by Marcin Wichary
An experiment in open access publishing:
[Via Bench Marks]

The new edition of Essentials of Glycobiology, ” the largest, most authoritative volume available on the structure, synthesis, and biology of glycans (sugar chains), molecules that coat cell surfaces and proteins and play important roles in many normal and disease processes” came out yesterday. What’s particularly interesting about this edition is that it is simultaneously being released online in a freely accessible version, which will hopefully allow the textbook to reach a wider audience.

The theory often espoused is that online release of books leads to higher sales of the print edition, and for us, this is a good test case. Quoting from the press release, John Inglis, Executive Director and Publisher of CSHL Press notes that,

“We will be tracking its usage and how readers of the site respond to the availability of a print version, for both research and teaching purposes.”

“This is an innovative development in the distribution of an established textbook that we hope will benefit readers, authors and editors, and the publisher,” says Ajit Varki, M.D., the book’s executive editor and a leader of the Consortium of Glycobiology Editors, which initiated the project. Varki is Professor at the University of California, San Diego. The Consortium also includes Professors Richard Cummings, Emory University; Jeffrey Esko, UC San Diego; Hudson Freeze, Burnham Institute for Medical Research; Pamela Stanley, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York; Carolyn Bertozzi, UC Berkeley; Gerald Hart, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine; and Marilynn Etzler, UC Davis.

The online edition of Essentials of Glycobiology can be found here, and the print version can be ordered here.

This is a very interesting experiment. I knw that there are books I want to have to be able to access important data when I am not online, usually when I am writing. Being online can be distracting then.

But sometimes when I am online, I want a quick fact. Then finding them in an authoritative source is really important. I personally think that this sort of dual use could be very productive. It has been successful for some fiction works.

I too will be looking to see how well this works.

Technorati Tags: Open Access, Science, Web 2.0

I’ve mentioned some of the work by Everett Rogers on technology adoption. The bell curve seen refers to the adoption of innovations by a community. But what about individuals? Is there a process whereby they adopt new technology?

Turns out there is. You can read the work by George Beal and Joe Bohlen in 1957. There is a five step path that each individual appears to go through, although some people are slower to transition between steps.

1. Awareness. The individual is simply aware the innovation exists.
2. Interest. The individual wants more information. They begin to wonder if the innovation can help them.
3. Evaluation. The individual mentally examines the innovation using the information gathered, trying to determine whether it will really impact their work.
4. Trial. The individual actually tests the innovation to see if reality matches expectations.
5. Adoption. The individual likes the innovation and adopts it wholeheartedly.

Beal and Bohlen also described what sources of information were used at each stage. Through the first two, mass media and government agencies were most important.

This was really an attempt to get an ‘unbiased’ viewpoint since friends and salesmen (saesmen always came in last) were the next two sources. But for the last 3 stages, neighbors and friends were the largest source of information, moreso than any other group.

So, early in the diffusion process, unbiased experts are sought. But when the evaluation process is started, the experiences of close ties within a local social network become the most important. For most people, the opinions and personal experiences of their friends are most important for adoption of a new innovation than any external source.

Now the innovators in a community race through these steps. They often are connected to outside groups and use social interactions unavailable to others in the community to more rapidly move through the last 3 steps.

The early adopters take information from the innovators and use their own connections to move through the stages, not as fast as the innovators, but with reasonable speed.

But it is the majority of the community that relies on the early adopters and innovators within the community to inform themselves. Research has shown that they require much more information from trusted sources within the community than innovators and early adopters. Without this information from peers, they will not progress rapidly through the last 3 stages.

The laggards are the slowest to move through the 5 stages. They do not trust most outside sources, so the awareness and interest stages are slowed. Plus they will only listen to certain trusted sources within the community. Until those trusted sources make their own way through the 5 stages, the laggards will not progress.

So, to alter the rate of diffusion of innovation in a community, increased lines of communication must be available, increasing the information that can be provided to individuals.This helps with the first 2 steps. but mostly only for the 16% of the community at the left side of the curve.

However, of greatest importance are the connections between members within the community, particularly the thought-leaders found in the early adopters. About 70% of a community will not adopt new innovations unless they hear clear reasons why, from trusted individuals within the community.

No amount of salesmanship or external proof will easily move them. But, tgiven he right opinion from a community thought-leader and they will rapidly make the transition.

This is an area that Web 2.0 technologies can be of real value. Not only do they make it easier for members of a community to disburse information, they also help the community more accurately identify who is in each group, permitting more focused, explicit approaches to be used to move individuals through the 5 steps.

The thought-leaders can more rapidly progress through the stages and can extend their opinions much more rapidly to the majority because they are not required to be in the same place at the same time as the others in the group. Thus there will be more opportunities for their viewpoints to be assimilated by the majority.

Increasing the rate of diffusion of innovation in a community really means increasing the speed with which each individual progresses through the 5 step.

Technorati Tags: Knowledge Creation, Open Access, Science, Web 2.0

by freeparking
London Science Blogging Conference on Friendfeed:
[Via Confessions of a Science Librarian]

Boy, do I ever love Friendfeed.

You can follow what’s going on at today’s London Science Blogging Conference in its very own Friendfeed room. Each session has it’s own thread with multiple people commenting on the proceedings. It actually gives a very good and surprisingly understandable impression of what’s going on in the sessions. Most of the sessions have dozens of comments. Check it out.

You can also check me out on Friendfeed (join, you won’t regret it). Michael Nielsen has also created a room for the upcoming Science in the 21st Century conference.

As a sort of aggregator of one’s life, FriendFeed can be especially useful for all sorts of ad hoc social meetings, such as conferences. I wonder what the ‘room’ looks like for a really large conference, the 10,000 attending ones? I’ll be sure and check out the Science in the 21st Century room.

Technorati Tags: Open Access, Science, Web 2.0

by mandj98
Mendeley = Mekentosj Papers + Web 2.0 ?:
[Via bioCS]

Via Ricardo Vidal: Mendeley seems to be a Windows (plus Mac/Linux) equivalent of Mekentosj Papers (which is Mac OS X only, and has been described as “iTunes for your papers”). In addition to handling your PDFs, it has an online component that allows sharing your papers and other Web 2.0 features (billing itself as “Last.fm for papers”).

Here, I’m reviewing the Mac beta version (0.5.6). I am focusing most on the desktop side and compare it to Papers, because I have a working solution in place and I would only switch to Mendeley if the experience is as good as with Papers. (I.e., my main problem is off-line papers management, Web 2.0 features are icing on the cake.)

By Mac standards, the app is quite ugly. Both Mendeley and Papers allow full-text PDF searches, which is important if you want to avoid tagging/categorizing all your papers. Papers can show PDFs in the main window, copy the reference of the paper and email papers. Mendeley in principle can also copy the reference, but special characters are transformed to gibberish in this beta version. Papers allows you to match papers against PubMed, Web of Science etc., while Mendeley only offers to auto-extract often incomplete meta-data. This matching feature is extremely useful as you get all the authorative data from the source, and most often Papers can use the DOI in the PDF to immeadiately give you the correct reference. Update: Mendeley also uses DOIs to retrieve the correct metadata, if available. (Thanks, Victor for your comment.)
[More]

Well, this is a beta being compared to a product on the market (and Papers is quite a good application). I would expect some of the rough edges to come off as it progresses. What will be interesting to see is how the Web 2.0 aspects turn out. They could provide a route for useful filtering of information as people’s paper databases build up. By having these accessible, it will be much easier to see which papers are really being read and used.

The links between literature libraries, online profiles and readership are potentially very interesting. Something to keep an eye on, particularly as the edges are evened out.

Technorati Tags: Science, Social media, Web 2.0