Science Intelligence and InfoPros

• Akel, Martin & Associates. FREE Web search Vs. PAID search tools: a comparison of productivity in the Research Process, 2007. White paper. Online: www.elsevierforindustry.com
– An important study that shows how paid tools improve the Research Workflow

• Akel & Associates. A Study of Correlation: The Effect of R&D Information Tools on Research Success. 2006. White paper: Online: www.elsevierforindustry.com
– Impact of the Librarians on the R&D process

• Amsen, Eva. Scientists and Web 2.0. Expression patterns: Monday, 27 April 2009. Online: https://network.nature.com/people/eva/blog/2009/04/27/scientists-and-web-2-0
– Nothing new but a good summary

•Anonymous. It’s good to blog! Editorial. Nature, 457, 1058 (26 February 2009) | doi:10.1038/4571058a; Published online 25 February 2009. Online: https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7233/full/4571058a.html

• Askey, Dale. We Love Open Source Software. No, You Can’t Have Our Code. The Code4Lib Journal, Issue 5, 2008, pp.12-15. Online: https://journal.code4lib.org/articles/527
– A pity: Librarians like Open software but don’t share their codes!

• Bellanca, Toni. Readership trends: how they affect journal usage (Carol Tenopirs’ interview), Elsevier Editor’s Update, Issue 21. February 2008.
– Relates important works of Carol Tenopir which are often used by the Elsevier Marketing.

• Brown, Barry N.. Research Methods for Comprehensive Science Literature Reviews. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, Spring 2009. Online:https://www.istl.org/09-spring/experts1.html
– Methods and handouts to help researchers when they conduct bibliographic research

• Chartron, Ghislaine, Caillon, Elisabeth. Citations des ressources électroniques dans les publications scientifiques : Analyse comparée. Étude réalisée pour le Ministère de l’enseignement supérieur et de la recherche. Online: https://archivesic.ccsd.cnrs.fr/sic_00345575/fr/
– (In French). Scientists do not cite web resources.

• Crotty, David. Why Web 2.O is failing in Biology. Bench Marks blog, online, Feb. 2008: https://www.cshblogs.org/cshprotocols/2008/02/14/why-web-20-is-failing-in-biology/
– A fundamental article to understand why Scientists don’t use (yet) science blogs

• Evans, J. A. & Reimer, J. (2009). Open Access and Global Participation in Science. Science, 323 (5917), 1025-1025. Online: https://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/323/5917/1025
– What is the real impact of Open Access on global Science Publishing.

• Fuld & Company. Intelligence Software Report 2006/2007: technology risk and reward. White paper, 2006. Online: www.fuld.com
– I like the conclusion : even the best search engine requires the help of an Info-Pro

• International Association of STM Publishers. An overview of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishing and the Value it adds to Research Outputs. White paper, April 2008. Online: www.stm-asso.org
– The Big STM Publishers are lobbying….

• Matuszak, Gary. Enterprise 2.0. The benefits and Challenges of Adoption. White paper. KPMG, 2007.
– One of the rare in-depth study about the low adoption of Web 2.0 by companies.

• Mark Ware Consulting Ltd. Scientific publishing in transitions: an overview of current developments. White paper, 2006. Online: www.markwareconsulting.com
– A study funded by Publishers themselves.

• Mort, David (for the IRN). Tight budgets affect scholarly information market. Research Information, August/September 2009. Online: https://www.researchinformation.info/features/feature.php?feature_id=229
– Economic downturn would encourage Scientists to switch to alternatives free tools

• Perry, Michelle. The applicance of science: Web 2.0. Information World Review, 03 december 2008. Online: https://www.iwr.co.uk/information-world-review/features/2231892/applicance-science-web

• Rowlands, Ian & Olivieri, René. Journals and Scientific productivity: a case study in immunology and microbiology. PRC Summary Papers 1, 2006. Online: https://www.publishingresearch.org.uk/journals_scientific.htm

• Thomson Reuters. « KEY OPINION LEADER IDENTIFICATION AND SELECTION: A PHARMA MATTERS REPORT. OCTOBER 2008». White Paper, Thomson Reuters: https://scientific.thomsonreuters.com/pm/KOLwhitepaper.pdf

• Verheggen, Joep (Elsevier). Scientific communications: the role of the publisher. Library Connect Seminar Presentations: https://www.elsevier.com/framework_librarians/Docs/Elsevier_Joep2007.pdf

• Unesco. Science Report, 2005. Online: https://www.unesco.org/science/psd/publications/sc_rp_05.shtml

• Warr, Wendy. STM on the advance, Information WorldReview, 05 Dec 2008, Online : https://www.iwr.co.uk/information-world-review/features/2232039/stm-advance