Forrester’s Playbook framework organizes Forrester research content and services with a lifecycle approach.
Each Playbook comprises an Executive Overview and 12 reports with integrated tools and templates. In addition to the core research, the Playbook experience can be customized with global data, peer communities, and analyst engagements:
- Data-driven insights into changing behaviors
- Collaboration with peers at other companies who are facing or have faced similar challenges.
- Time with analysts through structured workshops, one-on-one advisory sessions, or deeper consulting support.
See here the list of available Playbooks
How does a playbook work? (video)
Example of a Playbook
Here is useful information on how to get access to Forrester (Library website)
Here are press articles and blog posts you might be interested to read:
Elsevier stopped me doing my research
on Chris H.J. Hartgerink’s Notebook, November 16, 2015.
Chris H.J. Hartgerink presents himself as “a statistician interested in detecting potentially problematic research such as data fabrication, which results in unreliable findings and can harm policy-making, confound funding decisions, and hampers research progress.”
He explains that he has downloaded 30,000 items from the Psychology Elsevier ScienceDirect database to conduct searches on text mining but “Elsevier notified my university that this was a violation of the access contract, that this could be considered stealing of content.”
We recommend you read the comments at the end of the post, which deal with the Elsevier API vs the “normal web service” and which were posted by Elsevier representatives and other researchers.
Standing on the shoulders of the Google giant: Sustainable discovery and Google Scholar’s comprehensive coverage.
On LSE Impact Blog, November 19, 2015
Max Kemman, PhD Candidate at the University of Luxembourg, looks at why Google Scholar is virtually unrivaled. The scholarly community might ask whether it is entirely desirable that Google plays such an important role in the scholarly workflow. Not only does Google Scholar have a known effect on discovery and citation of articles, it could well be shaping academic writing and evaluation.
New research features on Mendeley.com!
On Mendeley Blog, November 3, 2015
Mendeley launches a tailored set of recommendations for each user who has a minimum threshold of documents in their library.
“On the new “Suggest” page you’ll be getting improved article suggestions, driven by four different recommendation algorithms to support different scientific needs:
- Popular in your discipline – Shows you the seminal works, for all time, in your field
- Trending in your discipline – Shows you what articles are popular right now in your discipline
- Based on the last document in your library – Gives you articles similar to the one you just added
- Based on all the documents in your library – Provides the most tailored set of recommended articles by comparing the contents of your library with the contents of all other users on Mendeley.”
Semantic Scholar is a new service for scientific literature search and discovery, focusing on semantics and textual understanding.
This search engine allows users to find key papers about a topic or to produce a list of important citations or results in a given paper. It also serves as a resource and test bed for research in AI.
This search engine unveiled on 2 November by the non-profit Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence (AI2) in Seattle, Washington, is working towards an understanding of a paper’s content: “We’re trying to get deep into the papers and be fast and clean and usable,” says Oren Etzioni, chief executive officer of AI2.”No one can keep up with the explosive growth of scientific literature. Which papers are most relevant? Which are considered the highest quality? Is anyone else working on this specific or related problem? Now, researchers can begin to answer these questions in seconds, speeding research and solving big problems faster.”
The product is currently limited to searching about 3 million open-access papers in computer science. But the AI2 team aims to broaden that to other fields within a year.
Using machine reading and vision methods, Semantic Scholar crawls the web, finding all PDFs of publically available scientific papers on computer science topics, extracting both text and diagrams/captions, and indexing it all for future contextual retrieval. Using natural language processing, the system identifies the top papers, extracts filtering information and topics, and sorts by what type of paper and how influential its citations are. It provides the scientist with a simple user interface (optimized for mobile) that maps to academic researchers’ expectations. Filters such as topic, date of publication, author and where published are built in. It includes smart, contextual recommendations for further keyword filtering as well.
Read also: Artificial-intelligence institute launches free science search engine, Nature, November 2, 2015.
ORCID provides a persistent digital identifier that distinguishes a researcher from every other researchers. Through integration in key research workflows such as manuscript and grant submission, ORCID supports automated linkages between the researcher and his or her professional activities ensuring that his or her work is recognized. ORCID thus provides a registry of unique researcher identifiers and a transparent method of linking research activities and outputs to these identifiers.
Last october ORCID launched an Auto-Update functionality in collaboration with Crossref and DataCite. Until now, researchers have had to manually maintain their record, connecting new activities as they are made public. In ORCID, that meant using Search & Link tools to claim works manually. Researchers frequently asked: “Why, if I include my ORCID iD when I submit a manuscript or dataset, isn’t my ORCID record “automagically” updated when the work is published?”
In order to make the Auto-Update work, researchers need to do two things: (1) use the ORCID iD when submitting a paper or dataset, and (2) authorize Crossref and DataCite to update the ORCID record. This permission may be revoked at any time, and researchers may also choose privacy settings for the information posted on their record.
Publishers and data centers also have two things to do: (1) collect ORCID identifiers during the submission workflow, using a process that involves authentication (not a type-in field!), and (2) embed the iD in the published paper and include the iD when submitting information to Crossref or DataCite. Upon receipt of data from a publisher or data center with a valid identifier, Crossref or DataCite can automatically push that information to the researcher’s ORCID record.
More information about how to opt out of this service can be found here: the ORCID Inbox. Source: ORCID.org
A very interesting article on this issue was written by Martin Fenner, DataCite Technical Director: Explaining the DataCite/ORCID Auto-update
Sherpa Juliet is the registry of open access policies from research funders worldwide.
This service provides information on funders’ open access policies for researchers wishing to check the requirements of their grants. Juliet is widely recognised as part of the essential support infrastructure of the open access environment and is part of a suite of open access services produced and maintained by the Centre for Research Communications, which also includes RoMEO and OpenDOAR.
RoMEO service lists the publishers’ copyright transfer agreements and and self-archiving policies.
OpenDOAR is an authoritative directory of academic open access repositories.
The JULIET service is developed and maintained by the Centre for Research Communications, University of Nottingham (http://crc.nottingham.ac.uk/) and is currently funded by JISC via UK RepositoryNet+ (http://www.repositorynet.ac.uk/).