... designed to collect posts and informations I found and want to keep available but not relevant to the other topics I am curating on Scoop.it (on behalf of ASSIM):
the most sucessful being
Immunology, teaching and learning immunology
From flow cytometry to cytomics
Nancy, Lorraine because I am based at Université Lorraine in Nancy
Wuhan, Hubei, because we have a long standing collaboration through a french speaking medical training program between Faculté de Médecine de Nancy and WuDA, Wuhan university medical school and Zhongnan Hospital
Immunology and Biotherapies, a page of resources for the DIU Immunologie et Biothérapies
CME-CPD, because I am at EACCME in Brussels, representative of the medical biopathology and laboratory medicine UEMS section
Mucosal Immunity, because it was one of our main research interest some years ago
It is a kind of electroinic scrapbook with many ideas shared by others. thanks to them
Of course, citation style matters, and the two most popular are the APA and MLA. The APA (American Psychological Association) has their rules for citing social media in academic writing. They even have a thorough ($12) guide to clarify the process, while the MLA (Modern Language Association), as far as we can tell, has yet to expressly address apps and social media as anything other than “software.”
And to an extent, this makes sense. As media becomes more nuanced, new modalities emerge, authors use new channels to distribute their thinking–and even as the “crowd” becomes a legitimate source of information (see wikipedia, twitter, erc.), new rules for governing that reality will continue to emerge. The more general those rules are, the less reactive governing bodies will have to be moment by moment.
“ PLOS Biology is an open-access, peer-reviewed journal that features works of exceptional significance in all areas of biological science, from molecules to ecosystems, including works at the interface with other disciplines.”
n the age of the internet, social media tools offer a powerful way for scientists to boost their professional profile and act as a public voice for science. Although the type of online conversations and shared content can vary widely, scientists are increasingly using social media as a way to share journal articles, advertise their thoughts and scientific opinions, post updates from conferences and meetings, and circulate information about professional opportunities and upcoming events. Google searches now represent the standard approach for discovering information about a topic or person—whether it be search committees collecting information about faculty candidates, graduate students searching out prospective labs, or journalists on the hunt for an expert source. Consequently, in today's technology-driven world, lack of an online presence can severely limit a researcher's visibility, and runs the risk that undesirable search results appear before desirable ones (however, this scenario is easily rectified; see Box 2). A growing body of evidence suggests that public visibility and constructive conversation on social media networks can be beneficial for scientists, impacting research in a number of key ways.
This summer, scholars will use the break from teaching to submit manuscripts, review papers and develop new ideas. But even as the major functions of scholarly publishing march on, scholars, publishers and librarians start to ask, “What does the future of the scholarly journal look like?” (...) - by Bonnie Swoger, Blog ' Information Culture', Scientific American, June 18, 2014
An early death constitutes a serious loss that should imply compensation to the deceased person. But how – when the person is dead? A team of economists argues that a 'life well spent' might entail consuming more and working less earlier in life.
USA TODAY Survey shows life regrets can shape later years USA TODAY The survey, a joint effort by the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging, the National Council on Aging, UnitedHealthcare and USA TODAY, included responses from 1,000...
The number of applicants vastly outnumbers the available academic faculty positions. What makes a successful academic job market candidate is the subject of much current discussion [1–4] . Yet, so far there has been no quantitative analysis of who becomes a principal investigator (PI). We here use a machine-learning approach to predict who becomes a PI, based on data from over 25,000 scientists in PubMed. We show that success in academia is predictable. It depends on the number of publications, the impact factor (IF) of the journals in which those papers are published, and the number of papers that receive more citations than average for the journal in which they were published (citations/IF). However, both the scientist’s gender and the rank of their university are also of importance, suggesting that non-publication features play a statistically significant role in the academic hiring process. Our model (www.pipredictor.com) allows anyone to calculate their likelihood of becoming a PI.
En écho à notre chronique « De quoi l'innovation est-elle le nom ? », David Rottmann, consultant en innovation et développement économique chez CMI, nous donne sa vision sur ce concept vieux de 700 ans. Une note très détaillée où l'on apprend que l'innovation serait sans doute la descendante de l'imitation et de l'invention. Passionnant !
Outils permettant de sélectionner manuellement des contenus en ligne, de les éditorialiser et de les partager. Ce comparatif fait partie d'un article sur les outils de curation, Le Guide de la Curation.