Selection of academic and scientific sources
Academic knowledge has long been on the Internet, and like any information, is indexed by search engines and databases. I’m talking about a wider category of knowledge than STEM (Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics), the main criterion for academic sources is their reviewing (for example, the Modern Theology journal from Copenhagen is a peer-reviewed source, although not everyone will agree to call it scientific, but academic). . However, how much does an ordinary Internet user imagine this web sector, knows where, what, and how to search, can distinguish the reliability of various academic sources, has access to these sources, and also understands the complexity and scope of academic knowledge? I have not met any reviews in Russian, which would provide information that characterizes the framework of the conditional “Scholarnet”, which gives a general idea, a certificate, after reading which one could effectively use academic knowledge. I decided to make a review of sources of academic information, and sources secondary to them (press releases of scientific news and scientific pop). At once I will make a reservation, the review is arbitrary, and is not derived from any exact methodology, but this is better than its absence. Describing various data flows with which various people can interact: from the researchers themselves to, as they say in the annotations of books, “a wide circle of readers” (including Wikipedists, journalists, participants in Internet disputes, and so on. d.) I also ask you in advance to excuse the design flaws, as far as possible I will try to correct what the reader indicates (preferably in the LAN).
I have compiled a list of 9 bases, under the table are given hyperlinks. The bases were selected according to two criteria: large coverage by year and number of documents (> 50 million), and universality — the bases are contained in documents from a wide range of disciplines, from theology to elementary particle physics. Brackets rendered, therefore, the base, which contains publications with a particular specialization (for example, PubMed, convenient for searching for work in biology and medicine). As well as databases with search only for Russian / Russian-language publications, theses bases, and a preprint database. This is a reserve to continue.
By “not separated from other sources”, in the second table, it means that if, for example, in Scopus there is a division into indexed sources and their article references (and in the second case it’s normal to meet something non-academic - not from peer-reviewed sources) , then Google Scholar and Science Open (as well as, for example, BASE, which will be mentioned later) do not have such a strict separation, and Google Scholar may have a writer Fonvizin due to the inclusion of Google Books in the results. And in ScienceOpen, if you rank publications by date, we will be alternately shown with indexed sources and their references, while first we will be shown dating errors ( modern works with ancient dating ), and then only correct database records.
Used above in the text (as well as below in the table) the phrase “article references” (also “article bibliography” is used ) is used in Russian translations of the interface of bibliographic databases, as well as in professional literature, although more widely, of course, have the options “list of references "," Bibliography ", etc.
')
1. Scopus. Search by authors , and also search by sources is open, the rest (simple and advanced search by publications, search by research organizations) by subscription. There is also the site of the Scimago Lab organization , the leading citation ratings of Copus-based sources (mainly journals), the rating of the countries in which the researchers work, and the rating of research organizations.
2. Web of Science. Access only by subscription. On the base itself it is impossible to perform any search without login. However, the site of the organization developing WoS has a list of journals indexed by the base . You can search through the list.
3. Dimensions
4. Lens
5. Google Scholar
6. ScienceOpen
7. Semantic Scholar
8. Microsoft Academic
9. AMiner. At the bottom left there are links to the ratings of researchers, as well as ratings of organizations. These are lists for all disciplines, but there is also a rating of computer science conferences, and publications in the same field.
Common is the "reprint" of works of scientists in academic "social networks" (as far as this term can be applied to researchers) ResearchGate and Academia.edu , as well as, suddenly on Twitter , and on pirated websites with journal publications and books . The information in this paragraph is provided in order to inform about the existing facts, and is not a call for violation of Russian law , or the laws of those countries in whose jurisdiction academic publishers operate.
At this point, the table below is best for me, the hyperlinks of the databases and the source are here .
As stated in the first table, Dimensions and ScienceOpen allow ranking publications by the Altmetric Attention Score index. In this case, if in the case of Dimensions, you can rank the results of a specific search or a page of all results, then ScienceOpen has a killer feature, it allows you to filter the results also by the time of indexation (most often this means downloading recently published works, but sometimes articles of past years). This means that for a scientific journalist or simply interested in science, it can be a convenient way to view a selection of articles that are “hi-pang” in the near-scientific environment (social networks, blogs, etc.) which directly link to the publication that sites almost "moveton" in the case of scientific news) for the last day, week, or manually selected period of time.
There are several news aggregators on the Web in which scientific news are collected, as a rule, reprints of press releases of scientific organizations, in all cases direct references to the source are given, and there is no shit from journalists. We can say that this is “Google News” in the world of science. Characteristically, the fact that Google News shows in the "science and technology" and "health" is just a tabloid swamp and yellowness. And ordinary news sites (and even sites that specialize in scientific news, but are not aggregators of press releases) are satisfied with the selection of topics and news. While on sites from this selection the maximum is large and diverse content.
1. ScienceDaily - It is striking for the elaboration of categorization - there are 4 categories of news, each divided into three more, and these 12 into many more - more than 500 subcategories on various topics. And for oldfags there are RSS and email subscriptions for each of the categories (the others also have subscriptions, but not with such detail).
2. EurekAlert! - multilingual (6 world languages, in addition to English), there is a section of multimedia (with subsections: images, audio, video), there are sections about grants, awards, and books.
3. ScienceX is a family of aggregator sites, including the Phys. org, medical xpress medical news, and tech news, electronics, and tech Xplore
4. Sci News is just another aggregator, with no killer features, with its categorization.
5. SciTechDaily - similar to 4 points . The site still has a page "Science and Technology Resources" with a very original, landfill type, a selection of sites, and so he norms.
What to read in Russian from scientific news scientific pop? You can rely in the selection of sites that have a high Medialogia citation index , in principle, in the ranking sources of sufficient quality content, especially Elements. In addition, SciTopus make a good selection of YouTube channels.
Search engines and bibliographic databases
I have compiled a list of 9 bases, under the table are given hyperlinks. The bases were selected according to two criteria: large coverage by year and number of documents (> 50 million), and universality — the bases are contained in documents from a wide range of disciplines, from theology to elementary particle physics. Brackets rendered, therefore, the base, which contains publications with a particular specialization (for example, PubMed, convenient for searching for work in biology and medicine). As well as databases with search only for Russian / Russian-language publications, theses bases, and a preprint database. This is a reserve to continue.
By “not separated from other sources”, in the second table, it means that if, for example, in Scopus there is a division into indexed sources and their article references (and in the second case it’s normal to meet something non-academic - not from peer-reviewed sources) , then Google Scholar and Science Open (as well as, for example, BASE, which will be mentioned later) do not have such a strict separation, and Google Scholar may have a writer Fonvizin due to the inclusion of Google Books in the results. And in ScienceOpen, if you rank publications by date, we will be alternately shown with indexed sources and their references, while first we will be shown dating errors ( modern works with ancient dating ), and then only correct database records.
Used above in the text (as well as below in the table) the phrase “article references” (also “article bibliography” is used ) is used in Russian translations of the interface of bibliographic databases, as well as in professional literature, although more widely, of course, have the options “list of references "," Bibliography ", etc.
')
1. Scopus. Search by authors , and also search by sources is open, the rest (simple and advanced search by publications, search by research organizations) by subscription. There is also the site of the Scimago Lab organization , the leading citation ratings of Copus-based sources (mainly journals), the rating of the countries in which the researchers work, and the rating of research organizations.
2. Web of Science. Access only by subscription. On the base itself it is impossible to perform any search without login. However, the site of the organization developing WoS has a list of journals indexed by the base . You can search through the list.
3. Dimensions
4. Lens
5. Google Scholar
6. ScienceOpen
7. Semantic Scholar
8. Microsoft Academic
9. AMiner. At the bottom left there are links to the ratings of researchers, as well as ratings of organizations. These are lists for all disciplines, but there is also a rating of computer science conferences, and publications in the same field.
Common is the "reprint" of works of scientists in academic "social networks" (as far as this term can be applied to researchers) ResearchGate and Academia.edu , as well as, suddenly on Twitter , and on pirated websites with journal publications and books . The information in this paragraph is provided in order to inform about the existing facts, and is not a call for violation of Russian law , or the laws of those countries in whose jurisdiction academic publishers operate.
Search systems and bibliographic databases containing fully or predominantly publicly available publications
At this point, the table below is best for me, the hyperlinks of the databases and the source are here .
Tapes of publications cited by sources indexed by the Altmetric Attention Score system (indexing mention of publication on social networks, blogs, news sites, Wikipedia, etc.)
As stated in the first table, Dimensions and ScienceOpen allow ranking publications by the Altmetric Attention Score index. In this case, if in the case of Dimensions, you can rank the results of a specific search or a page of all results, then ScienceOpen has a killer feature, it allows you to filter the results also by the time of indexation (most often this means downloading recently published works, but sometimes articles of past years). This means that for a scientific journalist or simply interested in science, it can be a convenient way to view a selection of articles that are “hi-pang” in the near-scientific environment (social networks, blogs, etc.) which directly link to the publication that sites almost "moveton" in the case of scientific news) for the last day, week, or manually selected period of time.
Aggregators of press releases and scientific news, with reference to the source and convenient presentation of information
There are several news aggregators on the Web in which scientific news are collected, as a rule, reprints of press releases of scientific organizations, in all cases direct references to the source are given, and there is no shit from journalists. We can say that this is “Google News” in the world of science. Characteristically, the fact that Google News shows in the "science and technology" and "health" is just a tabloid swamp and yellowness. And ordinary news sites (and even sites that specialize in scientific news, but are not aggregators of press releases) are satisfied with the selection of topics and news. While on sites from this selection the maximum is large and diverse content.
1. ScienceDaily - It is striking for the elaboration of categorization - there are 4 categories of news, each divided into three more, and these 12 into many more - more than 500 subcategories on various topics. And for oldfags there are RSS and email subscriptions for each of the categories (the others also have subscriptions, but not with such detail).
2. EurekAlert! - multilingual (6 world languages, in addition to English), there is a section of multimedia (with subsections: images, audio, video), there are sections about grants, awards, and books.
3. ScienceX is a family of aggregator sites, including the Phys. org, medical xpress medical news, and tech news, electronics, and tech Xplore
4. Sci News is just another aggregator, with no killer features, with its categorization.
5. SciTechDaily - similar to 4 points . The site still has a page "Science and Technology Resources" with a very original, landfill type, a selection of sites, and so he norms.
And
What to read in Russian from scientific news scientific pop? You can rely in the selection of sites that have a high Medialogia citation index , in principle, in the ranking sources of sufficient quality content, especially Elements. In addition, SciTopus make a good selection of YouTube channels.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/457020/
All Articles