EDP Sciences logo
Subscriber Authentication Point
Search
Menu
Home All issues Volume 28 / No 6-7 (Juin–Juillet 2012) Med Sci (Paris), 28 6-7 (2012) 653-658 References
Free Access
Issue
Med Sci (Paris)
Volume 28, Number 6-7, Juin–Juillet 2012
Page(s) 653 - 658
Section Forum
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/medsci/2012286020
Published online 16 July 2012
  1. What Is Web 2.0 - O’Reilly Media. Disponible sur http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html. [Google Scholar]
  2. Wikipedia. Disponible sur http://www.wikipedia.org. [Google Scholar]
  3. Facebook. Disponible sur http://www.facebook.com. [Google Scholar]
  4. YouTube. Disponible sur http://www.youtube.com. [Google Scholar]
  5. Twitter. Disponible sur http://www.twitter.com. [Google Scholar]
  6. Shneiderman B. Science 2.0. Science 2008 ; 319 : 1349–1350. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Broudoux E, Chartron G. La communication scientifique face au Web2.0 : Premiers constats et analyse. H2PTM’09-Rétrospective et perspective, 1989–2009. Paris : Hermès Science-Lavoisier, 2009 : 323–336. [Google Scholar]
  8. Eysenbach G. Medicine 2.0: Social networking, collaboration, participation, apomediation, and openness. J Med Internet Res 2008 ; 10 : e22. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. ScienceBlogs. Disponible sur http://scienceblogs.com. [Google Scholar]
  10. Research Blogging. Disponible sur http://researchblogging.org. [Google Scholar]
  11. Sciencefeed. Disponible sur http://www.sciencefeed.com. [Google Scholar]
  12. Letierce J, Passant A, Breslin JG, et al. Using Twitter during an academic conference: The #iswc2009 Use-Case. Proceedings of the Fourth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  13. Reinhardt W, Martin E, Beham G, et al. How people are using Twitter during conferences. In : Hornung-Prähauser V, Luckmann M, eds. Creativity and innovation competencies on the Web, Proceeding of 5. EduMedia conference. Salzburg, 2009 : 145–146. [Google Scholar]
  14. Priem J, Costello K. How and why scholars cite on Twitter. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2010 ; 47 : 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  15. Priem J, Costello K, Dzuba T. First-year graduate students just wasting time? Prevalence and use of Twitter among scholars. New Orleans, LA, USA, 2011. Disponible sur http://www.readwriteweb.com/assets_c/2011/10/twitter-scholarship-infographic-34708.php. [Google Scholar]
  16. myExperiment. Disponible sur http://www.myexperiment.org. [Google Scholar]
  17. Sci-Mate. Disponible sur http://www.sci-mate.org. [Google Scholar]
  18. OpenWetWare. Disponible sur http://openwetware.org/wiki/Main_Page. [Google Scholar]
  19. UsefulChem. Disponible sur http://usefulchem.wikispaces.com. [Google Scholar]
  20. Murray S, Choi S, Hoey J, et al. Open science, open access and open source software at Open Medicine. Open Med 2008 ; 2 : e1–e3. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Mahé A. Peut-on se fier à Wikipédia ? Pour la Science 2007 ; 18–21. [Google Scholar]
  22. WikiGenes. Disponible sur http://www.wikigenes.org. [Google Scholar]
  23. Hoffman R. A wiki for the life sciences where authorship matters. Nat Genet 2008 ; 40 : 1047–1051. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. SciVee | Making Science. Disponible sur http://www.scivee.tv. [Google Scholar]
  25. Videolectures.net. Disponible sur http://videolectures.net. [Google Scholar]
  26. Schleyer T, Spallek H, Butler BS, et al. Facebook for scientists: requirements and services for optimizing how scientific collaborations are established. J Med Internet Res 2008 ; 10 : e24. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. ResearchGATE. Disponible sur http://www.researchgate.net. [Google Scholar]
  28. Academia.edu. Disponible sur <http://academia.edu. [Google Scholar]
  29. Nature Network. Disponible sur http://network.nature.com. [Google Scholar]
  30. Fenner M. Reference Management meets Web 2.0. Cell Ther Transplant 2010 ; 2 : 1–3. [Google Scholar]
  31. Giglia E. Everything in its place. Social bookmarking and reference manager tools to collect, manage and cite information sources. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2010 ; 46 : 301–307. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Cohen D. Creating scholarly tools and resources for the digital ecosystem: building connections in the Zotero project. First Monday 2008 ; 13. Disponible sur http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2233/2017. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  33. Zaugg Z. Mendeley: creating communities of scholarly inquiry through research collaboration. Tech Trends 2011 ; 55 : 32–36. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  34. Benz D, Hotho A, Jäschke R, et al. The social bookmark and publication management system bibsonomy. VLDB J 2010 ; 19 : 849–875. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  35. Capocci A, Caldarelli G. Folksonomies and clustering in the collaborative system CiteULike. J Phys A Math Theor 2008 ; 41 : 224016. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  36. Vecchiola C, Pandey S, Buyya R. High-performance cloud computing: a view of scientific applications. 2009 10th International symposium on pervasive systems, algorithms, and networks (ISPAN). IEEE, 2009 : 4–16. [Google Scholar]
  37. Rosenthal A, Mork P, Li MH, et al. Cloud computing: a new business paradigm for biomedical information sharing. J Biomed Inf 2010 ; 43 : 342–353. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  38. Université numérique Paris Ile-de-France - Lancement du projet cloud computing universitaire de la région. Disponible sur http://unpidf.univ-paris1.fr/lancement-du-projet-cloud-computing-universitaire-de-la-region–5992.kjsp. [Google Scholar]
  39. Stein LD. The case for cloud computing in genome informatics. Genome Biol, 2010 ; 11 : 207. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Eysenbach G. Citation advantage of open access articles. PLoS Biol, 2006 ; 4 : e157. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Xia J, Myers RL, Wilhoite SR. Multiple open access availability and citation impact. J Inf Sci 2011 ; 37 : 19–28. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  42. Piwowar HA, Day RS, Fridsma DB. Sharing detailed research data is associated with increased citation rate. PLoS One 2007 ; 2 : e308. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. If you build it, will they come? How researchers perceive and use web 2.0 Research Information Network. Disponible sur http://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/communicating-and-disseminating-research/use-and-relevance-web-20-researchers. [Google Scholar]
  44. Mandavilli A. Peer review: trial by Twitter. Nature 2011 ; 469 : 286–287. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Wolfe-Simon F, Blum JS, Kulp TR, et al. A bacterium that can grow by using arsenic instead of phosphorus. Science 2010 ; 332 : 1163–1166. [Google Scholar]
  46. Arsenate-based DNA: a big idea with big holes : We beasties. Disponible sur http://scienceblogs.com/webeasties/2010/12/guest_post_arsenate-based_dna.php. [Google Scholar]
  47. Sebastiani P, Solovieff N, Puca A, et al. Genetic signatures of exceptional longevity in humans. Science 2010 ; July 1 (online). [Google Scholar]
  48. Retraction in : Sebastiani P, Solovieff N, Puca A, et al. Science 2011 ; 333 : 404. [Google Scholar]
  49. F1000 - Post publication peer review. Disponible sur http://f1000.com. [Google Scholar]
  50. WebmedCentral.com. Disponible sur http://webmedcentral.com. [Google Scholar]
  51. Procter R, Williams R, Stewart J, et al. Adoption and use of Web 2.0 in scholarly communications. Philos Transact A Math Phys Eng Sci 2010 ; 368 : 4039–4056. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Mahapatra A. Researchers in a brave new web 2.0 world. ACS Chem. Biol 2010 ; 5 : 799–800. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.