T H E  B R A V E  N E W  W O R L D  O F  S C I E N T I F I C  P U B L I S H I N G
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

T H E B R A V E N E W W O R L D O F S C I E N T I F I C P U B L I S H I N G

on

  • 788 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
788
Views on SlideShare
783
Embed Views
5

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
7
Comments
0

1 Embed 5

http://www.slideshare.net 5

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

T H E  B R A V E  N E W  W O R L D  O F  S C I E N T I F I C  P U B L I S H I N G T H E B R A V E N E W W O R L D O F S C I E N T I F I C P U B L I S H I N G Presentation Transcript

  • Life Science 2.0: The Brave New World of Scientific Publishing © 2008 BioInformatics, LLC and PJA
  • Life Science 2.0: The Brave New World of Scientific Publishing Executive Summary and Topline Findings Study Parameters and Methodology STUDY GOAL: DETERMINE HOW SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL USAGE IS EVOLVING ONLINE AND THE ROLE OF SOCIAL MEDIA IN ACCELERATING THIS SHIFT This report is based on an online survey conducted by BioInformatics, LLC in conjunction with PJA Advertising + Marketing. To create the study, a 31-question online survey was fielded to members of The Science Advisory Board. With more than 37,000 members, The Science Advisory Board is one of the most established professional social networks for scientists on the Web. In order to reduce the potential for bias, the survey was also fielded to randomly selected life scientists not registered with The Science Advisory Board. 1,557 responses were collected during May 2008. To provide additional trending detail, we included several tracking questions from our first joint survey, “The New Collaboration: Social Media and the Life Science Opportunity,” published in November 2007. Survey Participants: Registered Members of Survey Participants by Region The Science Advisory Board and Randomly Selected Scientists North America 49% Europe 34% Randomly Selected 30% Asia 11% Australasia/Pacific 4% 70% The Science Advisory Board (SAB) Central/South America 2% Africa 1% (n=1,557) (n=1,557) © 2008 BioInformatics, LLC and PJA Page 2 of 14
  • Life Science 2.0: The Brave New World of Scientific Publishing Executive Summary and Topline Findings Topline Findings Selected Tracking Questions from Wave 1 (11/07) 1. The influence of traditional media as a trusted information source is decreasing. 2. Social media usage has increased, but the amount of time spent on these tools has decreased slightly. 3. Social media tools continue to broaden scientists’ perspective on problems. New Findings (6/08) 1. Scientists are becoming more informed about recent Web 2.0 tools for social collaboration but their use doesn’t yet match their awareness. 2. New Web 2.0 and Collaboration tools are becoming increasingly valuable to today’s researcher. 3. Awareness of some new information sources is higher than traditional ones. 4. Scientists remain ambivalent about whether services like Google Scholar are an infringement of copyright laws. 5. As their awareness of Web 2.0 social media increases, distinct generational differences in respondents’ use of these tools is emerging. © 2008 BioInformatics, LLC and PJA Page 3 of 14
  • Life Science 2.0: The Brave New World of Scientific Publishing Executive Summary and Topline Findings Analysis: Tapping the social media opportunity in scientific publishing Scientific discovery always has been built on collaboration and access to past research, which makes journals essential to the advancement of both basic and applied research. Communicating via journals facilitates collaboration, helps avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, and guides the pursuit of more productive lines of inquiry. Yet the price of traditional journals – which includes fixed costs for staffing, production, and delivery – continues to rise in excess of the rate of infla- tion in most countries. This reality has accelerated the birth of new Web 2.0 publishing models online. For many scientists, the adoption of Web 2.0 practices began with online editions of print-based research articles, either on journals’ sites or via search engines such as PubMed. More recently, however, traditional subscription-based journals are seeing competition from fully Web-based, “open- access” journals – free journals not subject to the traditional peer review process – such as Molecular Systems Biology an offshoot of Nature. Why do new open-access journals pose a challenge to publishers? within a year of publication – could cause great disruption to the viability of traditional scientific publishing financial models. throughout the world. of control over what is published and what is not. competitors not only divert readers, they also divert potential advertisers anxious to reach specific groups of scientists and clinicians with targeted messages. Initial concern in the scientific community about the quality of open access journals has quickly dissipated given their functionality to instantly search current and past scientific data. As the landscape in which science dissemination takes place continues to evolve, surveys like this one indicate that providers of this information must look at new business models and practices in order to survive. Adopting better social media practices, we feel, is key to this adaptation. © 2008 BioInformatics, LLC and PJA Page 4 of 14
  • Life Science 2.0: The Brave New World of Scientific Publishing Executive Summary and Topline Findings TRACKING UPDATE: HOW SOCIAL MEDIA USE HAS CHANGED SINCE 2007 To gauge how social media and general online usage patterns are changing over time, we repeated several questions from the first wave of research (November 2007). Three key findings are: 1. The influence of traditional media as a trusted information source for purchasing decisions is decreasing. Conversely, respondents’ trust in new online media has increased. Question: What do you consider to be the THREE most trusted information sources for your purchasing decisions? 61% Company Web sites 72% 26% Printed catalogs or buyer’s guides 44% 30% Content aggregators 35% Online retailers such as 29% VWR and Fisher Scientific 28% 30% 2008 User-generated content 27% 2007 Printed trade magazines 27% 25% Editorial Web sites 25% 19% Third party online portals 25% 19% None of the above 3% 3% (2008 n=1,422; 2007 n=1,362) © 2008 BioInformatics, LLC and PJA Page 5 of 14
  • Life Science 2.0: The Brave New World of Scientific Publishing Executive Summary and Topline Findings TRACKING UPDATE: HOW SOCIAL MEDIA USE HAS CHANGED SINCE 2007 2. While use of social media tools has increased overall, the amount of time spent on these tools has decreased slightly from Wave I (November 2007). Although intensity of usage has fallen off slightly since late 2007, between 9 and 17 percent of scientists now spend up to two hours per week using the most popular social media tools. Question: On average, for each type of social media you use professionally, how many hours do you spend per week using it? Less than 30 minutes 1 to 2 2 to 4 More than Total 30 minutes to 1 hour hours hours 4 hours Respondents Discussion groups/message boards 57% 27% 12% 3% 1% 722 Online communities/social networking sites 59% 27% 9% 3% 2% 394 Content aggregators/portals/mashups 44% 31% 16% 5% 5% 326 Blogs 60% 27% 11% 2% 0% 283 Wikis/social bookmarking 55% 30% 10% 2% 2% 231 Podcasts/audiocasts 53% 27% 17% 2% 1% 228 Video content 61% 26% 10% 3% 0% 166 Widgets 56% 22% 12% 7% 2% 96 2008 Results © 2008 BioInformatics, LLC and PJA Page 6 of 14
  • Life Science 2.0: The Brave New World of Scientific Publishing Executive Summary and Topline Findings TRACKING UPDATE: HOW SOCIAL MEDIA USE HAS CHANGED SINCE 2007 3. Social media tools continue to broaden scientists’ perspective on problems. Although their influence on direct decision-making has weakened since our first wave of research, scientists who believe social media has in some way changed the decision-making process continue to see value in social media tools to discover more problem-solving options, to provide faster access to trends and to make inquiries in a global rather than regional or local context. Question: How have social media tools changed the nature of your decision-making process? 68% Discover more options to solve a problem 71% 56% Faster access to news, research, and trend information 57% 34% Participate in active dialogue with colleagues and competitors worldwide 35% 2008 2007 38% Probe more deeply into a solution than dealing with a vendor 37% (2008 n=838; 2007 n=1,001) 41% No change 26% (2008 n=1,416 2007 n=1,361) © 2008 BioInformatics, LLC and PJA Page 7 of 14
  • Life Science 2.0: The Brave New World of Scientific Publishing Executive Summary and Topline Findings WAVE 2 FINDINGS HIGHLIGHTS 1. Scientists are becoming more informed about recent Web 2.0 tools for social collaboration; but their use doesn’t yet match their awareness. Assuming that market share follows mind share, scientists will be using more of new tools such as ScholarOne and Biomedexperts in the near future. Question: Which of the following Web-based information and research collaboration services are you aware of? Which have you used in the last 12 months? Traditional Online Tools 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% BioTechniques Protocol Guide Nature Protocols Protocol Online Cold Spring Harbor Protocols Wiley's Current Protocols Springer Protocols (Humana Press) Web 2.0/Social Collaboration The Science Advisory Board Use/Have Used Aware Of n=1,486 n=1,219 Nature Networks ScholarOne InnoCentive Scientist Solutions American Chemical Society Member Network Biomedexperts.com KnowledgeMesh © 2008 BioInformatics, LLC and PJA Page 8 of 14
  • Life Science 2.0: The Brave New World of Scientific Publishing Executive Summary and Topline Findings WAVE 2 FINDINGS HIGHLIGHTS 2. New Web 2.0 and Collaboration tools are becoming increasingly valuable to today’s researcher. Traditional online tools such as Nature Protocols and Protocols Online score high in terms of value and current usage, but more collaborative tools such as Nature Network, Scholar One, and The Science Advisory Board are gaining momentum. Question: Of the services you have used, how VALUABLE are they to your research needs? 7. Very 1. Not At All Total Traditional Online Tools Valuable 6 5 4 3 2 Valuable Respondents Mean Nature Protocols 21% 41% 27% 7% 3% 1% 0% 513 5.7 Protocol Online 23% 36% 27% 9% 3% 1% 0% 391 5.6 Wiley's Current Protocols 27% 31% 27% 11% 1% 2% <1% 269 5.6 Cold Spring Harbor Protocols 27% 30% 30% 10% 2% 2% <1% 309 5.6 BioTechniques Protocol Guide 13% 36% 35% 11% 3% 1% <1% 533 5.4 Springer Protocols (Humana Press) 14% 34% 34% 13% 3% 2% 1% 146 5.4 Web 2.0/Social Collaboration Nature Networks 15% 26% 42% 11% 5% 1% 0% 107 5.3 ScholarOne 13% 24% 33% 25% 3% 0% 2% 105 5.1 The Science Advisory Board 13% 28% 34% 15% 7% 3% 1% 754 5.1 Scientist Solutions 13% 28% 32% 16% 4% 5% 3% 76 5.0 American Chemical Society Member Network 12% 20% 34% 27% 0% 3% 3% 64 5.0 Biomedexperts.com 9% 32% 25% 17% 9% 4% 4% 53 4.9 KnowledgeMesh 4% 25% 39% 25% 0% 4% 4% 28 4.8 InnoCentive 5% 23% 30% 22% 6% 7% 6% 96 4.5 © 2008 BioInformatics, LLC and PJA Page 9 of 14
  • Life Science 2.0: The Brave New World of Scientific Publishing Executive Summary and Topline Findings WAVE 2 FINDINGS HIGHLIGHTS 3. Awareness of some new information sources is higher than traditional ones. For example, more scientists are aware of the scholarly search engine Google Scholar than they are of information products provider Wolters Kluwer. Question: How familiar are you with the following free literature aggregators/online article services? 7. Very 1. Not At All Total Familiar 6 5 4 3 2 Familiar Respondents Mean PubMed 82% 11% 4% 2% 1% 0% 0% 1,543 6.7 Science Direct 47% 21% 13% 7% 3% 3% 5% 1,518 5.7 Google Scholar 36% 20% 15% 8% 6% 5% 11% 1,507 5.1 Wolters Kluwer 5% 7% 9% 9% 7% 9% 53% 1,420 2.6 © 2008 BioInformatics, LLC and PJA Page 10 of 14
  • Life Science 2.0: The Brave New World of Scientific Publishing Executive Summary and Topline Findings WAVE 2 FINDINGS HIGHLIGHTS 4. Scientists remain ambivalent about whether services like Google Scholar are an infringement of copyright laws. Nearly half of respondents neither agree nor disagree that Google Scholar infringes copyright laws. In addition, 75% of respondents find that services like Google Scholar have made finding scholarly literature extremely easy. Question: How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements? 7. Strongly 4. Neither Agree 1. Strongly Total Agree 6 5 Nor Disagree 3 2 Disagree Respondents Mean Services like Google Scholar are an infringement on copyright laws 2% 6% 7% 41% 9% 12% 22% 1,327 3.3 Services like Google Scholar make finding scholarly literature extremely easy 24% 29% 22% 19% 3% 1% 1% 1,332 5.5 Services like Google Scholar make it more difficult to identify properly 'peer-reviewed' literature 4% 13% 20% 36% 9% 10% 7% 1,329 4.1 © 2008 BioInformatics, LLC and PJA Page 11 of 14
  • Life Science 2.0: The Brave New World of Scientific Publishing Executive Summary and Topline Findings WAVE 2 FINDINGS HIGHLIGHTS 5. As their awareness of Web 2.0 and social media increases, distinct generational differences in respondents’ use of these tools is emerging. Younger scientists use social media to access objective feedback and services from multiple sources while older scientists use it to stay on top of trends and news. Older, more experienced scientists are less responsive to media overall, but are spending time on podcasts, video content and widgets and online communities/social networking. Question: What is MOST valuable about social media and its relation to your purchasing process? (choose only one) 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% Allows my lab to operate more globally 21 to 30 31 to 40 Offers the ability to participate in conversations with peers 41 to 50 51 to 55 Offers more accurate information Over 55 related to news and trends Provides access to objective feedback on products and services from multiple sources Provides information to stay ahead of the competition Other © 2008 BioInformatics, LLC and PJA Page 12 of 14
  • Life Science 2.0: The Brave New World of Scientific Publishing Executive Summary and Topline Findings Study Implications Given the high cost and even the environmental impact of a print-centric publishing model, this survey shows an increasing awareness of and appetite for not only online versions of traditional journals but for a whole new set of services in the newly emerging world of open-access research. For publishers to tap into this opportunity, we see many possible responses. Here we offer just a few: 1. Charge for the expertise you assemble. Historically, revenues from journal companies came in the form of Although it did not develop the tools in-house, Thomson Publishing re- subscription fees and advertising. Providing open access to journals cently acquired ScholarOne Inc., which provides workflow solutions for eliminates the revenue generated from subscription fees, so publishers scholarly publishers to accelerate the time to market of journals, meet- of scientific literature must find new sources. One example is paid add- ing abstracts, and conference proceedings. Tools like ScholarOne that on services: enhanced editions, services, or media tools. BioMed Central break bottlenecks in the publication process or reframe information in now offers a service called Faculty of 1000, a “next-generation literature innovative ways should draw new readers and potentially new revenue awareness tool” that highlights and reviews the most interesting papers sources, either via subscriptions or advertising fees. published in the biological sciences, based on the recommendations of a faculty of more than 2300 researcher “Faculty Members.” In her semi- 3. Make the publishing monologue a dialogue. nal 2002 work The New Culture of Desire, Melinda Davis refers to this Providing opportunities for scientists to advance their research through practice of simplifying decision-making and information consumption collaborative discussions and interactions, and offering tools for net- by looking to the guidance of higher, more established authorities as working and career development, will help to develop communities of “Yoda-Branding.” scientists which can sustain and extend the revenue models of scientific publishing houses. The more innovative the combination and use of 2. Create and monetize premium services. social media tools, the higher the odds of survival and success. An alternative to charging users subscription fees for the traditional New technologies come online every week and are being used success- journal product is to create premium services for which subscribers fully in ways not obvious to the average user. To keep up, publishers must (libraries and individuals) are willing to pay. The right combination of learn to identify and incorporate new media in order to decrease user churn journal content, user-generated content and affiliated content and tools rates and maintain revenue stability. Leveraging these tools to keep scientists represents where the market is heading, and where revenue can still be engaged along with different revenue strategies will go a long way towards generated. increasing the long-term survival of publishing houses. © 2008 BioInformatics, LLC and PJA Page 13 of 14
  • The New Collaboration: Social Media and the Life Science Opportunity READY TO LEARN MORE? PJA and BioInformatics, LLC can help you leverage your needs in the Life Science 2.0 world. To do so, please contact us at BioInformatics, LLC or PJA Advertising + Marketing © 2008 BioInformatics, LLC and PJA Page 14 of 14