Look out for expert-generated information

This one could be a double edged sword. SciTopics describes itself as "Distilled, authoritative and up-to-date information for researchers on scientific, technical and medical topics." Folks like members of the ABSW might see it as a substitute for science writing .

The press release from Elsevier, a part of Reed Elsevier Group plc, owners of such fine publications as New Scientist, until it can find someone to take it off their hands, says that the new service is "Designed as a perfect starting point for scientific research, the website integrates a content publishing platform with search functionalities and community features."

Taking a positive view, this could be invaluable for science writers seeking a crash course in a subject that they suddenly have to write about. "The site creates a starting point for researchers to gain an introductory overview of a particular scientific topic and serves as a collaboration resource where users can share their views and engage in discussions with other SciTopics members."

SciTopics has a couple of dozen RSS feeds. The "grab the lot" feed that might be worth sampling to begin with.

The feeds cover many areas that will mean a lot to science writers plus a few for less familiar subjects, such as nursing, "decision sciences" and arts and humanities.

It seems that Elsevier decided to put this release out now because this is really a rebranding Scirus Topic Pages. Scirus, "the most comprehensive scientific research tool on the web," powers the search facility behind SciTopics. This explains why the newest story in the "Most popular SciTopics pages" appeared last November. The oldest dates back to February 2008.

The RSS feed has article that are much more recent. The newest item we saw, "Scientific support to the establishment and validation of agrometeorological services" is just a day or two old.

You can even leave comments on the articles. But only after you have signed up. The handful of items I looked at were comment free.

The editors, billed on the front page, are all working scientists. Many of the authors come with the "Prof" label. Each item comes with a set of "Web search results" related to the article in question.

Make that $2 billion for New Scientist

The news that Reed Elsevier is selling of a "job lot" of magazines, including New Scientist, has provoked extensive media coverage. Over on World Screen they suggest that "Possible buyers for the business, said to be worth about $2 billion, include Apax Partners."

One ABSW member has questioned the availability of venture capital funding. World Screen quotes the New York Times which quotes Reed Phillips, a managing partner of the media investment bank DeSilva & Phillips, as saying “The market is strong for business-to-business companies”.

As well as New Scientist, Reed's magazine business includes Variety along with many specialist titles including Multichannel News, Broadcasting & Cable, Video Business and Television Asia.

Apax specialises in management buyouts and is strong in media investments. The question is, who do they consider to be management? Will it be the bean counters of Reed Business Information? Or is there room for the editors and publishers who actually create the publications?

Among Apex's recent deals was the purchase last year of a 49.9% stake in Trader Media Group, which is in the business of "Print and online automotive classifieds". Apex's purchase, from Guardian Media Group, meant that Trader Media Group was worth £1.35 billion at the time of the deal.

New Scientist for sale

Reed Elsevier continues to flail around trying to work out how to adapt to the 21st century. From the point of view of science writers, the best news of this dithering, which has gone on for the best part of a decade, is that the company has decided to put New Scientist on the market.

New Scientist is a part of Reed Business Publishing, which also produces Farmers Weekly. The Daily Telegraph reports Sir Crispin Davis, Reed's chief executive, as saying that Reed Business Publishing's "advertising revenue model and the inherent cyclicality fit less well with the subscription-based information and workflow solutions focus of Reed Elsevier's strategy".

New Scientist and Farmers Weekly were among magazines that Reed hung on to when it sold off IPC Magazines. Reed even moved the science weekly out of its "magazines" division into its "business press" group. The magazine had previously shared management, and offices, with a raft of women's magazines, pop titles and other well know publications, including Horse & Hound and Yachting Monthly.

Now Reed seems to have realised that it does not have a clue about running magazines, with their sordid need to attract advertising, as opposed to expensive journals that just lift money out of university budgets. This should be good news for New Scientist and its fine team of writers and editors. With luck it will find a buyer who doesn't see the magazine as a money machine. It can still be that, but machines need careful oiling, or at least "benign neglect".

You can see where Reed's business is heading from the announcement that delivered news of the fate of New Scientist. The company has just paid $3.6B for a company called ChoicePoint. The story on this on Forbes.com says that ChoicePoint "collects, sells access to and analyzes the personal information of consumers". Reed plans to roll this acquisition into LexisNexis, its on-line information service.

Disclaimer: I spent the 1980s grappling with IPC Magazines, as editor of New Scientist. Since then, the magazine has gone from strength to strength.