#EAHIL2012 CEC 2: Visibility & Impact – Library’s New Role to Enhance Visibility of Researchers

4 07 2012

This week I’m blogging at (and mostly about) the 13th EAHIL conference in Brussels. EAHIL stands for European Association for Health Information and Libraries.

The second Continuing Education Course (CEC) I followed was given by Tiina Heino and Katri Larmo of the Terkko Meilahti Campus Library at the University of Helsinki in Finland.

The full title of the course was Visibility and impact – library’s new role: How the library can support the researcher to get visibility and generate impact to researcher’s work. You can read the abstract here.

The hands-on workshop mainly concentrated on the social bookmarking sites ConnoteaMendeley and Altmetric.

Furthermore we got information on CiteULike, ORCID,  Faculty of 1000 Posters and Pinterest. Also services developed in Terkko, such as ScholarChart and TopCited Articles, were shortly demonstrated.

What I especially liked in the hands on session is that the tutors had prepared a wikispace with all the information and links on the main page ( https://visibility2012.wikispaces.com) and a separate page for each participant to edit (here is my page). You could add links to your created accounts and embed widgets for Mendeley.

There was sufficient time to practice and try the tools. And despite the great number of participants there was ample room for questions (& even for making a blog draft ;)).

The main message of the tutors is that the process of publishing scientific research doesn’t end at publishing the article: it is equally important what happens after the research has been published. Visibility and impact in the scientific community and in the society are  crucial  for making the research go forward as well as for getting research funding and promoting the researcher’s career. The Fig below (taken from the presentation) visualizes this process.

The tutors discussed ORCID, Open Researcher and contributor ID, that will be introduced later this year. It is meant to solve the author name ambiguity problem in scholarly communication by central registry of unique identifiers for each author (because author names can’t be used to reliably identify all scholarly author). It will be possible for authors to create, manage and share their ORCID record without membership fee. For further information see several publications and presentations by Martin Fenner. I found this one during the course while browsing Mendeley.

Once published the author’s work can be promoted using bookmarking tools, like CiteULike, Connotea and Mendeley. You can easily registrate for Connotea and Mendeley using your Facebook account. These social bookmarking tools are also useful for networking, i.e. to discover individuals and groups with the same field of interest. It is easy to synchronize your Mendeley with your CiteULike account.

Mendeley is available in a desktop and a web version. The web version offers a public profile for researchers, a catalog of documents, and collaborative groups (the cloud of Mendeley). The desktop version of Mendeley is specially suited for reference management and organizing your PDF’s. That said Mendeley seems most suitable for serendipitous use (clicking and importing a reference you happen to see and like) and less useful for managing and deduplicating large numbers of records, i.e. for a systematic review.
Also (during the course) it was not possible to import several PubMed records at once in either CiteULike or Mendeley.

What stroke me when I tried Mendeley is that there were many small or dead groups. A search for “cochrane”  for instance yielded one large group Cochrane QES Register, owned by Andrew Booth, and 3 groups with one member (thus not really a group), with 0 (!) to 6 papers each! It looks like people are trying Mendeley and other tools just for a short while. Indeed, most papers I looked up in PubMed were not bookmarked at all. It makes you wonder how widespread the use of these bookmarking tools is. It probably doesn’t help that there are so many tools with different purposes and possibilities.

Another tool that we tried was Altmetric. This is a free bookmarklet on scholarly articles which allows you to track the conversations around scientific articles online. It shows the tweets, blogposts, Google+ and Facebook mentions, and the numbers of bookmarks on Mendeley, CiteULike and Connotea.

I tried the tool on a paper I blogged about , ie. Seventy-Five Trials and Eleven Systematic Reviews a Day: How Will We Ever Keep Up?

The bookmarklet showed the tweets and the blogposts mentioning the paper.

Indeed altmetrics did correctly refer to my blog (even to 2 posts).

I liked altmetrics*, but saying that it is suitable for scientific metrics is a step too far. For people interested in this topic I would like to refer -again- to a post of Martin Fenner on altmetrics (in general).  He stresses that “usage metrics”  has its limitations because of its proness  to “gaming” (cheating).

But the current workshop didn’t address the shortcomings of the tools, for it was meant as a first practical acquaintance with the web 2.0 tools.

For the other tools (Faculty of 1000 Posters, Pinterest) and the services developed in Terkko, such as ScholarChart and TopCited Articles,  see the wikipage and the presentation:

*Coincidentally I’m preparing a post on handy chrome extensions to look for tweets about a webpage. Altmetric is another tool which seems very suitable for this purpose

Related articles





National Library Week

12 04 2011

It is National Library Week! Did you know that?

To be honest I didn’t.

Today, Tuesday, is even National Library Workers Day — a time to thank librarians and the rest of the library staff (LA-Times).

I didn’t know that either, until I received a tweet from @doc_emer which was retweeted by doctor_V (see Fig).

Now I know.

Thank you Dr. Emer and Bryan Vartabedian (Doctor V). You made my day!

*********************************

Added:

 

@amcunningham (AnneMarie Cunningham) tweeted:
Since it’s national library week, thought I’d say thanks to all the great librarians on this list:) http://bit.ly/gkzKZm

 

 





Internet Sources & Blog Posts in a Reference List? Yes or No?

13 02 2011

A Dutch librarian asked me to join a blog carnival of Dutch Librarians. This carnival differs from medical blog carnivals (like the Grand Rounds and “Medical Information Matters“) in its approach. There is one specific topic which is discussed at individual blogs and summarized by the host in his carnival post.

The current topic is “Can you use an internet source”?

The motive of the archivist Christian van der Ven for starting this discussion was the response to a post at his blog De Digitale Archivaris. In this post he wondered whether blog posts could be used by students writing a paper. It struck him that students rarely use internet sources and that most teachers didn’t encourage or allow to use these.

Since I work as a medical information specialist I will adapt the question as follows:

“Can you refer to an internet source in a biomedical scientific article, paper, thesis or survey”?

I explicitly use “refer to” instead of “use”. Because I would prefer to avoid discussing “plagiarism” and “copyright”. Obviously I would object to any form of uncritical copying of a large piece of text without checking it’s reliability and copyright-issues (see below).

Previously, I have blogged about the trouble with Wikipedia as a source for information. In short, as Wikipedians say, Wikipedia is the best source to start with in your research, but should never be the last one (quote from @berci in a twitterinterview). In reality, most students and doctors do consult Wikipedia and dr. Google (see here and here). However, they may not (and mostly should not) use it as such in their writings. As I have indicated in the earlier post it is not (yet) a trustworthy source for scientific purposes.

But Internet is more than Wikipedia and random Googling. As a matter of fact most biomedical information is now in digital form. The speed at which biomedical knowledge is advancing is tremendous. Books are soon out of date. Thus most library users confine themselves to articles in peer-reviewed scientific papers or to datasets (geneticists). Generally my patrons search the largest freely available database PubMed to access citations in mostly peer-reviewed -and digital- journals. These are generally considered as (reliable)  internet sources. But they do not essentially differ from printed equivalents.

However there are other internet sources that provide reliable or useful information. What about publications by the National Health Council, an evidence based guideline by NICE and/or published evidence tables? What about synopses (critical appraisals) such as published by DARE, like this one? What about evidence summaries by Clinical Evidence like, this one? All excellent, evidence based, commendable online resources. Without doubt these can be used as a reference in a paper. Thus there is no clearcut answer to the abovementioned question. Whether an internet source should be used as a reference in a paper is dependent on the following:

  1. Is the source relevant?
  2. Is the source reliable?
  3. What is the purpose of the paper and the topic?

Furthermore it depends on the function of the reference (not mutually exclusive):

  1. To give credit
  2. To add credibility
  3. For transparency and reproducibility
  4. To help readers find further information
  5. For illustration (as an example)

Lets illustrate this with a few examples.

  • Students who write an overview on a medical topic can use any relevant reference, including narrative reviews, UpToDate and other internet sites if appropriate .
  • Interns who have to prepare a CAT (critically appraised topic) should refer to 2-3 papers, providing the highest evidence (i.e. a systematic review and/or randomized controlled trial).
  • Authors writing systematic reviews only include high quality primary studies (except for the introduction perhaps). In addition they should (ideally) check congress abstracts, clinical trial registers (like clinicaltrials.gov), or actual raw data (i.e. produced by a pharmaceutical company).
  • Authors of narrative reviews may include all kinds of sources. That is also true for editorials, primary studies or theses. Reference lists should be as accurate and complete as possible (within the limits posed by for instance the journal).

Blog, wikis, podcasts and tweets.
Papers can also refer to blog posts, wikis or even tweets (there is APA guidance how to cite these). Such sources can merely be referred to because they serve as an example (articles about social media in Medicine for instance, like this recent paper in Am Pharm Assoc that analyzes pharmacy-centric blogs.

Blog posts are usually seen as lacking in factual reliability. However, there are many blogs, run by scientists, that are (or can be) a trustworthy source. As a matter of fact it would be inappropriate not to cite these sources, if  the information was valuable, useful and actually used in the paper.
Some examples of excellent biomedical web 2.0 sources.

  • The Clinical Cases and Images Blog of Ves Dimov, MD (drVes at Twitter), a rich source of clinical cases. My colleague once found the only valuable information (a rare patient case) at Dr Ves’ blog, not in PubMed or other regular sources. Why not cite this blog post, if this patient case was to be published?
  • Researchblogging.org is an aggregator of expert blogposts about peer-reviewed research. There are many other high quality scientific blogging platforms like Scientopia, the PLOSblogs etc. These kind of blogs critically analyse peer reviewed papers. For instance this blog post by Marya Zilberberg reveals how a RCT stopped early due to efficacy can still be severely flawed, but lead to a level one recommendation. Very useful information that you cannot find in the actual published study nor in the evidence based guideline
  • An example of an excellent and up-to-date wiki is the open HLWIKI (maintained by Dean Giustini, @giustini at Twitter) with entries about health librarianship, social media and current information technology topics, having over 565+ pages of content since 2006! It has a very rich content with extensive reference lists and could thus be easily used in papers on library topics.
  • Another concept is usefulchem.wikispaces.com (an initiative of Jean Claude Bradley, discussed in a previous post. This is not only a wiki but also an open notebook, where actual primary scientific data can be found. Very impressive.
  • There is also WikiProteins (part of a conceptwiki), an open, collaborative wiki  focusing on proteins and their role in biology and medicine.

I would like to end my post with two thoughts.

First the world is not static. In the future scientific claims could be represented as formal RDF statements/triplets  instead of or next to the journal publications as we know them (see post on nanopublications). Such “statements” (already realized with regard to proteins and genes) are more easily linked and retrieved. In effect, peer review doesn’t prevent fraud, misrepresentation or overstatements.

Another side of the coin in this “blogs as an internet source”-dicussion is whether the citation is always appropriate and/or accurate?

Today a web page (cardio.nl/ACS/StudiesRichtlijnenProtocollen.html), evidently meant for education of residents, linked to one of my posts. Almost the entire post was copied including a figure, but the only link used was one of my tags EBM (hidden in the text).  Even worse, blog posts are sometimes mentioned to give credit to disputable context. I’ve mentioned the tactics of Organized Wisdom before. More recently a site called deathbyvaccination.com links out of context to one of my blog post. Given the recent revelation of fraudulent anti-vaccine papers, I’m not very happy with that kind of “attribution”.

Related Articles





Implementing Twitter in a Health Sciences Library

23 11 2010

Twitter describes itself as “a service for friends, family, and co-workers to communicate and stay connected through the exchange of quick, frequent answers to one simple question: What are you doing?” [2].

The “answers” are equally simple, because the tweet (that what is being “said”) must fit in 140 characters. The tweet does not only contain plain text, but can contain short-URL’s which link to webpages, figures and videos.

However, tweets have evolved to more than everyday experiences, and take the shape of shared links to interesting content on the web, conversations around hot topics (using hashtags (#), like #cochrane OR #ev2010 (conference evidence2010)), photos, videos, music, and real-time accounts of a newsworthy event [2]. Furthermore, Twitter is now also used by institutions and companies  for branding, marketing and costumer service. This also applies to libraries, with public libraries leading the way. Health science libraries started twittering  in 2009 and as of 2010 there were (only) 24 of them. In addition, the National Library of Medicine (NLM) and most of the regional National Network of Libraries of Medicine (NN/LMs) have a Twitter presence.  I follow @NLM_LHC and @NLM newsroom, for instance.

The NYU Health Sciences Libraries (NYUHSL) began using Twitter in June 2009. The team, consisting of the Director, the Emerging Technologies Librarian and the Web Services Librarian of the NYUHSL, described their experience with the implementation of Twitter in the latest Medical Reference Services Quarterly [1]

The main aim of their Twitter account was to disseminate topics similar to what was posted on their Web site: news about facilities, resources, handy tidbits, services offered, downtime, events, and staff, as well as breaking news.

What was their approach and what were their main experiences?

  • Claim your name, as soon as you vaguely consider using Twitter!
    In the case of  NYUHSL, their usual library acronym was already taken, so they took a similar name: @NYU_HSL (because of the 140-character limit, it is advisable to use as few characters as possible: this will leave more room when somebody replies to you).
  • They added the library logo as a profile picture and included a link to the library website plus a short “bio”.
  • First the team shared responsibility for posting on Twitter (by logging in into the NYU_HSL account and posting), but this posed coordination problems (like double postings, irregular postings). Therefore it was decided that team members would post according to a schedule. Furthermore there was a 2-week rotation. Any important news was tweeted promptly and interesting news from other Twitter users was occasionally retweeted .
  • Later CoTweet was used. This is a free tool, which -as its name suggests- allows multiple people to communicate through corporate Twitter accounts and stay in sync while doing so. One person is the account owner, who creates and maintains the account and gives other people access to it. The individual members can post to Twitter via the Co_tweet account.  CoTweet uses bit.ly as an URL-shortener, displays some (rudimentary) stats, allows scheduling and archiving of tweets and has some other slick features for corporate Twitter use. (See  this post at News CNET for a comparison between CoTweet and the better known Hootsuite)
  • What I most liked about the paper – besides the description of CoTweet – is the content flow diagram the authors used (adapted below). Posts from their library blog were automatically cross-posted via RSS to Twitter using Twitterfeed, whereas tweets were in their turn automatically posted on Facebook. To this end a Twitter Tab was added to the NYUHSL Facebook fan page. In addition it remained possible to post manually to the different social networking tools and to respond to followers or retweet messages of other users.

  • The team also had to find the right tone for Twitter: the style of tweets is more informal than the style of blog posts. They emphasize the importance of keeping the nuances of different social networking sites in mind when establishing an institutional presence.
  • They promoted Twitter in many ways:
    • A large Twitter mascot (blue bird) with the text: “Follow NYU_HSL on Twitter” was placed on the prominent Web’s site feature bar (see Fig. below). Unfortunately the twitter message only appears when you press “next”. Most users will not do this.
    • Creation of a small poster about Twitter.
    • A word of mouth campaign (in orientation presentations, and a tag line with Twitter account information in e-mail correspondence to students: according to Pew Internet [3] college graduates are among the biggest users of Twitter.
    • description and promotion of the Twitter account in the library’s e-mail newsletter and in blog posts.

And finally, we have to come up with the Key Question: was it all worth the effort?

At the time of writing the NYU-HSL had 66 followers, 27 of which were affiliated with the NYU (others being other libraries and librarians for instance). This is not a very big (target) audience, but I agree with the authors that the definition of success in social media is relative.  There were clear (subjective) benefits, like the low cost, ease of use, low effort to maintain the service on the one hand and the possibility to engage the audience, get user opinions and the opportunity to fix problems quickly on the other hand. Furthermore it’s presence on Twitter enhances the library’s reputation, as the library is making an effort to extend beyond its walls and confirms the role of librarians as technology leaders.

I also agree with the library’s basic principle “to give users as many options as possible to keep current with library news, resources, and services.” In this regard Twitter is a simple and effective method for promotion.

Thus health, medical and other libraries. I would say, if you are not twittering, give it a try and read the reviewed paper [1] for more tips. One of these tips is to connect with other libraries on Twitter as to learn from their experiences.

Credits:  @DrShock dm-ed (direct messaged) me on Twitter to alert me to the paper. Thanks Walter!

References (all assessed 2010-11-23)

  1. Cuddy, C., Graham, J., & Morton-Owens, E. (2010). Implementing Twitter in a Health Sciences Library Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 29 (4), 320-330 DOI: 10.1080/02763869.2010.518915
  2. Mashable http://mashable.com/guidebook/twitter/
  3. Lenhart, A., and Fox, S. ‘‘Twitter and Status Updating.’’ Report: Web 2.0, Social Networking. Pew Internet & American Life Project (February 12, 2009). Pew Internet: http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/Twitter-and-status-updating.aspx




An Introduction to the Library for Graduate Students

6 11 2010

Below is a presentation I gave at the “World of Science”. This is a 3-day course for graduate students that aims to provide them the fundamental knowledge and skills needed for scientific research, and to prepare them for their thesis at our hospital, the AMC.

The 3-day program comprises a series of presentations on aspects of medical and biomedical research. These include the position of the pharmaceutical industry, the role of scientific journals, the ethical and legal framework of medical research, and the organization and funding of scientific research in the Netherlands. There is also an introduction to the scientific strategy of the AMC, presented by the Dean of the Faculty of Medicine.

Furthermore there are group discussions, workshops, and individual assignments.

The course is held outside the AMC. It provides a unique opportunity for a closer and more personal meeting with each other and with leading AMC scientists, to discuss such matters as the choices they made in their careers.

I had 15 minutes (actually 20 minutes) to tell something about the library. (It used to be 30 min. but wasn’t received so well). That is too short to explain searching to them. Furthermore that is dealt with in our courses, so why give it all away?

I choose to show them how the library could serve them, in an interactive and loose way.

First I asked them how they saw the library. Many, if not all, used our website. Pfff, that was a relieve!

I spend most time talking about searching, showing  examples of searches that failed. Which is the best way to show them they might need some extra education in this respect.

The atmosphere was very good & informal, there were many questions and it was sometimes quite hilarious, not only because of the presentation itself, but because I almost managed to ruin the screen (fell against it) and because I walked away with the microphone.

I had the opportunity to listen to the next speaker too, a young scientist who recently finished his thesis. His talk was great to listen to. He talked about his experience (which was not really representative imho, because it was quite a success story) and he gave the would-be PhD’s 10 handy tips. All in a very entertaining way.

But for now, here is my presentation.





“Ask a Librarian” a new series in the JAAPA.

22 03 2009

The Journal of the American Academy of Physician Assistants (JAAPA) features a new online column : “Ask a Librarian”. Or as JAAPA states it: the inaugural installment of JAAPA’s first online only department. This column is a co-authored by Jim Anderson, Physician Assistant, and Susan Klawansky, Librarian. It aims to promote collaboration of PA’s and other clinicians with medical librarians, address questions from physician assistants and point to resources, including nnlm.gov.

This is a very good initiative, an example that deserves to be followed by other publishers.

The first questions answered were:

  1. Can you explain what a MeSH Heading is? I always hear that term, but I don’t understand what it means. Is it something I need to know to do a good search?
  2. I need to find an article about an exotic genetic condition of one of my patients. I work in a hospital in a rural and remote area in Montana, and while I have access to the Internet, I don’t have access to a library or a librarian. How can I get help online finding an article, and when I find a reference, how can I get the full-text?

Relevant questions, but the answers are rather superficial and short on the one hand (one paragraph long), but too long-winded at the other hand.

For instance, the second question begins as follows:

Are you in luck! Thanks to the Web, medical librarians are everywhere, floating around in the ether, just waiting for questions like this. As a matter of fact, if you look really quick right now, you might see one sitting there up on your shoulder! But seriously, if you have the Internet, you have a librarian…

to simply tell, one can contact nnlm.gov. for this question (web or telephone)…

This information could be much more to the point. On the other hand I wonder, is there no valuable information in (for instance) the OMIM database that the PA/clinician could get for free?

Again, it is a good initiative and I hope JAAPA will succeed in making this a successful column.

HATTIP : pat_devine (twitter)





Educational Videos about Library Stuff

21 03 2009

Yesterday @alisha alerted me to a post of Sheila Webber at the information-literacy blog about a wonderful series of YouTube videos by Llordllam with hand puppets as actors. The videos are a mix of educational videos aimed at librarians, information scientists and library readers. The leading actors are Goose the librarian and Professor Weasel the academic (patron).

The following YouTube video is really superb as well as hilarous. With a typical british sense of humor it tries to make you understand Academic Copyright. Prof Weasel struggles to understand the problems with the traditional journal publication system. Look how he is fooled by the publisher rat.

And for librarians and librarian users this one is a must. Boolean operators explained. Think the jam/bread example will work better than my epistaxis/child example, so who knows I will adapt my slides.

And finally the video “Your Library: A User Centric Experience”. This feels very familiar (the user becomes the king, see also the Flikr pictures in the side bar of our library)

More video’s of Goose and Weasel see page of llordllama on youtube.com and  a facebook page for fans of the video Randy Weasel, Kooei Goose and others

—-

Now, not a Llordllam/Goose/Weasel production, but a very useful video (by paulrobesonlibrary) to illustrate to students the (unusefulness) of Wikipedia as their primary research tool.
Seen at Phil Bradley’s Weblog (No, you can not lower the speed)





Free HILJ 25th Anniversary Supplement

6 11 2008

hilj-25-jaar-schaduw

Health Information and Libraries Journal (HILJ) celebrates its 25th anniversary.

To mark the journal’s anniversary a special celebratory issue, guest edited by Andrew Booth, is being published in December 2008.
Contributors to this supplement include such well known names as Muir Gray, William Hersh, Margaret Haines, Ann McKibbon and Joanne Marshall.

These commentators and others follow the evolution of the journal from its origins on the first editor’s kitchen table in the early 1980′s to its 2008 electronic editorial office. They also survey the past 25 years of health care information services and look to what the future may hold.
The supplement in divided into various sections including:

  • evolution of the journal;
  • 25 years of learning and teaching in action;
  • 25 years of information technology in libraries;
  • 25 years of using evidence in practice;
  • widening panoramas:incorporating health informatics and international perspectives;
  • and future perspectives.

The issue will be available free online forthcoming December at www.blackwellpublishing.com/hilj

Nice detail: To get HILJ-readers involved a special wiki is created (http://yourjournal.pbwiki.com/) where people can submit their contributions.

Brought to my attention by: Suzanne Bakker, Editorial advisory board of HILJ





Ex soccer player now a med student; tv shots at our library

16 10 2008

Wanna see the previous soccer player Arjan de Zeeuw now continuing his medicine study, after a long intermezzo in the English league?? Or wanna see tv-shots of our academic Medical Centre (AMC) and our Medical Library than follow this link and click at the video (Voetballers in vergetelheid). Takes less than 4 minutes.

No surprise that Arjan, who is father of 4 kids, wants to become a sports doctor.

(Notably Arjan seems to read mostly books, whereas most students are behind the pc)

Special thanks to my collegue Marjan of Bidocblog for providing me the link.

http://voetbal.nos.nl/nieuws/artikel/ID/tcm:45-429888/

———————–

Ex-voetballer nu geneeskunde student: opnames in AMC-bibliotheek!

Arjan de Zeeuw heeft zijn studie geneeskunde weer opgepakt na een lange onderbreking als voetballer in de Engelse voetbalcompetitie. Hij is nu te zien in een serie van de NOS: ‘vergeten voetballers’.

Arjan is inmiddels vader van 4 kinderen, heeft zo te zien een aardig woonstekje en tuft elke dag heen en weer naar het AMC. Hij wil graag sportarts worden.

Het leuke is nu dat de opnames in het AMC en met name in onze bieb gemaakt zijn. Dus wil je daar een indruk van krijgen en/of wil je graag iets meer weten over Arjan als medische student, kijk dan naar de volgende video (klik op de tekst naast het oranje-witte pijltje). Tussen 2 haakjes wel opvallend dat hij vooral boeken erop naslaat en niet achter de computer in het digitorium zit.

Met speciale dank aan mijn collega Marjan van het Bidocblog die me op de link gewezen heeft.

http://voetbal.nos.nl/nieuws/artikel/ID/tcm:45-429888/





PubMed: Past, Present And Future, PART I

11 06 2008

I.The Past:
Extremely simple, yet incredibly difficult

For Part II (discussion ATM, Advanced Search beta: see here).

Searching PubMed has never been easy, not for the advanced searcher nor the beginner.

As an advanced searcher you have (had?) to find your way through the Search Bar, MeSH-database, look for broader, narrower or related terms, know when to explode MeSH, add major topics or subheadings or not, know when to use ‘Links’ or the ‘Search to Sendbox’ to send Searches to PubMed. Know when and how to use Clinical Queries, Limits, Field Codes (nowadays called tags :) ), History, MyNCBI saved searches and collections, linkouts, AND, OR, NOT and so on….

It takes some investment of time to become an effective & advanced PubMed searcher.

For the less experienced and/or more rushed people (busy clinicians, young investigators, lab-people) trying to find an answer to medical questions, the search bar often sufficed. Here you just typed in some words that were not only searched in title and abstract, but also translated into the corresponding MeSH (if recognized as synonyms), a process called automatic mapping. People just haved to check “Details” to verify proper mapping. It often went well, but sometimes the mapping was completely wrong (i.e. typ: walking aids and you will search for the MeSH term for AIDS, although HIV has nothing to do with it).

The overwhelming number of hits could be effectively reduced with some risk of loosing relevant hits by using the Limits option or using Methodological Filters in the Clinical Queries (EBM). Because of the disease-oriented MeSH, PubMed is not very well suited for preclinical or basic scientific searches. This often leads to frustrations (see below).

Some people just want to look up citations and there is a perfect tool for it: the Single Citation Mapper. It is so wonderful, just type in an author, the journal, first page or whatever. It has an autofill function, so I even prefer this tool to find a journal or an author (instead of the indexes, which is yet another option).

Now let alone the summing up of these possibilities makes me see stars. After a course PubMed a student who knew a lot about programming, sighed:

Wow, there is a lot of stuff in there, but it is all so concealed and difficult to find….”

That’s true, and this together with the superficial resemblance of the search bar with the Google search bar makes inexperienced users use PubMed in a Googlish way: just typ in some words ….. and you probably… don’t find what you want. This was especially true for people looking up a particular paper and not familiar with the Single Citation Mapper, hidden in the blue side bar. (The picture left is from “Arts in Spe”, with the Title: Searching like in Google”)

Or as the Harvard PhD student Anna Kushnir expressed her frustations when ranting against PubMed :

“I hate PubMed. I hate it with a burning passion. For a site that is as vital to scientific progress as PubMed is, their search engine is shamefully bad. It’s embarrassingly, frustratingly, painfully bad. (…)

… I can hold a paper in my hands, search for two authors’ last names and have PubMed come up with nothing. (….)

Why is PubMed so behind the times? Why? How does it even work? Does it search only the abstract? Does it also search the body of the papers that are available online? Why does it get so massively confused by an author’s initials and last name together, in one search. [...]

I don’t think I should have to be, or enlist the services of, a medical librarian in order to do a simple search on a literature search engine. PubMed should be an intuitive search engine such as Google, or others. [...] PubMed should be tuned to my needs and my skill set. I should not have to tune to it. [...]“

There was an overwhelming response to her post and Anna’s story was covered in many blogs. I don’t want to revive that discussion, just want to mention Graham Steele’s comment.

“@ Anna,

You might just be in luck thanks to voicing your frustrations online !!

I brought this post to the attention of Dr Lipman who I’ve just heard back from.

He’s authorized me to post here on his behalf. (Thanks Dr Lipman)

Although the current engine works well for some users and some queries, I understand Anna’s frustration and we are in the midst of a number of changes that will make PubMed work better for her and many other users.

We will be adding a number of other “sensors” which will run in parallel with the default search. From monitoring results of enhancements we’ve added to some of our other Entrez databases.

A number of these complaints are fair and we’ll be doing our best to address them. With the large number of users we have, it will be clear what areas we’ll improving and what areas will need more work.”

I’m now beginning to understand what Graham Steel meant in his reply to Anna.

Coincidantly or not, PubMed has introduced a couple of changes that seem to concede Anna’s demands. This will be the subject of the second part of this Trilogy, see HERE

—————-

NL flag NL vlag

I.The Past:Extremely simple, yet incredibly difficult

Zoeken in PubMed is nooit makkelijk geweest, voor wie dan ook, beginner of gevorderde.

Als je echt volop gebruik wil maken van PubMed dan moet je niet alleen overweg kunnen met de zoekbalk, maar ook met de MeSH database. Je moet weten wat bredere en nauwere termen zijn, weten wanneer automatische explosie gewenst is of niet, wanneer je major topics gebruikt, subheading toevoegt en of je MeSH-termen via ‘Links’ of via de ‘Search to Sendbox’ naar PubMed ‘brengt’. Je moet weten of en hoe je Clinical Queries, Limits, Field Codes (tags), de History, MyNCBI saved searches and collections, linkouts, AND, OR, NOT enzovoorts, enzoverder gebruikt….

Het duurt dus even voor je alle ins en outs kent en op een effectieve manier van de geavanceerde mogelijkheden van PubMed gebruik maakt.

Voor de minder gevorderde gebruikers of de mensen die snel een antwoord willen op een (bio)medische vraag zoals artsen in de drukke klinische praktijk, fundamentele wetenschappers, preklinici voldeed vaak de zoekbalk. Je kon hier gewoon wat woorden intypen en ongezien zoekt (zocht) PubMed niet alleen in titel en abstract, maar vertaalde ze woorden ook in MeSH (als ze als synoniem herkend worden). Dit heet (automatic term) mapping of ATM. Makkelijk, maar het is wel aan te bevelen de “Details”-tab te bekijken om te zien of de search goed vertaald wordt. Soms gaat het namelijk helemaal fout. Bijv. als je walking aids typt, wordt o.a. op de MeSH voor de ziekte Aids gezocht, terwijl dat er natuurlijk niets mee van doen heeft.

Om de enorme hoeveelheid hits te reduceren kun je Limits of Methodologische Filters in de Clinical Queries (EBM-vragen) toepassen. Omdat de MeSH nogal georienteerd zijn op ziekten, is PubMed niet bij uitstek geschikt voor niet-medische vragen. Dit kan nog wel eens tot frustaties leiden. (zie onder)

Wanneer je alleen maar bepaalde artikelen wil opzoeken, kun je dat heel handig doen via de Single Citation Mapper. Typ gewoon de naam van een auteur, het tijdschrift, het pagina- of volumenummer, en/of een titelwoord in. En het artikel is zo gevonden.

Bij het opsommen van al deze mogelijkheden gaat het me al duizelen. Hoe moet het dan op beginners overkomen?

Na een PubMedcursus verzuchtte een student met veel ervaring in programmeren tegen mij.

“Wat een mogelijkheden, maar het is wel heel erg verborgen allemaal en erg moeilijk te vinden. Niet erg gebruikersvriendelijk.

Dat is zondermeer waar en omdat de PubMed zoekbalk oppervlakkig gezien wel op Google lijkt gaan onervaren zoekers (en met name de Google-generatie) erin zoeken als in Google. Ze typen de hele zoekstrategie gewoon in en verwachten dan snel wat te vinden. Helaas is dat niet zo. Zeker specifieke artikelen kon men zo vaak juist niet vinden, omdat wel automatisch met MeSH gemapt werd, maar meestal (juist niet) in het tijdschrift- of auteursveld gezocht werd. Daar was nu juist die handige Single Citation Mapper voor. Veel mensen kennen die echter niet, want de naam is nietszeggend en de optie zit in de blauwe zijbalk verscholen.

Ook promovenda Anna Kushnir liep hier tegenop en blies daarover stoom af op haar blog:

“I hate PubMed. I hate it with a burning passion. For a site that is as vital to scientific progress as PubMed is, their search engine is shamefully bad. It’s embarrassingly, frustratingly, painfully bad. (…)

… I can hold a paper in my hands, search for two authors’ last names and have PubMed come up with nothing. (….)

Why is PubMed so behind the times? Why? How does it even work? Does it search only the abstract? Does it also search the body of the papers that are available online? Why does it get so massively confused by an author’s initials and last name together, in one search. [...]

I don’t think I should have to be, or enlist the services of, a medical librarian in order to do a simple search on a literature search engine. PubMed should be an intuitive search engine such as Google, or others. [...] PubMed should be tuned to my needs and my skill set. I should not have to tune to it. [...]“

Dit blog heeft heel wat losgemaakt, zowel onder voor- en tegenstanders. Ik zal nu niet het stof weer doen opwaaien, maar ik wil alleen nog even Graham Steele’s commentaar vermelden.

@ Anna,

You might just be in luck thanks to voicing your frustrations online !!

I brought this post to the attention of Dr Lipman who I’ve just heard back from.

He’s authorized me to post here on his behalf. (Thanks Dr Lipman)

Although the current engine works well for some users and some queries, I understand Anna’s frustration and we are in the midst of a number of changes that will make PubMed work better for her and many other users.

We will be adding a number of other “sensors” which will run in parallel with the default search. From monitoring results of enhancements we’ve added to some of our other Entrez databases.

A number of these complaints are fair and we’ll be doing our best to address them. With the large number of users we have, it will be clear what areas we’ll improving and what areas will need more work.

Ik begin nu een beetje te begrijpen wat Graham hiermee bedoelde.

Want toevalligerwijs of niet, zijn er enkele zaken ingrijpend veranderd in PubMed, veranderingen die Anna’s eisen lijken in te willigen.

Welke veranderingen dat zijn en wat voor een effect ze sorteren wordt in deel 2 van deze trilogie besproken, zie HIER





MLA 2008: connections (and Spoetnik)

22 05 2008

The annual meeting of the Medical Library Association (MLA) that took place this week in Chicago focused on the future of librarianship and (thus) on connections:

Only connect!…Only connect the prose and the passion… Live in fragments no longer…Only connect.”

—E. M. Forster, Howards End (1910)

Well connecting that’s what they do, the US-librarians. No off-season. In line with the theme of MLA’08 they keep on blogging and connecting even when at a meeting.

It seems like most tools we learned during the Spoetnik-course (weeks #1-#13) (see about and the Dutch Spoetnik-program ) were applied by the advanced medical-library-bloggers.

15 Bloggers were invited by mail (#1) to become “official conference bloggers” (#2) for MLA 2008, including Michelle Kraft, David Rothman and Eric Schnell. In addition there was at least one unofficial MLA-blogger.

Their posts were displayed on an official Wetpaint-Wiki (#9), whereas David Rothman pulled together an aggregated Yahoo Pipes feed (#3) of all the MLA postings using Feedburner. I took a subscription, but still have to screen it (way behind again).

Of course all bloggers already are del.ici.ous (#7), do their librarything (#5), stumble upon, digg it (#13) and LinkedIn (#10).

Some bloggers shared their agenda using google calendar (#8), or made some appointments by mail (#1) or chatting(#4) and there was also a MLA twitter + feed (#13, #3). Unfortunately there was far less twittering, tweetering and blogging (#13) and thus far less connections than planned, because according to the kraftylibrarian “there was no freaking network on which to be social..” (No wireless access). Bit stupid for a meeting on networks…… :(

In addition there was a MLA-flickr-group (#6) , and some bloggers placed a you tube-(#13) or other video- or podcast (#11) on their blog. I will copy (share) one in the next post.

Interested in more: well (if you are a MLA-member?!) you can watch a live Video Webcast on the first plenary session on “Web 2.0 Tools for Librarians: Description, Demonstration, Discussion, and Debate”.

Alas I’m not, but several video’s, links and posts on the blogs mentioned above are informative as well -and freely available-. See for instance the blogs that I read (and consulted for this post):

Michelle Kraft – The Krafty Librarian

David Rothman – davidrothman.net

Eric Schnell – The Medium is the Message

tunaiskewl? ratcatcher? – omg tuna is kewl






BMI bijeenkomst april 2008

21 04 2008

Afgelopen vrijdag 18 April was de Landelijke Dag BMI, CCZ, PBZ en WEB&Z. De BMI is afdeling Biomedische Informatie van de Nederlandse Vereniging voor Beroepsbeoefenaren (NVB). De andere afkortingen staan voor werkgroepen/commissies binnen de NVB: CCZ = Centrale Catalogus Ziekenhuisbibliotheken, BPZ = Bibliothecarissen van Psychiatrische Zorginstellingenen en WEB&Z = voorheen Biomedische werkgroep VOGIN.

Het programma bestond uit 3 ALV’s, van de CCZ, de BPZ en de BMI, afgewisseld met 3 lezingen. Een beetje lastig 3 ALV’s en 1 zaal. Dat betekende in mijn geval dat ik wel de BMI-ALV heb bijgewoond, maar tijdens de andere ALV’s (langdurig) in de koffieruimte annex gang moest wachten. Weliswaar heb ik die nuttig en plezierig doorgebracht, maar het zou wat gestroomlijnder kunnen. Ook vond ik het bijzonder jammer dat er nauwelijks een plenaire discussie was na de lezingen en dat men geacht werd de discussie letterlijk in de wandelgang voort te zetten. En stof tot discussie was er…..

Met name de eerste lezing deed de nodige stof opwaaien. Helaas heb ik deze voor de helft gemist, omdat ik in het station Hilversum dat van Amersfoort meende te herkennen ;) . Gelukkig heeft Ronald van Dieën op zijn blog ook de BMI-dag opgetekend, zodat ik de eerste punten van hem kan overnemen.

De eerste spreker was Geert van der Heijden, Universitair hoofddocent Klinische Epidemiologie bij het Julius Centrum voor Gezondheidswetenschappen van het UMC Utrecht. Geert is coördinator van het START-blok voor zesdejaars (Supervised Training in professional Attitude, Research and Teaching) en van de Academische Vaardigheden voor het GNK Masteronderwijs. Ik kende Geert oppervlakkig, omdat wij (afzonderlijk) geinterviewd waren voor het co-assistenten blad “Arts in Spe” over de integratie van het EBM-zoekonderwijs in het curriculum. Nu ik hem hier in levende lijve heb gehoord, lees ik zijn interview met heel andere ogen. Ik zag toen meer de overeenkomsten, nu de verschillen.

Zijn presentatie had als titel: “hoe zoekt de clinicus?”. Wie verwachtte dat Geert zou vertellen hoe de gemiddelde clinicus daadwerkelijk zoekt komt komt bedrogen uit. Geert vertelde vooral de methode van zoeken die hij artsen aanleert/voorhoudt. Deze methode is bepaald niet ingeburgerd en lijkt diametraal te staan tegenover de werkwijze van medisch informatiespecialisten, per slot zijn gehoor van dat moment. Alleen al het feit dat hij beweert dat je VOORAL GEEN MeSH moet gebruiken druist in tegen wat wij medisch informatiespecialisten leren en uitdragen. Het is de vraag of de zaal zo stil was, omdat zij overvallen werd door al het schokkends wat er gezegd werd of omdat men niet wist waar te beginnen met een weerwoord. Ik zag letterlijk een aantal monden openhangen van verbazing.

Zoals Ronald al stelde was dit een forse knuppel in het hoenderhok van de ‘medisch informatiespecialisten’. Ik deel echter niet zijn mening dat Geert het prima kon onderbouwen met argumenten. Hij is weliswaar een begenadigd spreker en bracht het allemaal met verve, maar ik had toch sterk de indruk dat zijn aanpak vooral practice- of eminence- en niet evidence-based was.

Hieronder enkele van zijn stellingen, 1ste 5 overgenomen van Ronald:

  1. “Een onderzoeker probeert publicatie air miles te verdienen met impact factors”
  2. “in Utrecht krijgen de studenten zo’n 500 uur Clinical Epidemiology en Evidence Based Practice, daar waar ze in Oxford (roots van EBM) slechts 10 uur krijgen”
  3. “contemporary EBM tactics (Sicily statement). (zie bijvoorbeeld hier:….)
  4. “fill knowledge gaps met problem solving skills”
  5. EBM = eminence biased medicine. Er zit veel goeds tussen, maar pas op….
  6. Belangrijkste doelstelling van literatuuronderzoek: reduceer Numbers Needed to Read.
  7. Vertrouw nooit 2e hands informatie (dit noemen wij voorgefilterde of geaggregeerde evidence) zoals TRIP, UpToDate, Cochrane Systematic Reviews, BMJ Clinical Evidence. Men zegt dat de Cochrane Systematic Reviews zo goed zijn, maar éen verschuiving van een komma heeft duizenden levens gekost. Lees en beoordeel dus de primaire bronnen!
  8. De Cochrane Collaboration houdt zich alleen maar bezig met systematische reviews van interventies, het doet niets aan de veel belangrijker domeinen “diagnose” en “prognose”.
  9. PICO (patient, intervention, comparison, outcome) werkt alleen voor therapie, niet voor andere vraagstukken.
  10. In plaats daarvan de vraag in 3 componenten splitsen: het domein (de categorie patiënten), de determinant (de diagnostische test, prognostische variabele of behandeling) en de uitkomst (ziekte, mortaliteit en …..)
  11. Zoeken doe je als volgt: bedenk voor elk van de 3 componenten zoveel mogelijk synoniemen op papier, verbind deze met “OR”, verbind de componenten met “AND”.
  12. De synoniemen alleen in titel en abstract zoeken (code [tiab]) EN NOOIT met MeSH (MEDLINE Subject Headings). MeSH zijn NOOIT bruikbaar volgens Geert. Ze zijn vaak te breed, ze zijn soms verouderd en je vindt er geen recente artikelen mee, omdat de indexering soms 3-12 maanden zou kosten.
  13. NOOIT Clinical Queries gebruiken. De methodologische filters die in PubMed zijn opgenomen, de zogenaamde Clinical Queries zijn enkel gebaseerd op MeSH en daarom niet bruikbaar. Verder zijn ze ontwikkeld voor heel specifieke onderwerpsgebieden, zoals cardiologie, en daarom niet algemeen toepasbaar.
  14. Volgens de Cochrane zou je als je een studie ‘mist’ de auteurs moeten aanschrijven. Dat lukt van geen kant. Beter is het te sneeuwballen via Web of Science en related articles en op basis daarvan JE ZOEKACTIE AAN TE PASSEN.

Wanneer men volgens de methode van der Heijden werkt zou men in een half uur klaar zijn met zoeken en in 2 uur de artikelen geselecteerd en beoordeeld hebben. Nou dat doe ik hem niet na.

De hierboven in rood weergegeven uitspraken zijn niet (geheel) juist. 8. Therapie is naar mijn bescheiden mening nog steeds een belangrijk domein; daarnaast is gaat de Cochrane Collaboration ook SR’s over diagnostische accuratesse studies schrijven. 13. in clinical queries worden (juist) niet alleen MeSH gebruikt.

In de groen weergegeven uitspraken kan ik me wel (ten dele) vinden, maar ze zijn niet essentieel verschillend van wat ik (men?) zelf nastreef(t)/doe(t), en dat wordt wel impliciet gesuggereerd.
Vele informatiespecialisten zullen ook:

  • 6 nastreven (door 7 te doen weliswaar),
  • 9 benadrukken (de PICO is inderdaad voor interventies ontwikkeld en minder geschikt voor andere domeinen)
  • en deze analoog aan 10 opschrijven (zij het dat we de componenten anders betitelen).
  • Het aanschrijven van auteurs (14) gebeurt als uiterste mogelijkheid. Eerst doen we de opties die door Geert als alternatief aangedragen worden: het sneeuwballen met als doel de zoekstrategie aan te passen. (dit weet ik omdat ik zelf de cursus “zoeken voor Cochrane Systematic Reviews” geef).

Als grote verschillen blijven dan over: (7) ons motto: geaggregeerde evidence eerst en (12) zoeken met MeSH versus zoeken in titel en abstract en het feit dat alle componenten met AND verbonden worden, wat ik maar mondjesmaat doe. Want: hoe meer termen/componenten je met “AND” combineert hoe groter de kans dat je iets mist. Soms moet het, maar je gaat niet a priori zo te werk.

Ik vond het een beetje flauw dat Geert aanhaalde dat er door één Cochrane reviewer een fout is gemaakt, waardoor er duizenden doden zouden zijn gevallen. Laat hij dan ook zeggen dat door het initiatief van de Cochrane er levens van honderd duizenden zijn gered, omdat eindelijk goed in kaart is gebracht welke therapieën nu wel en welke nu niet effectief zijn. Bij alle studies geldt dat je afhankelijk bent van hoe goed te studie is gedaan, van een juiste statistiek etcetera. Voordeel van geaggregeerde evidence is nu net dat een arts niet alle oorspronkelijke studies hoeft door te lezen om erachter te komen wat werkt (NNR!!!). Stel dat elke arts voor elke vraag ALLE individuele studies moet zoeken, beoordelen en moet samenvatten….. Dat zou, zoals de Cochrane het vaak noemt ‘duplication of effort’ zijn. Maar wil je precies weten hoe het zit, of wil je heel volledig zijn dan zul je inderdaad zelf de oorspronkelijke studies moeten zoeken en beoordelen.
Wel grappig trouwens dat 22 van de 70 artikelen waarvan Geert medeauteur is tot de geaggregeerde evidence (inclusief Cochrane Reviews) gerekend kunnen worden….. Zou hij de lezers ook afraden deze artikelen te selecteren? ;)

Voor wat betreft het zoeken via de MeSH. Ik denk dat weinig ‘zoekers’ louter en alleen op MeSH zoeken. Wij gebruiken ook tekstwoorden. In hoeverre er gebruik van gemaakt wordt hangt erg van het doel en de tijd af. Je moet steeds afwegen wat de voor- en de nadelen zijn. Door geen MeSH te gebruiken, maak je ook geen gebruik van de synoniemen functie en de mogelijkheid tot exploderen (nauwere termen meenemen). Probeer maar eens in een zoekactie alle synoniemen voor kanker te vinden: cancer, cancers , tumor, tumour(s), neoplasm(s), malignancy (-ies), maar daarnaast ook alle verschilende kankers: adenocarcinoma, lymphoma, Hodgkin’s disease, etc. Met de MeSH “Neoplasms” vind je in een keer alle spellingswijzen, synoniemen en alle soorten kanker te vinden.

Maar in ieder geval heeft Geert ons geconfronteerd met een heel andere zienswijze en ons een spiegel voorgehouden. Het is soms goed om even wakkergeschud te worden en na te denken over je eigen (soms te ?) routinematige aanpak. Geert ging niet de uitdaging uit de weg om de 2 zoekmethodes met elkaar te willen vergelijken. Dus wie weet wat hier nog uit voortvloeit. Zouden we tot een consensus kunnen komen?

De volgende praatjes waren weliswaar minder provocerend, maar toch zeker de moeite waard.

De web 2.0-goeroe Wouter Gerritsma (WoWter) praatte ons bij over web 2.0, zorg 2.0 en (medische) bibliotheek 2.0. Zeer toepasselijk met zeer moderne middelen: een powerpointpresentatie via slideshare te bewonderen en met een WIKI, van waaruit hij steeds enkele links aanklikte. Helaas was de internetverbinding af en toe niet zo 2.0, zodat bijvoorbeeld deze beeldende YOU TUBE-uitleg Web 2.0 … The machine is us/ing us niet afgespeeld kon worden. Maar handig van zo’n wiki is natuurlijk dat je het alsnog kunt opzoeken en afspelen. In de presentatie kwamen wat practische voorbeelden aan de orde (bibliotheek, zorg, artsen) en werd ingegaan op de verschillende tools van web 2.0: RSS, blogs, gepersonaliseerde pagina’s, tagging en wiki’s. Ik was wel even apetrots dat mijn blog alsmede dat van de bibliotheker even als voorbeeld getoond werden van beginnende (medische bieb) SPOETNIKbloggers. De spoetnikcursus en 23 dingen werden sowieso gepromoot om te volgen als beginner. Voor wie meer wil weten, kijk nog eens naar de wiki: het biedt een mooi overzicht.

Als laatsten hielden Tanja van Bon en Sjors Clemens een duo-presentatie over e-learning. Als originele start begonnen ze met vragen te stellen in plaats van ermee te eindigen. Daarna gaven ze een leuke introductie over e-learning en lieten ze zien hoe ze dit in hun ziekenhuis implementeerden.

Tussen en na de lezingen was er ruim tijd om met elkaar van gedachten te wisselen, aan het slot zelfs onder genot van een borrel voor wie niet de BOB was. Zeker een heel geslaagde dag. Hier ga ik vaker naar toe!

**************************************************************************************************

met de W: ik zie dat de bibliotheker inmiddels ook een stukje heeft geschreven over de lezing van Geert van der Heiden. Misschien ook leuk om dit te lezen.

N.B. VOOR WIE DE HELE PRESENTATIE VAN GEERT WIL ZIEN, DEZE IS MET ZIJN TOESTEMMING GEZET OP

http://www.slideshare.net/llkool/bmi-18-april-2008-geert-van-der-heijden/





Banning “abortion” in POPLINE now in BMJ

11 04 2008

The controversial affair of “abortion” being deleted as a search-term from POPLINE (see previous item on this blog) is covered in the latest issue of BMJ: BMJ 2008;336:792-793 (12 April).





DAREnet wordt NARCIS

11 04 2008

Net gehoord van een collega: DAREnet gaat samen met Keur der Wetenschappen en de nationale Proefschriftensite onder NARCIS vallen.

Het DARE programma is een gezamenlijk initiatief van alle Nederlandse universiteiten met KB, KNAW en NWO met het doel alle onderzoeksresultaten digitaal op te slaan en toegankelijk te maken met behulp van een netwerk van ‘repositories’.

In januari 2007 heeft de KNAW DAREnet van SURF overgenomen, met de bedoeling deze portal te integreren in de wetenschapsportal NARCIS. Inmiddels is integratie dus een feit, hetgeen echter niet wil zeggen, dat alle functionaliteiten van DAREnet hetzelfde blijven in NARCIS.

Een voordeel heeft het wel voor mij. Ik raadpleeg veel vaker het CRD-bestand DARE (goede synopsissen van systematic reviews) dan DAREnet. ‘Dat zoeken we op in DARE’  gaf daarmee vaak spraakverwarring. Hopelijk is dat met de komst van Narcis verleden tijd. 

En omdat het nu toch de laatste paar dagen echt lente wordt een extra toepasselijk narcissenplaatje.

Zie verder:
http://www.onderzoekinformatie.nl/nl/oi/nieuwsbrief/darenet/

 








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 607 other followers