Online information 2010_european_theater_final

Uploaded on

Online information London ADBS 2010

Online information London ADBS 2010

More in: Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads


Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds



Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

    No notes for slide
  • Picture of the web 2.0 At a first glance, it appears as a good success
  • a very small portion of ten millions of working scientists
  • If I would have a recommandation, if I may give an advise to someone I would say: be careful before to invest time and money in web 2.O tools The first thing to do is to survey your people, to know where your users are Don’t forget that all these services can disappear as faster as they appeared


  • 1. Life Science 2.0: Market & Medias
    • MEDIAS
    • Scientists are ” Leaders of the Web 2.0 pack ”
    • Social applications will have a major influence on the future of research
    • 33% of scientists are now using blogs
  • 2. Science 2.0: a success, really?
    • Facts: Basis=10 millions of Scientists WW
      • SN: BioMedExperts : 300,000 (less than 1% of FaceBook)
      • Blogs: only 20,000 are « Science » (0.01% of blogs WW)
      • Twitter: estimation of 600 Scientwists (6 millions)
    • What Scientists say:
      • when you (…) speak with the majority of scientists , you find out that they don’t have much interest in using many of these new technologies  » D. Crotty
      • Noone actually reads the scientific content on a blog
      • The vast majority of scientists are not yet hooked up on these networks
  • 3. Why Science 2.O is failing?
    • A confused market
        • Too much tools for a same purpose: where is the killer application?
    • Are not appropriate to the Science Culture
        • Peer-reviewed journals and Congress are still the models
    • Scientists do not need web 2.0
        • 90% are satisfied with their information workflow
        • They have more information than they can absorb and keep up with
        • Web 2.0 does not bring qualitative information
    • As a result, very low adoption
  • 4. What about Science Librarians?!
    • Which attitude?
      • « the challenge for libraries is to find ways to embrace social networks sites and technologies without killing their potential » D. Stuart, Research Information, 2010
    • New role of the Info Scientist:
      • The Info consultant
  • 5. Choose the right train (where your users are) Students Confirmed scientists USA Europe Public institutions Companies Junior scientists