Resources for writing research papers

[Dithall43 3]

What online resources do you use to write research papers? Are there any sites or tools you can recommend?

[Twilight Dirac 721]

You can use Google Scholar in place of the regular Google search.  This will return peer reviewed journal papers as your results.  Sadly, many such papers are behind paywalls, but some aren't and are freely available.

[EpicEnergy 23,104]

Wikipedia is the best! jk jk don't use it unless you want to discredit yourself, it's commonly disregarded as an unreliable source since anyone is able to edit it. I think it's good for general information, or to get a brief idea of a topic, but not for writing papers and doing research. The tools for research I would recommend differ based on each field of study, there's not a universal tool for everything.

[Finding_Marty 639]

I usually use these 3:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

https://scholar.google.com

https://www.researchgate.net

And if your organisation does not have access to some of the reaserch papers, you can use https://sci-hub.se to unlock it...

Just don't tell anybody you know it from me 

7 hours ago, Supernova Energy said:

Wikipedia is the best! jk jk don't use it unless you want to discredit yourself, it's commonly disregarded as an unreliable source since anyone is able to edit it. I think it's good for general information, or to get a brief idea of a topic, but not for writing papers and doing research. The tools for research I would recommend differ based on each field of study, there's not a universal tool for everything.

Wikipedia has limited resorces on some subjects but you can use sources listed under the articles to learn more. They might be pretty useful 

[EpicEnergy 23,104]

8 hours ago, Finding_Marty said:

Wikipedia has limited resorces on some subjects but you can use sources listed under the articles to learn more. They might be pretty useful 

At that point your using Wikipedia as Google since you get both reliable and unreliable websites. A major difference would be inefficiency, since Wikipedia articles lack a broad number of sources. You'd be getting the equivalent of one or two pages of results from Google.

[returned_dragon 135]

The best thing in my humble opinion is utilizing whatever access your institution (or local library) provides to applications like JSTOR or the equivalent for your field of study. That will get around many of the paywall issues or the hassle of going through Sci-Hub or other sketchy websites if you can do it. 

Wikipedia articles are actually worse than useless when it comes right down to it: between the gatekeeping of the site administration itself and the dubious intentions of the contributors proven or speculatory (https://gizmodo.com/congress-is-still-editing-wikipedia-a-lot-heres-how-1605295946), you're really asking for trouble by citing or even believing them at all.

Your national library/institutions might have resources to use online.

Library of Congress: https://www.loc.gov/

Archive.org is a treasure trove: https://archive.org/details/texts

Edited August 19 by returned_dragon

[Finding_Marty 639]

1 hour ago, Supernova Energy said:

At that point your using Wikipedia as Google since you get both reliable and unreliable websites. A major difference would be inefficiency, since Wikipedia articles lack a broad number of sources. You'd be getting the equivalent of one or two pages of results from Google.

Yes, it's true, I never said that everything you can find on Wikipedia is 100% true, but sometimes it's a good starting point to get a general idea if you don't have a clue about a topic and figure out what to look for. And you can't cite Wikipedia articles in your research papers. Wikipedia articles are not reviewed in any way. No journal would accept them for publication. And you want to publish your article in the journal with the highest possible IF, so citing wikipedia would be like wtf? 

[Starlight Serenade 2,743]

10 hours ago, Finding_Marty said:

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

https://scholar.google.com

https://www.researchgate.net

And if your organisation does not have access to some of the reaserch papers, you can use https://sci-hub.se to unlock it...

Just don't tell anybody you know it from me 

18 hours ago, Supernova Energy said:

Wikipedia is the best! jk jk don't use it unless you want to discredit yourself, it's commonly disregarded as an unreliable source since anyone is able to edit it. I think it's good for general information, or to get a brief idea of a topic, but not for writing papers and doing research. The tools for research I would recommend differ based on each field of study, there's not a universal tool for everything.

 

I'm currently in a graduate program for business management, and I've used all of those research sources before. I'd also recommend exploring your organization's or school's resources. In the US, some state schools share research information across a system, and you can even order books from other institutions statewide to wherever you are. Don't forget to check your local library, too; sometimes, you'll find something interesting there. People often overlook those places.

Interestingly, my school, along with UCLA, UCB, and several other well-known universities, has actually used Wikipedia to define certain terms. I know this from taking classes and knowing people in those programs who have mentioned it in passing. Though we're always told not to cite it for obvious reasons.

Edited August 19 by Starlight Serenade
editing the editing the editing

[EpicEnergy 23,104]

3 hours ago, Finding_Marty said:

Yes, it's true, I never said that everything you can find on Wikipedia is 100% true, but sometimes it's a good starting point to get a general idea if you don't have a clue about a topic and figure out what to look for.

That's essentially what I said initially.

"I think it's [Wikipedia] good for general information, or to get a brief idea of a topic, but not for writing papers and doing research."

I've been under the impression that you think it's good for doing research, as you said you can use the links in the works cited area of Wikipedia's articles. That is why I compared Wikipedia to Google, as Google is more effective than Wikipedia in doing research, which makes Wikipedia useless as a tool for doing research.

3 hours ago, Finding_Marty said:

And you can't cite Wikipedia articles in your research papers. Wikipedia articles are not reviewed in any way. No journal would accept them for publication. And you want to publish your article in the journal with the highest possible IF, so citing wikipedia would be like wtf? 

I agree with this, though it doesn't have anything to do with what I said. My comparison between Google and Wikipedia, as I stated above, was made to argue against the idea of using Wikipedia as a research tool. It's a hypothetical scenario that is not intended to suggest Google and/or Wikipedia should be used in research.

3 hours ago, Starlight Serenade said:

Interestingly, my school, along with UCLA, UCB, and several other well-known universities, has actually used Wikipedia to define certain terms. I know this from taking classes and knowing people in those programs who have mentioned it in passing. Though we're always told not to cite it for obvious reasons.

That is interesting, I previously thought no college, university, or academic organization advocated the use of Wikipedia. Perhaps the reason is because terms have straightforward definitions, and errors are much easier to correct as a result. Or maybe these Wikipedia term definitions have been compared to other definitions from dictionaries. I still wouldn't consider it exceptionally reliable though. Out of curiosity, is it Wikitionary that contains these definitions?

[Starlight Serenade 2,743]

1 hour ago, Supernova Energy said:

hat is interesting, I previously thought no college, university, or academic organization advocated the use of Wikipedia. Perhaps the reason is because terms have straightforward definitions, and errors are much easier to correct as a result. Or maybe these Wikipedia term definitions have been compared to other definitions from dictionaries. I still wouldn't consider it exceptionally reliable though. Out of curiosity, is it Wikitionary that contains these definitions?

Yes, certain business terms and brands have clear, widely accepted definitions, which is likely why they were used. No, they primarily connected the pages to brands and definitions.

[A mysterious air dancer 4,169]

If you edit on Wikipedia often, you get completely free access to what would be paywall locked scholarly databases and resources. I got this by accident when I logged back into my Wikipedia account to do some small edits and that gave me access to it, though it's been a few months now, and now I don't meet the requirements.

This might be useful if you need an inexpensive way to get access to so much information for papers and such. 

BTW I'm pretty sure Wikipedia has a page on their own website that basically says "Try avoiding citing Wikipedia wherever possible, since it's an encyclopedia and anyone can edit it"

[Starlight Serenade 2,743]

10 minutes ago, Trot Shuffle said:

If you edit on Wikipedia often, you get completely free access to what would be paywall locked scholarly databases and resources. I got this by accident when I logged back into my Wikipedia account to do some small edits and that gave me access to it, though it's been a few months now, and now I don't meet the requirements.

This might be useful if you need an inexpensive way to get access to so much information for papers and such. 

 

Wow I had no idea they give access to databases like that.

11 minutes ago, Trot Shuffle said:

BTW I'm pretty sure Wikipedia has a page on their own website that basically says "Try avoiding citing Wikipedia wherever possible, since it's an encyclopedia and anyone can edit it"

I remember a classmate from the Anderson School of Management (UCLA) said that "these schools using Wikipedia for sources is like using a highlighter on a blank page—sure, it’s colorful, but it might not have the details you need!"

[ZiggWheelsManning 9,259]

@Starlight Serenade

In my day, we used traditional search engines and books for a research paper  

[Starlight Serenade 2,743]

3 minutes ago, ZiggWheelsManning said:

@Starlight Serenade

In my day, we used traditional search engines and books for a research paper  

I used to enjoy doing research the traditional way too, but the modern methods offer many more convenient options.

[Finding_Marty 639]

9 hours ago, Supernova Energy said:

That's essentially what I said initially.

"I think it's [Wikipedia] good for general information, or to get a brief idea of a topic, but not for writing papers and doing research."

I've been under the impression that you think it's good for doing research, as you said you can use the links in the works cited area of Wikipedia's articles. That is why I compared Wikipedia to Google, as Google is more effective than Wikipedia in doing research, which makes Wikipedia useless as a tool for doing research.

I agree with this, though it doesn't have anything to do with what I said. My comparison between Google and Wikipedia, as I stated above, was made to argue against the idea of using Wikipedia as a research tool. It's a hypothetical scenario that is not intended to suggest Google and/or Wikipedia should be used in research.

So we disagree that we agree? Or we agree that we agree? 

It's fine  I should have been more specific with what I meant in my pevious post.

[Dark Horse 12,922]

From my personal experience, Wikipedia is a useful platform to help you track down other sources which might be of interest, since almost every article will have several in the footnotes. But having access to something like JSTOR or online archival libraries is always your best bet for initial source hunting. This is especially because they tend to upload academic journals and other scholarly sources which may not be readily available anywhere outside of educational institutes.

Personally though, if you have the opportunity to physically track down sources to a private archive (or even a public one if they have what you need) then that demonstrates much greater initiative for your work than simply quoting something from a webpage. You can sometimes get a hold of sources like audio recordings, vidoes or even physical possessions that are otherwise not recorded anywhere.

The internet is a great tool and repository for knowledge, but little beats being able to look through an original written source.

I spent some time at a old archival library during my studies last year, and that was honestly a very inspiring enviornment to be working in, as well as academically useful. Why wouldn't you want to check out old books?! 

[EpicEnergy 23,104]

7 hours ago, Finding_Marty said:

So we disagree that we agree? Or we agree that we agree? 

I guess it's something like that. 

45 minutes ago, Dark Horse said:

I spent some time at a old archival library during my studies last year, and that was honestly a very inspiring enviornment to be working in, as well as academically useful. Why wouldn't you want to check out old books?! 

They let you use them? It looks like they could fall apart once you open them.