David Crotty already said that there are too many redundant services on Science 2.0… Indeed, look at this page where an article can be collected in different online services:

from left to right: CiteULike, Complore, Connotea, Del.icio.us, Digg, Facebook, Reddit, Technorati, Twitter

Elaborei este guia para orientar, de alguma forma, quem pressente que pode tirar partido da Internet mas não sabe exactamente como. Este facto não é de estranhar, dada a variedade de escolha e de possibilidades que surgem continuamente. Mesmo os gestores de referências bibliográficas clássicos já renovaram modos de pesquisa e funcionalidades, de forma que quem tenha feito investigação há uns anos atrás tem de fazer uma reciclagem.

A selecção é questionável, aliás como qualquer selecção, por isso desafio aqueles que conhecem e usam outras aplicações que lhes são muito úteis a deixarem o relato e a darem o seu testemunho. Terei todo o gosto em incluir essas sugestões em próxima revisão deste guia.

Fica o link para download do documento: Pequeno guia do investigador

A nice list of useful (obviously done by a Librarian!) sources to start a review on Science 2.0:

• WorldCat: List: Science 2.0 / Open Science: http://www.worldcat.org/profiles/PFAnderson/lists/651073
• FriendFeed: Science 2.0: http://friendfeed.com/rooms/science-2-0
• Delicious: Science 2.0: http://delicious.com/tag/science2.0
• CiteULike: Groups: Science 2.0 / Open Science: http://www.citeulike.org/group/9932/library

Source: Emerging Technologies Librarian: http://etechlib.wordpress.com/2009/04/08/science-20-getting-started/

Zoals de titel zegt. Hapt u verder onder de streep.

Smakelijk eten!

Richtlijnen Geriatrie
Mondzorg, depressie, insuline, delier, etc. etc. Er zijn er velen! Maar waar? Voor de geriatrie is er een groeiend aantal richtlijnen beschikbaar, al dan niet voorzien van een (goede) evidence base. Deze zijn echter nogal verspreid over internet te vinden en de ruchtbaarheid die aan het verschijnen ervan wordt gegegeven wil nog wel eens wat mager zijn. Gevolg: onbekende richtlijnen onder studenten. Om daar een beetje verandering in aan te brengen heb ik wat vrije tijd in een persoonlijk project gestoken. De bibliotheek Richtlijnen Geriatrie: http://www.citeulike.org/groupblog/11067.

Enkele aanwijzingen voor gebruik zijn hier te vinden, de RSS feed hier. Even registreren bij de voortreffelijke (en gratis!) service van citeulike.org is van harte aan te bevelen. Mis je een richtlijn of heb je vragen over het gebruik? Geef een seintje via een reactie op Ars GeriatriCare! (let op: in de bibliotheek worden geen fulltext bestanden aangeboden, er wordt alleen naar gelinkt)

Bridge Employment and Retirees’ Health: A Longitudinal Investigation
Het tumult rondom de verhoging van de AOW-gerechtigde leeftijd is nog in volle gang. Agnes et al. buitelen over Donner et al. om aan het langste eind te trekken bij de vaststelling van de kalenderleeftijd waarop moedertje staat de knip gaat trekken. We willen allemaal graag op tijd kunnen stoppen met werken, zonder de broekriem een aantal gaten te verstellen. Onderzoek onder meer dan 12.000 personen in de VS laat echter een ander licht schijnen: doorwerken – in een vergelijkbare functie – na je pensioen is goed voor je gezondheid. Het gelijk van Marx?

Zhan, Y., Wang, M., Liu, S., and Shultz, K. S. (2009). Bridge employment and retirees’ health: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14(4):374-389. [PDF]

Klik op de link in de referentie om het fulltext artikel te bemachtigen.

Rentrée: Lex Tabak(.nl)
We hebben z’n gedachten op het  Thuiszorg-blog een tijdje moeten missen. Maar Lex Tabak (Verpleegkundige. Ondernemer.) is alive and kicking. Z’n nieuwe schrijfwerk is op lextabak.nl te lezen en getuigt van een frisse ondernemingsgeest. Alle succes gewenst Lex!

Hospice care for 86 year old male with recurrent breast cancer: a case report
Geriatrische zorg is een bijzonder ingewikkeld geheel. Dat merk ik op m’n stage volop. Een veelheid aan sociale, somatische, psychische en functionele beperkingen, stoornissen en aandoeningen passeert de ruvue. Ontzettend interessant, maar ook behoorlijk moeilijk. In Cases Journal nr 2 is een artikel te lezen dat daarvan een bijzondere weergave biedt:

Gonzalez, M. R. R., Marcelo, C. D. D., & Stringer, M. (2009). Hospice care for 86 year old male with recurrent breast cancer: a case report. Cases journal, 2. [Pubmed] [PDF]

Multimorbiditeit, zorgweigering, een sociaal vangnet met bijzonder weinig draagkracht en een in faust diagnose van borstkanker bij een man. Klik op de links om het fulltext artikel te bemachtigen.

Google gedeelde items
Bloggen kost tijd. Behoorlijk wat tijd. Daar mijn stage momenteel het nodige van die tijd opeist is het bloggen wat rustiger geworden. Geen nood, er zijn ook de Google gedeelde Items. Daarop is te volgen wat ik zoal van the Interwebs afpluk m.b.v. RSS feeds. Geheid dat er wat van je gading tussen zit! De RSS-feed van mijn Google gedeelde item vind je hier.

Nursing Essentials
gratis, geheel en goed: deze moet je lezen. (Voorzien van links naar fulltext bestanden)

• 9 vragen over fecale incontinentie Nursing (November 2008), pp. 26-29. by Els Put
• Vrijheidsbeperkende interventies; een inventarisatie onder verzorgenden Tijdschrift voor verpleeghuisgeneeskunde, Vol. 32, No. 1. (2007), pp. 6-11. by A. J. E. de Veer, A. L. Francke, A. de Kruif
• Mondzorg voor ouderen in 2020. Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd, Vol. 111 (2004), pp. 52-54. by C. de Baat

Klik hier voor meer Nursing Essentials. Klik hier voor de RSS feed.

Eerdere edities van de Ars GeriatriCare hutspotpost:
22-03-2009: Ars GeriatriCare Hutspotpost; leesvoer voor de hongerigen
16-01-2009: Hutspotpost; weekendvoer

CiteULike “is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references.”

• Easily store references you find online
• Discover new articles and resources
• Share references with your peers
• Find out who’s reading what you’re reading
• Store and search your PDFs

Recommended by Computers in Libraries magazine.

I have been a devotee of social bookmarking tool delicious since 2007 and now have nearly 4000 items tagged. Although the ‘before’ and ‘after’ photos (slide 17) in my July 2008 presentation Knowing where it’s at: find it? flag it? share it? (or how delicious saved my life) were staged for effect, the ability to accumulate links to resources online rather than generate piles on (unread) papers in my office has been a genuine revelation.

Alongside delicious, I also dabbled briefly with Connotea, the online reference management tool from the Nature stable. It has the same potential as delicious for user-generated tags, but at the time I couldn’t really see what additional value it was adding and I let my interest wither, electing instead to use delicious alone for all of my bookmarks, including journal articles.

More recently, I’ve been persuaded by a colleague to take a close look at rival social citation application citeulike. This time around I think I get it. One of the features that really appeals is the potential to import comprehensive bibliographic information armed only with the Digital Object Identifier (DOI). With journals making the DOI of articles increasingly obvious on their websites and in table of contents alerts, this becomes a very straightforward way to collate large quantities of metadata whilst retaining the capability to tag a paper with whatever keywords reflect its relevance to you.

In truth, I have not conducted a rigorous side-by-side comparison of citeulike v connotea (or any of the other similar tools). I am quite sure, for example, that they all have the potential to assimilate bibliographic details armed only with the DOI. For the foreseable future I will continue to tag journal articles using delicious. However, this feature of citeulike, couple with the capabililty to establish shared libraries of articles relevant to members of a particular list, has persuaded me to also give the latter a prolonged trial.

My summer research job involves a fair amount of reading. It also involves searching for papers on databases such as the ACM’s Digital Library. The only problem is that once you get to more than a few papers, it becomes really hard to figure out which paper is which. The papers often have long titles, so you really don’t want the filenames to be the paper titles. There’s also a lot of metadata associated with each paper (title, authors, where and when it was published and so on). It quickly became apparent to me that I really needed a better way to organize all the papers I was downloading and reading. The problem became even worse when I decided to start making detailed outlines and notes for the more important papers, because now I had to have someway to connect each paper to its notes.

I looked at a number of really good tools out there before making a choice. The very first program I remember looking at was Papers for the Mac. Papers is a really slick application. Not only can you collect and organize your papers, you can also read them right in Papers, take notes and send a copy to fellow researchers. It also lets you search popular databases and download papers without needing to step out into a browser. If I was a full time Mac user, then I would almost certainly be using Papers. But since most of my more scholarly is done on my Linux laptop, it’s not really an option. It’s priced at a very reasonable $42 with a 40% discount for undergraduate students. Not a bad deal at all.

The Papers interface (from the website)

I happen to do most of my scholarly work on my linux laptop and so I needed something that worked well on Linux. There is a program called gPapers for Linux which is similar to Papers. I didn’t actually check this out myself. From the screenshots it seems like a good tool, but development on it seems to have stopped for a while and I wasn’t sure if it was complete enough for daily use. My next choice was the Firefox plugin Zotero. Since it lives right in your browser, it makes it very easy to collect papers that you read on the Internet. If you get a Zotero account you can even sync your papers and notes between multiple machines. Once again, Zotero is a great tool. Not only can you add any web page to it’s library, you can also attach notes to any item in your library. The most awesome feature is that for PDFs it will automatically retrieve bibliographic information from Google Scholar. You can also export bibliographic information in a variety of formats. Zotero makes a lot of things very easy. To be honest, I haven’t entirely ruled it out yet. Perhaps the only real reason that I’m not using it right now is that the interface seems a bit cramped on my not-too-big laptop screen.

Zotero in Firefox (from the documentation)

After trying all these out I took a look at one online reference management tool: CiteUlike. I was very interested in this as it would make sense for whenever I worked from library computers. It’s a really good resource and works very well with popular databases in terms of automatically gathering metadata. The only problem I have is that it doesn’t work if I point it directly to the PDF of the article. There is an option to store the PDF online, but this requires an upload from the local computer and not from an URL. I can understand why this is needed because many of the journals require subscriptions, but it is a bit of hassle. I’m not using it now because I really don’t need an online service at the moment. I like keeping all my papers organized locally. However, if I find myself moving about a lot once school starts again, I might seriously consider using CiteUlike more regularly. There are similar online services such as Connotea, but I haven’t tried them out myself.

So what do I use? There were a number of factors that affected my choice. Firstly, I wanted to have copies of the PDFs on my disk. I needed to know where they were and they had to be named according to some common scheme so that if I had to switch tools I could do so easily. Secondly, I had to be able to easily extract reference information as a BibTex file. I use Latex to write my own papers, so there was no compromising on that. Thirdly, there had to be a good way to edit and view notes for each PDF. Zotero was certainly the tool that came closest to meeting my needs (except perhaps for Papers). In fact, in the process of writing this review I’ve been sorely tempted to actually use it full time. And I would too, if weren’t for one almost unrelated piece of software: Org-mode for Emacs.

Org-mode is a package for Emacs that turns it into a powerful note-taking and organizational tool. It offers some really good features including very easy-to-use (and smart) show/hide allowing you to concentrate on parts of your notes. It also allows to attach tags to parts of your org files and then search and re-organize based on them. You can insert links to URLs or other files (which can be opened in Emacs or in other programs). Over the past few days I invested a few hours to make a homegrown solution based around Org-mode and Emacs.

I combine some low-tech organization with some simple scripting to make my system work. Here’s how: each project for which I need to do research has a papers and a notes directory. The name of any file that goes into either directory is of the format <publication><year>-<first author> with the appropriate extension. I also have a BibTex file that contains bibliographic information. The key for each entry is in the same format as the filename. I then have a quick Python script that matches each PDF with it’s notes file and bibliographic data and combines it into an easy to read org file with appropriate links. Since I have Emacs open all the time, whenever I need to look up a paper all I need to do is open up the org file and I get organized links to both the paper and its notes. I also attach tags to the papers’ names to make locating them easier. Here’s a screenshot of what an example org file looks like after I’ve added some tags:

Listing of papers with metadata and links in Org-mode

I’m currently using this system on a project with about 15 papers and growing. It works well so far and I’m really comfortable in it. The only part of it that I don’t like is having to manually get the BibTex data. Since gathering metadata is a feature that Zotero has, I’m considering using Zotero as the ‘front-end’ of my system i.e. I use to Zotero to download and store the PDFs and their data, but I then use my Emacs-based system as the actual interface. This is something I still have to explore, but I think it could work. I should also note that I use Delicious to quickly bookmark interesting articles that pop up in searches, before going back and doing a preliminary quick scan prior to actually downloading the PDF. As usual I would love to hear any comments or suggestions you might have.

Many beginner level users have this question in mind. How to find websites that will make me entertain ? or how to find sites that contain good contents to read when i am bored ? . If i want to answer a question “Why the user is not sitting with the computer not more than 30 min’s or many times just coming online to check their email and orkut then shutting the system off ?” i must say its all because they don’t know the sites where they can find some interesting readings, pictures or stuffs. If they know some 10 to 20 websites atleast, where they can find their favorites then it will surely make them to stay online for many hours. Keep on reading this article. At the end of this article you will be given few sites which delivers the title and guides you to begin your new internet experience.

Read more..

Michael Ley is visiting Manchester this week, he will be doing a seminar on Wednesday 3rd June, here are some details for anyone who is interested in attending:

Date: 3rd Jun 2009

Title: DBLP: How the data get in

Speaker: Dr Michael Ley. University of Trier, Germany

Time & Location: 14:15, Lecture Theatre 1.4, Kilburn Building

Abstract: The DBLP (Digital Bibliography & Library Project) Computer Science Bibliography now includes more than 1.2 million bibliographic records. For Computer Science researchers the DBLP web site now is a popular tool to trace the work of colleagues and to retrieve bibliographic details when composing the lists of references for new papers. Ranking and profiling of persons, institutions, journals, or conferences is another usage of DBLP. Many scientists are aware of this and want their publications being listed as complete as possible.

The talk focuses on the data acquisition workflow for DBLP. To get ‘clean’ basic bibliographic information for scientific publications remains a chaotic puzzle.

Large publishers are either not interested to cooperate with open services like DBLP, or their policy is very inconsistent. In most cases they are not able or not willing to deliver basic data required for DBLP in a direct way, but they encourage us to crawl their Web sites. This indirection has two main problems:

1. The organisation and appearance of Web sites changes from time to time, this forces a reimplementation of information extraction scripts. [1]
2. In many cases manual steps are necessary to get ‘complete’ bibliographic information.

For many small information sources it is not worthwhile to develop information extraction scripts. Data acquisition is done manually. There is an amazing variety of small but interesting journals, conferences and workshops in Computer Science which are not under the umbrella of ACM, IEEE, Springer, Elsevier etc. How they get it often is decided very pragmatically.

The goal of the talk and my visit to Manchester is to start a discussion process: The EasyChair conference management system developed by Andrei Voronkov and DBLP are parts of scientific publication workflow. They should be connected for mutual benefit?

References

1. Lincoln Stein (2002). Creating a bioinformatics nation: screen scraping is torture Nature, 417 (6885), 119-120 DOI: 10.1038/417119a

For anyone who missed the original bioinformatics seminar I’ll be doing a repeat of the “Defrosting the Digital Library” talk, this time for the staff in the John Rylands University Library (JRUL) . This is the main academic library in Manchester with (quote) “more than 4 million printed books and manuscripts, over 41,000 electronic journals and 500,000 electronic books, as well as several hundred databases, the John Rylands University Library is one of the best-resourced academic libraries in the country.” The journal subscription budget of the library is currently around £4 million per year, that’s before they’ve even bought any books! Here is the abstract for the talk:

After centuries with little change, scientific libraries have recently experienced massive upheaval. From being almost entirely paper-based, most libraries are now almost completely digital. This information revolution has all happened in less than 20 years and has created many novel opportunities and threats for scientists, publishers and libraries.

Today, we are struggling with an embarrassing wealth of digital knowledge on the Web. Most scientists access this knowledge through some kind of digital library, however these places can be cold, impersonal, isolated, and inaccessible places. Many libraries are still clinging to obsolete models of identity, attribution, contribution, citation and publication.

Based on a review published in PLoS Computational Biology, pubmed.gov/18974831 this talk will discuss the current chilly state of digital libraries for biologists, chemists and informaticians, including PubMed and Google Scholar. We highlight problems and solutions to the coupling and decoupling of publication data and metadata, with a tool called citeulike.org. This software tool (and many other tools just like it) exploit the Web to make digital libraries “warmer”: more personal, sociable, integrated, and accessible places.

Finally issues that will help or hinder the continued warming of libraries in the future, particularly the accurate identity of authors and their publications, are briefly introduced. These are discussed in the context of the BBSRC funded REFINE project, at the National Centre for Text Mining (NaCTeM.ac.uk), which is linking biochemical pathway data with evidence for pathways from the PubMed database.

Date: Thursday 21st May 2009, Time: 13.00, Location: John Rylands University (Main) Library Oxford Road, Parkinson Room (inside main entrance, first on right) University of Manchester (number 55 on google map of the Manchester campus). Please come along if you are interested…

References

1. Hull, D., Pettifer, S., & Kell, D. (2008). Defrosting the Digital Library: Bibliographic Tools for the Next Generation Web PLoS Computational Biology, 4 (10) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000204

[CC licensed picture above, the John Rylands Library on Deansgate by dpicker: David Picker]

Since David first mentioned the idea of a central, BDRA bibliography, we’ve agreed to try using RefWorks as a shared repository for all our references.

There has also been mention of Diigo and Delicious as possible mechanisms for a more informal sharing of links.

Something to consider in relation to these ideas: Jo Badge recently wrote about the use of CiteULike in conjunction with RefWorks. I’m not quite sure how these two systems work together yet, but it might be worth experimenting…

By Gabi Witthaus

Details of an upcoming gig, The Scholarly Communication Landscape in Manchester on the 23rd of April 2009. If you are interested in coming, you need to register by Monday the 13th April at the official symposium pages.

Why? To help University staff and researchers understand some of the more complex issues embedded in the developments in digital scholarly communication, and to launch Manchester eScholar, the University of Manchester’s new Institutional Repository.

How? Information will be presented by invited speakers, and views and experience exchanged via plenary sessions.

Who For? University researchers (staff and students), research support staff, librarians, research managers, and anyone with an active interest in the field will find this symposium helpful to their developing use and provision of research digital formats. The programme for the symposium currently looks like this:

Welcome and Introduction by Jan Wilkinson, University Librarian and Director of The John Rylands Library.

Session I Chaired by Jan Wilkinson

• Is the Knowledge Society a ’social’ Network? Robin Hunt, CIBER, University College London
• National Perspectives, Costs and Benefits Michael Jubb, Director, Research Information Network
• The Economics of Scholarly Communication – how open access is changing the landscape Deborah Kahn, Acting Editorial Director Biology, BioMed Central

Session II Chaired by Dr Stella Butler

• Information wants to be free. So … ? Dr David Booton, School of Law, University of Manchester
• Putting Repositories in Their Place – the changing landscape of scholarly communication Bill Hubbard, SHERPA, University of Nottingham
• The Year of Blogging Dangerously – lessons from the blogosphere, by Dr Duncan Hull (errr, thats me!), mib.ac.uk. This talk will describe how to build an institutional repository using free (or cheap) web-based and blogging tools including flickr.com, slideshare.net, citeulike.org, wordpress.com, myexperiment.org and friendfeed.com. We will discuss some strengths and limitations of these tools and what Institutional Repositories can learn from them.

Session III Chaired by Professor Simon Gaskell

• The University Press and Digital Publishing Ben Stebbing, Manchester University Press
• MIMAS’ role in Supporting the Repository Landscape Vic Lyte, MIMAS
• Defrosting the Digital Library (hmmmm, nice title) Professor Terri Attwood, Faculty of Life Sciences
• Research Computing at Manchester, Dr Mike Daw, Head of Research Computing, IT Services Division
• Enhancing User Experience of Scholarly Communication through Text Mining, Dr Sophia Anianadou, Director, National Centre for Text Mining (NaCTeM.ac.uk)
• Manchester eScholar – what, why and when Professor Carole Goble, School of Computer Science

Sumary and close by Professor Simon Gaskell, Vice-President for Research

CiteULike is like Delicious but for academic papers and with additional features relevant to researching.

Joining CiteULike was easy, with prompts to assist me in getting my CiteULike account up and running. It included instructions for installing the CiteULike button into the toolbar of the browsers Firefox, Internet Explorer and Safari.

On its home page, CiteULike says that it is a free service with features that include being able to store your references, share references with others, and even store your PDFs. It has additional functionality to search all of the public entries posted on the site and to browse journals (for example, while doing a simple search I came across an entry for ‘The role of reference librarians in institutional repositories‘ by W. Charles Jr, published in the Reference Services Review in 2005, that I have now added to my CiteULike page with an ‘I will read it’ priority).

Features that I like about CiteULike include the presentation of the ‘My library’ page. I like that the title are in blue, with the rest of the citation details clearly beneath. It makes it much easier to view all of my records than in the main page of an EndNote library, where there is often brief information, cut short due to the narrow size of of the data columns. The priority option of CiteULike is also very handy for keeping track of articles I will read, articles I might want to read, etc. I also like that when I click on one of my records in CiteULike, the next screen gives me the option to change the Citation Format (e.g. to Harvard), as well as links to the article or abstract, options to change my tags, and the ability to export my references into a reference manager such as EndNote.

Once exported using the RIS button, the data seems to import into EndNote really well.

Some areas of CiteULike which I don’t really like include the fact that when I type my tags, if I put a space between the words they show up as 2 separate tags. For instance, in order for institutional repositories to show as one tag, I had to type it as instutitionalrepositories (with no space). It is also frustrating when I click on my toolbar option ‘Post to CiteULike’ and the data doesn’t transfer across: I have to copy and paste it in. I had to do this with some articles from Academic One, whereas the Springer and IEEE records imported automatically. It’s a pity that they don’t all import directly, but hopefully down the track that might happen.

In terms of the documents it is designed for, it seems to handle journal articles and conference papers no problem, however I have yet to play around with book chapters and websites. In the FAQ is does mention that although you can include websites in your library, it is actually designed specifically for academic papers and suggests using Delicious to keep track of websites.

I think that in terms of  research, that I will use CiteULike for the research collection process, and then export the references to EndNote when writing up my research. I think CiteULike is a very useful social bookmarking tool.

Slides from the seminar today, for those that asked for them. Thanks to everyone who came, we had a good turn out, much better than expected.

Those Library and Institutional Repository people have asked for an encore too…

Casey Bergman suggested it, Jean-Marc Schwartz organised it, so now I’m going to do it: a seminar on our Defrosting the Digital Library paper as part of the Bioinformatics and Functional Genomics seminar series. Here is the abstract of the talk:

After centuries with little change, scientific libraries have recently experienced massive upheaval. From being almost entirely paper-based, most libraries are now almost completely digital. This information revolution has all happened in less than 20 years and has created many novel opportunities and threats for scientists, publishers and libraries.

Today, we are struggling with an embarrassing wealth of digital knowledge on the Web. Most scientists access this knowledge through some kind of digital library, however these places can be cold, impersonal, isolated, and inaccessible places. Many libraries are still clinging to obsolete models of identity, attribution, contribution, citation and publication.

Based on a review published in PLoS Computational Biology, http://pubmed.gov/18974831 this talk will discuss the current chilly state of digital libraries for biologists, chemists and informaticians, including PubMed and Google Scholar. We highlight problems and solutions to the coupling and decoupling of publication data and metadata, with a tool called http://www.citeulike.org. This software tool exploits the Web to make digital libraries “warmer”: more personal, sociable, integrated, and accessible places.

Finally issues that will help or hinder the continued warming of libraries in the future, particularly the accurate identity of authors and their publications, are briefly introduced. These are discussed in the context of the BBSRC funded REFINE project, at the National Centre for Text Mining (NaCTeM.ac.uk), which is linking biochemical pathway data with evidence for pathways from the PubMed database.

Date: Monday 16th March 2008, Time: 12.00 midday, Location: Michael Smith Building, Main lecture theatre, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Manchester (number 71 on google map of the Manchester campus). Please come along if you are interested…

[CC licensed picture above, "The Lecture" at Speakers Corner by James M Thorne]

Bastian sagt:

Mendeley habe ich hier ja schön öfter mal wohlwollend erwählt weil ich die Idee des last.fm für Wissenschaftler super finde. Denn allgemein denke ich das noch viel zu wenig Wissenschaftler das Netz wirklich effizient nutzen. Sei es um miteinander zu diskutieren, kollaborieren oder auch vernünftig abseits der verbreiteten walled garden zu publizieren.

Das Prinzip von Mendeley wird für alle Neueinsteiger hier nochmal erklärt. Doch es gibt diese Woche zwei Neuerungen von Mendeley die eine Erwähnung wert sind:

1. Mendeley hat Investoren gefunden und kann nun mit einem Kapital von 2 Mio. $ sicherlich etwas beruhigter an die Weiterentwicklung ihres Dienstes gehen. So werden vermutlich auch viele der Features von denen Entwickler schon träumen ihren Weg in den Dienst finden.

2. Es gibt nun eine Kooperation mit dem Dienst CiteULike den vielleicht viele der Leser schon kennen. CiteULike ist ein Online-Dienst der ebenfalls zur Verwaltung der Paper dient. Dank der Kooperation soll man seine Paper zwischen CiteULike und Mendeley synchronisieren können was ein guter Schritt ist um im aufkeimenden Gerangel der Dienste den Überblick über seine Daten behalten zu können.

Wer sich Mendeley noch nicht angeschaut hatte sollte das auf jedenfall tun, die Jungs liefern einen sehr ordentlichen Dienst mit freundlichem Support ab.

ปกติผมเก็บเอกสารอ้างอิง (bibliography) โดย
เริ่มสะสมตั้งแต่เรียนปริญญาโท ช่วงประมาณ
ปี 2000 ตอนนั้นเอกสารในรูปแบบ pdf เริ่มแพร่
หลาย การเก็บเอกสารในรูปแบบ pdf นั้น ทำให้
ไม่ต้องพิมพ์ออกเป็นกระดาษ การค้นหาก็ทำง่าย ๆ ช่วงนั้นยังไม่มี Google Desktop ก็ใช้วิธีเก็บ
เอกสารเป็นชื่อรายงานเลย เวลาผ่านไปไม่นานอุปกรณ์เครื่องมือช่วยเหลือมีมากขึ้นจนเหลือเฟือ
ตั้งแต่เรียนปริญญาเอก ก็จะเก็บเอกสารทั้งสองรูปแบบคือ pdf แล้วก็พิมพ์เป็นกระดาษพกไว้ใส่
กระเป๋าเพื่ออ่านบนรถเมล์ รถไฟ ฯลฯ

การเก็บเอกสารในรูปแบบ pdf เมื่อก่อนก็เก็บดุ้น ๆ แต่ตัวรายการอ้างอิงเอกสารนั้นจะเก็บในรูป
ของ bibtex ซึ่งก็มีเครื่องมือหลายตัวฟรี ๆ ให้ใช้ตั้งแต่ปี 2000 โน่นแล้ว ปัจจุบันใช้อยู่ตัวเดียวคือ
JabRef ใช้ตั้งแต่เลขเวอร์ชัน 1 กว่า จนตอนนี้เป็น 2.4.2 ซึ่งใช้งานได้ง่ายมาก และก็ตรงตาม
ความต้องการทุกอย่าง แต่เมื่อเดือนก่อนมีโจทย์ที่ตั้งเองคือทำรายการอ้างอิงเอกสารของกลุ่ม 
(ที่ภาควิชาที่เรียนอยู่ใช้ Lotus Note เป็นตัวติดต่อกับผู้ใช้เพื่อทำรายการเอกสารอ้างอิง) โดยมี
ความต้องการดังนี้คือ

1. ต้องฟรี
2. การเพิ่มหรือลดรายการข้อมูลจะต้องสะดวก
3. การค้น บทความ ปีที่พิมพ์ ผู้เขียน จะต้องสะดวก
4. เป็นระบบสำหรับผู้ใช้หลาย ๆ คน

เท่าที่ผมคิดได้คือไปหาที่เก็บเว็บไซท์ฟรีทีมีฐานข้อมูลให้ ตอนแรกก็ง่วนอยู่กับโปรแกรมสองตัว
คือ

1. refbase  หน้าตาดี แถมแก้ไขง่าย ใช้อยู่หลายอาทิตย์เหมือนกัน
2. Aigaion เหมือนตัวแรก แต่หน้าตาไม่ได้เรื่อง แต่เครื่องไม้เครื่องมือดีกว่าตัวแรก ใช้อยู่
   สองวัน เลิก

ทางออกที่ใช้ไปอีกสองสามอาทิตย์คือใช้ JabRef แปลงไฟล์ bibtex ไปเป็น HTML ซึ่งฟังก์ชัน
ที่ให้มาดีมาก มีระบบ search แถมทำอะไรต่าง ๆ ให้มากมาย สามารถแก้ไขตัวเลือกต่าง ๆ ได้
ด้วยถ้ารู้ HTML ผมโหลดตัว bibtex ขึ้นเว็บไปด้วยเพื่อใช้ในการแก้ไขในสถานที่ต่าง ๆ ได้

ทางเลือกดังกล่าวค่อนข้างดี ง่าย แต่ผมต้องเป็นคนดูแล ซึ่งไม่ดี ระบบที่ดีควรจะมีคนดูแลให้ เราควรมีหน้าที่เพิ่มหรือลดข้อมูลเท่านั้น
จริง ๆ แล้วผมรู้จักพวก 2collab, CiteULike หรือ Zotero มานาน
แล้ว เคยใช้ Zotero อยู่สองสามครั้ง ไม่ชอบเอาเสียเลย ส่วนสอง
ตัวแรกก็ไม่รู้จะใช้ทำไม ในเรื่องเอกสารอ้างอิงถ้าไม่มีการอ่านแล้ว
จะอ้างอิงได้อย่างไร ระบบออนไลน์จึงเป็นเรื่องไร้สาระมากสำหรับ
ผมตอนนั้น แต่พอผมต้องทำระบบเอกสารอ้างอิงให้กลุ่ม และผมขี้เกียจดูแลเอง ผมเลยต้องลอง
ใช้โปรแกรมพวกนี้ซักตั้ง ซึ่งโชคดีที่เริ่มที่ CiteULike ซึ่งมีทุกอย่างที่ต้องการให้พร้อม

การใช้ CiteULike เพื่องานในรูปแบบข้างต้นทำได้ง่ายมาก ๆ เริ่มจากสร้าง Group ของ
CiteULike ก่อน กำหนดสิทธิการใช้ต่าง ๆ ตามชอบใจ จากนั้นผมก็แค่โหลด bibtex ไฟล์ที่มี
อยู่ขึ้นไปเท่านั้น ผมก็จะได้เว็บไซท์ที่แสดงรายการเอกสารอ้างอิงที่ผมต้องการ การเข้าไปแก้ไข
ก็แค่ login แล้วก็แก้ จะโหลด bibtex ไฟล์มาเก็บไว้ที่เครื่องก็ได้ ใช้ unicode ก็ได้ (สำหรับ
ภาษาไทยมีการอ้างตารางฟอนต์ผิดหลายตัวเหมือนกัน) ที่สำคัญคือระบบ tag ซึ่งสร้างรายการ
อัตโนมัติให้เช่น ชื่อผู้เขียน คำสำคัญ ฯลฯ ทำให้เราสามารถคนเอกสารตามต้องการได้ง่ายดาย
ถ้าไม่ชอบใจก็มีระบบค้นข้อมูลที่เยี่ยมยอดให้ นอกจากนั้นการเพิ่มรายการเราสามารถเพิ่มโดย
เพิ่มรายการใน Jabref แล้วโหลดขึ้นไป update รายการได้

สรุปไม่ต้องเปรียบเทียบอะไรให้ยุ่งยากครับ CiteULike ดีพอตามความต้องการแล้ว ตัวอื่นก็ไม่
จำเป็นต้องไปฝึกใช้ให้เสียเวลา

While many libraries with ample budgets use citation tools like EndNote and RefWorks, there are alternatives for libraries that need to save every dime.

Three of those options are Zotero, a Firefox browser add-on, and two other Web-based services, Connotea and CiteULike.

Zotero is an open source project created by the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University and is supported by grants from the Institute for Museum and Library Studies, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. It is in the midst of a lawsuit imposed upon them by Thomson Reuters, the creators of EndNote.

Connotea is provided by the Nature publishing group and is focused towards scientists, clinicians and researchers, CiteULike is supported by the Springer publishing group and is also heavily populated by scientific users. These two are also similar because they have social networking features like tagging and the ability to view, share and add other peoples citations to your collection.

‘ll start off by saying that I’m new to the whole Friendfeed thing, and I’ve also only recently started using Citeulike in a more comprehensive way. I started out on the former through the recommendation of Frank over at peanutbutter, and it’s one of the best things I’ve done recently with respect to my working life (subscribe to my friendfeed). Citeulike also began via a recommendation from Frank, but it has really been useful to me as I start to slowly gather references that a) interest me in general, and/or b) will be useful when I start writing up my PhD thesis (my citeulike library).

Just today it really twigged in me how useful these two tools, in combination, can be. I credit Frank with two nice things he said about this grouping of two apps in a chat we had today: 1) “don’t need to do pubmed searches anymore”, and 2) “organise, share and discover” (update: Frank would like to say he wasn’t the originator of the quote, which is very good of him. Of course, it still holds true that you said it in our chat ). Certainly the joining of these two apps facilitates the latter, and my pubmed searching, while still extant, is now nicely supplemented by what my friends are reading.

I shall illustrate my point with some examples. (Please note that all
the people mentioned in the following images have their friendfeeds set
to public, and therefore I will not be compromising anyone’s privacy by
using these examples.)

It all started this morning, when Simon added this paper into his citeulike library:

FriendFeed Image 1

Then, I liked the look of it – having seen it in my friendfeed – and added it to my library with just two clicks:

Next, via friendfeed’s comment mechanism,
I received plaudits for adding to my very new citeulike library:

Then, others noticed Simon’s or my additions, and added it themselves. First, it was Dan:

And then it was Frank. However, before I show Frank’s feed, I should mention that earlier in the day, Duncan had posted a review from Nature for a book we had been discussing:

And I decided I also liked this review:

So, when Frank had a look at Friendfeed, he found two things he liked, and it was reported by Friendfeed as so:

I’m sure others have experienced this already, but it’s new to me, and just shows me how using social apps like Friendfeed in a work context can really increase my knowledge in an efficient and fun way. It’s fantastic, even it if is a little circular and self-referencing. After all, this post about Friendfeed will shortly appear on my Friendfeed. But then, Friendfeed is a great forum for discussing things, and getting ideas to blog about. Neil and others have already done this. Thanks to everyone whose feeds I read

original