The document explores the adoption of Web 2.0 technologies by scientists, revealing that while some tools like blogs have seen usage, overall engagement remains low, with many scientists expressing skepticism towards these platforms. It emphasizes a clear divide between the rapid uptake of social media in academic libraries and the more cautious approach in the corporate sector, highlighting that 90% of scientists feel satisfied with existing information flows and do not see Web 2.0 as adding significant value. The conclusion suggests that Web 2.0 has not revolutionized scientific communication as expected, with many scientists preferring traditional methods of information sharing and collaboration.

1. Is Web 2.0 really adopted by Scientist? H. Basset (FR) – Online Information – London, 2010

2. Scientists are ” Leaders of the Web 2.0 pack ” (Source 1) “ around 33% of scientists are now using blogs for writing, reading or as a lab notebook” (Source 2) “ Social applications will have a major influence on the future of research “ (Source 3) Open Access is the big story in STM (Source 4) Medias

3. Life Science 2.0 Mashups Delicious, NetVibes Twitter Cloud computing: Google Docs Lab Notebooks Slideshare, FlickR Google Knol Podcast Nature Article 2.0

4. 65 millions Patents available free online 96% of the 25,000 STM journals are available online , 1.5 million articles a year (Source 6) 20% of Science articles are free of charge (source7) 89% of Scientists think that Open Access is good for Science (Source 8)

5. Q1 Is Web 2.0 Really adopted By Scientists ?

6. BioMedExperts : 300,000 members (2010) only 20% of Scientists present in PubMed = 0.08% of Facebook 15% of Scientists “ who regular read blogs “ (Source 6) 126 millions of blogs: 20,000 of which consider themselves to be science related (according Technorati 2008) 0.01% of blogs WW are science-oriented Facts: a success, really?

7. Micro-Blogging : 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) Virtual worlds : Second Nature : has only 136 members (2010) NPG decide to put his eulican island in maintenance Bookmarking: 2Collab/CiteUlike/Connotea : low success (Vs Delicious) Wikis : SciTopics: mostly unknown (Vs Wikipedia) RSS feeds: under-used by companies

8. Studies BUT, when given the option, most authors are not yet choosing to publish their research articles under an OA model . Related by KnowledgeSpeak 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) “ Use of such services has not yet become widespread across the research community (Source 11) young scientists: 56 % of early career researchers use social networking site personally but only 13% professionnaly . (Source 15) 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)

9. Scientists 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) 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 . 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) 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… Unfortunately there are few signs that academics are really embracing the new opportunities offered by Web 2.0 (Source 16)

10. Why Science 2.0 Is failing ?

11. Web 2.0: drawbacks Social influence : Media/experts/Conference/magazine: Instability Geographical differenciation Asia blogs more than US who tweets more than Europe who is active on SN American libraries lead significantly in the adoption of Web 2.0 applications Frustrations Only 3% of bloggers themsleves comment other blogs 71% of Tweets get « no reaction» Science 2.0 is not always free Weaknesses : privacy, confidentiality, inconsistency (Scholar Google), side-costs, IT rules, etc. as a result: academic libraries have been quick to embrace, while corporate sector has been more circumspect The most « hyped » application Diaspora? Mobile Twitter Second Life Facebook 2011? 2010 2009 2008 2007

12. Services are inappropriate to the Scientist culture (Source 14) 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 Science Blogs are only read by other Science bloggers Flaws of Blogs: « me to » (too much with the same information) + « I do » (too ego-centered) science blogs are too heterogeneous to be understood as an emerging genre of science communication (Source 17) « Scientists don’t find collaborators by chatting online with strangers » Scientists use social networks to find a job (LinkedIn) not to chat with friends

13. Scientists are « conservative » Peer-reviewed journals = Science diffusion Impact Factor still dominates Coffee at Congress = first place for networking « The difficulty lies, not in new ideas, but in escaping old ones » JM Keynes

14. A confused market Too many services for a same purpose Facebook or LinkedIn? Connotea or delicious? Mendeley or RefWoks? Etc. Where is the killer application? Science 2.0 is not so « free » « Science 2.0 » is registered Most of services come from STM publishers

15. Free services Vs Paid tools

16. Paid tools PLAIN BENEFITS of PAID TOOLS Are trusted, consistent, extensive and up-to-date Are compliant with internal policies (IT, Confidentiality, etc.) Improve Efficiency, gives a competitive advantage (unique information) Free services are never completely free of charge : Side costs are hidden (time to collect, to analyze, risks, etc.) Save time! Collecting meaningful data from Google Scholar takes 30 as much time as collecting data from Web of Science (Source 18)

17. Paid tools SUBJECTIVES BENEFITS Researchers appreciate their Company financial efforts: it gives them the impression to get a privilege 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 CC: You SAVE your MONEY! “ paid search is 325% more productive than the free web ” Martin Akel & Associates. FREE Web search Vs. PAID search tools. White paper, 2007 “ Investing in paid tools saves 17% in the average Research budget “ 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

18. Do Scientists need Web 2.O? The man thinks The horse thinks The sheep thinks The cow thinks The dog thinks The fish doesn’t think [The fish is mute, expressionless] The fish doesn’t think because the fish knows everything Iggy Pop, This is a film, Arizona Dream soundtrack, E. Kusturica, 1993. The librarian likes Web 2.0 The Student likes Web 2.0 The Journalist likes Web 2.0 The Teacher likes Web 2.0 The Scientist doesn’t like Web 2.0 because he gets everything

19. 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 90% of scientists are satisfied with their information flow They have more information than they can absorb Web 2.0 does not bring qualitative information All they need is: Intelligent information Tools to analyse daily flow of information

20. Q2 Science Librarians : What to do With Web 2.0?

21. 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

22. R1: Choose the right train Students Confirmed scientists USA Europe Public institutions Companies Junior scientists

23. R2: Estimate your Library Investment Time Cost Wiki Portal Social Network (Skills)

24. Conclusions

25. Is Web 2.0 Bad for Science?

26. Is Science 2.0 a revolution? ®

27. Are Librarians ennemies of Web 2.0? "A library without a librarian is a reading room."– Jenny Garcia of the University of Wyoming

28. Who is the expert?

29. Thanks!!! [email_address] www.linkedin.com/in/hervebasset

30. Sources http://www.iwr.co.uk/information-world-review/comment/2231856/leaders-web-pack According to Adam Bly from Science Blogs , Related by Research Trends , May 2010 http://www.iwr.co.uk/information-world-review/features/2231892/applicance-science-web V. Camlek (Springer) http://www.online-information.co.uk/online08/files/conferencing/17/Victor%20Camlek_Wed_STM.pdf 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 Ware, Mark and Mabe, Michael. The stm report : An overview of scientific and scholarly journals publishing. September 2009. Online: http://www.stm-assoc.org 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 Conference on Open Access Scholarly Publishing, Aug. 2010. http://edoc.mpg.de/493109 Crotty, David. Science and Web 2.0. Talking about Science Vs. Doing Science. Posted on Feb. 8, 2010. http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2010/02/08 Stuart, David. Librarians and researchers network online. Research Information, August/September , 2010, pp. 12-13. http://www.researchinformation.info/features/feature.php?feature_id=279 Peer review: a guide for researchers. White paper by the Research Information Network, March 2010. Available online: http://www.rin.ac.uk/node/519 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 David Bradley, Why Scientists are waiting for Web 3.0? http://euroscientist.com/2010/09/why-scientists-are-waiting-for-web-3-0/ Crotty, David. Why Web 2.O is failing in Biology. Bench Marks blog, online, Feb. 2008: http://www.cshblogs.org/cshprotocols/2008/02/14/why-web-20-is-failing-in-biology/ Hugget, Sarah. Social networking in academia. Research Trends, March 2010 Stuart, David. Web 2.0 fails to excite today’s researchers. Research Information, October/November 2009. pp. 16-1 Kouper, Inma. Science blogs and public engagement with science: practices, challenges, and opportunities. Journal of Science Communication . 2010, Vol. 9, Issue 1: ttp://jcom.sissa.it/archive/09/01/Jcom0901%282010%29A02 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

31. Hervé BASSET: Presentation I have got a Master degree in Library and Information Science (Science University, Marseille). 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. Prior to joining my current company, I worked for 8 years as the Head of a Science Library in a private university (Angers, FR). I’m Eurocertified as Information Manager Special expertise: analysis of online services, such as Bibliographical databases, E-journals platforms, Knowledge-oriented intranet with SharePoint, etc. My current interest focuses on monitoring technologies and the application of Web 2.0 to Science business.

32. Publications: Communications: Teaching: Social Presence: