Comments on: More opinions on Dr. Google http://davidrothman.net/2006/11/12/more-opinions-on-dr-google/ Exploring Medical Librarianship and Web Geekery Tue, 16 Mar 2010 15:05:18 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Dokter Google « MGAS nieuws http://davidrothman.net/2006/11/12/more-opinions-on-dr-google/comment-page-1/#comment-4856 Dokter Google « MGAS nieuws Mon, 13 Nov 2006 21:32:37 +0000 http://davidrothman.net/2006/11/12/more-opinions-on-dr-google/#comment-4856 [...] Het bericht werd snel overgenomen door de BBC en ook de kritische commentaren uit de blogwereld van medische bibliothecarissen kwamen wel bijzonder snel binnen (hier en hier) . Maar ook in de BMJ zelf  verschenen de rapid responses bijzonder snel. [...] [...] Het bericht werd snel overgenomen door de BBC en ook de kritische commentaren uit de blogwereld van medische bibliothecarissen kwamen wel bijzonder snel binnen (hier en hier) . Maar ook in de BMJ zelf  verschenen de rapid responses bijzonder snel. [...]

]]> By: Hope Leman http://davidrothman.net/2006/11/12/more-opinions-on-dr-google/comment-page-1/#comment-4748 Hope Leman Mon, 13 Nov 2006 11:44:53 +0000 http://davidrothman.net/2006/11/12/more-opinions-on-dr-google/#comment-4748 Apropos of, "The problem is that medical libraries are not evolving fast enough to keep up with our patrons’ needs and expectations..." part of the problem for medical librarians is that the medical publishers aren’t keeping up. Springer and Elsevier won’t provide RSS feeds (period, basically, in the case of Elsevier) or have really unreliable ones (in the case of Springer). There is incredibly good stuff in the medical journals of both. But if medical librarians can't keep up on it because those publishers don’t trust Google or RSS as a technology then clinicians are going to continue to bypass Springer and Elsevier entirely and that is scary considering what important stuff is in the journals of those two publishers and obviously that is not good for the bottom lines of Springer and Elsevier. They need to talk to medical librarians and get RSS feeds up. It is scary to think that clinicians are unable to keep up on what is available in such a huge amount of medical literature because Springer and Elsevier offer such meager RSS access and such clunky email alert systems. Medical librarians are trying to evolve, but are having to do so as isolated individuals for the most part. Are there any librarians out there who are telling Springer and Elsevier to get with the program or else they will be dog meat in the face of open access and the quick and dirty world of Google? I know that T. Scott Plutchak has been working with Elsevier but not on the RSS situation as far as I can tell. Apropos of, “The problem is that medical libraries are not evolving fast enough to keep up with our patrons’ needs and expectations…” part of the problem for medical librarians is that the medical publishers aren’t keeping up. Springer and Elsevier won’t provide RSS feeds (period, basically, in the case of Elsevier) or have really unreliable ones (in the case of Springer). There is incredibly good stuff in the medical journals of both. But if medical librarians can’t keep up on it because those publishers don’t trust Google or RSS as a technology then clinicians are going to continue to bypass Springer and Elsevier entirely and that is scary considering what important stuff is in the journals of those two publishers and obviously that is not good for the bottom lines of Springer and Elsevier. They need to talk to medical librarians and get RSS feeds up.

It is scary to think that clinicians are unable to keep up on what is available in such a huge amount of medical literature because Springer and Elsevier offer such meager RSS access and such clunky email alert systems. Medical librarians are trying to evolve, but are having to do so as isolated individuals for the most part. Are there any librarians out there who are telling Springer and Elsevier to get with the program or else they will be dog meat in the face of open access and the quick and dirty world of Google? I know that T. Scott Plutchak has been working with Elsevier but not on the RSS situation as far as I can tell.

]]>