Already my postgraduate scientific writing project (PSWP) is throwing up new insights, some of which I can blog about, some of which I can only tell you face to face if you buy me some sort of beverage ;-)
The first insight is how strongly wedded most research scientists are to pdfs. They love 'em. Of course, I knew that already, but I've never thought deeply about how to adapt my strategy to incorporate this. I'm not keen on pdfs (neither is Josie ;-) but I'm going to have to work with researchers pdofilia.
This has practical implications beyond my decision to use email and MSWord for this project (which are generating a more enthusiastic response than any attempt to use an online project management site such as Huddle.net or a wiki). Although CiteULike handles pdfs perfectly well, reference managers which are perceived of as more pdf-based will certainly be more popular with researchers. Mendeley springs to mind, but the best example is Papers, which hits all the right buttons. With it's iTunes-like interface, it allows researchers to squirrel pdfs away and ablates any possibility of sharing. The winning stroke however it that while CiteULike and Mendeley are free - you have to pay for Papers. Scientists love that - "proves" it must be better.
New insight... into myself and my colleagues. Scientists are weird. I wonder if I still am one?