T H E B R A V E N E W W O R L D O F S C I E N T I F I C P U B L I S H I N G

© 2008 BioInformatics, LLC and PJA

Life Science 2.0:The Brave New World of Scientific Publishing

of 14

Life Science 2.0: The Brave New World of Scientific PublishingExecutive Summary and Topline Findings


Study Parameters and MethodologySTUDY GOAL: DETERMINE HOW SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL USAGE IS EVOLVING ONLINE AND THE ROLE OF SOCIAL MEDIA IN ACCELERATING THIS SHIFT

This report is based on an online survey conducted by BioInformatics, LLC in conjunction with PJA Advertising + Marketing.

To create the study, a 31-question online survey was fielded to members of The Science Advisory Board. With more than 37,000 members, The Science Advisory Board is one of the most established professional social networks for scientists on the Web. In order to reduce the potential for bias, the survey was also fielded to randomly selected life scientists not registered with The Science Advisory Board. 1,557 responses were collected during May 2008.

To provide additional trending detail, we included several tracking questions from our first joint survey, “The New Collaboration: Social Media and the Life Science Opportunity,” published in November 2007.

North America

Europe

Asia

Australasia/Pacific

Central/South America

Africa

49%

34%

11%

4%

2%

1%

Survey Participants by Region

(n=1,557)

Survey Participants: Registered Members ofThe Science Advisory Board and Randomly Selected Scientists

(n=1,557)

Randomly Selected

The Science AdvisoryBoard (SAB)

30%

70%

http://www.lifesciencesocialmedia.com

of 14



Topline Findings

Selected Tracking Questions from Wave 1 (11/07)

1. The influence of traditional media as a trusted information source is decreasing.

2. Social media usage has increased, but the amount of time spent on these tools has decreased slightly.

3. Social media tools continue to broaden scientists’ perspective on problems.

New Findings (6/08)

1. Scientists are becoming more informed about recent Web 2.0 tools for social collaboration but their use doesn’t yet match their awareness.

2. New Web 2.0 and Collaboration tools are becoming increasingly valuable to today’s researcher.

3. Awareness of some new information sources is higher than traditional ones.

4. Scientists remain ambivalent about whether services like Google Scholar are an infringement of copyright laws.

5. As their awareness of Web 2.0 social media increases, distinct generational differences in respondents’ use of these tools is emerging.


of 14



Analysis: Tapping the social media opportunity in scientific publishingScientific discovery always has been built on collaboration and access to past research, which makes journals essential to the advancement of both basic and applied research. Communicating via journals facilitates collaboration, helps avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, and guides the pursuit of more productive lines of inquiry.

Yet the price of traditional journals – which includes fixed costs for staffing, production, and delivery – continues to rise in excess of the rate of infla-tion in most countries. This reality has accelerated the birth of new Web 2.0 publishing models online.

For many scientists, the adoption of Web 2.0 practices began with online editions of print-based research articles, either on journals’ sites or via search engines such as PubMed. More recently, however, traditional subscription-based journals are seeing competition from fully Web-based, “open-access” journals – free journals not subject to the traditional peer review process – such as Molecular Systems Biology an offshoot of Nature.

Why do new open-access journals pose a challenge to publishers?

within a year of publication – could cause great disruption to the viability of traditional scientific publishing financial models.

throughout the world.

of control over what is published and what is not.

competitors not only divert readers, they also divert potential advertisers anxious to reach specific groups of scientists and clinicians with targeted messages.

Initial concern in the scientific community about the quality of open access journals has quickly dissipated given their functionality to instantly search current and past scientific data. As the landscape in which science dissemination takes place continues to evolve, surveys like this one indicate that providers of this information must look at new business models and practices in order to survive. Adopting better social media practices, we feel, is key to this adaptation.


http://www.nature.com/msb/index.html

of 14



TRACKING UPDATE: HOW SOCIAL MEDIA USE HAS CHANGED SINCE 2007

To gauge how social media and general online usage patterns are changing over time, we repeated several questions from the first wave of research (November 2007). Three key findings are:

1. The influence of traditional media as a trusted information source for purchasing decisions is decreasing. Conversely, respondents’ trust in new online media has increased.

Question: What do you consider to be the THREE most trusted information sources for your purchasing decisions?

(2008 n=1,422; 2007 n=1,362)

72%

2007

2008

44%

35%

28%

27%

25%

19%

19%

3%

61%

30%

25%

29%

27%

26%

25%

30%

3%None of the above

Third party online portals

Editorial Web sites

Printed trade magazines

User-generated content

Online retailers such asVWR and Fisher Scientific

Content aggregators

Printed catalogs or buyer’s guides

Company Web sites


of 14




2. While use of social media tools has increased overall, the amount of time spent on these tools has decreased slightly from Wave I (November 2007). Although intensity of usage has fallen off slightly since late 2007, between 9 and 17 percent of scientists now spend up to two hours per week using the most popular social media tools.

Less than30 minutes

More than4 hours

30 minutesto 1 hour

2 to 4 hours

Total Respondents

57% 27% 722

59% 27% 394

60% 27% 283

231

27%

166

96

Question: On average, for each type of social media you use professionally, how many hours do you spend per week using it?

56% 22% 7%

3%

2%

2%

2%

5%

3%

3%

2%

0%

1%

2%

0%

5%

2%

1%Discussion groups/message boards

Content aggregators/portals/mashups

Online communities/social networking sites

Podcasts/audiocasts

Wikis/social bookmarking

Video content

Widgets

2008 Results

Blogs

22853%

61% 26%

44% 31% 326

55% 30%

12%

9%

11%

1 to 2 hours

12%

17%

10%

16%

10%


of 14




3. Social media tools continue to broaden scientists’ perspective on problems. Although their influence on direct decision-making has weakened since our first wave of research, scientists who believe social media has in some way changed the decision-making process continue to see value in social media tools to discover more problem-solving options, to provide faster access to trends and to make inquiries in a global rather than regional or local context.

68%71%

41%26%

56%57%

37%38%

35%34%

2007

2008

Question: How have social media tools changed the nature of your decision-making process?

No change

Probe more deeply into a solution than dealing with a vendor

Participate in active dialogue with colleagues and competitors worldwide

Faster access to news, research, and trend information

Discover more options to solve a problem

(2008 n=838; 2007 n=1,001)

(2008 n=1,416 2007 n=1,361)


of 14



WAVE 2 FINDINGS HIGHLIGHTS

1. Scientists are becoming more informed about recent Web 2.0 tools for social collaboration; but their use doesn’t yet match their awareness. Assuming that market share follows mind share, scientists will be using more of new tools such as ScholarOne and Biomedexperts in the near future.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

BioTechniques Protocol Guide

Use/Have Usedn=1,486

Aware Ofn=1,219

Nature ProtocolsProtocol Online

Cold Spring Harbor ProtocolsWiley's Current Protocols

Springer Protocols (Humana Press)

The Science Advisory BoardNature Networks

ScholarOneInnoCentive

Scientist SolutionsAmerican Chemical Society Member Network

Biomedexperts.comKnowledgeMesh

Traditional Online Tools

Web 2.0/Social Collaboration

Question: Which of the following Web-based information and research collaboration services are you aware of? Which have you used in the last 12 months?


http://www.scholarone.com

http://www.biomedexperts.com

of 14




2. New Web 2.0 and Collaboration tools are becoming increasingly valuable to today’s researcher. Traditional online tools such as Nature Protocols and Protocols Online score high in terms of value and current usage, but more collaborative tools such as Nature Network, Scholar One, and The Science Advisory Board are gaining momentum.

7. VeryValuable

1. Not At All Valuable

TotalRespondents Mean3 26 4

21%

23%

27%

27%

13%

14%

15%

13%

13%

13%

12%

9%

4%

5%

41%

36%

31%

30%

36%

34%

26%

24%

28%

28%

20%

32%

25%

23%

27%

27%

27%

30%

35%

34%

42%

33%

34%

32%

34%

25%

39%

30%

1%

1%

2%

2%

1%

2%

1%

0%

3%

5%

3%

4%

4%

7%

0%

0%

<1%

<1%

<1%

1%

0%

2%

1%

3%

3%

4%

4%

6%

513

391

269

309

533

146

107

105

754

76

64

53

28

96

5.7

5.6

5.6

5.6

5.4

5.4

5.3

5.1

5.1

5.0

5.0

4.9

4.8

4.5

5

Question: Of the services you have used, how VALUABLE are they to your research needs?

7%

9%

11%

10%

11%

13%

11%

25%

15%

16%

27%

17%

25%

22%

3%

3%

1%

2%

3%

3%

5%

3%

7%

4%

0%

9%

0%

6%

Nature Protocols

Protocol Online

Wiley's Current Protocols

Cold Spring Harbor Protocols

BioTechniques Protocol Guide

Springer Protocols (Humana Press)

Nature Networks

ScholarOne

The Science Advisory Board

Scientist Solutions

American Chemical Society Member Network

Biomedexperts.com

KnowledgeMesh

InnoCentive

Traditional Online Tools

Web 2.0/Social Collaboration


http://www.nature.com/nprot/index.html

http://www.protocol-online.org

http://network.nature.com


http://www.scienceboard.net

of 14




3. Awareness of some new information sources is higher than traditional ones. For example, more scientists are aware of the scholarly search engine Google Scholar than they are of information products provider Wolters Kluwer.

7. VeryFamiliar

1. Not At All Familiar

TotalRespondents Mean3 26 4

82%

47%

36%

5%

11%

21%

20%

7%

4%

13%

15%

9%

0%

3%

5%

9%

0%

5%

11%

53%

1,543

1,518

1,507

1,420

6.7

5.7

5.1

2.6

5

Question: How familiar are you with the following free literature aggregators/online article services?

2%

7%

8%

9%

1%

3%

6%

7%

PubMed

Science Direct

Google Scholar

Wolters Kluwer


http://scholar.google.com

http://www.wolterskluwer.com

of 14




4. Scientists remain ambivalent about whether services like Google Scholar are an infringement of copyright laws. Nearly half of respondents neither agree nor disagree that Google Scholar infringes copyright laws. In addition, 75% of respondents find that services like Google Scholar have made finding scholarly literature extremely easy.

7. StronglyAgree

1. Strongly Disagree

TotalRespondents Mean3 26

4. Neither AgreeNor Disagree

2%

24%

4%

6%

29%

13%

7%

22%

20%

12%

1%

10%

22%

1%

7%

1,327

1,332

1,329

3.3

5.5

4.1

5

Question: How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

41%

19%

36%

9%

3%

9%

Services like Google Scholar arean infringement on copyright laws

Services like Google Scholar make findingscholarly literature extremely easy

Services like Google Scholar make it more difficultto identify properly 'peer-reviewed' literature


of 14




5. As their awareness of Web 2.0 and social media increases, distinct generational differences in respondents’ use of these tools is emerging. Younger scientists use social media to access objective feedback and services from multiple sources while older scientists use it to stay on top of trends and news. Older, more experienced scientists are less responsive to media overall, but are spending time on podcasts, video content and widgets and online communities/social networking.

Question: What is MOST valuable about social media and its relation to your purchasing process? (choose only one)

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

21 to 3031 to 4041 to 5051 to 55Over 55

Allows my lab to operate more globally

Offers the ability to participate inconversations with peers

Offers more accurate informationrelated to news and trends

Provides access to objective feedback onproducts and services from multiple sources

Provides information to stayahead of the competition

Other


of 14



Study Implications

Given the high cost and even the environmental impact of a print-centric publishing model, this survey shows an increasing awareness of and appetite for not only online versions of traditional journals but for a whole new set of services in the newly emerging world of open-access research. For publishers to tap into this opportunity, we see many possible responses. Here we offer just a few:

1. Charge for the expertise you assemble.

Historically, revenues from journal companies came in the form of subscription fees and advertising. Providing open access to journals eliminates the revenue generated from subscription fees, so publishers of scientific literature must find new sources. One example is paid add-on services: enhanced editions, services, or media tools. BioMed Central now offers a service called Faculty of 1000, a “next-generation literature awareness tool” that highlights and reviews the most interesting papers published in the biological sciences, based on the recommendations of a faculty of more than 2300 researcher “Faculty Members.” In her semi-nal 2002 work The New Culture of Desire, Melinda Davis refers to this practice of simplifying decision-making and information consumption by looking to the guidance of higher, more established authorities as “Yoda-Branding.”

2. Create and monetize premium services.

An alternative to charging users subscription fees for the traditional journal product is to create premium services for which subscribers (libraries and individuals) are willing to pay. The right combination of journal content, user-generated content and affiliated content and tools represents where the market is heading, and where revenue can still be generated.

Although it did not develop the tools in-house, Thomson Publishing re-cently acquired ScholarOne Inc., which provides workflow solutions for scholarly publishers to accelerate the time to market of journals, meet-ing abstracts, and conference proceedings. Tools like ScholarOne that break bottlenecks in the publication process or reframe information in innovative ways should draw new readers and potentially new revenue sources, either via subscriptions or advertising fees.

3. Make the publishing monologue a dialogue.

Providing opportunities for scientists to advance their research through collaborative discussions and interactions, and offering tools for net-working and career development, will help to develop communities of scientists which can sustain and extend the revenue models of scientific publishing houses. The more innovative the combination and use of social media tools, the higher the odds of survival and success.

New technologies come online every week and are being used success-fully in ways not obvious to the average user. To keep up, publishers must learn to identify and incorporate new media in order to decrease user churn rates and maintain revenue stability. Leveraging these tools to keep scientists engaged along with different revenue strategies will go a long way towards increasing the long-term survival of publishing houses.


http://www.f1000biology.com/home


of 14

The New Collaboration: Social Media and the Life Science Opportunity


READY TO LEARN MORE?PJA and BioInformatics, LLC can help you leverage your needs in the Life Science 2.0 world. To do so, please contact us at BioInformatics, LLC or PJA Advertising + Marketing


T H E B R A V E N E W W O R L D O F S C I E N T I F I C P U B L I S H I N G

Documents

Transcript of T H E B R A V E N E W W O R L D O F S C I E N T I F I C P U B L I S H I N G