Research Blogging: Indexing and Registering the Change in Science 2.0

Increasing public interest in science information in a digital and 2.0 science era promotes a dramatically, rapid and deep change in science itself. The emergence and expansion of new technologies and internet-based tools is leading to new means to improve scientific methodology and communication, assessment, promotion and certification. It allows methods of acquisition, manipulation and storage, generating vast quantities of data that can further facilitate the research process. It also improves access to scientific results through information sharing and discussion. Content previously restricted only to specialists is now available to a wider audience. This context requires new management systems to make scientific knowledge more accessible and useable, including new measures to evaluate the reach of scientific information. The new science and research quality measures are strongly related to the new online technologies and services based in social media. Tools such as blogs, social bookmarks and online reference managers, Twitter and others offer alternative, transparent and more comprehensive information about the active interest, usage and reach of scientific publications. Another of these new filters is the Research Blogging platform, which was created in 2007 and now has over 1,230 active blogs, with over 26,960 entries posted about peer-reviewed research on subjects ranging from Anthropology to Zoology. This study takes a closer look at RB, in order to get insights into its contribution to the rapidly changing landscape of scientific communication.

Scientific research output evaluation of professors of Sao Paulo State University, Marilia/SP

In this work, an analysis of scientific bibliographic productivity was made using the Faculdade de Filosofia e Ciencias, Universidade Estadual Paulista (FFC-UNESP) as example. It is composed by nine departments which offer altogether nine undergraduate courses: 1) Archival, 2) Library, 3) Speech Therapy, 4) Pedagogy, 5) International Relations, 6) Physiotherapy, 7) Occupational Therapy, 8) Philosophy, 9) Social Sciences and six graduate programs leading to M. S. and Ph.D. degrees. Moreover, when analyzing the different courses of FFC-UNESP, they represent typical academic organization in Brazil and Latin America and could be taken as a model for analyzing other Brazilian research institutions. Using data retrieved from the Lattes Plataform database (Curriculum Lattes) we have quantitatively the scientific productivity percentage of professors at UNESP. We observed that bibliometric evaluations using the Curriculum Lattes (CL) showed that the professors published papers in journal are not indexed by ISI and SCOPUS. This analysis was made using: 1) the total number of papers (indexed in Curriculum Lattes database), 2) the number of papers indexed by Thomson ISI Web of Science database and SCOPUS database, and 3) the Hirsch (h-index) by ISI and SCOPUS. Bibliometric evaluations of departments showed a better performance of Political Science and Economics Department when compared to others departments, in relation total number of papers (indexed in Curriculum Lattes database). We also analyzed the academic advisory (Master's Thesis and Ph. D. Thesis) by nine departments of FFC/UNESP. The Administration and School Supervision Department presented a higher academic advisory (concluded and current) when compared to the others departments.

Post-trial access to study medication: a Brazilian e-survey with major stakeholders in clinical research

Objectives To analyse the perspective of clinical research stakeholders concerning post-trial access to study medication. Methods Questionnaires and informed consents were sent through e-mail to 599 ethics committee (EC) members, 290 clinical investigators (HIV/AIDS and Diabetes) and 53 sponsors in Brazil. Investigators were also asked to submit the questionnaire to their research patients. Two reminders were sent to participants. Results The response rate was 21%, 20% and 45% in EC, investigators and sponsors' groups, respectively. 54 patients answered the questionnaire through their doctors. The least informative item in the consent form was how to obtain the study medication after trial. If a benefit were demonstrated in the study, 60% of research participants and 35% of EC answered that all patients should continue receiving study medication after trial; 43% of investigators believed the medication should be given to participants, and 40% to subjects who participated and benefited from treatment. For 50% of the sponsors, study medication should be assured to participants who had benefited from treatment. The majority of responders answered that medication should be provided free by sponsors; investigators and sponsors believed the medication should be kept until available in the public health sector; EC members said that the patient should keep the benefit; patients answered that benefits should be assured for life. Conclusions Due to the study limitations, the results cannot be generalised; however, the data can contribute to discussion of this complex topic through analysing the views of stakeholders in clinical research in Brazil.