Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log in with Windows Live Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Submit your paper to J Biol Methods today!
Photo
- - - - -

How do you keep yourself updated in research

Scientific papers

  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 neuron

neuron

    Veteran

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 187 posts
5
Neutral

Posted 29 April 2014 - 01:28 AM

Hi,

 

I was curious to know, is there any website which will update you for all big researches around the globe? I mean if you just want to read some random paper which is not related to your field, where do you go?, Nature? Science etc? Many times I have seen some people are so updated about every big papers, no matter which journal it is. 

 

I find it difficultph34r.png , I thought I will ask others, if any one is on the same boatbiggrin.png



#2 phage434

phage434

    Veteran

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,441 posts
242
Excellent

Posted 29 April 2014 - 04:26 AM

This group does a pretty good job:

http://f1000.com/prime



#3 Ameya P

Ameya P

    Rervm Cognoscere Cavsas

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 330 posts
25
Excellent

Posted 01 May 2014 - 09:40 PM

Good question Neuron. 

 

But Phage is there something that does not ask for a subscription fee :) 


NEW!!!!  The Beauty in Symmetry on CoffeeTableScience!!!!

Image copyright: Adrian Koh SF.
Replication of this art is strictly prohibited without express permission of the artist


#4 neuron

neuron

    Veteran

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 187 posts
5
Neutral

Posted 01 May 2014 - 11:00 PM

Thanks Ameya..smile.png !. Thanks Phage! I agree with Ameya and wanted to ask the same thingrolleyes.gif



#5 Tabaluga

Tabaluga

    Making glass out of shards

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 379 posts
48
Excellent

Posted 02 May 2014 - 12:42 AM

Yeah good question, that would be of interest to me as well biggrin.png


Il dort. Quoique le sort fût pour lui bien étrange,
Il vivait. Il mourut quand il n'eut plus son ange;
La chose simplement d'elle-même arriva,
Comme la nuit se fait lorsque le jour s'en va.

 


#6 Trof

Trof

    Brain on a stick

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,199 posts
109
Excellent

Posted 02 May 2014 - 06:17 AM

I make several custom searches on Pubmed (you need to register, but it's free and has benefit of creating a collections of abstracts from Pubmed, you can easily add interesting things found by browsing the Pubmed for later reading) at set it to send me an email every day when new papers fitting the seach will appear.

 

But of course for this to work fine, you need to think really well how the search term would be, it's essential to use advanced search options, ude several variations of the thing you are looking for (like: (IL3) OR (IL-3) OR "interleukin 3" ) to be sure you don't miss anything.

But even then, in some cases many papers would fit the search. It would be probably possible to narrow it more, but I rather check four uselles abstracts each day than to miss something important. The side effect of this is, now I know in waht other cases my gene is also studied, it's interesting.

 

I don't put all topics into one search, I divided them, so from some topics I get the dayli digest which I know often doesn't have anything relevant, and others just few times a month, and then there is a high chance it is relevant. You can name the searches differently for the email, so you know the topic.

 

But this has no "artifical inteligence" or any "paid" inteligence that selects papers, except for your own, and doesn't contain distant fields that may interest you, but you didn't know about it yet.

 

But you can also put into search just complete Nature or Science to keep in touch.

 

Also, on G+ is quite good page, of a site Neuroscience News, that keeps me posted about new research in neuroscience, which is quite far away from my reasearch, it's a bit "easied-up" short summ-up, but links to the original articles if you want to read them.


Our country has a serious deficiency in lighthouses. I assume the main reason is that we have no sea.

I never trust anything that can't be doubted.

'Normal' is a dryer setting. - Elizabeth Moon


#7 tkf

tkf

    member

  • Active Members
  • Pip
  • 28 posts
1
Neutral

Posted 02 May 2014 - 11:06 AM

reddit ? laugh.png



#8 neuron

neuron

    Veteran

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 187 posts
5
Neutral

Posted 19 June 2014 - 04:26 AM

Rediit? what is that?ph34r.png I tried opening but could not find any scientific stuff therehuh.png . Trof, as you suggested , that is the good way to be updated in our field. But my question was, do you also read papers that are not related to your filed? For example, when you go to nature's website, you see many papers that may not be related to our work but are really interesting. And you may get some ideas from there. 



#9 hobglobin

hobglobin

    Growing old is mandatory, growing up is optional...

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,525 posts
97
Excellent

Posted 19 June 2014 - 08:23 AM

Rediit? what is that?ph34r.png I tried opening but could not find any scientific stuff therehuh.png . Trof, as you suggested , that is the good way to be updated in our field. But my question was, do you also read papers that are not related to your filed? For example, when you go to nature's website, you see many papers that may not be related to our work but are really interesting. And you may get some ideas from there. 

Surely it was meant as joke.


One must presume that long and short arguments contribute to the same end. - Epicurus
...except casandra's that belong to the funniest, most interesting and imaginative (or over-imaginative?) ones, I suppose.

#10 phage434

phage434

    Veteran

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,441 posts
242
Excellent

Posted 19 June 2014 - 04:31 PM

Actually, the AskScience Reddit sub is pretty good, and I have actually seen articles there that were new to me.



#11 Trof

Trof

    Brain on a stick

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,199 posts
109
Excellent

Posted 20 June 2014 - 07:03 AM

I looked at Reddit several times, but I still don't get how the system of threads is organized there and so far I wasn't able to find any stuff there at all. Even when people link a specific thread, I just see a chaos of answers, older over newer, replies to replies.. I just get totaly lost.

I personaly still don't understand how can anyone use it for anything.

 

And as for those unrelated papers.. I hardly have time to just browse general science.. I read online news and when there is some info about something scientific, that interests me (or mostly, annoys me, because it's just stupidly written there) I find the original papers. The fields I have some interests, like neurobiology, I try to follow at least on social networks.

For other interesting papers out of the field I only get to them by chance, or by looking for something else/reading Wikipedia/...


Our country has a serious deficiency in lighthouses. I assume the main reason is that we have no sea.

I never trust anything that can't be doubted.

'Normal' is a dryer setting. - Elizabeth Moon


#12 tkf

tkf

    member

  • Active Members
  • Pip
  • 28 posts
1
Neutral

Posted 20 June 2014 - 08:12 AM

There is also http://lifetech-select.com (from Life technologies). This is where I discovered Bioforum smile.png  and I receive other weekly updates from fields of research that interest me.

http://www.reddit.com/r/science/ is good for what's "hot" in science.



#13 pito

pito

    Veteran

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,328 posts
80
Excellent

Posted 21 June 2014 - 12:46 AM

I looked at Reddit several times, but I still don't get how the system of threads is organized there and so far I wasn't able to find any stuff there at all. Even when people link a specific thread, I just see a chaos of answers, older over newer, replies to replies.. I just get totaly lost.

I personaly still don't understand how can anyone use it for anything.

 

And as for those unrelated papers.. I hardly have time to just browse general science.. I read online news and when there is some info about something scientific, that interests me (or mostly, annoys me, because it's just stupidly written there) I find the original papers. The fields I have some interests, like neurobiology, I try to follow at least on social networks.

For other interesting papers out of the field I only get to them by chance, or by looking for something else/reading Wikipedia/...

 

Haha, I have the same problem! Everyone talks about reddit and how good it is and... However when I take a look at it, I never seem to understand how it works lol

I guess I am not yet in tune with it lol.
 


If you don't know it, then ask it! Better to ask and look foolish to some than not ask and stay stupid.


#14 hobglobin

hobglobin

    Growing old is mandatory, growing up is optional...

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,525 posts
97
Excellent

Posted 21 June 2014 - 06:37 AM

Actually I'm surprised that reddit has something like this wink.png ...anyway they seem to gather articles from several scientific websites and newspaper science sections and that's it.

For me there are two problems: The way articles are selected: it seems mostly stuff which is interesting enough (or even audience-grabbing) for non-scientists, so it is a very biased selection and surely not giving a good and exhausting overview about what's going on in science, but more a type of tabloid press view on science.

And this leads to the second problem (IMO): the hundreds or thousands of comments for each article which are mostly not worth reading (at least the samples I read were just annoying/boring/stupid/redundant).

Therefore if I want this I'd prefer the original source (Science, Nature, Sciencedaily etc) or directly from my newspaper where usually the same science news are printed (as in all newspapers).


One must presume that long and short arguments contribute to the same end. - Epicurus
...except casandra's that belong to the funniest, most interesting and imaginative (or over-imaginative?) ones, I suppose.

#15 pito

pito

    Veteran

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,328 posts
80
Excellent

Posted 22 June 2014 - 12:17 AM

Actually I'm surprised that reddit has something like this wink.png ...anyway they seem to gather articles from several scientific websites and newspaper science sections and that's it.

For me there are two problems: The way articles are selected: it seems mostly stuff which is interesting enough (or even audience-grabbing) for non-scientists, so it is a very biased selection and surely not giving a good and exhausting overview about what's going on in science, but more a type of tabloid press view on science.

And this leads to the second problem (IMO): the hundreds or thousands of comments for each article which are mostly not worth reading (at least the samples I read were just annoying/boring/stupid/redundant).

Therefore if I want this I'd prefer the original source (Science, Nature, Sciencedaily etc) or directly from my newspaper where usually the same science news are printed (as in all newspapers).

 

This is something I never understood: often websites give a more understandable article about a paper ... but they almost never give the link (or title) to the paper that they used to make the article. I do not understand this. Even good newspapers like the guardian do this (or even more scientific newspapers/websites often do not give the link/title of the article used.)


If you don't know it, then ask it! Better to ask and look foolish to some than not ask and stay stupid.





Home - About - Terms of Service - Privacy - Contact Us

©1999-2013 Protocol Online, All rights reserved.