Tag Archives: publishing

Yes? Or No? Or HOW? Catching a Predator at Birth (Maybe)

Originally posted at the Krafty Librarian blog.

Catching a Predator at Birth

I almost called this post: “Create attention for your article; write a layman’s summary,” which was the subject line from the e-mail we are discussing locally in trying to decide if it is a predatory publisher or not. (Short version of what we did for those who don’t have time to read the whole story: Identity, Authority, Credibility, Language, Editing, Timing, Licensing, Accessibility, Openness, Sources, Resources. Basically, defining a chain of trust.) I’ve blogged here before about the idea of layman’s summaries, a.k.a. plain language abstracts. They have a great tagline. It’s a great idea. My first reaction was, “How can we help?” Obviously, I think the idea is awesome, and I’ve thought so for a very long time, many years. I am far from the only person to think so. Just take a quick look at these few selected quotes.

DC Girasek: Would society pay more attention to injuries if the injury control community paid more attention to risk communication science?
“We also need to call attention to the injuries that continue to take lives, despite the fact that solid solutions for them have been published in our scientific journals. We need research on translating study findings into public action. Epidemiology and engineering remain central to the field of injury control. We must look to the social and behavioral sciences, however, if we hope to overcome the political and cognitive barriers that impede our advancement.”

Alan Betts: A Proposal for Communicating Science
“Given that the future of the Earth depends on the public have a clearer understanding of Earth science, it seems to me there is something unethical in our insular behavior as scientists.”

Jason Samenow: Should technical science journals have plain language translation?
“Some scientists might resist the onus of having to write a lay-person friendly version of their articles. However, I agree with Betts, it’s well past time they do so”

Chris Buddle: Science outreach: plain-language summaries for all research papers
“1) Scientists do really interesting things.
2) Scientists have a responsibility to disseminate their results.
3) Scientists do not publish in an accessible format.
This is a really, really big problem.”

Chris Buddle: A guide for writing plain language summaries of research papers
“A plain language summary is different because it focuses more broadly, is without jargon, and aims to provide a clear picture about ‘why’ the research was done in additional to ‘how’ the work was done, and the main findings.”

Lauren M. Kuehne and Julian D. Olden: Opinion: Lay summaries needed to enhance science communication. PNAS 112(12):3585. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1500882112
“But rather than an unrewarding burden, scientists (and journal publishers) should consider widespread adoption of lay summaries—accompanying online publications and made publicly available with traditional abstracts—as a way to increase the visibility, impact, and transparency of scientific research. This is a particularly important undertaking given the changing science media landscape.”

This is seen as SUCH an important idea that multiple grants were provided to create a tool to assist scientists in doing this well!

Center on Knowledge Translation for Disability and Rehabilitation Research (KTDRR): Plain Language Summary Tool (PLST)

You can find more with this Google Search: (science OR research) (attention OR “plain language” OR “clear language” OR layman OR journalist) (summary OR abstract)

Imagine my excitement when a colleague (many thanks to Kate MacDougall-Saylor) alerted me to a new online publication specifically for this purpose! How PERFECT for Health Literacy Month! A faculty member had asked her if it was a legitimate enterprise. So we looked at the email she’d received, and at the web site.

Dear Dr. XYZ,

We are interested to publish the layman’s summary of your research article: ‘ABC ABC ABC.’ on our website.

The new project ‘Atlas of Science‘ started from 1st October 2015. It is made by scientists for scientists and the aim of the project will be publishing layman’s abstracts of research articles to highlight research to a broader audience.
Scientific articles are often difficult to fathom for journalists, due to the scientific jargon.
Although journalists like to assess the news value quickly, that is by no means simple with most research articles. Writing a short, understandable layman’s summary is a good means to reach this goal.

This makes sense, has a good message, and is accurate about the potential impact so far, but the English doesn’t read as having been written or edited by a native speaker of English, and the formatting is inconsistent. It doesn’t look as if a professional editor did a final review before promoting to the world. Warning Sign #1.

The name of the web site (Atlas of Science) is identical to the highly regarded book from MIT Press and authored by Katy Börner of the Indiana University Cyberinfrastructure for Network Science Center. At first, I thought perhaps they were connected, but quickly realized this was a separate group, simply using the same name. Warning Sign #2.

Most of the rest of the message came directly from the “For Authors” page on the web site (Why, What, Use), except for the instructions.

∙ Send your summary to info@atlasofscience.org, not later than ##/#/2015.

What do we do with your layman’s summary?
∙ We check the text, and in consultation with you we dot the i’s and cross the t’s.
∙ Your text will be available on the Atlas of Science website, www.atlasofscience.org .
We will actively promote this site to the press.

Please, let us know if you are interested and do not hesitate to contact us if you have any question (simply reply to this email).

This was less worrisome, except … the phrase “not later than” (combined with a date of just over a week to respond) seems to be pressuring the faculty member to respond quickly, without thinking it through carefully, and without time to actually create a well-done plain language summary. Warning Sign #3.

Speaking of a well-done plain language summary, do they explain how to do what they say they want? We checked on the web site. Not really. They tell you what they want, but not how to do it, and they don’t point people to any resources to help them understand what a plain language summary is, what this means, or how to do it. They define no standards, set no guidelines, make only the barest and simplest recommendations (such as word count — 600 words with 2 figures), and do not even mention appropriate reading level. Warning Sign #4.

Does the posted content on the site actually appear to match the stated goals of the site? Not remotely. The pieces posted don’t even match the minimal guidelines they stated in their own criteria. I tested a few of the newest posts. The titles alone (“Regulation of mediator’s expression and chemotaxis in mast cells”, “Minute exocrine glands in the compound eyes of water strider”, “Gene therapy not just counseling for your denim obsession”, tell you these are not plain language, but just to be fair and unbiased, I ran them through a Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Tool, which is only one of several tools and resources available for assessing readability.

Regulation of mediator’s expression and chemotaxis in mast cells
The SMOG index: 20.1
Total words: 766
Total number of polysyllabic words: 180
Total number of sentences: 41

Over 150 words more than the defined limit for the abstract (Warning Sign #5), and written for an audience with a reading level matching those with multiple graduate degrees. The SMOG Index, you see, displays the reading level by number of years of education. 12 is a high school diploma, 16 is a college degree, 18 is a masters, and 20 is well into PhD territory. The average reading level for adults in the United States is roughly 8th grade, meaning that a really well done plain language summary would be written to a SMOG level of 8, at most 12. 20 is a long ways from 12.

Minute exocrine glands in the compound eyes of water strider
The SMOG index: 16.2
Total words: 461
Total number of polysyllabic words: 70
Total number of sentences: 35

Gene therapy not just counseling for your denim obsession
The SMOG index: 18.7
Total words: 573
Total number of polysyllabic words: 79
Total number of sentences: 23

Save your pancreas from diabetes! Your beta cell reserve is critical for prevention and treatment of diabetes.”
The SMOG index: 19.6
Total words: 455
Total number of polysyllabic words: 100
Total number of sentences: 25

It’s easy to see that most of the authors take the word count seriously, and that some of them genuinely tried to reduce the reading level and had an idea of where to start with this. None of them came anywhere close to an 8th grade reading level, and none of them were below college graduate reading level. Warning Sign #6. The writing in the abstracts was highly variable, some included grammatical errors, and there was no sign of editorial oversight. Warning Sign #7.

You get the idea of how the checking is being done. I don’t want to walk you through the excruciating details for every piece, but here are a few more criteria, and then ending with a surprise reveal.

“About Us”: Can’t tell who they are, either individuals or institution. Improper grammar & punctuation. No contact information. Contact form has email address hidden. Warning Signs 8, 9, 10.

Content Sources: Most links are to RSS feeds from major science news services, not unique or locally produced content. For the unique content, authorship is unclear (is author of the plain language abstract the same as the author of the original article?), buried deep in the page, no editor mentioned, and no contact information given for the presumed authors. The links for the original articles go back to PUBMED, not to the original publisher, and nont of them give the DOI number for the articles. Warning Signs 11, 12, 13, 14, 15.

Licensing: For a project of this sort to have the impact it is supposed to on journalists and the public, it would need to have a Creative Commons licensing structure, presumably with attribution. Instead it has “copyright, all rights reserved,” but gives no information on how to get permission to use the content. It appears that the intellectual property rights are held by the website, not by the actual authors. This is (in my opinion) terrible. Warning Signs 16, 17, 18.

Accessibility: Problems using the site on my phone. Tested desktop view, and there are a number of fatal errors, missing ALT tags, empty links, duplicated links, etc. Sloppy, sloppy coding. Nobody’s perfect, but MEDLINEplus has zero fatal errors, just for comparison. If this is from a reputable organization, I’d expect better. Warning Signs 19, 20, 21.

Now, the big surprise! While I was digging around online, I found some of the content, almost verbatim, from an authoritative site! Virtually all of the “For Authors” page is from the Technishe Universiteit, Eindhoven (TU/e). Evidently, they have or had a requirement for graduate students to write a plain language summary of their research prior to graduation. Brilliant concept! The submitted content was reviewed, edited, and selected for possible inclusion in their university research magazine, Cursor. They also had a campus website to host the content. The link for this was broken when I checked today, but the Wayback Machine has several examples over the past several years, including just a few months ago.

The big question now is whether this project is taking the Technische Universiteit model and making it bigger for the world, or was the content stolen from TU/e? There is no way to tell by looking. If this is a genuine project from TU/e, there are some changes they could make to improve the project. If the project is not theirs, I would really love to see the National Library of Medicine recreate a project like this, but done properly. They’ve proven they can. And there is a genuine need.

Tactile Graphics, An Introduction

Book Cover, Texture, Quackery All Bricked Up and Nowhere to Go ... Nailed Texture
Texture: Drain Cover Washington, DC: Donkeys: Black & Braille Rough
Montebello: Pottery Texture Woven Sculpture #4 Univ of Mich Binding Imprint

This week I attended a webinar on tactile graphics. Most people I know would say, “Tactile graphics? What does that mean?” So let’s start with that.

In a way, we’ve always had tactile graphics, in the broad sense of pieces designed for visual impact which carry tactile interest or information. Leatherworking often has designs punched into the leather; quipu knotwork carried mathematical data; old books had logos embossed into the covers; pottery might have painted ornaments layered onto the surface which can be felt and distinguished; sculptural shapes might be designed with textures that add layers of insight to the underlying meaning of the work; fabrics can have textures woven into them.

And of course, there’s always Braille, in which embossed or raised dots carry very specific kinds of meaning — words and numbers. In the center of the opening montage is an image of a sculpture of a donkey covered with Braille letters and words. This was a political statue in Washington DC. I don’t know what it says, but I imagine someone with blindness caressing the glossy blackness and curved shapes of the statue, reading the words of the Declaration of Independence, or the statements of the Bill of Rights. Such a powerful metaphor for the idea of tactile graphics. But in another sense, this explanation is a kind of digression, for in the actual world of artists creating art to be touched, the phrase they use is not “tactile graphics” but “tactile art” or “sensational art,” meaning art for senses beyond simply vision and art explicitly designed to be touched. If you are interested in this aspect of tactile artistry and graphics, you might want to be aware of the work of Ann Cunningham, who is a leader in this space.

Ann not only creates artwork that carries dual meaning through combined visual and tactile designs, but is also engaged in how this can carry over to shaping information and making “sensational books.” If you have ever tried to read a plain text (ASCII) version of a heavily illustrated book, in which the images have been redacted since they are not text, you may have some insight into the challenges of reading books while blind. You can read the text, but whenever you reach a place where an image is referenced, you read whatever description was given in the text, but that is usually minimal and refers to the image itself for further insight, and the image is not there. As a sighted person, I often go the the Internet Archive and download both the ASCII version of the book (for speed and portability) and a PDF version (which includes the graphics). I’ll read the ASCII text, and when I become sufficiently frustrated, I will open the PDF online version to see what image they are talking about.

Here is an example of what I mean, a work about Vincent Van Gogh. In the first screenshot, if you are sighted, you will see the title page and opening etching, entitled “Le Semeur.” The image shows a young man in peasant garb, grasping a large bag with his left hand, and making a gesture with his open palmed right hand. Even if you don’t read French, you may be able to guess at the meaning of “Le Semeur,” which is “The Sower.” In the second screenshot, if you are sighted, you will see the same area of the book in the raw text format. Where the image should be, there is nothing but a string of cryptic meaningless computer code, followed by the words, “LE SEMEUR.” There is no indication that you are even missing an image, no clue given as to what content it is that you are missing. Later on in the book, there will be a table listing images in the text, and that may give you a clue, but until you get to that point, you are pretty much lost.

Screenshots illustrating how images "translate" to text in OCR.
Screenshots illustrating how images "translate" to text in OCR.
Van Gogh, par Théodore Duret. Full: https://archive.org/details/vangoghvincent00dureuoft Text only:

So, very broadly then, tactile graphics are graphics which carry meaning through elements that can be touched. More narrowly, the phrase “tactile graphics” has become meaningful as an explicit technique in the creation of accessible information for persons with visual impairment. This is actually closely related to the work being done by Ann Cunningham, since the technologies used function in a similar way, often creating a kind of bas-relief version of an image so that it can be perceived and interpreted by persons who are blind. It is also work that is closely related, conceptually, to Braille, in that it explicitly tries to convert information into a format that can be deciphered by persons with blindness, in this case, visual information.

This can be done with making lines on paper that will puff up so people can feel them. This can be done with special paper, special printers, or special pens. This works fine when the images are linear, but less effective when they are more complex. It can also be done through the techniques mentioned earlier, embossing, embedding, interweaving, etcetera. There are kits, special hardware, a whole variety of technologies being developed around ways to make tactile graphics. All of those approaches tend to be very time-consuming. New technologies being used to create accessible tactile graphics include 3D printing, in which image characteristics are converted to a three-dimensional form and literally converted into a kind of flattened sculptural form of the image. There are some concerns that all the hype around 3D printing will lead to people focusing on that as the ONLY kind of tactile graphic option, which is far from the case, or that people will mistake the conversion of images to 3d format for actually making the images accessible, which may or may not be the case. A particularly eloquent description of this dilemma was posted to Facebook by a teacher of young children with special needs, Yue-Ting Siu.

3D printing and Misappropriation for Tactile Graphics https://www.facebook.com/notes/yue-ting-siu/3d-printing-and-misappropriation-for-tactile-graphics/333500170166311

This was in response to a long conversation around this topic, one for which the entire conversation is well worth digging into.

That’s a very brief introduction into the concept of tactile graphics. I’ll include a few more links at the end if you want to explore more. The webinar from the Diagram Center was very interesting. The webinar, presented by Richard Ladner of the University of Washington, included a solid background in how tactile graphics for accessibility are being created now, some of the technologies, challenges, and solutions. Some of the problems are the time needed to create the tactile graphics, the low resolution of the information, the loss of complexity in the information content, and that certain types of information don’t translate well into current tactile graphic modalities. Then Dr. Ladner described the special problems associated with complex mathematical images and equations, especially those in advance mathematics, physics, and engineering texts. Without access to those images and that content, persons with blindness can be, in essence, excluded from those professions no matter what their actual talents might be. His team has been working on some new approaches to the idea of tactile graphics, creating images that can be read with a smartphone. Wow. Now, this is still fairly early in the development life cycle, but the potential for this new approach is phenomenal.

The Storify (below) includes my notes and links from livetweeting the webinar. The webinar itself, Tactile Graphics with a Voice, will soon be posted on the DIAGRAM site.

Storify: Tactile Graphics With a Voice: https://storify.com/pfanderson/tactile-graphics-with-a-voice


Tactile Graphics: http://www.tactilegraphics.org/
– Producing Tactile Graphics: http://www.tactilegraphics.org/computerassistedtactiles.html

3D Tactile Graphics: http://3dtactilegraphics.com/

American Foundation for the Blind:
– Basic Principles for Preparing Tactile Graphics http://www.afb.org/info/programs-and-services/professional-development/teachers/tactile-graphics/1235
– Braille Writing Tools and Tools for Tactile Graphics http://www.afb.org/info/living-with-vision-loss/using-technology/reading-and-writing/braille-writing-tools-and-tools-for-tactile-graphics/1235
– Deciding Whether to Create a Tactile Graphic http://www.afb.org/info/programs-and-services/professional-development/solutions-forum/electronic-files-and-research-work-group/deciding-whether-to-create-a-tactile-graphic/12345
– Resources for Preparing Quality Tactile Graphics http://www.afb.org/info/resources-for-preparing-quality-tactile-graphics/5
– Tactile Graphics Course: http://www.afb.org/info/programs-and-services/professional-development/solutions-forum/interested-in-becoming-a-braille-transcriber/tactile-graphics-3016/12345
– Types and Producers of Tactile Graphics http://www.afb.org/info/programs-and-services/professional-development/solutions-forum/training-and-other-needs-work-group/types-and-producers-of-tactile-graphics/12345

American Printing House for the Blind:
– Tactile Graphics Image Library: http://www.aph.org/tgil/
– Tactile Graphics & Manipulatives Available from APH (Missouri School for the Blind: Outreach Services) http://msb.dese.mo.gov/outreach-services/documents/Tactile-Graphics-Products.pdf


The DIAGRAM Center: http://diagramcenter.org/
– The Accessible Image Sample Book: http://diagramcenter.org/standards-and-practices/accessible-image-sample-book.html
– Poet Image Description Tool: http://diagramcenter.org/development/poet.html
– Research Reports from DIAGRAM: http://diagramcenter.org/research.html
– Tools from DIAGRAM: http://diagramcenter.org/development.html
– Webinars: http://diagramcenter.org/webinars.html

Hashtags of the Week (HOTW): Open Access Evolution & Predators (Week of July 15, 2013)


Earlier this week, Irina posted a piece on how open access publications have grown by leaps and bounds under the NIH Mandate. The post highlighted some fascinating data (open data, by the way) showing growth over time and peaks following the implementation of processes to enforce compliance.

Open access publishing is an ecosystem still morphing and adjusting full of creatures that are evolving to fit particular niches. There are many ways in which this becomes apparent.

As you might expect, there are occasional … problems? Call them debates, controversies, defining the landscape, competition for ecological niches, but they come with the territory of evolution.

As with every ecosystem, there are predators and parasites that follow on the heels of opportunity. This week I stumbled on a new-to-me hashtag tracking some of the information about predation and predatory behaviors in the academic publishing environment. Very interesting.

So what happens next? Well, you know how things are when you try to fight predators. You better be pretty darn big and strong and nasty yourself.

First posted at THL Blog: http://wp.me/p1v84h-1lw

Hashtags of the Week (HOTW): Stem Cells, Cloning and Publishing, Oh My! (Week of May 13, 2013)

Originally posted at THL Blog http://thlibrary.wordpress.com/2013/05/24/hashtags-of-the-week-hotw-week-of-may-20-2013/ by Chris Bulin, @Arduanne.

I’m sure most of our readers know that a groundbreaking article was published on May 15th regarding patient specific stem cell cloning. What has come to light since then about the publishing process for the article has been slightly disturbing. First, I looked at the original announcements and information about stem cell research, then I went on to explore issues surrounding science communication and scholarly publishing. It all started (as far as I could tell) with this announcement:

This immediately lead to ethical and policy questions being raised. Many discussions were found on the following hashtags #bioethics, #stemcell, #stemcells, and #cloning.

What we found out this week was that the paper was pushed through the publication process so quickly that some (minor) mistakes were found through post-publication peer review including a manipulated image. These conversations are still unfolding.

This has lent some steam to the conversations that were already focused on the publishing process and its role in research, faculty status, and science communication.

Young Genius & Open Access (#DontKnowJack), Part Two

TEDxMidAtlantic 2012 -Jack Andraka

Since part of the conversation with Jack about open access took place within a fast-paced Twitter chat, and part with other people outside of the hashtag, it took some time to paste it all together in sequence. What I ended up with is strict chronological order simply because the conversation was so complicated and interwoven, it was difficult to maintain continuity in any other way. Even if it made part of the conversation more clear, it tended to make the overall conversation more confusing. You have to realize that often these tweets were flying across the wires at the same time, crossing in passing, and that parts of the conversation overlap. As always with Twitter, each communication was limited to 140 characters, meaning that ideas and concepts had to be abbreviated substantially. I hope this works, because Jack made many very important observations illustrating the hidden costs of paywalls.

Jack Andraka 2012 ISEF Winner

Jack Andraka Speaks at TEDxSanJose


Labrats Screenshot
Labrats: http://labrats.org/

“LabRats is a revolutionary new program that inspires young people aged 11 to 18 to love learning about science and technology. We use the best methods of scouting and other successful youth organizations to build character as well as a strong sense of community while we provide the most engaging hands-on science experience available anywhere.”
Also on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Labrats-Science-Education-Program/305113940705

Nature Network Screenshot
Nature Network: http://network.nature.com/

Science Buddies Screenshot
ScienceBuddies: http://www.sciencebuddies.org/

Cogito: Mapping the Mind
Cogito: http://cogito.org/

Young Genius & Open Access (#DontKnowJack), Part One

A Broken-Winged Angel

Mardi Gras morning I read the new article from the Chronicle of Higher Education about Aaron Swartz’s death and memorial service.

New, Jake. Memorials for Aaron Swartz Turn to Discussion of How to Honor His Legacy. Chronicle of Higher Education February 10, 2013 http://chronicle.com/article/Moving-From-Sadness-to-Reform/137249/

Then a reader of this blog sent me a message asking me to blog more about this issue. That’s hard. I had to think about it a while, and have been working on various drafts of this post ever since. What I came up with is connecting Aaron’s mission and open access to what we gain, both potentially and actually, from making content available to other youth. This is because I had a very interesting conversation on Twitter Sunday evening with Jack Andraka, as part of the broader Health Care Social Media chat (#HCSM). If you don’t know Jack, read on. But first, a bit more about Aaron.

The HCSM chat started with an extremely active and powerful conversation about paywalls. Paywalls means, in this case, a situation where information or content that you want or need is unavailable to you until you pay money for it. Basically, the information is held hostage. This is not always a bad thing, and sometimes can actually increase safety of the audience, depending on what the content is. When it becomes questionable is when the content is educational, when the information is needed for the progress of helpful science or clinical care, is needed for safety of a community, is being used to shape policy or law that will impact on a community, comes from research paid for with public funds, or related uses and situations. There are many important conversations going on around use about when is it ethically appropriate to restrict access to information, for whom, for what types of information, and under what circumstances. Aaron Swartz had very strong opinions on this, which is ultimately what triggered the chain of events leading to his demise. Here is a small part of what Aaron had to say about this.

“Those with access to these resources — students, librarians, scientists — you have been given a privilege. You get to feed at this banquet of knowledge while the rest of the world is locked out. But you need not — indeed, morally, you cannot — keep this privilege for yourselves. You have a duty to share it with the world. And you have: trading passwords with colleagues, filling download requests for friends.”

Swartz, Aaron. Guerilla Open Access Manifesto. http://ia600808.us.archive.org/17/items/GuerillaOpenAccessManifesto/Goamjuly2008.pdf

Please note that the behaviors he describes — trading passwords, and filling download requests for friends — are illegal based upon the contracts signed by our institutions and libraries with the publishers of the journals and electronic resources. Aaron’s argument was that those contracts were unethical. Beyond unethical, actually, in that the lack of access to critical information is ultimately destructive to the entire human race and the survival of the species, in that this lack delays and prevents needed discoveries, solutions to the problems that threaten the species and life on this world. A broad scope for the argument, but there is substance to it. Yes, there are problems with simply making all information available to anyone, but there are also solutions for many of those problems and refinements to the who/what/what/when/why/how questions information access. Those are things we can work out.

For today, I want to let you see part of the story Jack Andraka shared with us last Sunday, about how paywalls impacted on his research. Here’s the conversation, which I have taken the liberty of embroidering with a few resources and links and videos (and there are a LOT more where these came from, especially the videos). To start with, WHO is Jack Andraka?

Jack is 16 years old. Jack was at the State of the Union address as the guest of President Obama. Why? Because Jack has developed a new test for diagnosing pancreatic cancer, a test that is more accurate (~100%) and faster (168x), and cheaper than anything we already have (26,000x, yes, really). This is critical simply because, as with so many other cancers, early diagnosis improves survival, DRASTICALLY. (Hey, Jack? Next time, look at ovarian cancer, please. KThxBai. Oh, wait. The test you already developed might work. Oh, and lung cancer, too? Awesome!)

You Don’t Know Jack

You Don’t Know Jack | Morgan Spurlock from Focus Forward Films on Vimeo.

You Don’t Know Jack (by Morgan Spurlock): http://vimeo.com/56769793#at=0

Jack has won a bunch of awards for this: Intel® International Science and Engineering Fair® 2012: Gordon E. Moore Award; MIT Think; Smithsonian American Ingenuity Award.

Young Innovator Achieves Childhood Dream at Intel ISEF: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmVzs3-GNBc

He’s given TEDx talks. Lots of them.

Jack Andraka: Detecting pancreatic cancer… at 15: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nq4x8C6Dcf8

For A World Without Cancer : Jack Andraka at TEDxOrangeCoast: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r55a0FapF2M

My 3 Cents 0n Cancer: Jack Andraka at TEDxSanJoseCAWomen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9yuAhusVts

Inventing a Low-Cost Test for Cancer at Age 15: Jack Andraka at TEDxMaryland: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VehHPwAVL9g

No surprise, he’s been in the news a bit.

Upbin, Bruce. Wait, Did This 15-Year-Old From Maryland Just Change Cancer Treatment? Forbes 6/18/2012 @ 9:08AM http://www.forbes.com/sites/bruceupbin/2012/06/18/wait-did-this-15-year-old-from-maryland-just-change-cancer-treatment/

Nosta, John. Cancer, Innovation and a Boy Named Jack. Forbes 2/01/2013 @ 11:50AM. http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnnosta/2013/02/01/cancer-innovation-and-a-boy-named-jack/

Tucker, Abigail. Jack Andraka, the Teen Prodigy of Pancreatic Cancer. Smithsonian magazine, December 2012. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Jack-Andraka-the-Teen-Prodigy-of-Pancreatic-Cancer-179996151.html

BBC: US teen invents advanced cancer test using Google. BBC 20 August 2012 Last updated at 19:34ET. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19291258

Jack will be the first one to tell you he could not have done this without open access research articles. And he’ll also tell you about all the barriers and struggles he had when the information he needed wasn’t available in open access journals. So, there we get to the question of open access. Time for Jack to speak for himself. And that will happen in part two of this post.

Hashtag of the Week (HOTW): Focus on Writing & Publishing (Week of August 27, 2012)

Originally published at THL Blog: http://wp.me/p1v84h-Jh

Yesterday morning someone stopped me on the street on my way into the office to tell me how much she enjoys this series of blogposts, that she watches for them every week, and follows up by checking out the hashtags I mention. She described them as “useful.” That is exactly what I like to hear, so here we are, back again, with another in the series. If you like them or find them useful, do please drop a note or a brief comment. Without the feedback, I tend to wonder if it is worth the amount of time and effort it takes to do this. Also, if there is a particular topic you’d like to see explored through Twitter, drop me a line and we’ll see if it works.

This week I’m straying a bit from the healthcare theme to illustrate some of the emerging trends and concepts in writing and publishing. Although many of the example tweets are coming from those working in popular press publishing, these trends are likely to work their way over to influence and reach into scholarly publishing. The University of Michigan has many resources to support scholarly authors working to shift to electronic publishing or working outside traditional publication paths. When you look at these, take a moment and imagine ways these ideas might work in academia. Keep in mind also the emerging critical importance of the concept of “story” in effective science communication and health literacy. This might not be exactly healthcare right this second, but the ideas expressed and skills being built are very relevant.

#amwriting = I Am Writing

#ebooks = Electronic Books

#epub = (Electronic Publishing) OR (EPUB, the ebook format)

#indiepub = Independent Publishing

#medlibs = Medical Librarians

#scicomm – Science Communication

#selfpub = Self Publishing

#writetip OR #writingtip = Writing Tips