John Adler who is a neurosurgeon at Stanford just launched Curēus, an open-source medical journal that leverages crowdsourcing to make scientific research more readily available to the general public. What do you think?
Based in Palo Alto, California, Curēus is the medical journal for a new generation of both doctors AND patients. Leveraging the power of an online, crowd-sourced community platform, Curēus promotes medical research by offering tools that better serve and highlight the people who create it, resulting in better research, faster publication and easier access for everyone.
We make it easier and faster to publish your work – it’s always free and you retain the copyright. What’s more, the Curēus platform is designed to provide a place for physicians to build their digital CV anchored with their posters and papers.
Steven Palter, MD send me an e-mail a few days ago letting me know about a huge project he had been working on for some time. It is truly an amazing project and hopefully it will help us disseminate medical research more easily.
“For the last 200 years, medical publishing remained unchanged. Our solution accommodates non-print work through fully integrated multimedia, opens up a whole new form of learning, and allows readers to become part of an ongoing interactive discussion,” says Dr. Steven Palter, the Video and New Media Editor of Fertility and Sterility. Dr. Palter, who developed the concept and spearheaded the project, says, “With this effort, we have bridged the gap separating the digital and traditional medical literature. This integration will lead to exciting new directions in research.”
And here are the details:
Online video and traditional print were previously two separate and unrelated worlds in scientific research. The new mechanism allows videos to be cited the same way as a written article in a traditional print medical journal and seamlessly unifies online multimedia content and print journals. Researchers can watch footage of innovations and techniques and learn previously inaccessible information in new non-written formats while still being able to find this information through traditional medical print sources.
The 8th week of the world’s first university accredited course focusing on medicine and social media was dedicated to New Media in Medicine and Education 2.0. Many thanks to Doctor Anonymous who sent a personal message to my students (see the video below)!
First slideshow: New Media in Medicine
- Lifehacks about how to be efficient online
- Being up-to-date: Google Reader, Webicina, Google Alerts, e-mail filters in GMail
- Collaboration: Google Docs, Connotea.org, etc.
- Clinical Cases: Medting, Clinical Cases and Images, Cases Journal
- Conferences: conferencealerts.com, gotomeeting.com
- Tools: Second Life, Google Calendar, podcast
- Twitter tips
Take-home message: Make your online work as efficient, productive and time-saving as possible.
Second slideshow: Education 2.0
- What we have to face: lack of inspiration (educators) and lack of motivation (students)
- But we can find motivation and inspiration online
- e.g. Ted Talks – Ken Robinson
- Why? We’re changing (students, even children use different communication channels) – Vision of students;
- We’re digital natives, Generation Z.
- Many examples, statistics about the problems with education
- “If you want to teach me, you first have to reach me”
Take-home message: The web is full of educational resources. Use them wisely.
Lectures this semester:
Alex O Holcombe and Hal Pashler, co-developers of Chart the Evidence, believe instead of peer-review, we should create evidence charts just like that:
This free site leads students to glean evidence from the research literature, articulate theories, and consider whether each piece of evidence supports or undermines each theory.
See a toy example chart or read about evidence-charting in our blog.
Working scientists find the site useful for quickly creating a compact representation of the evidence for and against competing hypotheses.
I have to admit, it’s not a bad idea. I’m sure the majority of scientists is sick of peer-review, partly because it’s anonimous in most cases, and also because it doesn’t always help improve the manuscript. But the research communities would clearly benefit from such evidence charts. I’m curious to see what the editorial boards of peer-reviewed journals have to say on this.
A collegue of mine pointed out that there is a journal for negative results in biomedical research,the Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine:
Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine is ready to receive manuscripts on all aspects of unexpected, controversial, provocative and/or negative results/conclusions in the context of current tenets, providing scientists and physicians with responsible and balanced information to support informed experimental and clinical decisions.
Not every unexpected observation, controversial conclusion or proposed model will turn out to be of such groundbreaking significance. Nor will they even be confirmed by subsequent scientific progress. However, we strongly believe that such “negative” observations and conclusions, based on rigorous experimentation and thorough documentation, ought to be published in order to be discussed, confirmed or refuted by others. In addition, publishing well documented failures may reveal fundamental flaws and obstacles in commonly used methods, drugs or reagents such as antibodies or cell lines, ultimately leading to improvements in experimental designs and clinical decisions.
Certainly, there was a niche for that and I’m curious to see how it evolves.
I was a bit surprised but at the same time glad to see the details about the upcoming (autumn, 2010) BMJ Open, an open access journal of the BMJ Group.
BMJ Open is an open access journal for general medical research.
Not only will the journal publish traditional full research reports, including small or low-impact studies, but we intend to shed light on all stages of the research process by publishing study protocols, pilot studies and pre-protocols. The journal will also place great emphasis on the importance of data sharing; raw data will be linked to at its repository or hosted online as supplementary material wherever possible.
Authors will be asked to pay article-processing charges on acceptance, although waivers will be available on request. The ability to pay will not influence editorial decisions; payment requests will be made on acceptance.
It’s not so complicated to organize journal clubs online for example on Friendfeed or Twitter, but JournalFire will certainly make it even easier. I asked John Delacruz, co-founder, how JournalFire differs from e.g. Friendfeed.
A major difference is how we give special treatment to journal articles. We give every journal article its own page which aggregates the discussion about the article, and our users’ interactions with the article. For instance, if you visit the following articles on JournalFire, you’ll see the people and groups that have found the article interesting, and their comments.
You can also follow articles, much like you would follow people on Friendfeed. For instance, if you followed all your publications, any comments about those articles would appear in your feed on your home page.
The only disadvantage is you can have only 4 members for free, but if you want to build a really big community, it will cost you $29 a month.