Why Hasn’t Scientific Publishing Been Disrupted Already Photo from iStockphoto. Looking back on 2009, there was one particular note that seemed to sound repeatedly, resonating through the professional discourse at conferences and in posts throughout the blogosphere: the likelihood of disruptive change afoot in the scientific publishing industry. Here in the digital pages of the Scholarly Kitchen, for example, we covered John Wilbanks’ presentation at SSP IN and Michael Nielsen’s talk at the 2009 STM Conference. They were both thoughtful presentations and I agree with many of the points raised by both speakers. It has occurred to me, however, that I would likely have agreed with arguments that scientific publishing was about to be disrupted a decade ago—or even earlier. When Tim Berners-Lee created the Web in 1991, it was with the aim of better facilitating scientific communication and the dissemination of scientific research. And yet it has. It is breathtaking to look back over the events of the last 18 years since the birth of the Web.
Go To Hellman C&EN: COVER STORY - OPENING ACCESS Time was, a researcher typed a manuscript and mailed it to a publisher. If the manuscript made it through peer review and was accepted, the author could expect the article to appear in a printed journal some months later. How times have changed. Now a researcher submits a digital manuscript, which the publisher passes on to reviewers, who may offer feedback in as little as a day. Digital capabilities clearly have enhanced the publishing process, and in isolation, they might have left the fundamentals of the journal market unchanged. First, prices for many journals that cover science, technology, and medicine (STM) have risen substantially over the past decade, particularly for those produced by commercial publishers. At the same time, Internet users have grown accustomed to being able to jump around the Web to access nearly any conceivable piece of information and in many cases to read it for free. Publishers are experimenting with all these models and more. Steven M.
TV | (Founder Stories) Yavonditte Rapid Fire: "Hire Great People" Open Notebook Science History[edit] The term "open notebook science"[6] was first used in a blog post by Jean-Claude Bradley, an Associate Professor of Chemistry at Drexel University. Bradley described open notebook science as follows:[7] ... there is a URL to a laboratory notebook that is freely available and indexed on common search engines. Practitioners[edit] Active[edit] Experimental[edit] Jean-Claude Bradley[8]Andrew S.I.D. Theoretical[edit] Tobias J. Archived[edit] Jeremiah Faith[24]Influenza Origins and Evolution[25]Linh Le,[26] undergraduate physics major and alumnus of Koch lab at the University of New Mexico.Brigette Black[27]), physics Ph.D. student in Koch lab at the University of New Mexico.Nadiezda Fernandez-Oropeza,[28] Biomedical Engineering Ph.D. student in Koch lab at the University of New Mexico. Recurrent (Educational)[edit] Junior Physics Lab (307L) at University of New Mexico[29] Partial/Pseudo[30] open notebooks[edit] Benefits[edit] Drawbacks[edit] Funding and sponsorship[edit] Logos[edit]
Frans Johansson: The Secret Truth About Executing Great Ideas :: Videos :: The 99 Percent In this high-energy talk, Frans Johansson illustrates how relentless trial-and-error – coming up with an idea, executing it on a small scale, and then refining it – is THE distinguishing characteristic of the greatest artists, scientists, and entrepreneurs. Why? Because humans are not very good at predicting which ideas are going to be a success. Thus, nearly every major breakthrough innovation has been preceded by a string of failed or misguided executions. Frans Johansson is an entrepreneur and thought leader. A successful author, Frans has written on a variety of topics, from business management to healthcare to sport fishing to how to save our oceans. www.themedicieffect.com
Research - Articles - Journals | Find research fast at HighBeam After many years of successfully serving the needs of our customers, HighBeam Research has been retired. Because HighBeam Research has closed down we have taken you to our sister website Questia, an award-winning Cengage Learning product. Located in downtown Chicago, Questia is the premier online research and paper writing resource. Since its founding in 1998, Questia has helped students find and cite high-quality, scholarly research. With emphasis on subjects related to the humanities and social sciences, Questia provides the resources needed to complete most college-level, core-curriculum course assignments. The Questia library contains books and journal articles on subjects such as history, philosophy, economics, political science, English and literature, anthropology, psychology, and sociology. Questia at a glance More than 500,000 students have used Questia since its launch. Testimonials “This is the best online library I've come across on the net! “This is a great research tool.
Coworking New York City | NYC | New Work City Our culture has been carefully cultivated over the course of the past five years to ensure that everyone who participates shares a sense of mutual respect over our space and each other. That means we trust each other to take care of things ourselves, which we find makes everything far more pleasant! Meet amazing people. Our profile directory, discussion group, and events make it easy for you to find people to befriend and collaborate with. Get feedback. Launching something new? Stand, sit, or lounge. Sign up or cancel anytime. Share everything. Cowork around the world. Work late into the evening. Enjoy speedy internet. Participate.
The role of the Internet as a platform for collective action grows A survey released this week by the Pew Research Center’s Internet and Life Project shed light on the social side of the Internet. The results offered insight into the differences between the connected and the disconnected, revealing that Internet users are more likely to be active participants, with some 80 percent of Internet users participating in groups, compared with 56 percent of non-Internet users. These findings confirm the impact of the the Internet on collective action, observed Beth Noveck, NYU law professor and former deputy CTO for open government at the White House. “Internet users are more active participants in groups and are more likely to feel pride and a sense of accomplishment.” “Technology may not be the corrosive force that Putnam imagined in American life,” wrote Jared Keller in The Atlantic. “We have historically overestimated the value of access to information and underestimated the value of access to one another,” said Shirky.
VideoLectures - exchange ideas & share knowledge What Happened to the Future? « Founders Fund We invest in smart people solving difficult problems, often difficult scientific or engineering problems. Here’s why: We have two primary and related interests: Finding ways to support technological development (technology is the fundamental driver of growth in the industrialized world).Earning outstanding returns for our investors. From the 1960s through the 1990s, venture capital was an excellent way to pursue these twin interests. From 1999 through the present, the industry has posted negative mean and median returns, with only a handful of funds having done very well. To understand why VC has done so poorly, it helps to approach the future through the lens of VC portfolios during the industry’s heyday, comparing past portfolios to portfolios as they exist today. In the late 1990s, venture portfolios began to reflect a different sort of future. Not all technology is created equal: there is a difference between Pong and the Concorde or, less glibly, between Intel and Pets.com.