Dr Grump doesn’t usually need to do much library work. As a senior and respected research worker (and major broadcasting personality) in the study of sexual dynamics and etymology, she finds that the only research she needs to do is observe the activities of colleagues of the SCR of the St George the Witless College, University of Uurm.
If this fails, she has a junior colleague, Dr Lackey, who is always eager to find irritating things called ‘papers’ for her. He is an obliging fellow, the old fashioned sort, as well as opening doors for her, he is of the opinion that someone of Dr Grump’s undoubted intellect and radiant beauty should not be required to trouble herself with the business of thinking, or indeed stressing herself out in any way whatever.
‘Think of what it could do to your collagen, darlink,’ he says, ‘there is a limit to what the clostridium botulinum toxin can paralyse, and the facial furrows caused by calculating the parameters of Poisson distributions of the sexual preferences of the alpha male is doubtless one of them..’
However, I digress. The point is Dr Lackey is away at the moment having his tan resprayed, and is therefore unable to assist Dr Grump in her work, and unfortunately some irritating ‘researcher’ (a term Dr Grump despises unless it is applied to a ‘proper academic’ ) from the TODAY programme would like her to air her views on the likelihood of the depressed nation being cheered by news of royal nuptials this year.
I heard her frankly ratty response on the phone: ‘How should I know?" (or care? she added later, under her breath). She came off the phone tutting. ’Half past six tomorrow morning.’ She said. ‘Is it light then?’ Then she looked around her. ’Where’s that idiot, Lackey?’
When I reminded her about the respray she threw a leather-bound thesis across the room (judging from the quantity of wild-life aroused from behind its place on the shelf it was clearly the first time the thing had been shifted for several years), then looked at me. ‘Well, what shall I do?’
When I suggested the library she snorted. ‘No, the answer lies in Google Scholar.’
AND NOW, DEAR READER, IF YOU HAVE GOT THIS FAR, HERE IS GRUMP’S QUESTION….
Having done her search, and being just a little out of touch since Dr Lackey’s valuable appearance in the department several years ago, she wants to know…
How does Dr Grump tell if a paper that appears in Google is any good? Some of the papers are published in impressive sounding journals, but Dr Grump has never heard of them. If there a listing, or a rule of thumb which can help her decide what is authentic scientific result…or bad science?
Last updated:
Friday, 30 Jan
2009 - 17:38 UTC
Great, if scary, post, Dr G!
GS works via the citation system – papers that are cited most float to the top. But, as no doubt other commenters will rush to state, this in itself may be no indicator of quality – could be mere nepotism (eg Dr Lackey on his holidays submitting multi-papers to small journals, citing all of Dr G’s esteemed publications).
Look to see if the papers are in Faculty of 1000?
Disclaimer: I’ll be working for these guys full time from April.
Dr Grump says thank you Dr Clarke, she did not know that about Google Scholar – and is saddened to think that nepotism is alive and well even in this revered aspect of human endeavour (although not surprised).
And Dr Grant, she has now looked at Faculty of 1000 and is entranced – in fact her heavily lipsticked mouth smiled rather drippily.
‘I think I’m in love…’ she said,
‘What, again?’ I said, checking the secret gin supply at the bottom of my desk, but she hadn’t touched it.
‘Yes, with a new information source.’
(Congratulations Richard, BTW – that sounds like a great job)
Thanks Clare. It’s very exciting. And if you have any feedback to offer, feel free to bend my ear.
If it’s not published in Nature then it doesn’t really exist.
Hang on: according to Dr Gee, if it’s published in Nature it’s not true.
‘Truth’ and ‘existence’ are not the same things.
If something’s not true, does it exist? And if something is true, can it not not exist?
Show your working.
Yes and no. In that order.
Richard – if something not true didn’t exist then lies don’t exist… and that’s clearly, erm, not true.
Er… What Brian said.
Dr Grump would just like to say that she definitely exists and everything she says is true.
Also, that her head hurts.
Is it time to mention Nature’s “News and Views”, which cite articles in the same issue of Nature? Could this contribute to this “floating to the top” phenomenon?
Inquiring minds want to know.
But if something is a lie, can it be said to exist?
Yes.
Liar.
Would Dr Grump trust a journal paper in the library, if she had never heard of the journal?
Would Dr Grump trust it, just because the library had it?
The core problem isn’t with the technology. It’s with how you ascertain trustworthiness and validity.
Spot on, Scott. And I’ve been wibbling about this elsewhere.
Yes, exactly, Scott! Thank you. Although Dr Grump is generally disparaging about the University of Uurm, she would expect any journal in the library to meet certain criteria e.g. have some sort of reliable peer review system. However she would not feel as confident about everything on Google Scholar – but maybe she’s wrong about that. So , to her, any sort of informed whittling down is useful – which is why the idea of the Faculty of 1000 appeals to her so much.
The comment Richard made above is also interesting, and she thanks him for it. Dr Grump’s view on the matter is this: anything that permits articles in journals such as Nature – which, she understands, have passed a rigorous vetting system and are therefore highly creditable – to ‘surface’ in a Google Scholar search is good. As she knows from her experience in etymology the most popular word is not always the most worthy or useful one and expects the same sort of thing might apply to scientific papers.
That second paragraph was referring to Richard Wintle’s comment, BTW (- the first to Richard Grant’s).