On the front cover of 19 February 2010 Science magazine [Print copy call no: Q1S.416s at Lee Wee Nam Library Current periodicals] is a striking photograph of something vaguely familiar on so many levels. At a glance it appears organic, suggesting an electro-microscopic view of animal cell origin; however closer examination of the textural quality leads the eye closer to an interwoven mesh detailed construction of [surprise ...] interwoven plastic cable zip ties and metal pins.  This three-dimensional art installation lyrically entitled “Branching Morphogenesis” was recently awarded first place in this year’s International Science & Engineering Visualization Challenge organised by Science and the U.S. National Science foundation. Other interesting awardees include Noninteractive media Honorable Mention “Decision Support System  for Tsunami Early Warning by Gregory Hochleitner, Christian Dregel and Nils Sparwasser from the German Aerospace Centre (DLR), view here [note: the video takes some time to load].  This project is a collaboration between Germany and Indonesia combining undersea, satellite GPS and site data to detect imminent tidal waves.

As the research process today involves larger and more complex datasets, visualization is gaining attention as a tool to explore data and information graphically, see NASA visualization website.  For those in NTU exploring art to bring science to life, see details on next year’s competition at www.nsf.gov/news/scivis.

In Dr Amanda Davis’ recent March 4 talk to NTU audience about “Surviving Peer Review & Best Practices on Publishing Ethics”, she commented that Nature journal rejects a staggering 98% of articles submitted to them for consideration. The figures from a quick look at the Nature website  [see web page on "Getting published in Nature"] state a success rate of 10%, however the table shows a trend from 11% in 1977 to almost 8% in 2008.  Clearly this is not a process for the faint -hearted so NTU publishers-to-be may appreciate some tips shared by Dr Lim Khee Hiang, Principal Trainer, Customer Education with Thomson Reuters on where to publish.  These useful pointers address your scholarly communication requirements with directions to the appropriate statistical analytics and metrics, see below:

“If you want your article to:
Publish in most influential or highly cited journal
   – use Impact factor OR
   – use 5 year Impact factor (some subject areas have a longer peak citation period e.g.geology,
          management, sociology)

Reach out to readers and be read immediately
   – use Immediacy index

Stay active in the journal collection
   – use Cited Half Life

Note: The above are general guidelines only; a deeper understanding of Journal Citation Reports,  the subject and dynamic publication cycles are necessary when deciding where to publish your paper.

Other issues to bear in mind:

Impact factor, Immediacy Index and other metrics are meant to evaluate the world’s leading journals

Never compare Impact factor or other metrics across different disciplines e.g. Biophysics vs. mathematics because different disciplines have different citation patterns.”
For more information on Library Talks or Workshops visit NTU Library Facebook.

Just before the Lunar New Year, Engineering Librarians shared with more than 1,000 NTU students in a series of workshops, the basic and subtle differences between popular and scholarly journals; specifically the type of information they provide to the scholarly writing research process. Coincidentally in the past few weeks there has been some news about how an article from the popular science journal “New Scientist” has been cited. This journal was established in 1956 and NTU Library subscribes to both the print and electronic version of New Scientist (ISSN: 0262-4079).

New Scientist has been in public attention recently because a 1999 journal article quoting Indian glaciologist, Syed Hussain, was cited as the single source for the glacier meltdown date of 2035 in the now infamous IPCC AR4 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment Report) report. Last month, New Scientist reported Hussain commenting on the [in]appropriateness of [IPCC] using references from popular magazines and newspapers. While this last statement may be too harsh to apply broadly across a media type when writing in contemporary times, it is a reminder on the importance of understanding information in its context and, more fundamentally, the value of a detailed, comprehensive literature review.

Before throwing out popular journals in research altogether, it still plays an important role as a current information source for the latest ideas and technologies. In the same January 2010 issue of New Scientist highlighting the IPCC issue, the magazine reports how Australian scientist, Ross Clark and his colleagues, started thinking about using the Wii game console as a low-priced substitute to costly physical therapy equipment for stroke patients after reading about a previous article on a military application for the electronic game.

Read related articles in 16 January 2010 issue of New Scientist.

Debate heats up over IPCC melting glaciers claim. By: Pearce, Fred, New Scientist, 02624079, 1/16/2010, Vol. 205, Issue 2743

Wii board helps physios strike a balance. New Scientist, 02624079, 1/16/2010, Vol. 205, Issue 2743