SciencePOD is a digital publishing platform magnifying the impact of ideas by transforming complex knowledge into simple messages to better influence target audiences. SciencePOD brings you the peace of mind of getting access to the best professional teams every time you need to order and create quality content–be it for science journalism, educational or content marketing purposes.
Science innovation not only has implications for the scientists and innovators themselves but also for societies at large. Making sure the complex ideas that are buried in the scientific literature and technical documentation are communicated effectively is, therefore, crucial.
You’ll find content directly related to:
- Ask the editor — A strong conversation on open access, open science framework, open science and reproducible research, and much more.
- Good bad and ugly — Helpful advice on remembering the challenges and benefits associated with content creation through, marketing how-to guide, development marketing plan, online marketing challenges, and challenges of marketing a service.
- Videos and infographics – SciencePOD is a collection of storytellers. This link explains what we do as science storytellers, what we can do for you, and why you should rely on us for your content marketing needs.
If you care to hear about any specific content, please drop in a comment or write into the editor on our contact page.
By Arran Frood, SciencePOD writer
There have never been more scientists. There has never been more research completed. There has never been more to publish. But amid the bounty, the relationship between science journal publishers and their paying customers is far from frictionless. Major academic institutions and national libraries, like in Canada, face ever-rising subscription fees of around €10M annually. They are refusing to pay for swathes of journals and boycotting the entire portfolios of some of the biggest names in the business. What this amounts to is a breakdown in trust.
In theory, it should be simple: publishers use their communications expertise and marketing savvy to make scientific findings accessible to the academic community. It’s a serious business and huge amounts of money are at stake. Total global revenues are somewhere in the region of €23Bn each year and the industry employs an estimated 110,000 people globally, of which about 40% are based in the EU. The basis of the business model adopted by major global publishers, with profits in the billions – not the millions – has raised many eyebrows and trust in the industry is at an all-time low.
“At the end of the day, the only thing we have is our credibility,” says Stephen Levin, who is co-Editor-in-Chief of MedTech Strategist together with David Cassak. The magazine’s main focus is on delivering in-depth analysis of trends in the MedTech (Medical Technologies) industry, which encompasses medical devices.
During his last visit to Dublin on the occasion of the MedTech Strategist Innovation Summit Dublin 2019, Levin sat for an interview with Sabine Louët, SciencePOD Founder. In this podcast interview, Levin shares his views on the importance of producing quality content to effectively communicate with their target audience. Quality content is the bedrock of the magazine’s credibility and serves to build trust among its readers.
Speeding up the research process, according to ARTiFACTS, requires turning research communication on its head by tracking, recording and sharing findings in small fragments and in real-time even before publishing them as full journal articles
Bashing science publishers have gone mainstream. Today, science publishing and publishing practices are often described using a lexicon reflective of a lack of trust: predatory journal, publication bias, adverse incentives, peer review problems, rip-off publishing, and the alliterative science-stymying paywall. Add to this the ‘tug of war’ over Open Access and the potential effects of the ambitious initiative Plan S, and one has to ask, how can trust in science publishing be restored?
This issue was discussed at this year’s NFAIS conference, on 14th February 2019, by Dave Kochalko, Co-Founder and Chief Academic Officer at Cambridge, Massachusetts-based scholarly publishing start-up ARTiFACTS. In a podcast interview with SciencePOD, Kochallko talks about findings solutions to this lack of trust.
Yvonne Campfens discusses some of the surprising findings of her start-ups’ study with Sabine Louët, SciencePOD CEO, in a podcast.
The first study of its kind related to the start-up ecosystem in the science publishing industry brought a lot of discussions during the APE2019 conference, held on 16thJanuary 2019, in Berlin, Germany. The author of this study is Yvonne Campfens, an independent science publishing consultant, based in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Focusing on 120 start-ups— 92 of which are independent— the study debunked some of the myths around the innovative science publishing ecosystem.
Campfens was motivated to start this study as she felt there were a lot of myths surrounding start-ups in publishing. “I was really curious, because I had seen so many new names over the last decade, and I was wondering what had happened with all these new players,” she says. “At the same time there was a lot of debate about distribution, developments, and trends in the industry,” she adds, “but very little facts and data.” This is what motivated Campfens to take a closer look.
“The conversation is in the relationship.”
That is from Management Consultant Andrew Burgess who provides strategic insight around AI. In an interview recorded at ConTech Burgess speaks with SciencePOD about the potential of AI in the science publishing sector.
Outside their speciality, scientists need inductive communication from their colleagues…
Scientists are, all too often, notoriously bad communicators. Why is this? These are intelligent and thoughtful people, who consider carefully and think deeply about what they do. I fear the problem lies with the rest of us, non-scientists, who quite simply don’t do that. Either because we don’t have the time. Or we don’t have the capability. Or because our thinking processes are aligned with very different, much more urgent matters. Stopping and listening to people who stop and think is not so easy. We think in other ways.
There is a name for these things: deductive versus inductive reasoning. And understanding how they work is essential for communicating scientific ideas to the wider public, and even to scientists in other disciplines.
Everyone seems to be suffering from content indigestion as news competes with native advertising for readers’ attention. So what are start-ups doing to fix this?
During the weeks running up to the biggest toy selling season, nobody ignores how cartoons and kids’ movies are used to market branded toys. This is an example of content developed for content marketing purposes. Toy companies use every trick in the digital marketing toolbox to personalise a message aimed at influencing parents and grand-parents—they are the ones with the purchasing power after all.
With such content marketing, the traditional boundaries between content, designed to sell products or raise brand awareness, and news content, designed to inform, are blurred. It is, therefore, not always easy for audiences to identify independent news media content from native advertising emulating news style content. People are starting to feel that they are suffering from content indigestion while the battle for their attention rages on between media and advertisers.
To address such concerns, digital publishing is undergoing a serious shift towards greater personalisation. At a recent event on the Future of Content, organised by Irish industry support agency Enterprise Ireland, in Dublin, Ireland, on 9th November 2018, participants presented the various perspectives on the content creation spectrum. And the advocates of audience-led personalisation opposed the views of marketers pushing for customer microsegment-led personalisation.
What keeps digital publishers awake at night? This is a question that has more answers than we have space in this column. However, for many, having the right set of automation tools is essential. This is as true for digital marketing as it is for creating quality content. Publishers from mainstream digital media organisations could not agree more during DiG Publishing Lisbon held just this year, 3-5 Oct 2018.
Podcast, Ivan Oransky, RetractionWatch: Retractions are like red flags highlighting infractions in science
Keeping a record of the retraction of research publications made it easier for journalistic coverage dissecting the infractions occurring within science publishing. “What I see that’s important, is not just coverage of individual cases, people are actually trying to put this all together. They’re filing public record requests because that’s something we’re not thinking of.”
That’s according to RetractionWatch co-founder, Ivan Oransky. RetractionWatch, who started this initiative as a blog in 2010 with a single purpose in mind: making the peer-review process more transparent. Listen to the edited version of the recording of a recent presentation Oransky made taken at Trinity College Dublin, Ireland. This event, held on 20th June 2018, was co-organised by the Irish Science & Technology Journalists’ Association and the Science Gallery Dublin.
Increasingly digital breadcrumbs are making it possible for others to track our every move. To illustrate what is at stake here, we need to travel back in time. In the pre-computer era, the ability to remain incognito made for great drama in black and white movies. It also opened the door to the perfect crime, without much risk that the perpetrator would get caught. Yet, when it comes to crime, invading peoples’ privacy could be justified, some argue, for the sake of the greater good and to preserve a stable society.
Data protection regulation GDPR, includes exemptions to allow research on anonymised data. In this exclusive interview with Shawn Jensen, CEO of data privacy company Profila, Sabine Louët finds out about the implications of the new GDPR regulations for citizens and for researchers. The regulation was adopted on 27th April 2016 and is due to enter into force on 25th May 2018. In essence, it decentralises part of the data protection governance towards data controllers and people in charge of processing the data.
How to live in a post-privacy world: An interview with Michal KosinskiHow to live in a post-privacy world: An interview with Michal Kosinski
Is it possible that by giving some sort of privacy, we could have better health or cheaper car insurance rates?
Discussion on privacy were top of the agenda at one of the biggest technology trade fairs in Europe, the CeBIT 2017 in Hannover, Germany. Indeed as social media are full of the many aspects of the lives of those who share their views with as little as pressing a ‘like’ button on Facebook.
New figures show the relatively limited size and slow rate of uptake of the Open Access market.
Open Access (OA) continues to be the subject of discussion in the scientific community, as do debates about the need for greater levels of open access. However, the reality on the ground is not as clear cut and the adoption rate of OA is not as quick as its promoters would like it to be. At the recent STM Association conference held on the 10th October 2017 in Frankfurt, I presented the findings of a study by independent publishing consultancy Delta Think, Philadelphia, USA, about the size of the open access market. The numbers help unearth recent trends and the dynamics of the OA market, giving a mixed picture. Although open access is established and growing faster than the underlying scholarly publishing market, OA’s value forms a small segment of the total, and it is only slowly taking share. With funders’ showing mixed approaches to backing OA, it might be that individual scientists have a greater role to play to effect change.
Reporting from the APE2018 a recent conference gathering the who’s who of scholarly publishing in Berlin on 16th and 17th January 2018, EuroScientist Editor, Sabine Louët interviews several experts on their views on how blockchain technology will change the world of scientists.
First, we hear from Lambert Heller, who is the head of the Open Science Lab at TIB Hannover, the German national library for science and technology, who gives his perspective as a digital librarian. He gives the bigger picture of how blockchain is going to help science become more open and help remove the current bottlenecks in the scientific endeavour by increasing the connectivity, accessibility and storage of scholarly objects, such as research papers and databases, through metadata and interplanetary data systems.