Anna's recent post about her struggles with Pubmed searches reminded me that there is still a lot that could and should be done to improve the paper (or thesis) writing process. This is my personal list of major annoyances:
Interestingly, the way we do paper writing and paper submission has changed a lot between ca. 1985 and 1995. Basically the transition from analog to digital. Who still remembers Index Medicus, Current Contents, copying papers in the library, Letraset for figure numbering, mailing hard copies of manuscripts around, etc.?
But what has changed in the last 10-15 years? Probably not that much. Web 2.0 is an overused term, but there is so much potential for improvement in the area of manuscript writing. We should not be satisfied with what Pubmed, Endnote, Microsoft Word, etc. offer today. That is why I don't understand some of the discussion surrounding Anna's blog post, basically advising her to just sit down and learn her Pubmed stuff.
If that is not enough for you, some people have already taken the next step: Web 3.0 and health librarians: an introduction.
In which I suggest a preprint archive for clinical trials
The ArXiv preprint archive for research articles in physics, mathematics, computer science and related disciplines was initiated by Paul Ginsparg in 1991. ArXiv enables the rapid dissemination of research articles prior to peer review, ...
ORCID has launched. What’s next?
Last week has been busy. I went to Berlin for the launch of the Open Researcher & Contributor ID (ORCID) service. ORCID allows researchers to obtain a persistent identifier that can be used to claim publications and other scholarly works. ...