A selection of academic and science-pop 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 broader category of knowledge than STEM (Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics), the main criterion for academic sources is their review (for example, the Skopus magazine Modern Theology is a peer-reviewed source, although not everyone agrees to call it scientific, but academic, please) . However, how much does an ordinary Internet user imagine this sector of the Network, knows where, what, and how to search, knows how to distinguish the reliability of various academic sources, has access to these sources, and also understands the complexity and amount of academic knowledge? I have not seen any reviews in Russian in which information would be presented, framework characterizing the conditional “Scholarnet”, giving a general idea, a certificate, after reading which, it was possible to effectively use academic knowledge. I decided to make a review of the sources of academic information, and sources secondary to them (press releases of scientific news and science-pop). Immediately make a reservation, the review is arbitrary, and not derived from any exact methodology, but this is better than its absence. Having described at the same time different data streams with which a variety of people can interact: from the researchers themselves to, as is customary to say in the annotations of books, the “wide circle of readers” (including Wikipedists, journalists, participants in online disputes, etc. d.). I also ask you to apologize in advance for the design flaws, as far as possible I will try to correct what the reader will indicate (preferably in the LAN). having read that, it was possible to use academic knowledge effectively. I decided to make a review of the sources of academic information, and sources secondary to them (press releases of scientific news and science-pop). Immediately make a reservation, the review is arbitrary, and not derived from any exact methodology, but this is better than its absence. Having described at the same time different data streams with which a variety of people can interact: from the researchers themselves to, as is customary to say in the annotations of books, the “wide circle of readers” (including Wikipedists, journalists, participants in online disputes, etc. d.). I also ask you to apologize in advance for the design flaws, as far as possible I will try to correct what the reader will indicate (preferably in the LAN). having read that, it was possible to use academic knowledge effectively. I decided to make a review of the sources of academic information, and sources secondary to them (press releases of scientific news and science-pop). Immediately make a reservation, the review is arbitrary, and not derived from any exact methodology, but this is better than its absence. Having described at the same time different data streams with which a variety of people can interact: from the researchers themselves to, as is customary to say in the annotations of the books, the “wide circle of readers” (including Wikipedists, journalists, participants in online disputes, etc. d.). I also ask you to apologize in advance for the design flaws, as far as possible I will try to correct what the reader will indicate (preferably in the LAN). and sources secondary to them (press releases of scientific news and science pop). Immediately make a reservation, the review is arbitrary, and not derived from any exact methodology, but this is better than its absence. Having described at the same time different data streams with which a variety of people can interact: from the researchers themselves to, as is customary to say in the annotations of the books, the “wide circle of readers” (including Wikipedists, journalists, participants in online disputes, etc. d.). I also ask you to apologize in advance for the design flaws, as far as possible I will try to correct what the reader will indicate (preferably in the LAN). and sources secondary to them (press releases of scientific news and science pop). Immediately make a reservation, the review is arbitrary, and not derived from any exact methodology, but this is better than its absence. Having described at the same time different data streams with which a variety of people can interact: from the researchers themselves to, as is customary to say in the annotations of the books, the “wide circle of readers” (including Wikipedists, journalists, participants in online disputes, etc. d.). I also ask you to apologize in advance for the design flaws, as far as possible I will try to correct what the reader will indicate (preferably in the LAN). from the researchers themselves to, as is customary to say in the annotations of books, the “wide circle of readers” (including Wikipedists, journalists, participants in online disputes, etc.). I also ask you to apologize in advance for the design flaws, as far as possible I will try to correct what the reader will indicate (preferably in the LAN). from the researchers themselves to, as is customary to say in the annotations of books, the “wide circle of readers” (including Wikipedists, journalists, participants in online disputes, etc.). I also ask you to apologize in advance for the design flaws, as far as possible I will try to correct what the reader will indicate (preferably in the LAN).

Search engines and bibliographic databases

I have compiled a list of 9 databases, under the table are hyperlinks to them. The databases were selected according to two criteria: large coverage by year and the number of documents (> 50 million), and universality - the databases contain documents in a variety of disciplines, from theology to elementary particle physics. Thus, the databases containing publications with some specific specialization (for example, PubMed, convenient for searching for works in biology and medicine) are taken out of brackets. As well as databases with search only in Russian / Russian-language publications, dissertation databases, and preprint databases. 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 references (in the second case, it’s normal to meet something not 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 contain the writer Fonvizin because of the inclusion of Google Books in the results. And in ScienceOpen, if you rank publications by date, we will be shown mixed up indexed sources and their references, while first we will be shown dating errors ( modern works with ancient dating ), and then only correct database records.

The phrase “cited references” used above in the text (as well as in the table below) (also used “cited bibliography”) is used in Russian translations of the interface of bibliographic databases, as well as in professional literature, although of course there are wider circulation versions of “references "," Bibliography ", etc.





1. Scopus. Search by authors , as well as search by sources is open, the rest (regular and advanced search by publication, search by research organizations) is by subscription. There is also a Scimago Lab website, leading citation ratings of Skopusov sources (mainly journals), the rating of countries in which researchers work, and the rating of research organizations.
2. Web of Science. Access by subscription only. According to the database itself, it is impossible to perform any search without logging in. However, the site of the organization developing WoS has a list of magazines indexed by the database . You can search the list.
3. Dimensions
4. Lens
5. Google Scholar
6. Science Open
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 the work 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 sites with magazine and book publications . The information in this paragraph is provided to inform you of existing facts, and is not a call for violation of Russian law, or the laws of those countries in whose jurisdiction academic publishers work.

Search engines and bibliographic databases containing fully or predominantly publicly available publications

In this paragraph, the table below will best inform you of me, the database hyperlinks and the source are here .

Tapes of publications cited by sources indexed by the Altmetric Attention Score system (indexing references to publications on social networks, blogs, news sites, Wikipedia, etc.)

As stated in the first table, Dimensions and ScienceOpen allow you to rank publications by the Altmetric Attention Score index. At the same time, if in the case of Dimensions, you can rank the results of a specific search or a page of all the results, then ScienceOpen has a killer feature, it allows you to filter the results also by the age of indexing (most often this means downloading recently published works, but sometimes indexing articles of past years). That means for a scientific journalist or just interested in science, this can be a convenient way to see a selection of articles that have been “hijacked” in a near-scientific environment (social networks, blogs, etc. in which this provides a direct link to a publication that’s in the same news sites almost "bad manners" 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 that collect scientific news, usually reprint press releases of scientific organizations, in all cases provide direct links to the source, and there is no gag from journalists. We can say that this is “Google News” in the world of science. It is characteristic that what Google News shows in the “science and technology” and “health” sections is simply a swamp of tabloids 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 selective selection of topics and news. While on sites from this collection the maximum is large and varied content.

1. ScienceDaily- It is striking in the elaboration of categorization - there are 4 categories of news, each is divided into three more, and these 12 are still many - more than 500 subcategories on a variety of topics. And for oldfags there is RSS and email subscriptions for each of the categories (the rest also have subscriptions, but not with such detail).

2. EurekAlert! - multilingual (6 world languages, in addition to English), there is a multimedia section (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 Xplore

4. Sci News engineering, electronics, and technology news.- just another aggregator, without any killer feature, with its own categorization.

5. SciTechDaily - similar to 4 points . The site still has a “Science and Technology Resources” page with a very original, landfill type, a selection of sites, and so it is normal.

And

What to read in Russian from scientific news of the scientific pop? You can rely on the selection of sites that have a high citation index of Medialogy , in principle, in the ranking sources of fairly high quality content, especially Elements. In addition, SciTopus make a good selection of YouTube channels.