that has quality and trustability, it will happen. That’s how science progresses, by doing scientific experiments. We should be doing that with scientific publishing as well.”

Matt Cohler, the former vice president of product management at Facebook who now represents Benchmark Capital on ResearchGate’s board, sees a vast untapped market in online science.

“It’s one of the last areas on the Internet where there really isn’t anything yet that addresses core needs for this group of people,” he said, adding that “trillions” are spent each year on global scientific research. Investors are betting that a successful site catering to scientists could shave at least a sliver off that enormous pie.

Dr. Madisch, of ResearchGate, acknowledged that he might never reach many of the established scientists for whom social networking can seem like a foreign language or a waste of time. But wait, he said, until younger scientists weaned on social media and open-source collaboration start running their own labs.

“If you said years ago, ‘One day you will be on Facebook sharing all your photos and personal information with people,’ they wouldn’t believe you,” he said. “We’re just at the beginning. The change is coming.”

 SOURCE:

Views of Célya Gruson-Daniel, October 29, 2012, MyScienceWork

Monday, October 29, 2012 Célya Gruson-Daniel
The Internet now makes it possible to publish and share billions of data items every day, accessible to over 2 billion people worldwide.  This mass of information makes it difficult, when searching, to extract the relevant and useful information from the background noise. It should be added that these searches are time-consuming and can take much longer than the time we actually have to spend on them. Today, Google and specialized search engines such as Google Scholar are based on established algorithms. But are these algorithms sufficiently in line with users’ needs? What if the web needed a human brain to select and put forward the relevant information and not just the information based on “popularity” and lexical and semantic operations?

This article is a translation of “Science et curation : nouvelle pratique du Web 2.0” available at:http://blog.mysciencework.com/2012/02/03/science-et-curation-nouvelle-pratique-du-web-2-0.html It was translated from French into English by Mayte Perea López.

Curation on the World Wide Web ©Beboy-Fotolia

Web 2.0: New practices, new uses

To address this need, human intermediaries, empowered by the participatory wave of web 2.0, naturally started narrowing down the information and providing an angle of analysis and some context. They are bloggers, regular Internet users or community managers – a new type of profession dedicated to the web 2.0. A new use of the web has emerged, through which the information, once produced, is collectively spread and filtered by Internet users who create hierarchies of information. This “popularization of the web”therefore paves the way to a user-centered Internet that plays a more active role in finding means to improve the dissemination of information and filter it with more relevance. Today, this new practice has also been categorized and is known as curation.

The term “curation” was borrowed from the world of fine arts. Curators are responsible for the exhibitions held in museums and galleries. They build these exhibitions and act as intermediaries between the public and works of art. In contemporary art, the curator’s role is also to interpret works of art and discover new artists and trends of the moment. In a similar way on the web, the tasks performed by content curators include the search, selection, analysis, editorial work and dissemination of information. Curators can also share online the most relevant information on a specific subject. Instead of acting as mere echo chambers, they provide some context for their searches. For example, they address niche topics and themes that do not stand out in a traditional search. They prioritize the information and are able to find new means of presenting it, new types of visualizationTheir role is, therefore, to find new formats, faster and more direct means of consultation for Internet users, in a context in which the time we spend reading the information is more and more limited. Curation on the web has a social and relational dimension that plays a central role in the curator’s work. Anyone can act as a curator and personalize information, providing an angle that he or she invites us to discover. This means that curation can be carried out by individuals who do not have an institutional footing. The expression “powered by people” exemplifies this possibility of democratizing information searches.

The world of scientific research and culture is no exception to this movement. The web 2.0 offers the scientific community and its surrounding spheres the opportunity to discover new tools that transform practices and uses, not only of researchers, but also of all the actors of scientific and technical culture (STC).

©Zothen-Fotolia

Curation: an Essential Practice to Manage “Open Science”

The web 2.0 gave birth to new practices motivated by the will to have broader and faster cooperation in a more free and transparent environment. We have entered the era of an “open” movement: “open data”, “open software”, etc. In science, expressions like “open access” (to scientific publications and research results) and “open science” are used more and more often.

The concept of “open science” emerged from the web and created bigger and bigger niches all around the planet. Open science and its derivatives such as open access make us dream of an era of open, collective expertise and innovation on an international scale. This catalyst in the field of science is only possible on one condition: that it be accompanied by the emergence of a reflection on the new practices and uses that are essential to its conservation and progress. Sharing information and data at the international level is very demanding in terms of management and organization. As a result, curation has established itself in the realm of science and technology, both in the research community and in the world of scientific and technical culture.

Curation: Collaborative Bibliographic Management for the Researcher 2.0

In the world of research, curation appears as a logical extension of the literature review and bibliographic search, the pillars of a researcher’s work. Curation on the web has brought a new dimension to this work of organizing and prioritizing information. It makes it easier for researchers to collaborate and share, while also bringing to light some works that had previously remained in the shadows.

Mendeley and Zotero are both search and bibliographic management tools that assist you in the creation of an online library. Thus, it is possible to navigate in this mass of bibliographic data, referenced by the researcher, through multiple gateways: keywords, authors’ names, date of publication, etc. In addition, these programs make it possible to generate automatically article bibliographies in the formats specified by each scientific journal. What is new about these tools, apart from the “logistical” aid they provide, is that they are based on collaboration and sharing. Mendeley and Zotero let you create private or public groups. These groups make it possible to share a bibliography with other researchers. They also give access to discussion forums that are useful for sharing with international researchers. Other tools like EndNote and Papersexist, but these paid softwares are less collaborative.

New platforms, real scientific social networks, have also appeared. The leading platform ResearchGate was founded in 2008 and now counts 1.9 million users (august 2012). It is an online search platform, but it is used above all for social interaction. Researchers can create a profile and discussion groups, make their work available online, job hunt, etc. Other professional social networks for researchers have emerged, among them MyScienceWork, which is devoted to open access.

Curation, in the era of open science, accelerates the dissemination of information and provides access to the most relevant parts. Post-publication comments add value to the content. Apart from the benefits for the community, these new practices change the role of researchers in society by offering them new public spaces for expression. Curation on the web opens the way towards the development of an e-reputation and a new form of celebrity in the world of international science. It gives everyone the opportunity to show the cornerstones of their work in the same way that the research notebooks of Hypothèses.orgwere used in Humanities and Social Sciences. This system based on the dual role of “observer/observed” may also impose limits on researchers who would have to be more thorough in the choice of the articles they list.

Have we entered the era of the “researcher 2.0”? Undoubtedly, even if it is still limited to a small group of people. The tools described above are widely used for bibliographic management but their collaborative function is still less used. It is difficult to change researchers’ practices and attitudes. To move from a closed science to an open science in a world of cutthroat competition, researchers will have to grope their way along. These new means of sharing are still sometimes perceived as a threat to the work of researchers or as an excessively long and tedious activity.

Curation and Scientific and Technical Culture: Creating Hybrid Networks

Another area, where there are most likely fewer barriers, is scientific and technical culture. This broad term involves different actors such as associations, companies, universities’ communication departments, CCSTI (French centers for scientific, technical and industrial culture), journalists, etc. A number of these actors do not limit their work to popularizing the scientific data; they also consider they have an authentic mission of “culturing” science. The curation practice thus offers a better organization and visibility to the information. The sought-after benefits will be different from one actor to the next. University communication departments are using the web 2.0 more and more to promote their values; this is the case, for example, for the FrenchUniversité Paris 8. For companies, curation offers the opportunity to become a reference on the themes related to their corporate identity. MyScienceWork, for example, began curating three collections surrounding the key themes of its project. The key topics of its identity are essentially open accessnew uses and practices of the web 2.0 in the world of science and “women in science”. It is essential to keep abreast of the latest news coming from large institutions and traditional media, but also to take into account bloggers’ articles and links that offer a different viewpoint.

Some tools have also been developed in order to meet the expectations of these various users. Pearltreesand Scoopit are non-specialized curation tools that are widely used by the world of Scientific and Technical Culture. Pearltrees offers a visual representation in which each listed page is presented as a pearl connected to the others through branches. The result: a prioritized data tree. These mindmaps can be shared with one’s contacts. A good example of this is the work done by Sébastien Freudenthal, who uses this tool on a daily basis and offers rich content listed by theme in the field of Sciences and Web. Scoopit offers a more traditional presentation with a nice page layout that looks like a magazine. It enables you to list articles quickly and almost automatically, thanks to a plugin, and also to share them. A special tool for the “world” of Technical and Scientific Culture is the social network of scientific culture Knowtex that, in addition to its referencing and links assessment functions, seeks to create a space interconnecting journalists, artists, communicators, designers, bloggers, researchers, etc.

These different tools are used on a daily basis by various actors of technical and scientific culture, but also by researchers, teachers, etc. They gather these communities around a shared practice and favor multiple conversations. The development of these hybrid networks is surely a cornerstone in the building of open science, encouraging the creation of new ties between science and society that go beyond the traditional geographical limits.

Un grand merci à Antoine Blanchard pour sa participation et relecture de l’article.

Find out more:

« Curation is the new research, »… et le nouveau média, Benoit Raphael, 2011http://benoitraphael.com/2011/01/17/curation-is-the-new-search/

La curation : la révolution du webjournalisme?, non-fiction.fr http://www.nonfiction.fr/article-4158-la_curation__la_revolution_du_webjournalisme_.htm

La curation : les 10 raisons de s’y intéresser, Pierre Tran http://pro.01net.com/editorial/529947/la-curation-les-10-raisons-de-sy-interesser/

Curation : quelle valeur pour les entreprises, les médias, et sa « marque personnelle »?, Marie-Laure Vie http://marilor.posterous.com/curation-et-marketing-de-linformation

Cracking Open the Scientific Process, Thomas Lin, New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/science/open-science-challenges-journal-tradition-with-web-collaboration.html?_r=4&pagewanted=1

La « massification » du web transforme les relations sociales, Valérie Varandat, INRIA http://www.inria.fr/actualite/actualites-inria/internet-du-futur

Internet a révolutionné le métier de chercheur, AgoraVoxhttp://www.agoravox.fr/actualites/technologies/article/internet-a-revolutionne-le-metier-103514

Gérer ses références numériques, Université de Genèvehttp://www.unige.ch/medecine/udrem/Unit/actualites/biblioManager.html

Notre liste Scoop-it : Scientific Social Network, MyScienceWork

SOURCE:

In French:

Summary

This article has two parts, the first presents a pioneering experience in Curation of Scientific Research in an Open Access Online Scientific Journal,  in a BioMed e-Books Series and in curation of a Scoop.it! Journal on Medical Imaging.

The second Part, presents Views of two Curators on the transformation of Scientific Publishing and the functioning of the Scientific AGORA (market place in the Ancient Greek CIty of Athena).

The CHANGES described above are irrevocable and foster progress of civilization by provision of ACCESS to the Scientific Process and Resources via collaboration among peers.

Part Three

SOURCE:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/health/for-scientists-an-exploding-world-of-pseudo-academia.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&emc=eta1 

Scientific Articles Accepted (Personal Checks, Too)

Kevin Moloney for The New York Times

Jeffrey Beall, a research librarian at the University of Colorado at Denver, has developed a blacklist of “predatory” journals.

By 

Published: April 7, 2013

The scientists who were recruited to appear at a conference called Entomology-2013 thought they had been selected to make a presentation to the leading professional association of scientists who study insects.

But they found out the hard way that they were wrong. The prestigious, academically sanctioned conference they had in mind has a slightly different name: Entomology 2013 (without the hyphen). The one they had signed up for featured speakers who were recruited by e-mail, not vetted by leading academics. Those who agreed to appear were later charged a hefty fee for the privilege, and pretty much anyone who paid got a spot on the podium that could be used to pad a résumé.

“I think we were duped,” one of the scientists wrote in an e-mail to the Entomological Society.

Those scientists had stumbled into a parallel world of pseudo-academia, complete with prestigiously titled conferences and journals that sponsor them. Many of the journals and meetings have names that are nearly identical to those of established, well-known publications and events.

Steven Goodman, a dean and professor of medicine at Stanford and the editor of the journal Clinical Trials, which has its own imitators, called this phenomenon “the dark side of open access,” the movement to make scholarly publications freely available.

The number of these journals and conferences has exploded in recent years as scientific publishing has shifted from a traditional business model for professional societies and organizations built almost entirely on subscription revenues to open access, which relies on authors or their backers to pay for the publication of papers online, where anyone can read them.

Open access got its start about a decade ago and quickly won widespread acclaim with the advent of well-regarded, peer-reviewed journals like those published by the Public Library of Science, known as PLoS. Such articles were listed in databases like PubMed, which is maintained by the National Library of Medicine, and selected for their quality.

But some researchers are now raising the alarm about what they see as the proliferation of online journals that will print seemingly anything for a fee. They warn that nonexperts doing online research will have trouble distinguishing credible research from junk. “Most people don’t know the journal universe,” Dr. Goodman said. “They will not know from a journal’s title if it is for real or not.”

Researchers also say that universities are facing new challenges in assessing the résumés of academics. Are the publications they list in highly competitive journals or ones masquerading as such? And some academics themselves say they have found it difficult to disentangle themselves from these journals once they mistakenly agree to serve on their editorial boards.

The phenomenon has caught the attention of Nature, one of the most competitive and well-regarded scientific journals. In a news report published recently, the journal noted “the rise of questionable operators” and explored whether it was better to blacklist them or to create a “white list” of those open-access journals that meet certain standards. Nature included a checklist on “how to perform due diligence before submitting to a journal or a publisher.”

Jeffrey Beall, a research librarian at the University of Colorado in Denver, has developed his own blacklist of what he calls “predatory open-access journals.” There were 20 publishers on his list in 2010, and now there are more than 300. He estimates that there are as many as 4,000 predatory journals today, at least 25 percent of the total number of open-access journals.

“It’s almost like the word is out,” he said. “This is easy money, very little work, a low barrier start-up.”

Journals on what has become known as “Beall’s list” generally do not post the fees they charge on their Web sites and may not even inform authors of them until after an article is submitted. They barrage academics with e-mail invitations to submit articles and to be on editorial boards.

One publisher on Beall’s list, Avens Publishing Group, even sweetened the pot for those who agreed to be on the editorial board of The Journal of Clinical Trails & Patenting, offering 20 percent of its revenues to each editor.

One of the most prolific publishers on Beall’s list, Srinubabu Gedela, the director of the Omics Group, has about 250 journals and charges authors as much as $2,700 per paper. Dr. Gedela, who lists a Ph.D. from Andhra University in India, says on his Web site that he “learnt to devise wonders in biotechnology.”

Another Beall’s list publisher, Dove Press, says on its Web site, “There are no limits on the number or size of the papers we can publish.”

Open-access publishers say that the papers they publish are reviewed and that their businesses are legitimate and ethical.

“There is no compromise on quality review policy,” Dr.Gedela wrote in an e-mail. “Our team’s hard work and dedicated services to the scientific community will answer all the baseless and defamatory comments that have been made aboutOmics.”

But some academics say many of these journals’ methods are little different from spam e-mails offering business deals that are too good to be true.

Paulino Martínez, a doctor in Celaya, Mexico, said he was gullible enough to send two articles in response to an e-mail invitation he received last year from The Journal of Clinical Case Reports. They were accepted. Then came a bill saying he owed $2,900. He was shocked, having had no idea there was a fee for publishing. He asked to withdraw the papers, but they were published anyway.

“I am a doctor in a hospital in the province of Mexico, and I don’t have the amount they requested,” Dr. Martínez said. The journal offered to reduce his bill to $2,600. Finally, after a year and many e-mails and a phone call, the journal forgave the money it claimed he owed.

Some professors listed on the Web sites of journals on Beall’s list, and the associated conferences, say they made a big mistake getting involved with the journals and cannot seem to escape them.

Thomas Price, an associate professor of reproductive endocrinology and fertility at the Duke University School of Medicine, agreed to be on the editorial board of The Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics because he saw the name of a well-respected academic expert on its Web site and wanted to support open-access journals. He was surprised, though, when the journal repeatedly asked him to recruit authors and submit his own papers. Mainstream journals do not do this because researchers ordinarily want to publish their papers in the best journal that will accept them. Dr. Price, appalled by the request, refused and asked repeatedly over three years to be removed from the journal’s editorial board. But his name was still there.

“They just don’t pay any attention,” Dr. Price said.

About two years ago, James White, a plant pathologist at Rutgers, accepted an invitation to serve on the editorial board of a new journal, Plant Pathology & Microbiology, not realizing the nature of the journal. Meanwhile, his name, photograph and résumé were on the journal’s Web site. Then he learned that he was listed as an organizer and speaker on a Web site advertising Entomology-2013.

“I am not even an entomologist,” he said.

He thinks the publisher of the plant journal, which also sponsored the entomology conference, — just pasted his name, photograph and résumé onto the conference Web site. At this point, he said, outraged that the conference and journal were “using a person’s credentials to rip off other unaware scientists,” Dr. White asked that his name be removed from the journal and the conference.

Weeks went by and nothing happened, he said. Last Monday, in response to this reporter’s e-mail to the conference organizers, Jessica Lincy, who said only that she was a conference member, wrote to explain that the conference had “technical problems” removing Dr. White’s name. On Tuesday, his name was gone. But it remained on the Web site of the journal.

Dr. Gedela, the publisher of the journals and sponsor of the conference, said in an e-mail on Thursday that Dr. Price and Dr. White’s names remained on the Web sites “because of communication gap between the EB member and the editorial assistant,” referring to editorial board members. That day, their names were gone from the journals’ Web sites.

“I really should have known better,” Dr. White said of his editorial board membership, adding that he did not fully realize how the publishing world had changed. “It seems like the Wild West now.”

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: April 8, 2013

An earlier version of this article misstated the name of a city in Mexico that is home to a doctor who sent articles to a pseudo-academic journal. It is Celaya, not Ceyala.

SOURCE:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/health/for-scientists-an-exploding-world-of-pseudo-academia.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&emc=eta1 

Read Full Post »


Reporter:  Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

Call for Open-Access Publishing in Genomics

January 14, 2013

SAN DIEGO (GenomeWeb News) – Open-access datasets, software, and bioinformatics strategies have become more or less de rigueur in genomics research.

But the field may also be poised to change the way other sorts of information from scientific studies is conveyed to other researchers and to the broader public, according to open-access proponent Michael Eisen, a computational and evolutionary biology researcher at the University of California, Berkeley.

Eisen, a Public Library of Science co-founder, spoke during the morning plenary session here at the International Plant and Animal Genome Conference.

In his presentation, he argued that the inability to freely and unreservedly access the full text of all genome studies performed to date may have led to missed opportunities for the field.

Using the bacteriophage phiX174 genome sequence as an example, he proposed that the general thinking in the genomics field has developed in ways that promote open-access to sequence data and related software. But, he said, the same type of access is not necessarily available for those interested in delving into the details and rationale behind genomics studies, since the corresponding papers may not be accessible in an open-access format.

The UK Medical Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biology‘s Frederick Sanger and colleagues described the phiX174 sequence in 1977, in a publication that’s generally considered to be the first genome paper. The sequence data presented in that study is now freely available, Eisen explained, in part owing to the advent of sequence databases such as the European Molecular Biology Laboratory Nucleotide Sequence database or the National Center for Biotechnology Information’s sequence database, GenBank.

During the past decade or more, funding agency requirements and pressure from within the genomics community have contributed to the widespread adoption of these and other public genomics resources and repositories.

As these databases have grown and become accepted within the genomics community, Eisen argued that they have spurred the development of computational methods for analyzing genome sequences and datasets that may not have existed otherwise. “Imagine where we would be had we not made the fortunate decision to liberate genome sequences,” he said.

But analogous strategies for combing through text from genomics studies in their entirety have not developed in the same manner, according to Eisen, who noted that the text of the phiX174 genome paper remains behind a pay wall.

“We’ve allowed [journal access] and [data access] to follow very different fates,” said Eisen, who says there are ways to use the information housed within the scientific literature more easily and productively.

He urged attendees to consider publishing their own work in open-access publications. Beyond that, though, Eisen also noted that the community is well positioned to influence the ways in which research information is disseminated, since genomics data increasingly serves as a resource for other spheres of research.

 

 

Read Full Post »

SAME SCIENTIFIC IMPACT: Scientific Publishing – Open Journals vs. Subscription-based


Reporters: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN & Pnina G. Abir-Am, PhD

Drastic change in academic education by design: FREE ACCESS to knowledge — Program edX – the  Harvard+MIT collaboration on Online education!! 
FREE ACCESS to Scientific Journals will be the next step. Research to support that by a study carried by Bjork, B. C., and D. Solomon. 2012. Open access versus subscription journals: a comparison of scientific impact. BMC Medicine. 10(1):73+. 
“Following step will be to demonstrated that Scientific Websites like http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com have SAME Scientific impact as Open Journals!!
“We are well positioned to demonstrate that” said Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN, Director & Founder of Leaders in Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence and the 2/2012 launcher of the initiative called  http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com  To trace her contributions to Research Methodology, 1976-2005, go to  https://sites.google.com/site/avivasopusmagnum/aviva-s-home-page
The merit of Scientific Website is manifold:
  • Time from Lab/Desk to Publication on the Internet and Search engines is reduced to seconds
  • comments by other scientists are equally valuable to peer review
  • collaboration with other scientist around the globe is fostered on WWW
  • the platform is of collaborative authoring, we have 60 categories of research in one site
  • interdisciplinary work can be published in one site the over arching domain in our case is Life Sciences, Pharmaceutical and Healthcare
In May 2012 MIT and Harvard are collaborating on distribution of course material of all classes on the Internet – a Program called EdX
In the Press Release“EdX represents a unique opportunity to improve education on our own campuses through online learning, while simultaneously creating a bold new educational path for millions of learners worldwide,” MIT President Susan Hockfield said.

Harvard President Drew Faust said, “edX gives Harvard and MIT an unprecedented opportunity to dramatically extend our collective reach by conducting groundbreaking research into effective education and by extending online access to quality higher education.”

“Harvard and MIT will use these new technologies and the research they will make possible to lead the direction of online learning in a way that benefits our students, our peers, and people across the nation and the globe,” Faust continued.

Princeton, Stanford, Michigan and the University of Pennsylvania announced that they would offer free Web-based courses through a for-profit company called Coursera that was founded by two Stanford computer science professors. One of those professors, Andrew Ng, taught a free online course in machine learning this past fall with an enrollment of more than 100,000 students.

There’s also Udacity, co-founded by a former Stanford professor, andKhan Academy, which boasts 3,100 free educational videos across a variety of subjects.

MIT and Harvard said that they hope to eventually partner with other universities to expand the offerings on the edX platform.

Results of the BMC Medicine study are reported, below and they are:  Open Access, But Same Impact
profile

BioTechniques

http://www.biotechniques.com/news/Open-Access-But-Same-Impact/biotechniques-333012.html#.UA2SsRxueMU 

Open Access, But Same Impact

07/19/2012

Jesse Jenkins
By comparing two-year impact factors for journals, researchers found that open access and subscription-based journals have about the same scientific impact.
Open access (OA) journals are approaching the same scientific impact and quality as traditional subscription journals, according to a new study. In a study published in BMC Medicine on July 17 (1), researchers surveyed the impact factors, the average number of citations per paper published in a journal during the two preceding years, of OA and traditional subscription journals.

By comparing two-year impact factors for journals from the four countries that publish the most scientific literature, researchers have found that OA journals have about the same scientific impact as their subscription-based counterparts. Source: BMC Medicine.

At first, the study’s authors—Bo-Christer Björk from the Hanken School of Economics in Helsinki, Finland, and David Solomon from the College of Human Medicine at Michigan State University—found that there was a 30% higher average citation rate for subscription journals. But after controlling for journal discipline, location of publisher, and age of publication, their results showed that OA and subscription journals had nearly identical scientific impact.

“The newer open access published within the last 10 years, particularly those journals funded by article processing fees, had basically the same impact as subscription journals within the same category,” said Solomon. “I think that that is the key finding.”

The initial higher citation rate for subscription journals was the result of a higher percentage of older OA journals from countries that are not major publishing countries. “A lot of them are from South America or other developing countries, and they tend to have lower impact factors,” said Solomon. “When you compare apples to apples and start looking within subgroups, particularly journals launched after 2000 in biomedicine for example, the differences fall away.”

However, the authors identified a sector of low quality, OA publishers that are looking to capitalize on the article processing charge model rather than contribute to the advancement of science. Solomon said that this could partly be to blame for negative perceptions about the integrity of OA publishing as a whole and its impact on the peer review system. But most researchers are aware of these low-quality publishers and prefer to publish in more reputable OA journals.

In the end, Bjork and Solomon are hopeful that the study’s findings may help dispel some of the misconceptions in the debate over OA publishing. “Open access journals still have the reputation of being second class in the minds of some people. So, we think that this is important because this is objective data verifying that at least the open access journals published in the last 10 years by professional publishers are on par with subscription journals.”

References

  1. Bjork, B. C., and D. Solomon. 2012. Open access versus subscription journals: a comparison of scientific impact. BMC Medicine. 10(1):73+.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts