Elsevier DataSearch (https://datasearch.elsevier.com) is a data search engine that allows scientists and researchers to search for many different data types and formats across a variety of domain-specific and cross-domain institutional data repositories and other data sources. Results display datasets in a unified way to facilitate finding relevant and useful research data, and allowing users to quickly preview and assess data in-situ before viewing in the destination repository. By generating previews of the actual data inline (e.g., spreadsheets, images, interactive maps, etc.), DataSearch helps users scan through multiple potentially interesting datasets much faster. DataSearch indexes both metadata and data to facilitate the matching of queries to objects described in the research.
DataSearch is one of the complementary offerings in Elsevier’s Mendeley Data Platform for Institutions.
After the initial launch in June 2016, we gathered feedback from users to make iterative improvements in the search experience, especially around relevancy and ranking. Users can also facet by data type, data source, data source type and publication date. Development is in progress to soon allow users to facet by subject classification, based on Elsevier’s OmniScience taxonomy.
Many more data sources will be added in the coming months, including life sciences repositories.
If you would like to have your institution’s data repository, local data and /or local active data indexed by DataSearch, please contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org
DataSearch has a “Pull” API that allows users to embed DataSearch results and data previews in their applications. Development is in progress for a “Push” API that will soon allow any repository to push data directly to DataSearch to make it discoverable and previewable.
Researchers are working hard to achieve results that matter. But what happens to the scientific output, and how does it receive attention? Since the beginning of this year, Elsevier provides PlumX Metrics. These metrics measure the awareness and attention your research receives online. In our first webinar of the series, we want to demonstrate how PlumX Metrics are used, and give you a crash course on alternative metrics.
Join the webinar: “What does the internet think about your research? Alternative metrics to measure research output”:
Depending on where you are in the world, the month of August can mean the start of a new semester or the lead up to a whole new academic year. Either way, it’s a good time to begin thinking about your next career move. Whether you’re a PhD or postdoc looking for the next academic opportunity, or an adjunct looking to take a leap of faith into a career in industry, Publishing Campus’ upcoming webinar will offer the guidance you need.
Join academic careers book author Natalie Lundsteen & Mendeley Careers product manager Heather Williams for a 40-minute webinar including presentations and Q&A on 24 August, at 1 pm UTC/3 pm CEST/ 9 am EDT.
Can’t make the live event? Register online to be notified once the webinar recording is available!
Make a Career in Research
24 August, at 1 pm UTC/3 pm CEST/ 9 am EDT
Speakers: Dr. Natalie Lundsteen, Assistant Dean for Career and Professional Development & Assistant Professor of Psychiatry in the Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and Heather Williams, Sr. Product Manager for Mendeley Careers.
Starting this month, we’ll be making upgrades to your sign in experience; this will take place across our entire product range: web, mobile, and desktop.
New look Mendeley sign in
You’ll now only need one account to access the entire Mendeley and Elsevier ecosystem, thus minimising the number of sign in credentials you’ll need to remember. It will also streamline your user experience, and allow us to deliver improved services to you in the future.
Some users will need to update their accounts. If you do, you’ll be prompted to go through our quick and easy verification process to ensure the security of your account and update your details.
If you experience any issues signing into your Elsevier account please check out the FAQs here or contact the Support Team.
If you have any feedback about the new sign in experience, please feel free to reply directly on this thread!
Many thanks to all those who entered the Mendeley Brainstorm related to The Gig Economy; picking a winner was not easy, however in the end, we selected Rita O’Connell’s post:
From the perspective of the dominant companies behind the rise of the gig economy, the prevailing designation of the gig workforce is not one of precarity, but rather of individuals who are “entrepreneurial” and “independent” – craving economic freedom, desiring control of their own work and lives. These companies will tell you that the advantages of flexibility and freedom far outweigh the sacrifices of having no “traditional” job security. However: we now know that the vast majority of people participating in the gig economy are working multiple jobs, for more than forty hours a week, at or below minimum wage, without any of the protections that accompany standard employment. Where, then, their freedom? The fact that this economic model has been promulgated largely by massive multinational companies who are seeing enormous valuations and unprecedented profits and growth on the global market – on the backs of an underpaid, undersupported, anxious workforce – points to the need to closely consider cui bono, and demand fairer treatment for the gig workforce before it’s too late.
We asked Rita what inspired her, she wrote:
I’ve actually been a beneficiary of the have it your way promises of the gig economy on and off in my career. However, during my graduate studies at the National University of Ireland Galway this past year, under the guidance of Cian McMahon I began looking more closely at the likely long term economic impacts of the gig model, thanks in part to works like Guy Standing’s The Precariat, and some excellent research the folks at Pew released in late 2016 (http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/11/17/gig-work-online-selling-and-home-sharing/) — it’s especially telling that the gig economy is obviously not just the brightly-sold “side hustle” allowing young people to pursue creative entrepreneurial efforts with more freedom, but is proving to be yet another social and economic trap for members of our already-vulnerable low-income communities. I now strongly believe we need to be shining a stronger light on the exploitative nature of the gig economy and insisting on new types of worker protections for independent workers if we’re going to slow our headlong rush towards a massive social disaster as this model systematically erodes the social safety nets previous generations fought for (and rely on).
In this post, we will guide you through key steps for grant submission to one of the UK Research Councils (RCUK). RCUK is made up of seven individual grant bodies that have some shared core principles, alongside differing council-specific criteria for applications that need to be followed closely. We’ll be using the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) as an example.
Each year the UK Research Councils invest around £3 billion of public money in research and associated training in the UK, covering the complete range of academic disciplines. An essential function of the Research Councils is to demonstrate the economic, societal and cultural impact of the research it funds. As a result, your application needs to go beyond stating the academic advances you will make and how this translates to progress in your discipline, to justify the investment of public funding. We’ve taken a look at all of the key areas of the application, using the BBSRC as an example, to highlight essential things to include and pay attention to.
Essential preparation work
Individual research councils provide grant handbooks on how to apply for funding. The BBSRC’s guide is available here http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/funding/apply/ .The others are referenced at the end of the post .
It’s very important to read all the details that are included in the guide. If you’re applying with a spontaneous proposal, sometimes referred to as a ‘responsive mode research grant’ rather than answering a call to funding, you need to ensure that your proposed research fits within the research areas covered by that funding body. For example, the BBSRC fund research in plant science, microbes, animals (including humans) tools and technology underpinning biological research. Their funding remit  spans from a molecular level to whole organisms, but does not include research on human disease or disease processes. The latter being the remit of the Medical Research Council (MRC). There are, however, interfaces between the two, the details for which are outlined in a joint statement.
If you are applying as a result of a funding call, ensure you read call-specific requirements carefully, as they may differ to the general guide. The submission procedure across the seven councils has a similar framework, involving a Joint Electronic Submission (Je-S) form. There are, however, differences in guidelines, page length and format. In this post, we focus on the BBSRC as an example.
All RCUK applications require the completion and online submission of a Je-S form. Detailed advice on how to complete the relevant sections of the application form can be found in the Je-S handbook: https://je-s.rcuk.ac.uk/Handbook/index.htm. In the first instance, if you are not registered, you need to set-up an account and then add a new application document of the type required, or a new research proposal or outlined in the funding call. We’ve included some tips for completing the main sections of a standard grant proposal:
Format – Be careful to check the precise formatting requirements for your proposal. For example, the BBSRC recommend that you use Arial, Helvetica or Verdana fonts. Also, a minimum font size of 11 must be used for the entire Case for Support, Justification of Resources and CVs. Other stipulations include minimal single line spacing, single character spacing with margins of at least 2cm. Administrative staff check that your proposal fits this criteria and you don’t want formatting issues to cause delays.
Case for Support and Previous Track Record – The page limit for the combined ‘ Previous Track record’ and ‘Case for Support’ section is a maximum of 8 sides of A4. The aim of the scientific case for support is to provide a description of the proposed research and its content and value. It should start with an introduction to the topic of research, explaining its impact in an academic and wider context. Bear in mind that some members of your reviewing panel may not be specialists in your particular field. Use this section to show you have a clear understanding of past and current work in the subject area.The overall aims of your project with clear quantifiable objectives, against which success could be measured, should be covered here. Additionally, it’s important to emphasise the novelty of the work as if its similar or identical to what’s currently being funded, your application will be unsuccessful. Your methodology and experiments should also be included in the case for support, remembering that reviewers will pay particular attention to this to assess the quality of the core research in your application. A programme of work, detailing what each member of the research team will be doing and how the project will be managed needs to be incorporated. References should appear in a list at the end of the case for support and shouldn’t be used to link to documents to extend the case for support.The previous track record section is used to convince the panel that you have a strong and successful background in the area of your proposed research. As such, you should summarise the results and conclusions of your recent research relevant to the current grant application. This encompasses any collaborative research and work funded by other research councils. Remember to emphasise the impact of the research at an academic and societal level. The expertise of all of the members of the team undertaking the research should also be highlighted here.
Attachments — A number of attachments are required in the application, including:
CV’s of all named applicants and research team members: These should be succinct and limited to 2 pages each.
Letters of support: Proposals that include project partners and collaborators should include a letter of support from them, confirming the resources and expertise they’ll be contributing. It’s important to note that Individuals providing letters of support are usually excluded from being peer reviewers for that particular proposal.
Proposal Cover Letter: Inclusion of a cover letter is mandatory. Letters have no limitation on page length. Any declarations of interest  should be covered here, and you can also list reviewers that you prefer aren’t approached. Although, the funding body ultimately holds the final decision on the reviewers it appoints. Facility Request Form: If your proposal requires the use of specialised facilities, (the sort listed here for the BBSRC http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/research/facilities/), a form must be filled in to request access and attached to the proposal.
Final Interim Report: If you have a prior existing grant from the BBSRC funding body you must submit an interim report on its progress, using the form they provide. It excludes grants under six months old and training grants.
Diagrammatic Workplan: This should be a one page diagram that shows key milestones and timelines clearly.
Justification of resources — The main aim of this section is to help reviewers assess whether the research project you propose warrants the funding and resources requested.It includes a ‘Pathways to Impact’ document used to explain the academic, applied and societal impact of the research project. It’s acknowledged that some proposals may advance academic understanding, without an immediate applied impact. If this is the case, bear in mind reviewers will expect you to include how your advance fits into a pathway that will lead to an application.If there is a clear academic impact, the panel will want to know how you will deliver this to relevant end users to get the message out, beyond relying on others to read a publication. Examples here would be through conference engagements or collaboration. Public engagement can also be covered here if relevant.Project management, timing, and personnel involved in delivering the project should also be discussed here. Make sure you choose the best team for your project and also include how you will specifically be involved.A budgetary breakdown of all aspects of the proposal should also be presented. Reviewers tend to pay close attention here, to insure the individual components of the project have been appropriately costed. Over-costing without justification can kill your application.Further background information on Pathways to Impact is available on the RCUK website: http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/innovation/impacts/
Data management plan — This section of the form should include concise plans for data management and data sharing for your proposed project. You may include information on the type and volume of data that will be generated. Additionally, timeframes for public release, secondary uses and whether or not any data is proprietary and why, should also be described.
Nominated referees — Applicants can nominate four reviewers who they feel can give an independent assessment of the proposed project. Recent collaborators, or members of any of the applicants’ own institutions are not permitted as referees. Note that, only one reviewer from any one institution is allowed.
The BBSRC’s assessment criteria for proposals include scientific excellence, relevance to their strategy, economic and social impact and value for money, amongst others. With this in mind, here are some key summary points for your application:
Read the grant application guidelines provided carefully – pay attention to the format and any stipulated page limit for all the individual documents requested
Ensure your research falls within the remit of the council – if in doubt get in touch with them
Ensure you pay close attention to any additional call-specific criteria
Read the handbook on how to complete the Je-S form
Leave plenty of time and get your colleagues in a related field to review your application for feedback
The core science in very important, but don’t be tempted just to focus on the case for support — spend as much time on the pathways to impact
Ensure you submit accurate budget plans, demonstrating good value for money. Over-costing will result in proposal rejection
Recently, PhD students at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology made a breakthrough in the field of Quantum Computing. They successfully simulated a 45-qubit quantum circuit; this brings closer the day when current computers will be obsolete. Is quantum computing an evolution or revolution? What will be its effects? We are looking for the most well thought out answer to this question in up to 150 words: use the comment feature below the blog and please feel free to promote your research! The winner will receive an Amazon gift certificate worth £50 and a bag full of Mendeley items; competition closes September 13, 2017.
Quantum computing has been on the lips of computer scientists and computing enthusiasts for years. By utilising quantum states, it promises to liberate computing from the traditional bounds of binary processing. This means that quantum computers, theoretically, will be massively more powerful than existing machines.
The Future is Near
It still remains challenging to build a quantum computer, however; the breakthrough by the Swiss students is a momentous occasion. They’ve approached a milestone referred to as “quantum supremacy”, at which a Quantum Computer’s performance surpasses that of any current computer.
The arrival of vastly more powerful machines could have a substantial impact on the field of artificial intelligence, certainly it will help in data processing. How will this new technology affect us? What is your view? Tell us!
About Mendeley Brainstorms
Our Brainstorms are challenges so we can engage with you, our users, on the hottest topics in the world of research. We look for the most in-depth and well thought through responses; the best response as judged by the Mendeley team will earn a prize.