Discovery and efficient reuse of technology pictures using Wikimedia infrastructures. A proposal

Multimedia objects, especially images and figures, are essential for the visualization and interpretation of research findings. The distribution and reuse of these scientific objects is significantly improved under open access conditions, for instance in Wikipedia articles, in research literature, as well as in education and knowledge dissemination, where licensing of images often represents a serious barrier. Whereas scientific publications are retrievable through library portals or other online search services due to standardized indices there is no targeted retrieval and access to the accompanying images and figures yet. Consequently there is a great demand to develop standardized indexing methods for these multimedia open access objects in order to improve the accessibility to this material. With our proposal, we hope to serve a broad audience which looks up a scientific or technical term in a web search portal first. Until now, this audience has little chance to find an openly accessible and reusable image narrowly matching their search term on first try - frustratingly so, even if there is in fact such an image included in some open access article.

Eight Questions About Physician-Rating Websites: A Systematic Review

Background: Physician-rating websites are currently gaining in popularity because they increase transparency in the health care system. However, research on the characteristics and content of these portals remains limited. Objective: To identify and synthesize published evidence in peer-reviewed journals regarding frequently discussed issues about physician-rating websites. Methods: Peer-reviewed English and German language literature was searched in seven databases (Medline (via PubMed), the Cochrane Library, Business Source Complete, ABI/Inform Complete, PsycInfo, Scopus, and ISI web of knowledge) without any time constraints. Additionally, reference lists of included studies were screened to assure completeness. The following eight previously defined questions were addressed: 1) What percentage of physicians has been rated? 2) What is the average number of ratings on physician-rating websites? 3) Are there any differences among rated physicians related to socioeconomic status? 4) Are ratings more likely to be positive or negative? 5) What significance do patient narratives have? 6) How should physicians deal with physician-rating websites? 7) What major shortcomings do physician-rating websites have? 8) What recommendations can be made for further improvement of physician-rating websites? Results: Twenty-four articles published in peer-reviewed journals met our inclusion criteria. Most studies were published by US (n=13) and German (n=8) researchers; however, the focus differed considerably. The current usage of physician-rating websites is still low but is increasing. International data show that 1 out of 6 physicians has been rated, and approximately 90% of all ratings on physician-rating websites were positive. Although often a concern, we could not find any evidence of "doctor-bashing". Physicians should not ignore these websites, but rather, monitor the information available and use it for internal and ex-ternal purpose. Several shortcomings limit the significance of the results published on physician-rating websites; some recommendations to address these limitations are presented. Conclusions: Although the number of publications is still low, physician-rating websites are gaining more attention in research. But the current condition of physician-rating websites is lacking. This is the case both in the United States and in Germany. Further research is necessary to increase the quality of the websites, especially from the patients’ perspective.