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

#16 hobglobin

hobglobin

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

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,506 posts
94
Excellent

Posted 22 June 2014 - 12:50 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.)

 

 

Not sure if they really read them (and some journalists perhaps even don't know if such a paper exists wink.png ) or if they use the text from e.g. university press office or other sources that give an easy to read abstract.


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.

#17 pito

pito

    Veteran

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,267 posts
76
Excellent

Posted 22 June 2014 - 01:08 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.)

 

 

Not sure if they really read them (and some journalists perhaps even don't know if such a paper exists wink.png ) or if they use the text from e.g. university press office or other sources that give an easy to read abstract.

 

Yes, thats also a possibility....

 

 


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

#18 neuron

neuron

    Veteran

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 187 posts
5
Neutral

Posted 23 June 2014 - 03:19 AM

I agree, they never give the link so that you can go back and read the paper. For science news also, there are so many links on google. But which one is good, Don't know. Recently I found this one-

 

http://www.biosciencetechnology.com/






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

©1999-2013 Protocol Online, All rights reserved.