How do you keep yourself updated in research - (Apr/29/2014 )

I looked at Reddit several times, but I still don't get how the system of threads is organized there and so far I wasn't able to find any stuff there at all. Even when people link a specific thread, I just see a chaos of answers, older over newer, replies to replies.. I just get totaly lost.

I personaly still don't understand how can anyone use it for anything.

And as for those unrelated papers.. I hardly have time to just browse general science.. I read online news and when there is some info about something scientific, that interests me (or mostly, annoys me, because it's just stupidly written there) I find the original papers. The fields I have some interests, like neurobiology, I try to follow at least on social networks.

For other interesting papers out of the field I only get to them by chance, or by looking for something else/reading Wikipedia/...

There is also http://lifetech-select.com (from Life technologies). This is where I discovered Bioforum   and I receive other weekly updates from fields of research that interest me.

http://www.reddit.com/r/science/ is good for what's "hot" in science.

Trof on Fri Jun 20 15:03:24 2014 said:

I looked at Reddit several times, but I still don't get how the system of threads is organized there and so far I wasn't able to find any stuff there at all. Even when people link a specific thread, I just see a chaos of answers, older over newer, replies to replies.. I just get totaly lost.

I personaly still don't understand how can anyone use it for anything.

 

And as for those unrelated papers.. I hardly have time to just browse general science.. I read online news and when there is some info about something scientific, that interests me (or mostly, annoys me, because it's just stupidly written there) I find the original papers. The fields I have some interests, like neurobiology, I try to follow at least on social networks.

For other interesting papers out of the field I only get to them by chance, or by looking for something else/reading Wikipedia/...

Haha, I have the same problem! Everyone talks about reddit and how good it is and... However when I take a look at it, I never seem to understand how it works lol

I guess I am not yet in tune with it lol.
 

Actually I'm surprised that reddit has something like this ...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).

hobglobin on Sat Jun 21 14:37:42 2014 said:

Actually I'm surprised that reddit has something like this ...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.)

pito on Sun Jun 22 08:17:37 2014 said:

 

hobglobin on Sat Jun 21 14:37:42 2014 said:

Actually I'm surprised that reddit has something like this ...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 ) or if they use the text from e.g. university press office or other sources that give an easy to read abstract.

hobglobin on Sun Jun 22 08:50:02 2014 said:

 

pito on Sun Jun 22 08:17:37 2014 said:

 

hobglobin on Sat Jun 21 14:37:42 2014 said:

Actually I'm surprised that reddit has something like this ...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 ) 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....

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/