Posts Tagged FriendFeed

Updates sent to Twitter, March 2010

Updates related to OA, sent to Twitter during March 2010:

Leave a Comment

Updates sent to Twitter, February 2010

Updates related to OA, sent to Twitter during February 2010:

Leave a Comment

Updates sent to Twitter, January 2010

Updates related to OA, sent to Twitter during January 2010:

Comments (2)

Updates sent to Twitter, December 2009

Updates related to OA, sent to Twitter during December 2009:

Leave a Comment

Updates sent to Twitter, November 2009

Updates related to OA, sent to Twitter during November 2009:

Leave a Comment

Article-level metrics getting attention

The very interesting publication Article-Level Metrics and the Evolution of Scientific Impact Export by Cameron Neylon and Shirley Wu (PLoS Biol 2009(Nov); 7(11): e1000242 [Epub 2009(Nov 17)][PubMed Citation]) is receiving attention on FriendFeed [here] and Topsy [here] and has been bookmarked on Connotea [here].

There’s also a related blog post, A brief analysis of commenting at BMC, PLoS, and BMJ by Shirley Wu on her blog, I was lost but now I live here, November 18, 2009. Excerpt:

One of the many issues Cameron and I touched on was the problem of commenting. Most people probably aren’t aware of the problem; after all, commenting is alive and well on the internet in most places you look! But click over to PLoS or BioMed Central (BMC) and the comment sections are the digital equivalent of rolling tumbleweed.

Comment: A major long-term benefit of OA seems likely to be the development of a much more efficient and equitable system that will make full use of the potential of the Internet to facilitate the quality-filtration of new knowledge. The available set of relevant online resources continues to evolve rapidly.

Leave a Comment

Updates sent to Twitter, October 2009

Updates related to OA, sent to Twitter during October 2009:

RT @pedromts: Should you be tweeting? Cell explains microblogging to scientists [October 29]: http://bit.ly/4ezTS

First phase of PMC Canada has been launched [October 21]: http://bit.ly/4GywWh http://bit.ly/S507j

RT @BoraZ: #PLoS Medicine: Five Years of Access and Activism [October 21]: http://tinyurl.com/yj9kabz

Who Owns Medical News? [October 21]: http://www.medpagetoday.com/Columns/16515

More about compliance with Wellcome Trust’s OA policy [October 15]: (via http://ff.im/9UfBJ)

Fwd: Open Access 101, from SPARC [October 15]: http://vimeo.com/6973160 (via http://ff.im/9Pbpd)

Translational medicine gets a new journal [Author is skeptical. Not OA. Bench to bucks?] [October 10]:  http://bit.ly/2WAnHp

Leave a Comment

Whither blogging?

Two OA-related blogs that I’ve been following for quite a long time have recently undergone major changes. One is Caveat Lector, by Dorothea Salo, who has provided many credible (and readable) commentaries about repositories.This blog is no longer actively maintained. The reason? “It’s just too big” (excerpt from “Hanging up the keyboard“, June 23, 2009). She does continue to contribute to The Book of Trogool, where “an academic librarian confronts the way computers are changing academic research“.

Another major change is that Peter Suber, as of July 1, 2009, has curtailed his blogging on the Open Access News blog. Instead (among other activities) he’s tagging news items for the OA tracking project (OATP), via Connotea.

In addition to following the items tagged for the OATP, I’ve been paying attention to OA-related news items that are mentioned on Twitter and FriendFeed. See, for example, a search on Twitter for the hashtag #openaccess and a similar search on FriendFeed for #openaccess. These  searches can yield overlapping results, because posts from members of Twitter who are also members of FriendFeed will appear at both sites.

Because of Twitter and FriendFeed, the role of blogs may be evolving. For a relevant blog post, see: W(h)ither blogging and the library blogosphere?, by Meredith Farkas (July 22, 2009).  Excerpt:

With Twitter (and even more easily in FriendFeed) you can have the sort of discussion one might have in the comments of a blog post, nearly in real time. And it’s really cool, because you can feel much closer to the people you’re conversing with since the conversation is happening so quickly and in a single space that everyone is on equal footing in.

The comments about this blog post are also interesting. An example is Comment #17, posted by Walt Crawford. Excerpt:

Twitter et al (I really dislike the term “microblogging,” but can’t win that one) have, in a way, strengthened essay-length blogging while weakening short-form blogging (maybe)–and essays have always been harder to do than quick notes.

Meanwhile, a new OA journal has been announced: Journal of Scholarly and Research Communication. The International Editorial Board includes several people who have made pioneering contributions to the OA movement. An anecdote: I learned about the existence of this new journal via a FriendFeed entry from Bill Hooker (August 2, 2009). I then found that the same news was also available via a tweet from Shana Kimball (July 10, 2009) and a FriendFeed entry from Marin Dacos (July 20, 2009). Then, I noted that the new journal is mentioned by Peter Suber in the SPARC Open Access Newsletter of August 2, 2009. It’s also been bookmarked by Heather Morrison for the OATP (July 17, 2009). Unfortunately, at present, links to individual bookmarks in Connotea aren’t functioning properly. See: Update on recent and ongoing service problems for Connotea by Ian Mulvany (Nature Network, July 29, 2009).

Why the anecdote? I first became aware of the new journal via FriendFeed. This illustrates the advantage of short-form blogging as a means to disseminate news items.

Bora Zivkovic has compared Twitter and FriendFeed in PLoS ONE on Twitter and FriendFeed (March 30, 2009). Excerpt:

Despite online debates – which one is better: Twitter or FriendFeed, sometimes serious, sometimes tongue-in-cheek – the fact is that these are two different ‘animals’ altogether. Asking one to make a choice between the two is like asking one to make a choice between e-mail and YouTube – those are two different services that do different things. Thus, they are to be used differently. …

Comment: From the perspective of the OA movement, these microblogging services provide novel opportunities for wider dissemination of  information about OA. I regard these services as useful supplements to journal articles, blogs and mailing lists.

Leave a Comment

Nature News Special on Science Journalism

Science Journalism, Nature Special 2009(June 24): “To mark the 6th World Conference of Science Journalists from 30 June-2 July 2009 in London, Nature is shining a spotlight on the profession in changing times. Science journalism faces an uncertain future. But to what extent should scientists help — or care?“.

Some of the articles indexed in this Special appear in the June 25 edition of Nature [2009; 459(7250)]. As is noted in a blog post by Maxine Clarke (Petrona, June 25, 2009), the three Essays and the Books&Arts article are free to read online for 2 weeks from the publication date.

The full text of News Feature by Geoff Brumfiel, Science journalism: Breaking the convention? (pages 1050-1) is also currently publicly accessible [PubMed Citation]. First paragraph:

Blogs and Twitter are opening up meetings to those not actually there. Does that mean too much access to science in the raw, asks Geoff Brumfiel.

Excerpts from the full text:

… During [conference] sessions, many group members posted brief comments sent from their laptops or mobile phones to the popular website Twitter, and automatically cross-posted to FriendFeed. …

…..

For denizens of the blogosphere, these sorts of concerns [that these tools will undermine meetings] seem a little out of date. “I think scientific conferences are about your sharing with the world what you’re doing,” says Francis Ouellette, a researcher at the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research in Toronto, who twittered at the Cold Spring Harbor Meeting. “Whether or not the participant you’re sharing with is in the room is somewhat inconsequential.”

Ouellette and many other active bloggers are also members of the ‘open science’ movement, which encourages researchers to make their data public as quickly as possible. [Jean-Claude] Bradley sees this openness as a powerful deterrent to anyone hoping to scoop him at a conference because anything cribbed from his talk is already out on the Internet for everyone else to view. “If someone actually does copy something, I think it would be pretty embarrassing,” he says, “it’s already there, and it’s indexed to Google.”

This article by Geoff Brumfiel has generated a good deal of interest among users of tools such as FriendFeed. See, for example, results of a search of FriendFeed for the keywords: Science journalism: Breaking the convention?

The article has also been commented upon in the blogosphere. See, for example, Nature Takes A Look At Science Journalism, Lisa Green, NextBio Blog, June 30, 2009 [FriendFeed entry]. Excerpt:

… Some scientists worry about being scooped and dislike having the information they are willing to share verbally with conference attendees taken down as notes and made available on blogs or social networks. Other scientists see these digital communication tools as the way of the future and praise the increased efficiency of information sharing.

There has also been discussion of the Nature Science Journalism Special, initiated by Maxine Clarke on Nature Opinion forum. An example is her comment, posted on June 30. Excerpt:

… The open access point does not seem to me relevant as what journalists are interested in seeing is the paper before it is published, i.e. seeing an embargoed copy in advance of publication, not the business model that is used to publish it. …

The next comment is by Björn Brembs, also posted on June 30, 2009, on the same discussion thread, End of the line for science journalism? Excerpts:

Maxine: the problem is not access to that one single paper the press release cites. The problem is access to the papers the one under embargo should have cited but didn’t. ….. Without open access, any journalistic watch-dog must remain toothless – and toothless watch-dogs certainly won’t last long. …

Leave a Comment

Exploring OA-related tags on Twitter and FriendFeed

In a previous post, I commented that I’m experimenting with Twitter as an adjunct to the two blogs that I edit (this one, and Cancer Stem Cell News). I’m also in the early stages of experimenting with FriendFeed. For more information about these two sites, see the Wikipedia entries for Twitter and FriendFeed. Twitter is “a free social networking and micro-blogging service“, while FriendFeed is a “real-time feed aggregator” that uses “your existing social network as a tool for discovering interesting information“.

A hashtag that’s used on both sites is #OpenAccess. Results of a Twitter search for #OpenAccess revealed that a number of Twitterers have added this hashtag to “tweets” that are related to OA. (Tweets are micro-blog posts on Twitter. “Tweeps” are Twitter persons, or followers of Twitterers). See: Twitter Types – what kind of Tweep are you?).

[The next two paragraphs were revised on July 16, 2009, to remove outdated text and links, and to add some new information]:

Results of a FriendFeed search for #OpenAccess also reveals posts that have been hashtagged #OpenAccess (or #openaccess). There’s some overlap between the results of a Twitter search for this hashtag, compared with the results of a FriendFeed search for the same hashtag. Such overlap will occur if the Twitterer is also a member of FriendFeed.

The social bookmarking site Delicious (see Wikipedia entry) can also be searched for the hashtag #OpenAccess. When this search was done (on July 16, 2009), only one recent bookmark tagged #openaccess was found. It was bookmarked by Keita Bando.  Another social bookmarking site is Connotea (see Wikipedia entry) . I’ve found (on July 16, 2009) only one use of a Connotea bookmark by Keita Bando on Delicious. It’s a bookmark of this shortened URL: http://bit.ly/uHt5x (which links to: The open access tracking project (OATP), Peter Suber, Open Access News, April 16, 2009). [End of revised section].

More about the OATP is available from a section of the SPARC Open Access Newsletter, issue #133, May 2, 2009. The purpose of the OATP is to use tags on Connotea in a collaborative effort to track new OA developments worldwide. For example, there’s a pipe, based on Yahoo Pipes, which starts with a Connotea feed of the most recent 100 items tagged oa.new and then removes any duplicates. An RSS feed is available (OATP 100 items no dups) via (for example) Google Reader.

Comment: Yahoo Pipes is quite a remarkable resource. For example, I’ve built a pipe which combines a Twitter search for #OpenAccess (the most recent 15 items) with the OATP pipe (but with only the most recent 15 items from Connotea, no duplicates) sorted by publication date in descending order. It shouldn’t be difficult to build a pipe that would display a combined total number of items larger than 30.

Comments (4)

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.