At the University of Michigan we’re pretty blessed to have access to the plethora of resources our university has – but navigating those resources when they’re managed by a variety of different schools and departments can be challenging. In an effort to address that challenge, your liaison librarians have developed a research guide that aims to consolidate the disparate resources at your disposal: the Health Sciences Grant Information Portal, or HS-GIP. The guide takes you through the steps of the funding cycle:
- Finding funding sources
- Grant writing
- Post-award processing
This post will walk you through a couple of the guide’s key features, then leave you to explore and give us your feedback if you so desire!
The main page lets you navigate – via the gold tabs – to funding resources for students, health-sciences specific funding (more on that below) and general funding databases that let you search across disciplines & funding types:
I hope you’ll forgive me for including a plug for my 2nd year project as a ULA – but you can also find a link to the wonderful foundations.umich.edu portal (U Mich log-in required) – which is geared toward faculty looking for foundation funding on the main page:
Is there anything you’d like to see on the Health Sciences Grant Information Portal, or have any other suggestions? Send us an email at: firstname.lastname@example.org
A new award, with major sponsorship from Google, the Public Library of Science (PLoS) and the Wellcome Trust, seeks to reward pioneers for the social good byawarding $30,000 to three people who have “applied scientific research published through open access” – in ANY field – for the benefit of society.
The official award site is here, and the application period closes June 15th, 2013 – so hop to it!
Nominees should be people and/or teams that have:
- or remixed scientific research published through open access.
Examples of nominees (so far) include:
A bioinformatics team repurposes existing source codes used for searching genomic data associated with individual cancer tumors to create a new open source algorithm and web tool that can search multiple tumor types simultaneously, enabling faster and more comprehensive searches by oncologists for use in clinical treatment of cancer patients.
A patient advocate creates a new web community for individuals with a rare genetic disorder and their families; this website curates existing and newly available open access research about causes and treatment protocols, and offers interpretative science articles and a user forum to help nonscientist readers better understand the science presented.
- Teams are eligible
- Self-nominations are totally kosher
*NOT the full suite of rules – see the entire set of guidelines here.
Follow the conversation at #SciASAP.
The award is also supported by:
Chances are that by now you’ve heard about Mendeley‘s sale to Elsevier. There had been rumors circulating for some time about the sale, but I heard when they made it official in April – naturally, from a well-informed classmate who heard via Twitter (kudos to @emilyrnlds for the tip).
I thought about posting this in the immediate days after the announcement, but frankly I wanted to see how things would shake out – and naturally, the internet didn’t disappoint.
Twitter users rushed for a pun-filled spin on the issue with #mendelsevier and #mendelete (again, @emilyrnlds led me to those hashtags). But I was curious about some reactions more in-depth than 140 characters, so here’s a round up of what I found:
- The announcement blog post from Mendeley
- Mendeley’s blog post announcing more account storage
- Elsevier’s blog announcement and official press release
- TechCrunch’s article confirming rumors of the sale
- Scholarly Kitchen’s take
- The New Yorker weighs in with a hilarious title
- David Weinberger’s (from Harvard’s Berkman Center & director of Harvard Library Innovation Lab) blog post
- Microsoft Research’s Danah Boyd’s missive on why she’s now deleting Mendeley
- Mendeley’s cofounder, Victor Henning, answers questions cropping up via social media
TL;DR: What does it mean for me?
- If you’ve got an individual Mendeley account, it’ll still be free
- You’ll get more (free) storage – 2GB for individual accounts, 5GB for premium and institutional accounts
- Mendeley will develop an Android app soon to complement it’s iOS usage
- The API will remain open
- Do you care about open access/data? That’s not going to fit into a bullet point – so read on:
I anticipated some of the ire from the Mendeley user community due to the dichotomy between Mendeley’s open “hey come look at what your peer group is reading! Collaborate! Innovate!” culture and Elsevier’s rather…controversial business practices; the New Yorker writes Elsevier is:
infamous for restricting the flow of scientific information so it can sell research papers for as much as fifty dollars a piece, generating profit margins of thirty-six per cent and netting the company billions of dollars in revenue annually. The company has fought legislation designed to open up academic research, offered scholars money to file positive reviews, sued libraries for oversharing, and allegedly published fake journals on behalf of the pharmaceuticals industry.
And indeed this seems to fuel the bulk of the user complaints. As part of his response (linked above), David Weinberger writes:
The idea of my reading behaviors adding economic value to a company making huge profits by locking scholarship behind increasingly expensive paywalls is, in a word, repugnant.
And here is where the Scholarly Kitchen blog shines as a beacon of well-balanced online authorship by pointing out the concerns and how, despite the press releases and blog posts and social media chats from Mendelsevier, they avoid
“the question about whether users have the right to openly share copyrighted or licensed content via Mendeley even if they or their institution subscribe (or if there is a CC-BY-NC license associated with the work)…one that ties into the legal risks around this deal and the longevity of Mendeley’s central premise of PDF sharing now that it’s owned by Elsevier.”
Yet, as Kent Anderson (contributing author to Scholarly Kitchen and CEO/publisher of the Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery) points out,
“in the long run, it’s likely better for publishers to see [article usage statistics] under the roof of a company with incentive for respecting copyright, rather than an independent wildcard with no such ties…[since] it’s worth noting that publishers tend to take services at face value, as Connotea and CiteULike were used by many platforms across journals, despite being owned by Nature Publishing Group and supported by Springer, respectively.”
Recognizing that this may not be the most popular opinion, I would like to be cautiously optimistic. I think there could possibly be benefits by having a dedicated system backed by a well-funded company to measure the article-level metrics – which is really where I think the next impact factor is going to come from (Jason Priem, a PhD student at UNC-Chapel Hill will convince you of this in one presentation or less). I had the pleasure of hearing Jason speak at the Medical Library Association conference earlier this month, and naturally in the question portion someone asked about Mendelsevier. For now, I’m sticking with his response (which I won’t quote as I’m paraphrasing and can’t recall the exact wording, but it was something along the lines of): Both companies have said they will preserve Mendeley’s commitment to openness, and that’s what I’ll stick to until I see otherwise.
Many people believe that there is, or soon will be, a physician shortage. There are nearly 1 million physicians scattered across America representing a ratio of 319 doctors per 100,000 Americans. According to estimates, the AAMC states that there are 13,700 too few physicians for our communities. In contrast to that, the GAO implies that adequate access exists for 97% of Medicare patients. So is there really a physician shortage? I suppose that depends on who you ask [...]
Why spend over 7 years training someone to fill that void (4 years of medical school and at least 3 years of residency training) when other clinicians can be trained in less time? Nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) take a fraction of the time to train relative to physicians and produce similar outcomes in certain studies [...]
One of the major elements impacting the care of the underserved will be the implementation of the Medicaid expansion in 2014. Originally, the Affordable Care Act would have used Medicaid as a vehicle to provide health insurance coverage to approximately 16 or 17 million Americans under 138% of the federal poverty level [...]
Read the full post here: Reflections on medical education, medical practice and the underserved