e-Recognition via Friction-free Collaboration over the Internet: “Open Access to Curation of Scientific Research”
Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN
WordCloud Image Produced by Adam Tubman
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:
- Open Access Online Scientific Journal
- BioMed e-Books Series
- Curation of a Scoop.it! Journal on Medical Imaging.
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).
- Views of Thomas Lin, NYT, 1/17/2012 – Cracking Open the Scientific Process
- Views of Célya Gruson-Daniel, MyScienceWork, 10/29/2012 Science and Curation: The New Practice of Web 2.0
Part 3, presents the
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 Sciences, Healthcare 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 Sciences, Healthcare 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.
http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/open-access-scientific-journal/about/
http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/contributors-biographies/
http://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
- Medical Devices
- 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
http://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
Most Commented
Type 2:
“Open Access to Curation of Scientific Research” – BioMed e-Books Series
http://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
- Cardiovascular Diseases: Causes, Risks and Management – Volume 1,2,3
Volume 1: Seven Authors, 29 articles
Volume 2: Six Authors, 28 articles
Volume 3: Eight Authors, 43 articles
- Human Immune System in Health and in Disease
- Metabolic Genomics & Pharmaceutics
- Infectious Disease & New Antibiotic Targets
- Cancer Biology and Genomics for Disease Diagnosis
- Nanotechnology in Drug Discovery and Drug Delivery
- Frontiers in Genomics Research – Volume 1,2,3
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!
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
“Open Access Publishing” is becoming the mainstream model: “Academic Publishing” has changed Irrevocably
Digital Publishing Promotes Science and Popularizes it by Access to Scientific
SAME SCIENTIFIC IMPACT: Scientific Publishing – Open Journals vs. Subscription-based
SAME SCIENTIFIC IMPACT: Scientific Publishing – Open Journals vs. Subscription-based
PeerJ MODEL for Open Access Online Scientific Journal
PeerJ MODEL for Open Access Online Scientific Journal
Open-Access Publishing in Genomics
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:
- Cracking Open the Scientific Process, NYT, 1/17/2012 – Views of Thomas Lin
- Science and Curation: The New Practice of Web 2.0, MyScienceWork, 10/29/2012 – Views of Célya Gruson-Daniel
Views of Thomas Lin, NYT, 1/17/2012 – Cracking Open the Scientific Process
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.
-
Wordplay Blog: Open Science, Numberplay style! (January 16, 2012)
-
When Breakthroughs Begin at Home (January 17, 2012)
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.”
-
Wordplay Blog: Open Science, Numberplay style! (January 16, 2012)
-
When Breakthroughs Begin at Home (January 17, 2012)
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.”
Views of Célya Gruson-Daniel, October 29, 2012, MyScienceWork
Monday, October 29, 2012 Célya Gruson-Daniel
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 visualization. Their 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 access, new 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:
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:
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 GINA KOLATA
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:
2012pharmaceutical
Amandeep Kaur
Aashir Awan, Phd
Abhisar Anand
Adina Hazan
Alan F. Kaul, PharmD., MS, MBA, FCCP
alexcrystal6
anamikasarkar
apreconasia
aptubman
Arav Gandhi
aviralvatsa
David Orchard-Webb, PhD
danutdaagmailcom
Demet Sag, Ph.D., CRA, GCP
Dror Nir
dsmolyar
Ethan Coomber
evelinacohn
Gail S Thornton
Irina Robu
jayzmit48
jdpmd
jshertok
kellyperlman
Ed Kislauskis
larryhbern
Madison Davis
marzankhan
megbaker58
ofermar2020
Dr. Pati
pkandala
ritusaxena
Rick Mandahl
sjwilliamspa
Srinivas Sriram
stuartlpbi
Dr. Sudipta Saha
tildabarliya
zraviv06
zs22