Good Research

[Lepisosteus]

I skim through a lot of threads on this site and chime in from time to time. A lot of the information I see is often misleading or incorrect so I figured I would create a thread on what good research is. It seems the act of performing good research has been lost. Anyone reading this thread feel free to elaborate or expand on the topic.

Good information starts with good research. To find the best information look at scientific articles (scholarly). A good starting point is google scholar. Scientific articles should be the primary source of your research unless you are performing the research yourself. The downside to scientific articles is the concepts can often be difficult for the average reader to grasp and the articles can be long. Use the CTL F function and search for key words. Google scholar limits the accessibility of certain articles based on the internet network as well. To get the highest accessibility to the free research database go to a library or a research institution. These locations have higher access then the average household internet.

If you are looking for information on a certain species use the scientific name and not the common name. Scientific names were implemented to create a universal classification scheme. Start your search at the species level, if information is limited work your way up the taxonomic classification system. You may need to broaden your search to the family/genus level and read through the papers to find individual species information. Again use CTL F.

I will briefly talk about a few commonly used sources of information. Again my time is limited so elaborate if you can.

Webpages:

Limit the use of webpages as the source of your information. This is the classic google answer that so many of us get called out on. We are all guilty of it at one point or another. I’m sure most of you already know this but anyone can create a webpage in a few minutes.

Webpages such as Wikipedia are not the best place to gather your information but can provide a helpful starting point. Use the sources listed at the bottom of the page or supplement the findings on Wikipedia with supporting evidence from scientific articles. Not all webpages should be discarded, government supported websites often provide good information, however, you should still try to find supporting evidence. Often government websites are designed to be user friendly so the depth of the information is often lacking.

YouTube:

This is an entertainment platform and as such should be treated as one. Take the information with a grain of salt unless it can be supported through other findings.

Books:

A long lost method of research, books seem to have become a thing of the past but nevertheless still a terrific source of information. Pick up those textbooks and start reading. Scientific books are a terrific source of knowledge. Hit the community/school/university library if you have access. You would be amazed what’s piled within those dusty shelves.

Expierience:

This is a heavily debatable area of research as individual findings will differ. Remember anyone can be an internet know it all and claim to have expierience they do not. Again proceed with caution in this area.

I know many of you on this forum are still in school. For those of you try to avoid citing webpages, your primary point of research should come from scientific articles. Always check with your professor/teacher on what kind of research they expect of you but if you are sharing research elsewhere make sure it is accurate and from the most reliable sources.

The best quality researcher understands not just the concepts but the history and development of the field. The best quality research only cites the original sources.

 

[squint]

Use sci-hub.tw to access paywalled scientific papers. Technically, it's piracy but technically we're already paying for the research with our tax dollars.

 

[RD.]

Great topic. I've done pretty well for myself over the years without entering a library, or school, but I agree those avenues definitely open up some additional doors. One thing I will add, If you are looking for information on a certain species use the scientific name, along with the word study. As an example, google Chromobotia macracanthus study. Usually that will get you a list of scholarly articles, along with several pages of related peer reviewed papers. Some will allow full free access, some research venues you can join for free, others will simply provide abstracts. But lots can be gleaned from even an abstract, and author names, dates, etc can all lead to more papers, studies, etc.

Also, always try to keep an open mind. Consider the source of the research, sometimes even including who funded it, as sometimes studies are performed with a conclusion already formed before the research even begins. It happens a lot more than people may realize. As an example, a study performed regarding feeding soybean meal to a fish, that is funded by the soybean growers association, should be viewed with at least a bit of scepticism as there will often be an ulterior motive involved. $$$

 

[Lepisosteus]

Great topic. I've done pretty well for myself over the years without entering a library, or school, but I agree those avenues definitely open up some additional doors. One thing I will add, If you are looking for information on a certain species use the scientific name, along with the word study. As an example, google Chromobotia macracanthus study. Usually that will get you a list of scholarly articles, along with several pages of related peer reviewed papers. Some will allow full free access, some research venues you can join for free, others will simply provide abstracts. But lots can be gleaned from even an abstract, and author names, dates, etc can all lead to more papers, studies, etc.

Also, always try to keep an open mind. Consider the source of the research, sometimes even including who funded it, as sometimes studies are performed with a conclusion already formed before the research even begins. It happens a lot more than people may realize. As an example, a study performed regarding feeding soybean meal to a fish, that is funded by the soybean growers association, should be viewed with at least a bit of scepticism as there will often be an ulterior motive involved. $$$

Good point on the abstract skim. You can almost immediately notice if the article is what you are looking for by quickly reading the abstract and the conclusion.

 

[Matteus]

Wow. Thank you both for sharing this, I really appreciate the breakdown of how to search. I have been at a loss for words on asking how to do this. I hate reading the info from websites because most of them contradict each other. I never look at Wikipedia because anyone can write on there.

This should be a sticky C Chicxulub ??

 

[Matteus]

I honestly think if even a few of the regulars here who aren’t already doing this, start we would be better as a whole forum. IMO

 

[esoxlucius]

I quote part of the OP's post:

"The downside to scientific articles is the concepts can often be difficult for the average reader to grasp and the articles can be long".

Isn't that just the understatement of the century. I was reading a scientific study on breeding clown loach in captivity just yesterday. I didn't reach the end. I think these scientific reports are for other scientists to read, rather than Joe public.

 

[Chicxulub]

I simply cannot overstate how much I love this thread.

I skim through a lot of threads on this site and chime in from time to time. A lot of the information I see is often misleading or incorrect so I figured I would create a thread on what good research is. It seems the act of performing good research has been lost. Anyone reading this thread feel free to elaborate or expand on the topic.

Good information starts with good research. To find the best information look at scientific articles (scholarly). A good starting point is google scholar. Scientific articles should be the primary source of your research unless you are performing the research yourself. The downside to scientific articles is the concepts can often be difficult for the average reader to grasp and the articles can be long. Use the CTL F function and search for key words. Google scholar limits the accessibility of certain articles based on the internet network as well. To get the highest accessibility to the free research database go to a library or a research institution. These locations have higher access then the average household internet.

If you are looking for information on a certain species use the scientific name and not the common name. Scientific names were implemented to create a universal classification scheme. Start your search at the species level, if information is limited work your way up the taxonomic classification system. You may need to broaden your search to the family/genus level and read through the papers to find individual species information. Again use CTL F.

I will briefly talk about a few commonly used sources of information. Again my time is limited so elaborate if you can.

Webpages:

Limit the use of webpages as the source of your information. This is the classic google answer that so many of us get called out on. We are all guilty of it at one point or another. I’m sure most of you already know this but anyone can create a webpage in a few minutes.

Webpages such as Wikipedia are not the best place to gather your information but can provide a helpful starting point. Use the sources listed at the bottom of the page or supplement the findings on Wikipedia with supporting evidence from scientific articles. Not all webpages should be discarded, government supported websites often provide good information, however, you should still try to find supporting evidence. Often government websites are designed to be user friendly so the depth of the information is often lacking.

YouTube:

This is an entertainment platform and as such should be treated as one. Take the information with a grain of salt unless it can be supported through other findings.

Books:

A long lost method of research, books seem to have become a thing of the past but nevertheless still a terrific source of information. Pick up those textbooks and start reading. Scientific books are a terrific source of knowledge. Hit the community/school/university library if you have access. You would be amazed what’s piled within those dusty shelves.

Expierience:

This is a heavily debatable area of research as individual findings will differ. Remember anyone can be an internet know it all and claim to have expierience they do not. Again proceed with caution in this area.

I know many of you on this forum are still in school. For those of you try to avoid citing webpages, your primary point of research should come from scientific articles. Always check with your professor/teacher on what kind of research they expect of you but if you are sharing research elsewhere make sure it is accurate and from the most reliable sources.

The best quality researcher understands not just the concepts but the history and development of the field. The best quality research only cites the original sources.

You sir, are entirely correct. I really hope people follow this advice and attempt to educate themselves outside of the omnipresent, half baked, effortlessly consumed but not actually correct social media out there that touches on these subjects.

I honestly think if even a few of the regulars here who aren’t already doing this, start we would be better as a whole forum. IMO

Absolutely!

I quote part of the OP's post:

"The downside to scientific articles is the concepts can often be difficult for the average reader to grasp and the articles can be long".

Isn't that just the understatement of the century. I was reading a scientific study on breeding clown loach in captivity just yesterday. I didn't reach the end. I think these scientific reports are for other scientists to read, rather than Joe public.

This is very true. I am a biologist who works primarily in fisheries, but who has a passion for wetlands. For the past almost 12 years I have been saturated in these terms and principles, and from time to time, I'll dive into a paper and get so lost that all I can manage is a confused "wut?"

I can't imagine what it's like for a layperson reading some of these papers.

The thing we need more of on this forum is willing individuals who can understand the data, collate it, and present it in a fashion that most people can understand without having the data lose its integrity. One of my new mods, Fat Homer , has done a superb job of this in his new puffer fish sticky:

https://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/threads/f-w-puffer-reference-guide-introduction.711682/

I've fairly recently helped Hendre produce a wonderfully concise article on African knives as well.

I know a lot of people see these huge, concise threads and you think that it's not possible to do. That's not true. The ability to write these papers is a learned skill, one which any of you can do. All it really takes is one putting forth the time to gain a true understanding of a subject, to the point that you can easily and accurate explain it to someone else in layman's terms.

While I don't have the time to pump out articles like I used to do, I certainly have the time to give all of you all pointers and to serve as an editor. I will go out of my way to help you all with this, provided that you've done your diligence first. I fully encourage all of you to attempt this. Even if you don't know the forum software well enough to do anything more than to write a wall of text, that's fine. I'll happily make it pretty for you.

And, fwiw, I have no problems with you MFKers attempting to tackle 5-10 year old stickies to update them with current data. Hell, I encourage it.

I love how we're starting to get back to our roots here.

 

[duanes]

I had to write these type papers regularly for my work as a microbiologist, and there is a certain specific lingo, and form that was required and expected, to provide scientific accuracy. Most papers required pages of theory, method and technique to describe how the conclusions were exactly found ad nauseam, which for the average aquarist, unless there is a incremental interest say a particular "DNA technique" etc etc, these can be scanned at best, or even many times skipped and head strait to the meat, so the reader can save a lot of tedium by going strait from reading the intro, to the conclusions. Then later going back for details, like gill raker measurements, or fin ray counts, that describe how conclusion may have been reached later, if needed.
With my papers, although I had to dot every scientific eye and cross the similar Ts, and repeat myself throughout as any detail deviated, 98% of the time, my bosses went straight to from the opening to the conclusions, read that short page, and tossed it in a drawer.

 

[Hendre]

Agree with what has been said! I used google scholar to get my info, and found a great article by some German researchers which was the basis of my article on the knifefish. Also used some accounts of other Germans for the breeding. In short, pay www.google.de a visit since the German keepers tend to be rather thorough.

I also experience this in my Amazonas magazines, run from Germany. The articles, while written mostly by aquarists, are often thorough and the featured breeding describes setups, water conditions, feeding, time taken and so much other stuff. I often refer to them for certain fish. Well written articles by long term keepers are definitely worth a look. I'm quite upset now that my subscription is over, time to save for a new one!

There are plenty of studies on gut contents of fish, breeding reports and so much more if you look around. Worth a shot to get the proper info.