Cesse July 22 2009
•
1 like•412 views
Presentation on social media at the annual meeting of the Council of Engineering & Society Scholarly Executives held July 22, 2009 in Orlando, FL
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (17)
Similar to Cesse July 22 2009
Similar to Cesse July 22 2009 (20)
More from Darrell W. Gunter
More from Darrell W. Gunter (20)
Cesse July 22 2009
- 1. www.collexis.com Increasing Discoverability: “Case Studies on Publishers Who Drove & Grew Usage“ Darrell W. Gunter EVP / CMO July 22, 2009
- 2. The Semantic Web and Its Developments! 10
- 3. The Facts 1,2,3 The Author is under great pressure!
- 4. New Models / Open Access 4, 5, 6
- 5. Grants 7, 8, 9
- 6. STM Products and Processes Societies/Publishers
- 7. The STM Consumer Producer Author of a book Member of a STM society Author of journal articles Receiving research funding Consumer & reader Peer reviewer Participant & speaker at conferences Taking advantage of continuous education Member of an editorial board
- 8. Consumer/ Producer Process Researcher Funding through an STM society Consuming literature and STM products Participation in the publishing process as a peer reviewer Participation in various conferences Presenting results in varoius conferences/ Publishing of proceedings Publication of results in peer reviewed STM journal
- 10. Collexis Fingerprint Engine Collexis Technology KnowledgeBase Text Fingerprint
- 11. Collexis Knowledge Engine 7.0 Tokenizer Normalizer Abbreviation expansion Dehyphenation Language detection Coordination expansion Part-of-Speech tagging Entity recognition based on regular expressions Noun phrase detection Concept finding Part-of-speech based disambiguation of thesaurus concepts Exclude known idioms Fingerprint aggregation
- 13. Collexis – selected references Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung Stanford University Asklepios Kliniken Johnson & Johnson Johns Hopkins University University of California, San Franciscio Dana Farber Cancer Institute Harvard University National Institutes of Health Mayo Clinic California Institute for Quantitative Biosciences (QB3), The Wellcome Trust DKFZ
- 14. Explore instead of Searching!
- 16. Conceptual Search & Visualization!
- 17. Concept & Publications View
- 18. Concept & Author View
- 19. Emerging Trends by Key Concepts
- 20. Potential Co-occurrence of Concepts Hypothesis Generation!
- 25. Same data for sub networks
- 26. Same data for sub networks
- 29. STM Sub networks – ready to go today! Sub network for a society Sub network for a journal Reviewer assignment Sub network of all author of one publisher Virtual conferences - network of participants Network of funded researchers
- 30. ...or for peer reviewer identification
- 33. Optimize Workflows (e.g. Avoid interruptions caused by knowledge search, retrieval, and application) Distribute Expert Knowledge (across multiple locations, time zones, medical conditions) Guide Workflows (e.g. Care Plans, Expert-Task Context Allocation) Help Asklepios to know “what Asklepios knows” Stimulate new Knowledge Acquisition Usage Models Why Knowledge Management?
- 36. Expert Profile of Prof. Grifka
- 37. Make Internal Expertise available!
- 38. Help Asklepios to know “what Asklepios knows” Virtualize expertise!
- 39. Provide a single point of search for all relevant content from publishers! Link internal expertise / experience and external knowledge sources!
- 41. Search - Cisplatin shows the relevant publications from Springer, Elsevier, Thieme, OVID and other publishers Asklepios Intelligent Digital Library
Editor's Notes
- Trends & New Tools Search has evolved and will continue to evolve over the years. Basic, advanced, Boolean search has served a purpose but with the explosion of data that the research community is now facing, they are requiring more sophisticated tools that will take them from searching to knowing. There is a great paper from Project 10X titled Semantic Wave 2008 Report: Industry Roadmap to Web 3.0 & Multibillion Dollar Market Opportunities. The paper was authored by Mills Davis, Managing Director, Project 10X. Mills Davis talks about how the internet will evolve from Web 2.0 to Web 3.0, the emergence of semantic technologies and this new industry segment will grow into multibillion dollar businesses. On this matrix he shows the semantic wave that consists of four growth stages. Stage 1 is the basic web that connects information. Stage 2 is the social web that connects people. Stage 3 is the semantic web that connects knowledge. I would dare to say that we are at the exciting beginnings of this stage. Stage 4 (the future) is the ubiquitous web that connects intelligence. Mills further demonstrates how Web 3.0 is different from the previous stages of the internet evolution as it knowledge computing power helps to solves complex problems and greatly improves productivity. This graph shows the various stages of knowledge discovery and the components of the technical foundation to make this possible.
- STM Facts Over the last 12 years, the STM industry has loaded up 90% of the 23,000 journal titles. These titles generate in access of 800,000 articles per year for an estimated author community of 5.5 million worldwide researchers. It is estimated that it takes an author 90 – 100 hours to prepare a scientific article and it will take 2 – 3 reviewers 3 – 6 hours to conduct their peer review of a single article. Considering the time it takes the author to write their scientific article, consider the daunting task of the researcher to stay up on the ever growing number of scientific articles., their time is seriously being challenged. Mark Ware’s 2006 paper on the STM industry reported that size of single journal grew from 83 to 154 articles. The length of the average article grew from 7.4 to 12.4 pages and the total pages of the journal grew to 2,216 from 820 pages. A whopping 270%. Considering these statistics are a few years old and the trend is increasing each year, we know that the researcher’s burden becomes more substantial each year. Just as challenging is the academic library’s challenge to manage their collection within their budget. Unfortunately the average publisher journal price increase is always higher than the average library’s budget for serials and monographs. While the publishing community have brought great value to the research community by providing backfiles at a very reasonable cost and providing them access to their entire library of titles. The fact remains that the library’s budget and the publisher’s subscription price increases have been and will remain in conflict with each other.
- New Models/ Open Access The Open Access movement has gained momentum over the last few years. It seems that every publisher has some type of Open Access position. In addition to PLOS and BioMed Central, we have seen Springer, Elsevier, Oxford University Press just to name a few that have adopted a variety of Open Access policies. While the jury is still out on whether Open Access will be damaging to the publishers subscription pricing model, there is great concern that Open Access will undermine the long established trusted publishing establishment thereby damaging the editorial and dissemination process. As you know recently the NIH announced the mandated article depository for NIH funded research. While the number of articles per publisher may not be significant today, it represents another outlet for high quality peer reviewed scientific articles to be accessed freely on the web. For anyone who wishes to gain access to electronic journals outside of going to a land grant institution they would have to pay a fee for the article. Several institutions are now taking active positions for Open Access most recently Harvard and UC Berkeley. Clearly Open Access will put more pressure on the commercial publishers. Secondly many institutions are working to implement a digital repository. One of the main issues they are facing to make the IR successful is getting the faculty to deposit their work. In the Univ. of California 2007 report on Faculty attitudes, it was noted that the Faculty are aware of the alternative forms of dissemination but are very concerned about preserving their current publishing outlet. Elsevier introduced a new model for journal publishing by launching OncologySTAT.com. This portal offers free access to articles from 100 medical journals. Registration is free and they will derive their revenues from advertising on their site. This is a very bold initiative but I think a very wise one. The other day when I registered to use the site they also offered me as a new registrant of OncologySTAT, a limited-time offer to receive a free copy of Abeloff's Clinical Oncology, 3rd Edition (a $239 value). This 3rd Edition provides readers with an easy-to-use, comprehensive reference that features a clinical perspective balanced with relevant basic science. Readers will find the latest developments in basic science, pathology, diagnosis, management, outcomes, rehabilitation, and prevention. Considering the quality and breadth of their content, I had no problems with providing the necessary information on their registration site. I also clicked the boxed to get email updates about oncology. I happen to know Monique Fayed from my time with Elsevier and she is truly one of the industries innovators. There is no doubt in my mind that OncologySTAT.com will be a long term success. Here you see a major publisher doing a live pilot with a new model but to give this new advertising model a fighting chance they select the right market, content and manager to launch it.
- Grants While electronics have helped researchers to be more productive, they are still challenged to keep up with the sea of research and other tertiary data. As the researcher faces this hurdle there is a more significant obstacle they must address. That obstacle is the diminishing grants provided by the NIH. Just published this month is the report titled “A Broken Pipeline”. This report written in collaboration by a number of renowned institutions clearly points out that the downturn in research grants by the NIH since 2003 has had a tremendous negative effect on the advancement of research and it is threatening the bench strength of our youngest and brightest minds. Here are the facts: Between 1998 and 2003 the Clinton and Bush administrations and Congress doubled the NIH’s budget. Unfortunately in 2003 the NIH stopped receiving any budget increases thus they experienced a 13 percent drop in purchasing power. The net effect of the loss of purchasing power is that the pace of scientific advances has slowed greatly. The reviewers have become more conservative and are demanding more evidence of the eventual success of the proposed theory prior to approving funding and they are rejecting ideas that once would have been viewed more favorably Only 1 in 10 first submitted grants get funded Young researchers are affected as they receive 25 percent of the R01 grants down from 29% in 1990 Average age of the first time R01 recipient is now 43, up from 39 in 1990. Here we clearly see that the researcher has the challenge of staying abreast of the latest research and competing more heavily for the very important R01 NIH grants. Being able to conduct their research more effectively and thoroughly is essential to them being able to compete for important grants. The NIH established the Clinical and Translational Science Awards to achieve a number of goals. The objective is to establish a consortium of research institutions to achieve the following objectives Provide enriched environments to educate and develop the next generation of researchers training in the complexities of translating research discoveries into clinical trials Design new and improved clinical research informatics tools for analyzing research data and managing clinical trials; Support outreach to underserved populations, local community and advocacy organizations, and healthcare providers; Assemble interdisciplinary teams that cover the complete spectrum of research—biology, clinical medicine, dentistry, nursing, pharmacy, biomedical engineering, and genomics; and Forge new partnerships with private and public health care organizations, including pharmaceutical companies, the Veterans Administration hospitals, health maintenance organizations, as well as state health agencies. Currently, the consortium comprises 24 academic health centers in 18 states (including 12 centers added in September 2007). When fully implemented in 2012, approximately 60 institutions will be linked together to energize the discipline of clinical and translational science. In order to compete for these new grants the applying institution must demonstrate their capability to fulfill the CTSA guidelines. Again there is more pressure on the institution and the research community to compete for scarce resources. Bioinformatics is another emerging trend as the research institutions are embracing this new area of study and it fits in with the NIH CTSA program. Considering all of these developments it is becoming very apparent that the research institutions will need to procure research tools that will help their user community to be more effective and efficient in their research.
- STM publishers have a variety pof different product areas, services etc. Some more some less depending on the type of publisher (commercial publisher, society publisher Such as Journals Books Proceedings Continuous education And – if it is a society based publisher membership services funding of research These services and products have developed over time and are mostly „standalone“ services and offerings. They represent the state of the art of research - for example on the biomedical area.
- If we look at it from the perspective of the consumer of STM product – meaning the researcher is at the same time consumer and producer As an author of journal articles, books etc. Member of a society, employee of a academic institution which is licensing journals etc. Of course this is not news to us but just vizualize again that start and endpoint is always the expert / reseacher / user Are the products and services organized in the way to reflect this or taking advantage of the invovlement of the potential user /expert author? The answer is no – it is not organized today focusing on expert By looking at the articles books etc. From the author perspective, it also becomes obvious that the STM products are not only articles but that by aggregating the information on the expert level gives the publisher a very powerful product - not only being able to offer knowledge in bits in pieces - but being able to provide insights - who is the best collaborator / expert for a specific question taking into account not single articles but the comprehensive work of an expert - allow the analysis of networks based on data items like co-authorship - provide institutions insights about their available knwoledge by aggregating the profiles of all users belonging to one institution
- You can also look at the STM products and services as a process, where a researchers starts to work on a certain topic, he is receiving funding for his research, is using STM products like journal articles to stay uptodate, serves as peer reviewer since his research is qualifiying him for certain areas, he is participating in conferences as a visitor, he is presenting at conferences to present his research findings and he finally publishs his research results and the whole cycle starts again and again. But this is focusing on a SINGLE researcher, in reality this is happenign VERY DIFFERENT – not a single researcher is going through this process, but one researcher with a group of colleagues, with collaborators on paper, experts he is meeting at conferences etc. – it is all about collaboration So why not support that researchers are working together with social networkign platforms which are actually reflecting that advances in science are a collaborative effort?