Filter terms in NextBio offer a fast way to know the expertise of an author at a glance.

Tags size are proportional to relevance of keywords…

For e.g.:

http://www.nextbio.com/b/search/author/A%20Yonath

A. Yonath is one of the 3 latest Nobel (Chemistry) for mapping
the ribosome at the atomic level.

P.S.: NextBio clustering features are also used in ScienceDirect…

http://www.info.sciencedirect.com/using/searching-linking/nextbio/

The Elsevier TrainingDesk is the place where the publisher makes
available online trainings for major products like Scopus,
ScienceDirect, Illmuni8, etc., including videos from YouTube.

It includes now also trainings produced by the Elsevier’s customers
community…

 http://trainingdesk.elsevier.com/

Apakah Anda sudah mati-matian menjelajahi Google dan tidak bisa menemukan paper riset yang Anda inginkan? Ataukah Anda mesti mencari referensi paper-paper berkualitas yang dapat menunjang kemajuan riset dan penelitian Anda? Atau mungkin Anda seseorang yang haus akan perkembangan riset paling mutakhir yang dimuat di jurnal-jurnal kelas dunia seperti Nature, Science, The Lancet, dan jurnal-jurnal teknis lainnya?

Memang, sangat disayangkan, riset di Indonesia belum ditunjang oleh ketersediaan jurnal-jurnal ilmiah berkualitas. Padahal keberadaan jurnal-jurnal ilmiah inilah tonggak kemajuan riset di Nusantara. Di sisi lain, jurnal-jurnal internasional men-charge biaya yang tidak tanggung-tanggung untuk akses bahkan ke hanya 1 artikel. Coba lihat saja Elsevier, dengan produk Sciencedirect yang mencakup lebih dari 60% populasi jurnal ilmiah seluruh dunia, akan mengenakan biaya lebih dari 30 US$ (lebih dari Rp.300 ribu) per artikel. Mereka menerbitkan lebih dari 2000 jurnal riset, yang biaya langganan per jurnal untuk kategori Institusi (misal Perpustakaan sebuah universitas di Indonesia) bisa mencapai jutaan rupiah. Bayangkan saja apabila ada puluhan atau ratusan jurnal yang ingin dilanggan oleh institusi di Indonesia. Itulah sebabnya, cukup masuk akal apabila kita mengalami kesulitan akses jurnal-jurnal ilmiah berkualitas.

Walaupun demikian, beberapa jurnal seperti Elsevier, secara periodik, mereka menyediakan akses gratis ke beberapa edisi tertentu, yang secara berkala akan mereka ubah. Sialnya, seringkali ketika kita membutuhkan jurnal edisi tertentu, malah jurnal tersebut tidak bisa diakses (alias mesti membayar). Nah, di sinilah kami mengumpulkan jurnal-jurnal tersebut dan menyediakannya bagi Anda!

Hanya dengan Rp. 10 ribu per artikel, Anda bisa mendapatkan artikel riset yang Anda inginkan!! Kami akan mencarikan melalui koleksi puluhan ribu artikel riset (file .pdf) yang kami miliki. Murah, Nyaman, Cepat, dan Praktis!

—————————————————————————————————————————-

Cara Pemesanan:

1. Kirimkan data artikel riset yang Anda inginkan, misalkan: Nama Pengarang, Judul Artikel, Nama Jurnal, Edisi dan Tahun Terbit, No Halaman (jika ada) ke jurnal.riset@gmail.com

2. Kami akan membalas email Anda, dan meng-informasikan ke Anda mengenai ketersediaan artikel tersebut. Apabila artikel tersebut tersedia, kami akan menginformasikan kepada Anda mengenai teknis pembayaran (melalui tranfer bank)

3. Setelah mengkonfirmasi pembayaran Anda, kami akan mengirimkan file artikel tersebut ke email Anda.

—————————————————————————————————————————-

PROMO!!

Pesan 10 artikel sekaligus dan dapatkan potongan 50%

Hanya dengan Rp.50 ribu, Anda bisa mendapatkan 10 artikel riset kelas dunia. Sepuluh artikel ini boleh berasal dari jurnal ilmiah yang berlainan!! Manfaatkan kesempatan yang berharga ini untuk kemajuan riset Anda!!

—————————————————————————————————————————-

We are always looking for the next great idea and we think you have it!

A Suggestion Box has been installed in the library and now the only thing it needs is your ideas.

Where?

• Look to your right when you walk in. It is mounted on the wall next to the New Books Board.

In last June, Elsevier has launched Scopus TV on YouTube, presenting short videos which mix marketing speeches with end-users testimonials.

Scopus TV: http://www.youtube.com/user/ScopusTV

A same channel for ScienceDirect: http://www.youtube.com/user/ScienceDirectTV

Please note that ScienceDirect, Scopus and The Admin Tool will be unavailable due to scheduled maintenance for approximately 13 hours from 12:00 GMT Saturday, 19 September to 01:00 GMT Sunday, 20 September.

Elsevier apologises for the inconvenience.

Please note that ScienceDirect, Scopus and The Admin Tool will be unavailable due to scheduled maintenance for approximately 7.5 hours from 18:30 Saturday, 29 August to 02:00 GMT Sunday, 30 August.

ScienceDirect apologises for the inconvenience.

Please note that ScienceDirect, Scopus and The Admin Tool will be unavailable due to scheduled maintenance for approximately 7.5 hours from 18:30 Saturday, 29 August to 02:00 GMT Sunday, 30 August.

ScienceDirect apologises for the inconvenience.

I was going to write about recent happenings in Elsevier and ScienceDirect but Abhishek Tiwari has already blogged about it so i’ll just point to his commentary. Indeed its very well thought out and a wonderful read.

I will add my .02 cents though. I don’t directly work for the team that coined the phrase “Article of the Future” but I certainly appreciate the effort and good intentions behind it.  They were trying to (in my opinion) get feedback from the scientific community on where the community wanted Elsevier to go from an article publishing stand point. Yes they could’ve tried to find a few researchers and asked them for input before opening it up to a wider audience but I believe that the more open you are to feedback the better you can respond. I also believe that through the various comments and blog commentaries that are out there, Elsevier has been able to gather a wealth of user input that would definitely not have been possible had they only approached a few people. Users have, through these comments, given Elsevier information on what they care about, what is important to them, what is not so important, what is fluff, etc.

Please keep in mind that this is my personal opinion and i am not privy to any long term strategy for the company as a whole and Elsevier is not responsible for my comments in anyway. If this concept had been titled – “Elsevier’s plan for journal article layout redesign” – I wonder how many people would have bothered to comment about it and offer critical feedback.

The other point that Abhishek covers  that i also wanted to talk about is the NextBio integration with ScienceDirect. A colleague of mine worked very hard to get this feature into ScienceDirect. I firmly believe that this is where publishing is heading. There will be more tools and applications like this that seek to add value to existing online content. In the end the user gains additional insights and (hopefully) enables to get them to the information they seek – faster. I do realize that as with everything else in life, over time there will be flaws detected in the NextBio/SD integration. My hope is that we will continue to learn from that through customer contact, feedback and online commentary.

Here’s is the related extract from Abhishek’s blog. I’ve linked to the article at the bottom.

Last month Elsevier announced the “Article of the Future” project, a very ambitious project proclaimed as trend setter which will redefine how a scientific article is presented online. In the recent past Elsevier has announced several other initiatives to redesign and enhance their online interface ScienceDirect such as Elsevier Article 2.0 contest, Elsevier Grand Challenge and very recently integration with NextBio’s search technology. ScienceDirect which serves as home for more than 2,000 journals will be implementing best ideas of this project. A prototype was rolled out for ScienceDirect hosted journal Cell using content from two previously published articles. At very first glance, one can understand the major enhancement was a hierarchical tabbed presentation of article content where sections of articles such as figures, references can be browsed from top level itself. Secondly the sections accompanied with more real time navigation mechanism. Although these changes look fascinating, I don’t consider this transformation of traditional articles (where they follow a basic linear flow) to a hierarchical presentation(where reader has freedom to browse through article via individualized entry points) as major breakthrough in scientific publishing for very genuine reasons. It is not clear to me how easy it will be to transform a row manuscript into such a staged article? Even if it is easy to do so it is not very first in the list. There have been several other implementation of this kind before this announcement went in public, for example a similar kind of semantically enhanced creative re-use was worked out for a pre-published PLos Neglected Tropical Diseases article. Some may argue the whole affair is great sales gimmick, and Elsevier is trying desperately to polish their paid content in order to retain their institutional subscription which is struggling hard against undercurrent of open access. For example Scholarly kitchen writes Elsevier is just trying to put web 2.0 lipstick on a pig (the traditional print article). According to Scholarly kitchen

Elsevier’s “Article of the Future” looks like an article from the past, with some embedded hyperlinks, some AJAX tabs, two basic social media elements, and not much else.
No doubt “Article of the Future” failed to convince the scientific community on several key areas. It does not mean Elsevier should abandon experimenting with their content, in fact they are experimenting with several other good features such as GenBank linking, ThermoML linking and most notably NextBio integration. Several ScienceDirect articles contain GenBank sequences, these are now linkable to the description of that particular sequence in GenBank. Most of mathematical content on ScienceDirect is now rendered as MathML. I find these kind of enhancement more innovative and appealing from a user perspective, and for me these are real feature that next generation scientific articles should deliver. Integration of NextBio technology with ScienceDirect interface delivers a number of powerful benefits. This integrations has enabled not only accelerated discoverability of key articles but it also provides more insight from existing content through NextBio’s ontology-based semantic framework, extracted correlation with existing knowledge base, and tight integration with publicly available data sources.

from http://www.abhishek-tiwari.com/2009/08/next-generation-scientific-articles.html

There’s one more comment towards the end of Abhishek’s blog that i want to point out -

Annotations is one of the most wanted feature for next generation scientific articles especially shared community annotation and tagging. Last but not least, for god shake stop promoting PDF.

Concepts like annotations have been in the works for many publishers. The problem, however, is that every time we do focused user tests, where i go out and meet users and demo a concept to them; more often that not i get comments along the lines – ‘That’s nice. But i only really care about the pdf. If there was someway for me to get to the pdf faster i’m all for it”. How can you as a business not take that into account when you’re doing a cost/benefit analysis? There is always the concern – Do people really care? Do i really want to invest in all this work for a feature enhancement when the feedback is telling me that it will be hardly used?

Nevertheless, I know Elsevier and other publishers have moved forward with concept ideas that hopefully over time will become useful as more and more people become aware of it. I for one am all for putting features and concepts out there in the open and letting our users tell us what’s wrong with it and in subsequent releases, improving upon it. Maybe the 5 to 10% of  early adopters will help create awareness amongst the vast majority who are not early adopters. Maybe the company brand name will take a beating initially but eventually it will be known for responding to user feedback, valuing user opinion and partnering with the community.

If you use the UK Federation to access Science Direct while off campus – we are current having technical issues so you will need to connect using the VPN.

For more info on VPN access, see our off-site access web page.

Verano y vacaciones para todos menos para los recursos electrónicos que te ofrece la Biblioteca Universitaria de Sevilla; si necesitas consultarlos puedes hacerlo desde donde quiera que estés: IOP Science, Iustel, Jstor, Emerald, Ebsco, CRCnetBASE, ISI Web of Knowledge, Nature, E-Libro, Engineering Information, Web of  Science, ScienceDirect, Taylor & Francis, Oxford University PressProQuest, CSIC, GreenData, SpringerLink, Refworks…
Ver más en Noticias de la BUS.

En este recurso podran encontrar articulos de interes para el area de ciencias y tecnologia, el sitios es amigable, contiene texto de libros y articulo de revista, el sitios es muy completo y de bastante interes, en el campo de busqueda lo puedes hacer por el nombre del libro o revista, tema e incluso paginas de los mismo o por busqueda de todos los campos o autor, el recurso contiene un total de 2500 revistas y 6000 libros.

Si j’ai eu un peu la dent dure contre Couperin dans un récent billet, c’est que j’en attends beaucoup plus, ou autre chose, que l’orientation tous azimuts observée ces dernières années et à laquelle je m’étais clairement opposé lors du renouvellement du bureau professionnel, en 2006.  A l’époque, nous avions présenté une liste pour un recentrage des missions et un abandon de tout ce qui pouvait de près ou de loin conduire à une ossification institutionnelle (comité, bureau, commission, sous-commission, groupe, sous-groupe,…). L’idée était de retrouver en quelque sorte la réactivité et la liberté des débuts…

Deux idées forces sous-tendaient alors la proposition : limiter et recentrer les activités du département Négociations pour affermir voire durcir les positions de Couperin et orienter le département Etudes et recherches sur des projets-actions, soit privilégier le développement plutôt que la prospective. Attention, je ne dis pas que Couperin est inutile et ne fait rien mais seulement qu’il se disperse et se dilue sur des fonctions que pourraient (devraient) assurer d’autres acteurs (les statistiques, la veille, l’information professionnelle, les journées d’études…) comme l’ADBU, l’ENSSIB, les URFIST… voire la MISTRD.

Deux exemples récents me font dire qu’il est peut-être temps de nous recentrer sur les fondamentaux. Le dernier billet de Daniel qui appelle bien plus qu’une liste de recommandations de la part de Couperin et les conditions du renouvellement en cours du marché Elsevier, dont je ne peux parler ici, mais qui consiste en gros pour l’éditeur à reconduire à “l’arrache” un accord qui ne convient pas aux bibliothèques avec une augmentation annuelle à deux chiffres. Il est peut-être temps de couper le robinet, de dire stop et de placer chacun devant ses responsabilités : les bibliothécaires, les chercheurs et les éditeurs.

Prenons l’exemple du Doctrinal. Tarif en augmentation exorbitante (+37% à Angers en 2008) + pas de statistiques + pas d’OpenUrl = on arrête tout, tous, pendant un an. Le marché géré par l’ABES étant de 316 000 € annuel représente quand même entre 15 et 20% du CA de Thomson Transactive, ça peut faire réfléchir et agir l’éditeur non ? Pour Elsevier, je ne serais pas contre un désabonnement national et pourquoi pas mettre les 11,6 millions d’euros dégagés à la disposition de la communauté scientifique pour se structurer et créer une offre scientifique alternative.

Bullshit ?

La proliferación de redes sociales centradas exclusivamente en herramientas tipo vídeo o presentaciones se están haciendo muy populares en los últimos tiempos. Destacan Youtube, Google Videos, VodPod, Vimeo o DNAtube para vídeos y por ejemplo SlideShare para presentaciones. En ellos se pueden encontrar documentos muy interesantes como videotutoriales que explican el uso de herramientas y bases de datos en ciencias de la salud.

Os enlazo varios ejemplos que me han parecido interesantes:

• Excelencia Clínica: videotutorial de la base de datos TripDataBase en español, es decir: Excelencia Clínica.
• RSS Feed en Pubmed: videotutorial que explica brevemente cómo crear RSS de búsquedas en Pubmed.
• ScienceDirect: aquí explica cómo localizar artículos en la plataforma ScienceDirect. Recuerda que la Biblioteca del Hospital de Torrevieja está suscrita a través de la Conselleria de Sanitat y puedes acceder a los artículos a texto completo si haces la búsqueda desde los ordenadores del hospital o a través del Portal de Aplicaciones (pide más información aquí)
• PubMed y EndNote: cómo importar registros de PubMed en el gestor de referencias bibliográficas EndNote. Aunque no es exactamente igual, la Biblioteca del Hospital ofrece suscripción a EndNote Web desde la Web of Knowledge.
• Web of Knowledge para buscar revistas: para acceder a la Web of Knowledge tenéis que acceder a través de la FECYT: WoK.

Y si queréis ir directamente a las herramientas y bases de datos:

• PubMed
• Excelencia Clínica
• TripDataBase
• Web of Knowledge
• Biblioteca Cochrane
• ScienceDirect

Please note, ScienceDirect, Scopus and The Admin Tool will be unavailable due to scheduled maintenance for approximately 16 hours from 13:00 Saturday, 20 June to 05:00 Sunday, 21 June GMT.

Are you a frequent user of the database ScienceDirect? Did you know you can personalize ScienceDirect? After registration you can save alerts, set the number of displayed search results, etc. One of the extra options is called ‘RefWorks settings’.  If you enter your RefWorks account information in ScienceDirect, you will be automatically logged in to RefWorks when you export citations. You can register yourself by going to ScienceDirect and clicking the link ‘Not registered’ in the rightuppercorner.

Exporting references from ScienceDirect is easy: mark the titles you want to export, click ‘Export Citations’ at the top of the results list and mark RefWorks Direct Export. Click Export and the references will be imported in your RefWorks account.

‘t Is al weer een paar weken geleden dat de hele academische wereld (nou ja, vooral dat bibliotheek-hoekje daarvan) zich druk én vrolijk over de onthulling dat Elsevier enkele jaren geleden een aantal tijdschriften heeft gepubliceerd waar de zo veel geprezen peer review niet alleen ontbrak maar die in feite promotiemateriaal waren voor het farmaceutische bedrijf Merck. Dat bedrijf zou Elsevier zelfs betaald hebben om tijdschriften als de Australian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine uit te geven. Het nieuws was natuurlijk koren op de molen van Open Access-propagandisten. Was hiermee niet definitief bewezen dat we die vermaledijde uitgeefgiganten helemaal niet nodig hebben? Zij die altijd roepen dat ze onmisbaar zijn omdat zij als enigen kunnen zorgen voor het waarborgen van de wetenschappelijke kwaliteit via peer review blijken daar zelf om commerciële redenen een loopje mee te nemen. Of, in de woorden van Peter Suber: “Remember this anecdote the next time someone raises the common myth that OA journals are lower quality or that OA is about bypassing quality control. Closed access does not guarantee high quality, even from the most prominent publishers.”

Maar ja, is die peer review dan wel in goede handen bij Open Access-tijdschriften? Elsevier & co roepen natuurlijk al jaren dat dat niet zo is en ook zij kunnen zich nu weer verheugen in een aansprekend praktijkvoorbeeld: op de Scholarly Kitchen-blog doet Phil Davis verslag van zijn ervaringen met het OA-tijdschrift The Open Information Science Journal dat uitgegeven wordt door Bentham Science op basis van het author-pays model. Davis stuurde een nep-artikel van de auteurs David Phillips en Andrew Kent, beiden verbonden aan het Center for Research in Applied Phrenology (CRAP), in dat na enkele maanden en, volgens Bentham Science, na peer review voor publicatie werd geaccepteerd. Of hij maar even de fee wilde overmaken. Zie je wel, hoor je ze bij Elsevier denken: Open Access staat gelijk aan onbetrouwbaar.

Elsevier was er als de kippen bij om de Merck-onthulling als een incident af te doen, iets wat al weer enkele jaren geleden zich had afgespeeld en in de tussentijd waren de touwtjes uiteraard strakker aangetrokken zodat dit niet nog een keer zou kunnen gebeuren. Hetzelfde zie je gebeuren bij de Bentham-hoax: Peter Suber put zich op zijn blog uit in het beargumenteren dat ook dit een uitzondering is en dat hiermee uiteraard niet de hele Open Access-beweging in diskrediet is gebracht.

Er staat ook veel op het spel. Dat blijkt nog eens uit de nieuwe SURF-studie Costs and Benefits of Research Communication: The Dutch Situation: als alle wetenschappelijke artikelen openbaar beschikbaar zouden zijn, zou dat de Nederlandse samenleving een voordeel op kunnen leveren van 133 miljoen euro per jaar (mijn cursivering). Ik heb de studie nog niet helemaal goed gelezen, maar volgens mij is dat maar de helft van het verhaal: Open Access zou de Nederlandse universiteiten ook zo’n 60 miljoen extra gaan kosten om al hun wetenschappelijke artikelen op basis van het author-pays model gepubliceerd te krijgen. Maar goed, het gaat om grote bedragen en het gaat om een groot goed: de toegankelijkheid van wetenschappelijke informatie. Voor deze zomer staan voor de Nederlandse universiteitsbibliotheken de onderhandelingen over een nieuwe licentie voor Elseviers ScienceDirect op het programma. Ook daarbij gaat het om een bedrag van vele miljoenen op jaarbasis, waarover dus echt wel even onderhandeld moet worden. Vraag is alleen hoeveel onderhandelingsvrijheid de universiteitsbibliotheken hebben: hun wetenschappers smullen van de onbeperkte toegang tot Elseviers tijdschriften en maken daar meer dan intensief gebruik van. Hoe acceptabel is beperktere toegang indien er in financieel opzicht straks niet met Elsevier uit te komen valt?

If you are thinking of cancelling any journals in the coming months, could you take a look at this spreadsheet first, please.

It lists the titles which are tied into three  NESLI2 agreements, giving us access to ejournal collections from Wiley-Blackwell, ScienceDirect, and BMJ.

The titles on the spreadsheet shouldn’t be cancelled.

There’s a little leeway at the end of the year to make some cancellations and substitutions.  Contact us if you want details.

Really smart and funny this approach chosen by Elsevier to promote the new design of ScienceDirect! I like it… (except a few mistakes in the French translation…)

Type your favorite query into a kind of meta-search engine google-like form to see how search engines (Google, Yahoo!, etc.) give you an amazing number of hits (that indeed you will never look at)…  By the opposite, ScienceDirect gives you a limited number of responses but they are high-quality and peer-reviewed… so, you save your time!!!

http://www.research-engine.com/  (don’t skip the intro)