Online information 2010_track_two_final_corrected


Published on

Must Libraries Fully Engage with Web 2.0 Without Discernment? The Science Business Case
According some professional magazines, Scientists are leader of the Web 2.0 pack. Many online services appeared on the market for a few years and these technologies would reshape the future of research and science communication. But, at the time being, it is not obvious whether Scientists have really embraced these new services on their daily routine, as the adoption seems to be low. The question for science libraries is to know f they have to invest on wikis and other blogs. How can they choose appropriate tools among dozens of web 2.0's applications? Is it so critical to maintain a presence on social networks? Libraries strategy must consider real impact of web 2.0 in their specific environment before to engage their energy and time.

Published in: Technology
  • 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

No notes for slide
  • Today, I would like to talk about what people called the Science 2.O
  • Scientists have a problem with the web 2.0!! They heard a lot of things in the past years, they read a lot of articles in the medias saying that they…
  • And it’s clear that web 2.0 has completely invaded our private environement but as well our professional environnement You’will see in this confused picture some tools or services that you are probably using from time to time or maybe that you know just by name Most of them have appeared on the market in the last 3-4 years Just to say also that some of them have disappeared in the meantime
  • There is no doubt that science information is living deep changes, wome would say a revolution, since a few years A kind of acceleration, in terms of volume ands in term of accessibility, and web 2.0 contributes clearly to this success So, at the surface, we could think that Science 2.0 is really a success as these 2.0 tools are a huge success on the private sphere
  • Let’s start, and let’s forget big speeches of vendors and magazines Let’s have a look at facts and figures
  • I have not enough time to explain all the details but Globally what you can see here is that we are very far from a success Are media telling the truth? FaceBook: (2009) 350 millions ; blogs: Estimated at 126 millions (2009), means 7% of Internet users
  • Try to find out how many scientists are active on twitter? A very few, nothing I don’t want to talk about poor experiences in virtual worlds, in wikis, etc.
  • Let’s forget the statistics and let’s have a look at different studies: you will find dozens of serious studies talking about that. Globally, all of them are saying that the adoption is very very low or near L et’s f o rget t he s ta t ist i c s and let’s h a v e a loo k at d i ffe r en t st u d ies: y ou wi l l f i nd doz e ns of ser i ou s st u d ies t a lking a b o ut t hat. G lob a ll y , a l l o f t h e m a re say i ng tha t the a d optio n i s very v e ry lo w or ne ar ze ro
  • And at last, if you are listening the scientists themselves. It is quite the same thing
  • What does that mean? What are the reasons why science 2.O is failing?
  • Media tend to over-estimate the real impact of these services on the business
  • Just in a few words, because it is not the purpose of my presentation I have the impression that Science 2.0 doesn’t correspond to the science culture that we are living again the famous debate of « « little science » Vs « big science » ; the conflict betwwen journalism and communication and the real science Some would say it is doing science versus talking about science
  • Probably also because science culture is rather conservative high impact journals and congress are still the place to be for senior scientists
  • We have also to notice that the market is especially confused as I told you before in the first slides Science 2.0 knows probably the best and the worst of the web The best is BioMedExperts for instance, the worst
  • Anyway what you have to know or to keep in mind always is that free services are never completely free , at least because of the side costs
  • So that means that USING paid tools you save the money of your organization
  • You know probably this song of Iggy Pop What I mean
  • The information obesity problem is not new, by far Scientists are already completely overloaded by the information, the flow of information and the web 2.0 doesn’t bring intelligent tools to deal with this information I can be wrong but I don’t think that Web 2.0 will solve this big issue, maybe Web 3.0 will
  • The second question was what is our position regarding these free tools? Should we engage our services into these tools without any discernement?
  • The key is to find the right balance
  • 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
  • Let’s forget medias and experts and build your own expertise meeting your clients
  • Online information 2010_track_two_final_corrected

    1. 1. Is Web 2.0 really adopted by Scientist? H. Basset (FR) – Online Information – London, 2010
    2. 2. <ul><li>Scientists are ” Leaders of the Web 2.0 pack ” (Source 1) </li></ul><ul><li>“ around 33% of scientists are now using blogs for writing, reading or as a lab notebook” (Source 2) </li></ul><ul><li>“ Social applications will have a major influence on the future of research “ </li></ul><ul><li>(Source 3) </li></ul><ul><li>Open Access is the big story in STM (Source 4) </li></ul>Medias
    3. 3. Life Science 2.0 <ul><ul><li>Mashups </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Delicious, NetVibes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Twitter </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cloud computing: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Google Docs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lab Notebooks </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Slideshare, FlickR </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Google Knol </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Podcast Nature </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Article 2.0 </li></ul></ul>
    4. 4. <ul><li>65 millions Patents available free online </li></ul><ul><li>96% of the 25,000 STM journals are available online , 1.5 million articles a year (Source 6) </li></ul><ul><li>20% of Science articles are free of charge (source7) </li></ul><ul><li>89% of Scientists think that Open Access is good for Science (Source 8) </li></ul>
    5. 5. <ul><li>Q1 </li></ul><ul><li>Is Web 2.0 </li></ul><ul><li>Really adopted </li></ul><ul><li>By Scientists ? </li></ul>
    6. 6. <ul><ul><li>BioMedExperts : 300,000 members (2010) only 20% of Scientists present in PubMed = 0.08% of Facebook </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>15% of Scientists “ who regular read blogs “ (Source 6) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>126 millions of blogs: 20,000 of which consider themselves to be science related (according Technorati 2008) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>0.01% of blogs WW are science-oriented </li></ul></ul></ul>Facts: a success, really?
    7. 7. <ul><li>Micro-Blogging : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>TWITTER: 6 millions of users Vs 600 scientists , “ you’re still talking about a very small percentage of the tens of millions of working scientists in the world “. (Source 9) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Virtual worlds : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Second Nature : has only 136 members (2010) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>NPG decide to put his eulican island in maintenance </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Bookmarking: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>2Collab/CiteUlike/Connotea : low success (Vs Delicious) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Wikis : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>SciTopics: mostly unknown (Vs Wikipedia) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>RSS feeds: under-used by companies </li></ul>
    8. 8. Studies <ul><li>BUT, when given the option, most authors are not yet choosing to publish their research articles under an OA model . Related by KnowledgeSpeak </li></ul><ul><li>There are vast differences (…) from the academic libraries that have been quick to embrace the potential of social network sites, to the corporate sector, which has been more circumspect . (Source 10) </li></ul><ul><li>“ Use of such services has not yet become widespread across the research community (Source 11) </li></ul><ul><li>young scientists: 56 % of early career researchers use social networking site personally but only 13% professionnaly . (Source 15) </li></ul><ul><li>The results show the low participation of scientists in Web 2.0 and how most of these indicators, except for downloads and visits, are poorly consolidated metrics . (Source 12) </li></ul>
    9. 9. Scientists <ul><li>However, they are still but a small sample of the research sphere. The vast majority of scientists are not yet hooked up on these networks (Source 13) </li></ul><ul><li>All of these prove that web 2.0 has been talked about many times in the context of science . Has it worked? With the exception of blogs, sadly I’m inclined to say no ” concludes Azmanam in Chemistry Blog . </li></ul><ul><li>If you spend much time in the science blogosphere, everyone seems to be talking about these great tools and the changes they’re making in research science . But 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  » (Source 14) </li></ul><ul><li>Noone actually reads the scientific content on a blog ” This is a sad conclusion given by a young scientist after 6 months of blogging his research notes… </li></ul><ul><li>Unfortunately there are few signs that academics are really embracing the new opportunities offered by Web 2.0 (Source 16) </li></ul>
    10. 10. <ul><li>Why </li></ul><ul><li>Science 2.0 </li></ul><ul><li>Is </li></ul><ul><li>failing ? </li></ul>
    11. 11. Web 2.0: drawbacks <ul><li>Social influence : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Media/experts/Conference/magazine: </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Instability </li></ul><ul><li>Geographical differenciation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Asia blogs more than US who tweets more than Europe who is active on SN </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>American libraries lead significantly in the adoption of Web 2.0 applications </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Frustrations </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Only 3% of bloggers themsleves comment other blogs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>71% of Tweets get « no reaction» </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Science 2.0 is not always free </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Weaknesses : privacy, confidentiality, inconsistency (Scholar Google), side-costs, IT rules, etc. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>as a result: academic libraries have been quick to embrace, while corporate sector has been more circumspect </li></ul></ul>The most « hyped » application Diaspora? Mobile Twitter Second Life Facebook 2011? 2010 2009 2008 2007
    12. 12. Services are inappropriate to the Scientist culture (Source 14) <ul><ul><li>Authors of blogs or contributions are rarely prominent researchers : those prefer classic channels (books, prestigious journals, congresses) which are more incentive, more lucrative, more prestigious </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Science Blogs are only read by other Science bloggers </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Flaws of Blogs: « me to » (too much with the same information) + « I do » (too ego-centered) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>science blogs are too heterogeneous to be understood as an emerging genre of science communication (Source 17) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>« Scientists don’t find collaborators by chatting online with strangers » </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Scientists use social networks to find a job (LinkedIn) not to chat with friends </li></ul></ul></ul>
    13. 13. Scientists are « conservative » <ul><ul><ul><li>Peer-reviewed journals = Science diffusion </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Impact Factor still dominates </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Coffee at Congress = first place for networking </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>« The difficulty lies, not in new ideas, but in escaping old ones  » </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>JM Keynes </li></ul></ul>
    14. 14. A confused market <ul><li>Too many services for a same purpose </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Facebook or LinkedIn? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Connotea or delicious? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Mendeley or RefWoks? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Etc. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Where is the killer application? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Science 2.0 is not so « free » </li></ul><ul><ul><li>« Science 2.0 » is registered </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Most of services come from STM publishers </li></ul></ul>
    15. 15. Free services Vs Paid tools
    16. 16. Paid tools <ul><li>PLAIN BENEFITS of PAID TOOLS </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Are trusted, consistent, extensive and up-to-date </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Are compliant with internal policies (IT, Confidentiality, etc.) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Improve Efficiency, gives a competitive advantage (unique information) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Free services are never completely free of charge : Side costs are hidden (time to collect, to analyze, risks, etc.) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Save time! </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Collecting meaningful data from Google Scholar takes 30 as much time as collecting data from Web of Science (Source 18) </li></ul>
    17. 17. Paid tools <ul><li>SUBJECTIVES BENEFITS </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Researchers appreciate their Company financial efforts: it gives them the impression to get a privilege </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>99% of surveyed people think that paid tools have a positive impact on Research productivity Martin Akel & Associates. The role of paid R&D information tools in Helping achieve C-Suite objectives. White paper, to be released Sept.-Oct. 2010 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>CC: You SAVE your MONEY! </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>“ paid search is 325% more productive than the free web ” Martin Akel & Associates. FREE Web search Vs. PAID search tools. White paper, 2007 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>“ Investing in paid tools saves 17% in the average Research budget “ </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Martin Akel & Associates. The role of paid R&D information tools in Helping achieve C-Suite objectives. White paper, to be released Sept.-Oct. 2010 </li></ul></ul></ul>
    18. 18. Do Scientists need Web 2.O? <ul><li>The man thinks </li></ul><ul><li>The horse thinks </li></ul><ul><li>The sheep thinks </li></ul><ul><li>The cow thinks </li></ul><ul><li>The dog thinks </li></ul><ul><li>The fish doesn’t think </li></ul><ul><li>[The fish is mute, expressionless] </li></ul><ul><li>The fish doesn’t think because the fish knows everything Iggy Pop, This is a film, Arizona Dream soundtrack, E. Kusturica, 1993. </li></ul><ul><li>The librarian likes Web 2.0 </li></ul><ul><li>The Student likes Web 2.0 </li></ul><ul><li>The Journalist likes Web 2.0 </li></ul><ul><li>The Teacher likes Web 2.0 </li></ul><ul><li>The Scientist doesn’t like Web 2.0 because he gets everything </li></ul>
    19. 19. <ul><li>What a glut of books! Who can read them? As already, we shall have a vast Chaos and confusion of Books, we are oppressed with them, our eyes ache with reading, our fingers with turning. For my part I am one of the number–one of the many–I do not deny it… Robert Burton, 1621 </li></ul><ul><li>90% of scientists are satisfied with their information flow </li></ul><ul><li>They have more information than they can absorb </li></ul><ul><li>Web 2.0 does not bring qualitative information </li></ul><ul><li>All they need is: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Intelligent information </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Tools to analyse daily flow of information </li></ul></ul>
    20. 20. <ul><li>Q2 </li></ul><ul><li>Science Librarians : </li></ul><ul><li>What to do </li></ul><ul><li>With </li></ul><ul><li>Web 2.0? </li></ul>
    21. 21. What about Science Librarians?! <ul><li>Which attitude? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>« the challenge for libraries is to find ways to embrace social networks sites and technologies without killing their potential » D. Stuart, Research Information, 2010 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>New role of the Info Scientist: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The Info consultant </li></ul></ul>
    22. 22. R1: Choose the right train Students Confirmed scientists USA Europe Public institutions Companies Junior scientists
    23. 23. R2: Estimate your Library Investment <ul><li>Time </li></ul>Cost Wiki Portal Social Network (Skills)
    24. 24. Conclusions
    25. 25. Is Web 2.0 Bad for Science?
    26. 26. Is Science 2.0 a revolution? ®
    27. 27. Are Librarians ennemies of Web 2.0? &quot;A library without a librarian is a reading room.&quot;– Jenny Garcia of the University of Wyoming
    28. 28. Who is the expert?
    29. 29. Thanks!!! <ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul>
    30. 30. Sources <ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li>According to Adam Bly from Science Blogs , Related by Research Trends , May 2010 </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li>V. Camlek (Springer) </li></ul><ul><li>Article 50 million: an estimate of the number of scholarly articles in existence. Jinha, Arif E. Learned Publishing , Volume 23, Number 3, July 2010 , pp. 258-263 </li></ul><ul><li>Ware, Mark and Mabe, Michael. The stm report : An overview of scientific and scholarly journals publishing. September 2009. Online: </li></ul><ul><li>Björk B-C, Welling P, Laakso M, Majlender P, Hedlund T, et al. (2010) Open Access to the Scientific Journal Literature: Situation 2009. PLoS ONE 5(6): e11273 </li></ul><ul><li>Conference on Open Access Scholarly Publishing, Aug. 2010. </li></ul><ul><li>Crotty, David. Science and Web 2.0. Talking about Science Vs. Doing Science. Posted on Feb. 8, 2010. </li></ul><ul><li>Stuart, David. Librarians and researchers network online. Research Information, August/September , 2010, pp. 12-13. </li></ul><ul><li>Peer review: a guide for researchers. White paper by the Research Information Network, March 2010. Available online: </li></ul><ul><li>Álvaro Cabezas-Clavijo and Daniel Torres-Salinas. Indicadores de uso y participación en las revistas científicas 2.0: el caso de PLoS One. Profesional de la Informacion , Volume 19, Issue 4, 1 July 2010, Pages 431-434 </li></ul><ul><li>David Bradley, Why Scientists are waiting for Web 3.0? </li></ul><ul><li>Crotty, David. Why Web 2.O is failing in Biology. Bench Marks blog, online, Feb. 2008: </li></ul><ul><li>Hugget, Sarah. Social networking in academia. Research Trends, March 2010 </li></ul><ul><li>Stuart, David. Web 2.0 fails to excite today’s researchers. Research Information, October/November 2009. pp. 16-1 </li></ul><ul><li>Kouper, Inma. Science blogs and public engagement with science: practices, challenges, and opportunities. Journal of Science Communication . 2010, Vol. 9, Issue 1: ttp:// </li></ul><ul><li>Meho, L. I. and Yang, K. Impact of data sources on Citation cunts and ranking for LIS faculty: Web of Science Versus Scopus and Google Scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology , Vol.58, N°13, Nov. 2007, pp. 2105-2125 </li></ul>
    31. 31. Hervé BASSET: Presentation <ul><li>I have got a Master degree in Library and Information Science (Science University, Marseille). </li></ul><ul><li>I currently hold the position of Librarian at a big pharmaceutical company and my responsibilities include the technical coordination of different R&D libraries in Europe and in the USA. </li></ul><ul><li>Prior to joining my current company, I worked for 8 years as the Head of a Science Library in a private university (Angers, FR). </li></ul><ul><li>I’m Eurocertified as Information Manager </li></ul><ul><li>Special expertise: analysis of online services, such as Bibliographical databases, E-journals platforms, Knowledge-oriented intranet with SharePoint, etc. </li></ul><ul><li>My current interest focuses on monitoring technologies and the application of Web 2.0 to Science business. </li></ul>
    32. 32. <ul><li>Publications: </li></ul><ul><li>Communications: </li></ul><ul><li>Teaching: </li></ul><ul><li>Social Presence: </li></ul>