Catching Up: From Library 2.0 via Top 20 EBM to Elsevier & Metalib!

I must admit, a large bloglines subscription can be some kind of a burden, but i prefer this "burden" 10-times more than having to read all those emails you get returning from a shorter or longer leave when you are not abled to physically read them. So, i'll just summarize a few items with short comments from the last week I missed:

• Library 2.0: Notes on OCLC's seminar at ALA Conference http://acrlblog.org/2006/01/23/rebranding-your-library/ Bedtime reading: Overview of Library 2.0 by Walt Crawford: http://cites.boisestate.edu/civ6i2.pdf
• "Do we need a Unique Scientist ID for publications in biomedicine?" http://www.bio-diglib.com/content/2/1/1 I just rembered this after reading the same question within the RUG-community. I think we do need this to improve scientific value, making knowledge management easier and more efficient. In a global perspective hunderds, maybe thousands are working on scientific output, evaluating, comparing the figures for their local institutions. It's time this goes global, but the first step has to be a nation wide ID and let us please choose a good standard...
• Education 2.0 : http://ict-en-onderwijs.blogspot.com/2006/01/onderwijs-20.html Another Dutch Blogger about the 2.0 tsunami all over the world, taking the step to compare the needs for change on Educational programmes!
• Top 20 EBM Sources on the Open Web : http://weblogs.elearning.ubc.ca/googlescholar/archives/022262.html Here's a great overview and following discussion about open medical content & locked resources about EBM. It mentiones If the resources are "crawled by Google Scholar yet or not. I am surprised UpToDate is on top! We still think the Evidence-based value of UptoDate is way behind Clinical Evidence for example. Not the clinical relevance, but the EBM-factor is lower, according to our findings. Please proof us wrong with hard evidence (-;)!
• Elsevier & Ex-Libris Another surprising news-item is about the press-release from Elsevier ScienceDirect that they have made SD and Scopus now EX-Libris, Metalib-/SFX-enabled! Surprised because we search in SD and Scopus for a very long time now via Metalib in our RUGCombine-project and many more have done this. Okay, it was the real Do-It-Yourself thing, but it was already available for a long time. Are they planning on taking over Ex Libris?
• New article type: Accepted manuscript. Also announced by Elsevier together with the promise of extra functionality Thanks to: http://kraftylibrarian.blogspot.com/2006/01/elsevier-accepted-manuscripts.html