UCSF Profiles is an example of a Research networking system (RNS). These systems provide automated aggregation and mining of information to create profiles and networks of the people that make up an academic institution. RNS’s have in effect, become a new kind of ‘front door’ for the university, providing access to the university’s intellectual capital in a manner previously unattainable — i.e. one focused on expertise rather than schools or departments, thus intermingling experts regardless of where they’re officially housed. Against this backdrop, we wanted to understand how such a tool might enhance access to academic expertise by external partners, specifically industry, and improve UCSF’s response to industry interest. Continue reading
Imagine trying to learn biology without ever using the word “organism.” Or studying to become a botanist when the only way of referring to photosynthesis is to spell the word out, letter by painstaking letter.
Some thoughts on different writing styles. Certainly relevant for folks who are writing for the web vs. writing scientific works.
Here’s an article with an overview of online products out there for research social networking; the big gap in the article is that no institutional products are included such as Profiles, VIVO, etc. This is noted in one of the comments at the end, by Titus Schleyer.
That aside, there are interesting opinions in this piece, a few clipped below, and perhaps pointing to the current status of the space, where the sweet spot has not yet been found.
“After six years of running Zotero, it’s not clear that there is a whole lot of social value to academic social networks,” says Sean Takats, the site’s director, who is an assistant professor of history at George Mason University. “Everyone uses Twitter, which is an easy way to pop up on other people’s radar screens without having to formally join a network.”
Scholars aren’t interested in sharing original ideas on such sites, [Christopher Blanchard, an adjunct professor of community and regional planning at Boise State University] now believes, “because they’re afraid they’ll be ripped off” and because they simply don’t have the time.
“We have thousands of new discussions taking place every day—scientists helping scientists without getting anything for it,” [Dr. Madisch, of ResearchGate] says. “Three years ago, people were smiling at me and saying that scientists aren’t social. They won’t share information. They were wrong.”
This could be a new way to manage your email, set realistic expectations for others and …. most importantly, help to be present in the present.
The latest report from Pricewaterhouse Coopers – as reported in Fiercehealthcare.
Check this out … looks really interesting!
Here’s the description from the site:
Once a project is approved to participate [to use the Wizard], we send invitation e-mails to all the project members. The Wizard is an online survey that takes about 30 minutes. Each individual involved in the project should take the survey independently. The more project members who take the survey, the better the data!
And yes – it’s free!
At the end of the survey each participant can see a personalized individual report that contains feedback based on their answers and our research. This report is available immediately, and summarizes both the strong points and the issues at risk for the target collaboration.