Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Modern research sourcesFollow

#1 Oct 02 2009 at 1:13 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
It's been a long time since I had to do a research paper. When I was fresh out of high school, most of my teachers frowned upon the internet as a source, because the internet wasn't quite the integral part of society it is today.

Next week, I have to turn in a topic for a research paper for a physics class. It can be on any topic that has to do with physics in any way at all, and I've chosen to do it on theoretical energy sources and propulsion systems for future space travel. I know the kinds of sources I want, I'm just not really familiar with where to find them.

So my question for the Asylum is: do you know of any reputable science journals/magazines or any other legitimate sources of scientific information that may be helpful to me?
#2 Oct 02 2009 at 1:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Is there something wrong with the internet these days? Not Wikipedia or Geocities pages but items from Google Scholar or academic journal search engines? I'm assuming your college has access to said things (well, everyone has access to Google Scholar).

I personally prefer using my college's access just because I can select it to only return full articles (instead of just abstracts) or only peer reviewed sources.

Edited, Oct 2nd 2009 4:23pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#3 Oct 02 2009 at 1:22 PM Rating: Good
***
2,824 posts
Does Jstor collect scientific journals? I don't do any real research anymore but I do occasionally get on there and waste tons of time.
#4 Oct 02 2009 at 1:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Advice I got from my husband the college prof: Wikipedia is not a valid source. However, all sources for Wiki articles are linked at the bottom. Look for ones from peer reviewed journals there, and find the original article.

Saves quite some time from digging around journal archives.
#5 Oct 02 2009 at 1:34 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,512 posts
I never understood why Wikipedia is always singled out when, to my understanding, secondary sources are a no-no in a serious research paper anyway.
#6 Oct 02 2009 at 1:38 PM Rating: Good
@#%^
*****
15,953 posts
catwho, pet mage of Jabober wrote:
Advice I got from my husband the college prof: Wikipedia is not a valid source. However, all sources for Wiki articles are linked at the bottom. Look for ones from peer reviewed journals there, and find the original article.


This is what my professors told me as well. You can't use wikipedia as a reference, but it's a good place to start.
____________________________
"I have lost my way
But I hear a tale
About a heaven in Alberta
Where they've got all hell for a basement"

#7 Oct 02 2009 at 1:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Have you actually tried searching NASA's site yet?

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/support/researching/aspl/plasma.html
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/support/researching/aspl/vasimr.html
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/support/researching/aspl/reference.html

All of the above seem like interesting leads for your topic.

For more results:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=Xk&q=site%3Anasa.gov+space+propulsion&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

Also

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/technology/warp/warp.html
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/home/antimatter_spaceship.html
#8 Oct 02 2009 at 1:47 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
Sweetums wrote:
I never understood why Wikipedia is always singled out when, to my understanding, secondary sources are a no-no in a serious research paper anyway.

Because Wikipedia is far more prominent and likely to be used if not explicitly forbidden.

I suppose it's like telling a child not to play with matches, when she could just as easily start fire with the stove.
#9 Oct 02 2009 at 1:53 PM Rating: Good
Also, don't make the mistake of one of my former room mates and UPDATE Wikipedia with information from your own research until the class is over.

She was hauled before the student judiciary for plagiarism from Wikipedia, when she was the one that wrote the damn article in the first place.
#10 Oct 02 2009 at 2:10 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
Allegory wrote:
Sweetums wrote:
I never understood why Wikipedia is always singled out when, to my understanding, secondary sources are a no-no in a serious research paper anyway.

Because Wikipedia is far more prominent and likely to be used if not explicitly forbidden.

I suppose it's like telling a child not to play with matches, when she could just as easily start fire with the stove.

More like telling your kids not to play with a specific brand of matches.
#11 Oct 02 2009 at 2:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Wikipedia is singled out for the simple reason that it's the first place students wind up going. So you might as well just nip it in the bud immediately and say "No Wikipedia or other secondary sources".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#12 Oct 02 2009 at 4:11 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
You can read abstracts on-line for most the scientific journals, but will likely need to be a subscriber to dl the whole article.

Your school must have access to some, so I'd start with them.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#13 Oct 02 2009 at 4:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
You can come here to Zam for any info you need. Don't worry, we're certifiable.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#14 Oct 02 2009 at 6:06 PM Rating: Good
*****
10,601 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
You can come here to Zam for any info you need. Don't worry, we're certifiable.
Everything I say is true.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#15 Oct 02 2009 at 6:37 PM Rating: Good
***
3,212 posts
national space society
Nasa as already mentioned
Goddard Space flight center
John's Hopkins Applied physics laboratory Aka APL
National Science foundation.
All should have websites and some are linked at http://www.bsfs.org
edit
Yep lots of links to reputable sites on the Bsfs site. Look under the heading Science.

Edited, Oct 2nd 2009 10:40pm by Jonwin
#16 Oct 02 2009 at 6:42 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
Thanks for the suggestions, all.
#17 Oct 02 2009 at 6:46 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Don't forget to include my future space-time travel device!
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#18 Oct 03 2009 at 5:16 PM Rating: Good
Gave Up The D
Avatar
*****
12,281 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Don't forget to include my future space-time travel device!


Hey Ash, I think he thinks you're a TARDIS.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#19 Oct 03 2009 at 9:46 PM Rating: Good
**
383 posts
Strange, I was always told not to use Wikipedia in part because of the general frowning down on using general encyclopedia, but mostly because it's not reliable because any jackass with an account can edit it. Sure, the information is generally correct for most articles, but if you're just looking at an article without any prior knowledge you don't know what you're getting. You can't also verify the authority of the authors.

However, most of the good articles also have their sources linked, which are probably better for academic purposes, so seconding the idea of Wiki as a good place to start.
#20 Oct 03 2009 at 10:40 PM Rating: Decent
The stupid thing about not using wikipedia is that if the information on it is credible, there's usually a footnote reference to the original source anyway. Any idiot can follow the chain of reference and get the original source.
#21 Oct 06 2009 at 11:31 AM Rating: Good
Professor AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
It's been a long time since I had to do a research paper. When I was fresh out of high school, most of my teachers frowned upon the internet as a source, because the internet wasn't quite the integral part of society it is today.

Next week, I have to turn in a topic for a research paper for a physics class. It can be on any topic that has to do with physics in any way at all, and I've chosen to do it on theoretical energy sources and propulsion systems for future space travel. I know the kinds of sources I want, I'm just not really familiar with where to find them.

So my question for the Asylum is: do you know of any reputable science journals/magazines or any other legitimate sources of scientific information that may be helpful to me?


Try Physics Today.

http://www.physicstoday.org/

You'll likely need to do it from on campus to download the articles.

You can also try: Science, Nature, Scientific American as they are generally more readable for a broad variety of people then, say, physical review.

Anything that is a conference proceeding is almost certainly less peer reviewed (if peer reviewed at all) then a normal publication.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 205 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (205)