new search engine
Posted by: Joe Petrik on 24 November 2004
I just learned of a new search engine -- Google Scholar -- that ought to be useful for lit searches and background material for manuscripts and grant applications.
... well, useful if you do this sort of stuff for a living. I expect Mr. Mekon will be impressed.
Joe
... well, useful if you do this sort of stuff for a living. I expect Mr. Mekon will be impressed.
Joe
Posted on: 24 November 2004 by Joe Petrik
In case the usefulness of this new search engine isn't obvious, let me put it another way -- Google:Scholar is to researchers what Google:Image is to pr0n hounds.
Joe
Joe
Posted on: 24 November 2004 by Mekon
Now now Joe, we are meant to be pooh poohing this. We should be hyping OAIster, ePrints-UK, DOAJ, and PubMed Central. Screw Google their collaboration with the money grabbing journal publishers!
Not that I wrote to google and asked if they were going to support Endnote and Reference Manager, or anything.
That said, I do think this might put pressure on the publishers to improve access. When the UK public click on the search result links, and realise that despite the fact that they pay academics' wages while they write and edit articles, fund their grants to do the research, and pay companies like Reed Elsevier* fees so academics can read the papers that they (the academics) and their colleagues wrote and edit, they (the public) themselves unlikely to ever get free access to most of the articles, they might be in favour of a move like the NIH proposal that any publically funded research be placed within a online repository within 6 months of publication.
On the other hand, I am struggling to put together the basis for a Cochrane protocol at the minute. The idea of writing 'I will do a search in Google' is very appealing.
Not that I wrote to google and asked if they were going to support Endnote and Reference Manager, or anything.
That said, I do think this might put pressure on the publishers to improve access. When the UK public click on the search result links, and realise that despite the fact that they pay academics' wages while they write and edit articles, fund their grants to do the research, and pay companies like Reed Elsevier* fees so academics can read the papers that they (the academics) and their colleagues wrote and edit, they (the public) themselves unlikely to ever get free access to most of the articles, they might be in favour of a move like the NIH proposal that any publically funded research be placed within a online repository within 6 months of publication.
On the other hand, I am struggling to put together the basis for a Cochrane protocol at the minute. The idea of writing 'I will do a search in Google' is very appealing.
quote:
*Last year, Reed Elsevier's internet revenues were in excess of E1.4bn, out of total turnover of E3.76bn. The company, reporting strng online revenue gropwth for the first half of 2003, confidently predicts that online business will grow between 10 or 20 per cent in the next half
Posted on: 24 November 2004 by Dan M
Joe & Mekon,
Here's another: http://www.scirus.com/srsapp/
Quoting wired: The Scirus search engine is free, but that's not to say its owner, Elsevier, a giant in science publishing, doesn't benefit from operating the science search tool. Elsevier publishes 20,000 journals, books, electronic products, services, databases and Web portals.
Dan
Here's another: http://www.scirus.com/srsapp/
Quoting wired: The Scirus search engine is free, but that's not to say its owner, Elsevier, a giant in science publishing, doesn't benefit from operating the science search tool. Elsevier publishes 20,000 journals, books, electronic products, services, databases and Web portals.
Dan
Posted on: 25 November 2004 by Martin D
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4037833.stm
Interesting.............
Interesting.............
Posted on: 25 November 2004 by Nime
How do you delete search history auto-complete with Firefox? Despite the similarity to the normal Google page one cannot just bring the cursor down and "delete". So every time a search is made a long list appears totally regardless of the first letter in the search term. Pressing delete only results in the list disappearing (temporarily). Can I have my money back? 
Nime
Nime
Posted on: 25 November 2004 by Roy T
Nime,
I think that
Tools | Options | Privacy | Then Clear "Saved form Information"
may be just what you are searching for.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041107 Firefox/1.0
I think that
Tools | Options | Privacy | Then Clear "Saved form Information"
may be just what you are searching for.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041107 Firefox/1.0
Posted on: 26 November 2004 by Nime
Excellent!
Thanks Roy.
Nime
Thanks Roy.
Nime
Posted on: 26 November 2004 by Markus S
A really useful new search engine would be Google Naim. Then we could search this forum.
Posted on: 26 November 2004 by Martin D
Noogle ? or Naigle ?
mmm better copyright those
mmm better copyright those
Posted on: 26 November 2004 by Martin Payne
Martin
a Google of the form:-
prefix site:naim-audio.infopop.net
sometimes brings back a useful result, but it's obvious that they only index a small sub-set of the pages on here.
Shame, really.
cheers, Martin
E-mail:- MartinPayne (at) Dial.Pipex.com. Put "Naim" in the title.
a Google of the form:-
prefix site:naim-audio.infopop.net
sometimes brings back a useful result, but it's obvious that they only index a small sub-set of the pages on here.
Shame, really.
cheers, Martin
E-mail:- MartinPayne (at) Dial.Pipex.com. Put "Naim" in the title.
Posted on: 26 November 2004 by Martin D
thanx !
Posted on: 26 November 2004 by Nick_S
Thanks for the information about Google Scholar, this saves wading through a lot of irrelevant links.
Nick
Nick
Posted on: 29 December 2004 by Roy T
Something for the scholars amongst you from the friendly geeks at slashdot Creative Commons For Science as they discuss the world of scientific publications, data and copyright.
creativecommons & science.creativecommons
creativecommons & science.creativecommons
Posted on: 30 December 2004 by Mekon
I saw that come up on Slashdot yesterday. Not sure that it adds anything, as the people to whom it needs to appeal are more likely to be switched on to the Open Access stuff that's out there than Creative Commons, ie the funders and the academics.
I'm not even convinced that the academics have much power to do anything about it. OA journals can't compete in terms of impact factor, so in a 'fair' fight, in established fields, they will lose.
My hunch is that unless research funding demands it, like the NIH deal, or if departmental funding rewards OA over/in addition to the prestige of the journal, only OA journals in new areas will get anywhere. An exception would be where a cabal of researchers who dominate a field club together, only publish in OA journals, and only cite each others OA stuff.
It is a ludicrous situation, and I don't know of any researcher who's not keen to see it change, but few are keen to sacrifice their career to make a difference.
I'm not even convinced that the academics have much power to do anything about it. OA journals can't compete in terms of impact factor, so in a 'fair' fight, in established fields, they will lose.
My hunch is that unless research funding demands it, like the NIH deal, or if departmental funding rewards OA over/in addition to the prestige of the journal, only OA journals in new areas will get anywhere. An exception would be where a cabal of researchers who dominate a field club together, only publish in OA journals, and only cite each others OA stuff.
It is a ludicrous situation, and I don't know of any researcher who's not keen to see it change, but few are keen to sacrifice their career to make a difference.
Posted on: 30 December 2004 by Top Cat
quote:A little off-topic, perhaps, but it's understood that Google is unkind to querystring-based web urls - i.e. the bit after the ?
a Google of the form:-
prefix site:naim-audio.infopop.net
...sometimes brings back a useful result, but it's obvious that they only index a small sub-set of the pages on here.
Generally, you seem to get away with one or two parameters but beyond that (as per Infopop) Google basically skips loads of content. I had the same issue with one of my websites - see my solution to the problem if it's a thing that interests you in a techie way.
John