Mais conteúdo relacionado

Apresentações para você(20)

Similar a Virtual Research Networks : Towards Research 2.0(20)


Mais de Guus van den Brekel(20)


Virtual Research Networks : Towards Research 2.0

  1. Virtual Research Networks Towards Research 2.0?
  2. Me, My Work and the UMCG
  4. Photo: Geir Mogen The User Environment
  5. Source: Lorcan Dempsey, Liber 2005
  6. The workflow Photo: Geir Mogen
  7. library Consumer environments Management environment Licensed Bought Faculty& students Digitized Aggregations Resource sharing Integrated local consumer environment? Library web presence Resource sharing, … Source: Lorcan Dempsey, CIC 2007 … Institutional Workflow Portals, CMS, IR, … Personal Workflow RSS, toolbars, .. Network level workflow Google, … Integrated local consumer environment? Library web presence Resource sharing, …
  10. Fill in Your Key Stakeholders …
  11. Diversity Format Platform Time Personalize
  12. Research
  16. Scientists are certainly looking for it… http:// / photos / inan /2398401833/ sizes /o/
  17. Preprocessed spherical projections from inside a crystal including the Hershfield surface.
  18. http:// http:// / watch ?v= O1YuRSyzBAE
  19. So they are out there, but doing WHAT exactly?
  20. Corporate Web Presence Scan
  21. http:// Proteopedia
  22. http:// / NeuroCommons
  23. http:// SciVee
  24. http:// OpenResearch
  25. Commercially, focus on Scientists
  26. MyNetResearch
  27. Mendeley
  30. twitterfeed&utm_medium =
  31. 'What is happening in the world is bypassing university libraries’ Professor Peter Murray-Rust
  32. http:// / whatwedo /programmes/ vre.aspx
  34. Key recommendations
  35. “ Scratch Where It Itches”
  37. http:// /

Notas do Editor

  1. I am working at the University Medical Center Groningen in the Central Medical Library there. We have about 10.000 people working there in the complete hospital of which around are 1000 researchers. I will be addressing 2 problems that we as librarians bump into everyday in our contacts with users in general towards their perception of library services. I want to have a look at the web, the internet as it has been developing and changing the world. It is the cause of these problems –in my opinion- but I am also convinced the solution is there too. It has got to do with collaborative tools on offer and being used and how their use by scientists implicate strategic changes for Research Libraries are needed.
  2. When I was at a meeting of our Epidemiology Department in a room full with researchers, student and medical staff. I was there to talk about new services and resources. First problem is a common know problem, Library disconnect , unaware, wrong perception of library services and content, invisibility of the library. I had a hard time explaining why they should not only use Google Scholar, and also why some content on the web, seemingly freely available on the web was not all fulltext available for them. They told me they have various ways and systems to get what they want, .. But without going to the library. Hard to find, hard to use, too much, convusing, while it all seems to be out there on the web, for free and easy to use… Which brings me to the second related problem. Not only are they disconnecting from the library, but also are they getting the information elsewhere or arranging &making it themselves. They bypass the library completely there. We want to do something about that.
  3. At bottom, traditional library services and role At top: Into The Workflow
  4. Web 2.0 is a well-know topic in this community I believe, but it’s growing power can not be described enough. Everything 2.0, also Research! User participation, user generated content, interactivity, live communication, speed, sharing, creating etc
  5. The cause or at least an important cause is the Web. I want to show what scientist are doing and looking for on the Internet and why
  6. Simple cycle of workflow. Some aspects libraries and web 2.0 have entered to play a role, but the actual research process bottom three are almost untouched
  7. And web 2.0 is facilitating all those things with … tools for collaboration, communication and sharing
  8. The use of web 2.0 apps and tools on research workflow are from the beginning focussing more externally, to show the “ public”. Making science more visible and understandable. Or Science 2.0, or even Open Science, Opens up possibilities that are not always easy to create within work environment network. Reports on the subject in my Delicious. Available workflow tools are often limited, resticted, and do not offer functionality that many web 2.0 tools do Resources : more ways, flexibility, open compared to local networked tools offered Faster; new technologies, standards, developed on the web applied to scientific data & workflow, offer not only researchers themselves to do more, but also open up possibilites to let others share, check, control, analyse, open feedback
  9. All kind of initiatives, between scientists, groups, They start initiatives on their own, or in collaboration with others to adress their needs. It depends very much on how the library is embedded in the organisation to become aware and even involved in this. Often the researchers are frustrated by limitations of the preferred tools to be used inside their organization.
  10. Use of generally available social software and apps is well known. I will not go into these tools in detail, but do want to lift two out shortly. How many of you got a TWITTER account? TWITTER: Real-time expert information also in science, changing the face of science, taking away boundaries to and for scientist I myself am still amazed by the development and use of Virtual worlds.
  11. Free software to manage labs, experiments,share and publish! Without having to be worried by restrictions called oud by your It or organization. They can’t stop them… Well you could get into trouble if you don’t keep them posted, but… Show the site, and labs out there. Software to manage their lab activities, report, analyse and publish, making it available for many to share, explore and discover
  12. Proteopedia Proteopedia Mission Statement To collect, organize and disseminate structural and functional knowledge about protein, RNA, DNA, and other macromolecules, and their assemblies and interactions with small molecules, in a manner that is relevant and broadly accessible to students and scientists. Goals for Proteopedia To serve as a forum for the scientific community to share, retrieve and discuss information related to proteins, macromolecules, and small molecules and chemicals of interest. To continue to develop the concept of tying text to three-dimensional, interactive images. To maintain low barriers for contribution.
  13. Look at Science Commons, NeuroCommons, interesting focus, related to library goals. Text mining, analyses, semantic web techniques, all intersting and relevant from the library point of view. We should not only benefit from their work, but engage and collaborate even more. Data integration Text mining: Linking literature to the semantic web Analytic tools: Beyond search
  14. SciVee is changing the pace at which science is conducted and communicated. As the first Web 2.0 site that enables researchers to combine video with documentation and data in a media rich format, we enable scientists to make their research more visible, shareable, and accessible throughout the research cycle . Using our patent pending “virtual studio” technology, scientists can easily enhance their journal articles with “pubcasts” by linking and synchronizing video explanations to their published text. Similarly, video summaries can be associated and synchronized with scientific posters to create “postercasts” highlighting the key finding of the research. We also provide easy upload and hosting of videos on topics in all areas of scientific research. Innovations are happening on the web, and we should be there, learn and engage. We do NOT always have to use the the new tools right away, we should always look for APPLIED use for our users. That might result into adapting the technology locally, or embed it in some way, to make it more effective.
  15. This semantic wiki at aims at making the world of science more visible and accessible. Everybody can add his favorite events (e.g. conferences and workshops), co-workers, tools / datasets, community fora or journals. Pooled together these pieces of information constitute a vast knowledge base about who and what moves science forward .
  16. Numerous examples of scientist looking for collaboration, sharing, communication and dealing with information, and little to no involvement of libraries
  17. Nature Precedings is a free online service from NPG that enables researchers in the life sciences to openly share preliminary findings, solicit community feedback, and claim priority over discoveries by posting preprint manuscripts, white papers, technical reports, posters, and presentations.
  18. Desktop & Web: works like social music tools, discovery by simularities
  19. Most amazing. Within a few clicks, I can see scientist, locations, relations, publications ….. And connect if you want. Without use of any library… Scientist and researchers love this stuff. It offers them a partial solution for their workflow problems, managing, and their need to communicate, share and disseminate ideas and uptputs, which brings me back to the problem of them bypassing the library..
  20. It are these things that actually invite researchers. Jisc Libraries of the Future Debate 2009, he also said the researchers are bypassing the library… he mentioned a scientist that was actually mainly using the offered space and tools by the publisher, and the web. And wasn’t been in the library for quite a time. Physicall or digitally The effect is not as strong in all areas of science. Roughly you could say that probably it is related to the percentage of electronically available content in the field. In science and medical science in particular the perception of the library.
  21. They might benefit all levels and areas within universities
  22. Do we see libraries join up with researchers and tackle the opportunities offered? Or are we going to wait? Not really different from approach other users, but this groups has specific needs!
  23. Research from last year concluded with these key points. I think they still stand We have to get out of the library more, find out what they really want and need. We can start small but we need to do it together with other organisational parties I the scholarly communication process, all levels More Services for Researchers Reach out and engage with departments and researchers Start small with something that really helps them on daily basis Set up collabarative projects We can not do this alone
  24. By adapting in this way we can attack the two problems I started with, the Library Disconnect ‘and them bypassing the Library. We will get more visible on the web ‘and within the organisation we will get a face again that they can turn to when dealing with there needs for information in all aspects Creation: workflow tools, building the base, the right way Data management; metadata, right standards Communication; collaborative web spaces Embedded libraries Collaborative libraries These are ways, i believe we can fight the to problems i mentioned at the start.! Not only creating and developing tools, but also building a good relation with the research community!
  25. Commercial parties are aiming at the scientific communities, focussing on workflow and social networks.