Re: Article: Scientists get their own Google

From: Gregory L. Hansen (glhansen_at_steel.ucs.indiana.edu)
Date: 11/23/04 

Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:19:23 +0000 (UTC)

In article <prCod.45624$K7.12277@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
Tomasso <tom@r.so.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote:
>> Tomasso wrote:
>>> Of course in scholarship you "should" cover all original sources, but
>>> typically only notables are included. To do that, you either go to
>>> the library or pay a fortune in download fees.
>>
>> Of course most real scientists have an affiliation with a university,
>> laboratory, or corporation that subscribes to the major scientific
>> journals, and can download articles from most journal websites without
>> paying any additional fee.

They'll also have library databases to search, like the Web of Science. I
haven't decided yet whether scholar.google.com gives any advantage over
that.

>So, why whinge? Well, I think the free (reviewed) journals (espec web)
>are the way of the future. It's not a cause created by penny pinching
>skinflints like me, it's a matter of rationalising the content and flow of
>scientific communication.

Note that scholar.google.com will give you references and abstracts, and
that a lot of hits are *not* to free journals. If it's a free journal you
can get the article, otherwise you only get the abstract. E.g. I just did
a search on

  deuterium scattering length

and got hits to Phys Rev Lett, Phys Rev C, Phys Rev A, and others.

Most of the on-line journals are print journals whose publishers chose to
put them on-line. Some of them are available to the public, some make
old issues available to the public, and some are only available through a
subscription service like PROLA. And some that are on-line don't go back
very far, like the Med J Australia which I think goes back to 2001, while
I wanted an article from 1991. 

-- 
"You're not as dumb as you look.  Or sound.  Or our best testing
indicates."  -- Monty Burns to Homer Simpson

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Article: Scientists get their own Google
    ... >> Of course most real scientists have an affiliation with a university, ... that a lot of hits are *not* to free journals. ... and got hits to Phys Rev Lett, Phys Rev C, Phys Rev A, and others. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • OT: medical journals become increasingly irrelevant
    ... Scientific medical journals like JAMA fail basic credibility ... The Journal of the American Medical Association -- JAMA -- and other ... pharmaceutical companies, gets his study published in a prestigious ... Those are the kinds of activities that true scientists pursue, ...
    (sci.med.nutrition)
  • =?windows-1252?Q?Why_You_Can=92t_Trust_Most_Studies_on_Health?=
    ... Prestigious journals boast that they are ... There also seems to be a bias towards publishing positive results. ... transferring the commodity from its producers (scientists) ... This can be challenging as many times the drug companies will ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • =?windows-1252?Q?Why_You_Can=92t_Trust_Most_Studies_On_Health?=
    ... Prestigious journals boast that they are ... There also seems to be a bias towards publishing positive results. ... transferring the commodity from its producers (scientists) ... This can be challenging as many times the drug companies will ...
    (sci.med)
  • =?windows-1252?Q?Why_You_Can=92t_Trust_Most_Studies_on_Health?=
    ... Prestigious journals boast that they are ... There also seems to be a bias towards publishing positive results. ... transferring the commodity from its producers (scientists) ... This can be challenging as many times the drug companies will ...
    (sci.med.psychobiology)