Quantitative analysis of researchers’ use of scholarly networks shows that they are more likely to be used for individual interests than for collaborative purposes.
The social media revolutions continues to roll onward.
A very musical new platform is announced with utmost secrecy.
One year later, Twitter’s business services plans seem to be rolling out.
As science publishers, we hear a lot about the potential for new technologies. Often this comes in the form of a pitch from someone looking to sell you on either the technology they’re offering or on their expertise. In trying to see through the salesmanship, it’s important to have some general rules of thumb for approaching the integration of social media as tools for the research science community.
As 2009 comes to an end, here is a selection of entries that left an especially nice flavor on the palette.
The NIH spends $12.2 million funding a social network for scientists. Is this any more likely to succeed than all the other recent failures?
More than ever, text is a part of the user experience. Do we appreciate the art involved? Has the medium changed the message?
The special nature of Twitter makes it ideal for information sharing, and allows it to exploit the links that matter most for information dissemination — the weaker links in the social space.
Hubspot’s new report on the Twittersphere looks grim at first glance. But, with some normal Web wisdom in hand, a second look proves fruitful.
The SSP’s Annual Meeting is underway. That means more blogging from sessions, about sessions, and inspired by sessions.