Albatross vs. Pterosaur

Today, there was a paper tangentially related to pterosaurs in the open access journal PLoS ONE. A team of investigators wired up albatrosses and petrels with accelerometers, in order to measure the percentage of time these animals spent flapping their wings and soaring. They found two main styles of wing flapping (as inferred from the accelerometer measurements): 1) high frequency flapping during take-off; and 2) low-frequency flapping during soaring. Interestingly, the frequencies scale with body mass in such a way that a maximum possible body size for the albatross-like body plan that still allows flight is extrapolated to a body mass of 41 kg and wingspan of 5.1 m (with the requisite error bars, of course).

The authors then go on to discuss the implications for pterosaur paleobiology, essentially suggesting that albatross-style soaring was physically impossible for pterosaurs such as Quetzlcoatlus (assuming that it also had albatross-style wings). Frustratingly, there is little discussion of the alternative possibilities of wing shape in pterosaurs, among other things. Furthermore, the underlying data for the analysis only focus on four species of birds with limited morphological diversity. As suggested by the authors of the current paper, data on thermal-soaring birds such as condors (which have a decidedly un-albatross-like form) are sorely needed.

So, kudos to Sato et al. for collecting some interesting morphological data. This sort of information is invaluable for verifying and refining existing models of vertebrate flight. However, the relevance of the data to pterosaurs should probably be reviewed by someone who knows the group better than I do - so if you're one of those people, hop (or soar) on over to PLoS ONE and comment on the article!

Reference
Sato, K., Sakamoto, K., Watanuki, Y., Takahashi, A., Katsumata, N., Bost, C., & Weimerskirch, H. (2009). Scaling of soaring seabirds and implications for flight abilities of giant pterosaurs. PLoS ONE, 4 (4) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005400

Tyrannosaurus rex, The Tyrant King--Reviewed

For those who are interested, I have a book review of Tyrannosaurus rex, The Tyrant King, (edited by Peter Larson and Ken Carpenter), in the latest issue of the on-line, open access journal Palaeontologia Electronica. Go check it out (both the book and the review), and let me know what you think!

The latest issue of PE also features articles on Jurassic ammonites, ?Paleocene dinosaurs, and special photography techniques, along with book reviews (including one by Laelaps blogger Brian Switek) and an editorial.

Reference
Farke, A. A. 2009. Review of Larson, Peter L., and Carpenter, K., eds. Tyrannosaurus rex, The Tyrant
King. Palaeontologia Electronica 12, Issue 1, R2:2 pp.

Open Access Paleontology Journals - Community Opinions

We're almost to the end of the series on the 2009 Open Access Paleontology Journal Rankings (see other posts in the series here, here, and here)! Citations and number of papers are all well-and-good, but one thing that's often omitted in journal comparisons is community opinion. In other words, what do paleontologists think of this or that journal? Have they even heard of the journal?

In order to see how open access journals have fared within the paleontology community, I ran an informal survey. It provided a list of open access journals in paleontology, and asked respondents to rank each publication as "excellent," "good," "fair," "poor," or "I've never heard of it." This survey was advertised on this blog, Facebook, the Dinosaur Mailing List, VRTPALEO Mailing List, and Laelaps. Ninety-two people responded, but not everyone answered every question. I have no idea (for the most part) who filled out the survey, but given the scope of advertising and the bits of feedback I received, I suspect respondents were primarily professional paleontologists and students of paleontology. Given the distribution of results, I have no reason to suspect poll crashing, but would also caution that this is not a scientifically sampled survey, either.

The results were then tallied, and an average rating was assigned to each. An excellent counted as 1 point, good as 2, fair as 3, poor as 4, and "never heard of it" as 5 points. So, here's the list from highest to lowest rating; the results are presented as "Journal Name, Average Score, (# Excellent Ratings, # Good Ratings, # Fair Ratings, # Poor Ratings, # Never Heard of It, Total Responses)." Journals with immediate open access are listed in bold.

Community Opinions of Open Access Paleontological Journals, 2009

1. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 1.45 (53, 19, 7, 1, 0; 80 total)
   
2. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 1.52 (59, 20, 3, 1, 4; 87 total)
3. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 1.56 (53, 28, 5, 0, 3; 89 total)
4. American Museum Novitates, 1.57 (51, 33, 3, 0, 3; 90 total)
5. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, 1.64 (51, 30, 6, 0, 4; 91 total)
6. PLoS ONE, 1.79 (44, 27, 8, 3, 4; 86 total)
7. Palaeontologia Electronica, 1.94 (30, 38, 16, 0, 3; 87 total)
   
8. PLoS Biology, 1.99 (36, 32, 4, 2, 9; 83 total)
9. Biology Letters, 2.36 (23, 33, 11, 1, 13; 81 total)
   
10. Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology, 2.58 (18, 32, 11, 4, 15; 80 total)
11. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, 2.62 (19, 28, 17, 1, 17; 82 total)
12. Paläontologische Zeitschrift, 2.64 (17, 30, 20, 3, 15; 85 total)
13. Ameghiniana, 2.87 (12, 27, 23, 4, 18; 84 total)
14. Contributions in Science from the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, 2.92 (14, 27, 15, 6, 21; 83 total)
15. Vertebrata PalAsiatica, 3.01 (10, 22, 26, 9, 17; 84 total)
16. Geodiversitas, 3.08 (9, 29, 17, 4, 25; 84 total)
17. Contributions from the Museum of Paleontology, 3.31 (11, 20, 14, 3, 32; 80 total)
18. Revue de Paléobiologie, 3.48 (5, 23, 15, 3, 34; 80 total)
19. PalArch, 3.55 (4, 13, 28, 9, 29; 83 total)
20. Palaeodiversity, 3.71 (3, 22, 13, 3, 42; 83 total)
21. Memoir of the Fukui Prefectural Dinosaur Museum, 3.94 (3, 8, 19, 10, 39; 79 total)
22. The Open Paleontology Journal, 4.01 (4, 14, 9, 5, 50; 82 total)
23. Journal of Paleontological Techniques, 4.04 (5, 7, 14, 8, 46; 80 total)
24. Geologica Acta, 4.05 (1, 13, 15, 2, 48; 79 total)
    
25. Estudios Geológicos, 4.12 (1, 12, 14, 5, 51; 83 total)
26. Coloquios de Paleontología, 4.24 (2, 8, 14, 3, 56; 83 total)
27. Geogaceta, 4.43 (0, 7, 10, 5, 59; 81 total)
    
28. Natura Nascosta, 4.49 (0, 6, 8, 7, 60; 81 total)
29. Joannea - Geologie und Paläontologie, 4.51 (2, 5, 5, 7, 62; 81 total)
    

Notes
A low rating does not necessarily mean a journal for which paleontologists have a low opinion. In at least some cases (e.g., Palaeodiversity), low scores result largely from poor "brand recognition." As the crop of new journals matures, and as the internet allows broader distribution of work, this situation is likely to change.

The journals Revista Brasileira de Paleontologia, Science, and Journal of Paleontological Sciences were inadvertently omitted from the poll.

Final Thoughts
In hindsight, there are a few more things I'm curious about. How do major closed access journals such as JVP stack up against their open access brethern? Who responded to the survey, and how do different types of paleontologists (students, early career and late career professionals, etc.) consider open access journals versus their closed access counterparts? What are general attitudes amongst paleontologists towards open access?

Coming Up. . .A Final Post With Raw Scores

Open Access Paleontology Rankings - Part III

This post continues the series on the 2009 Open Access Paleontology Journal Rankings. Previously, I posted the rankings for Immediate Open Access Journals for General Submission and All Immediate Open Access Journals (including those museum publications with more restrictive submission requirements). Here, I'll release the final set of rankings, including both immediate open access and delayed open access journals. A number of notable journals (such as Science) now allow open access after a period of one year, so it only seemed fair to address them too.

As always, the ratings are based on a combination of journal citations, recent citations, number of articles, and community opinion (outlined previously). At the end of this series, I will post the raw data underlying the ratings.

Don't Forget The Caveats
Remember, these rankings are only one method for measuring the efficacy, quality, and impact of a journal, and you will probably disagree with one or more of the placements on the list. Especially for relatively young journals, rankings may change rapidly in the coming years.

Top Open Access Journals for Paleontology 2009
(General Results, Immediate and Delayed OA)

1. Science*
2. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
3. Proceedings of the Royal Society B
4. PLoS Biology
5. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History [tie]
   
6. [tie]
   
7. American Museum Novitates
   
8. Biology Letters
9. Ameghiniana
10. Paläontologische Zeitschrift
11. PLoS ONE
12. Palaeontologia Electronica
13. Geologica Acta
14. Vertebrata PalAsiatica
15. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Geodiversitas [tie]
16. [tie]
    
17. Geogaceta
18. Estudios Geológicos
19. Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology
20. Revue de Paléobiologie
21. Memoir of the Fukui Prefectural Dinosaur Museum
22. Contributions in Science from the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Contributions from the Museum of Paleontology [tie]
    
23. [tie]
    
24. Journal of Paleontological Sciences*
    
25. Coloquios de Paleontología
26. PalArch
27. Joannea - Geologie und Paläontologie
28. Natura Nascosta
29. The Open Paleontology Journal
30. Palaeodiversity
31. Journal of Paleontological Techniques
    

*not included in the community ranking survey

Note
It should be noted that some very fine journals (e.g., PaleoBios) have open access archives for older issues (five years or older), but these publications were not included on the general list. I made the somewhat arbitrary decision to exclude journals with lag times of greater than one year.

Up Next. . .Community Rankings of Journals

Open Access Paleontology Rankings - Part II

This post continues the series on the 2009 Open Access Paleontology Journal Rankings. Previously, I posted the rankings for Immediate Open Access Journals for General Submission. Here, I'll release the general results for Immediate Open Access Journals. As mentioned previously, this category includes both journals to which anyone can submit a manuscript, as well as those with more restrictive authorship requirements. This latter category includes several museum publications, such as American Museum Novitates [see their submission policies here]. For journals such as these, authors usually must be an employee or research associate of the publishing institution, or receive special invitation. Journals with delayed open access (such as Science) are not included on the present list.

As always, the ratings are based on a combination of journal citations, recent citations, number of articles, and community opinion (outlined in my previous post). At the end of this series, I will post the raw data underlying the ratings.

Yet Again With the Caveats
Remember, these rankings are only one method for measuring the efficacy, quality, and impact of a journal, and you will probably disagree with one or more of the placements on the list. Especially for relatively young journals, rankings may change rapidly in the coming years.

Top Immediate Open Access Journals for Paleontology 2009
(General Results)

1. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, American Museum Novitates, PLoS Biology [tie]
   
2. [tie]
3. [tie]
4. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History
5. Ameghiniana
6. Paläontologische Zeitschrift
7. PLoS ONE
8. Palaeontologia Electronica
9. Geologica Acta
10. Vertebrata PalAsiatica
11. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Geodiversitas [tie]
12. [tie]
    
13. Geogaceta
14. Estudios Geológicos
15. Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology
16. Contributions from the Museum of Paleontology
17. Revue de Paléobiologie
18. Memoir of the Fukui Prefectural Dinosaur Museum
19. Contributions in Science from the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
20. Journal of Paleontological Sciences*
    
21. Coloquios de Paleontología
22. PalArch
23. Joannea - Geologie und Paläontologie
24. Natura Nascosta
25. The Open Paleontology Journal
26. Palaeodiversity
27. Journal of Paleontological Techniques
    

*not included in the community ranking survey

Notes
In some cases, relative ranks of journals may differ in this list from the previous category. This is because journals are ranked relative to all entries in a single category. For instance, PLoS ONE and PLoS Biology were tied in the last list, but are separated in the present one. Let's consider the number of article citations - relative to all immediate open access journals, PLoS ONE is ranked fifteenth and PLoS Biology is ranked second. When we exclude museum journals, the ratings move to ninth and second, respectively. When you add up all the rankings, little changes like this can jostle a journal's position; such behavior is particularly common near the top of the list. Later, I'll be releasing the underlying data and you can see for yourself.

Up Next. . .All Open Access Journals

Open Access Paleontology Rankings - Part I

Over the next few days, I'll be posting results of the 2009 Open Access Paleontology Journal Rankings. These results will be divided into several categories, including:

• Immediate Open Access Journals for General Submission (journals to which anyone can submit [excluding most museum publications with more exclusive author criteria], and which provide open access immediately upon publication)
• Immediate Open Access Journals (same as above, with museum publications included)
• All Open Access Journals (includes those journals with delayed open access)
• Community Ranked Open Access Journals (journals as ranked by the opinions from the survey)

In this post, I'll just be covering Immediate Open Access Journals for General Submission. As described above, this includes only journals with immediate open access (versus open access after a set delay) and excludes those with restrictive authorship criteria (e.g., museum publications which usually require employment, association, or invitation to submit). The ratings are based on a combination of journal citations, recent citations, and community opinion (outlined in my previous post). At the end of this series, I will post the raw data underlying the ratings.

Again With the Caveats
Remember, these rankings are only one method for measuring the efficacy, quality, and impact of a journal, and you will probably disagree with one or more of the placements on the list. Especially for relatively young journals, rankings may change rapidly in the coming years.

Top Immediate Open Access Journals for Paleontology 2009
(General Submission)

1. Ameghiniana
2. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica
3. PLoS ONE, PLoS Biology [tie]
   
4. [tied for 3]
   
5. Paläontologische Zeitschrift
6. Geologica Acta
7. Palaeontologia Electronica
8. Vertebrata PalAsiatica
9. Geodiversitas
10. Geogaceta
11. Estudios Geológicos
12. Revue de Paléobiologie
13. Journal of Paleontological Sciences*
    
14. Coloquios de Paleontología
15. PalArch
16. Joannea - Geologie und Paläontologie
17. Natura Nascosta
18. The Open Paleontology Journal
19. Palaeodiversity
20. Journal of Paleontological Techniques
    

*not included in the community ranking survey

Notes
While compiling the results, I noted that sometimes community opinions of a journal varied from the rankings by sheer number of articles or citations. This will be highlighted in a future post. So, if you're worried because your favorite journal is lower than you thought, or your least favorite journal is higher than you thought, you'll probably be interested to see those results.

Unlike the widely-known Science Citation Index, these rankings include very new journals as well as more established journals. Thus, some rankings may change in the coming years are the new kids on the block accumulate more citations, more papers, and more exposure. Still, it is very interesting to note how some quite new journals (such as PLoS ONE) still have a high position within the list.

It is interesting to note how truly global this list is - a healthy mix of journals from South America, Europe, Asia, and North America round out the top 10. What does this mean, if anything, for the future of paleontology?

Up Next. . .All Immediate Open Access Journals

About the Ratings

In a series of posts over the next several days, I will be releasing the long-awaited(?) rankings of open access journals. This post will provide some background on the journals, the ratings, and my methodology.

What Are Open Access Journals?
If you are not familiar with the concept of open access publication, I recommend checking out my post, "Open Access Publishing and the Paleontologist."

Why Rate Journals?
Lots of open access journals are out there now--but not all are made equally. Some are widely read, others are ignored. Some publish high impact articles of general interest, and others are more focused in their scope. How is one to decide which publication to follow or submit research to? I've developed these ratings primarily as a service to those of us who are looking for open access journals in which to publish. Rankings that incorporate citation counts, numbers of articles published, and community opinion may be useful as one part of this decision-making progress.

How Were the Journals Chosen?
Basically, I combed the internet, dredged up my own knowledge of the literature, used the list on SV-POW!, and incorporated comments from readers. I have quite probably omitted one or two journals by accident, and I can assure you that this was unintentional. I adopted four criteria for selecting journals:

1. The journal must regularly publish articles on the topic of paleontology (a single article every two years is not sufficient).
2. Entire issues must be open access, not just selected articles.
3. The journal must be active, with at least one issue in 2008 (exceptions may be made for irregular museum publications that are not intended to be released on a set schedule).
4. The journal may have either immediate or delayed open access (a year is the cut-off point).

How Were the Journals Rated?
Journals were evaluated in five general areas:

1. Number of journal hits. This was calculated by searching for all articles within a given journal on Google Scholar, and recording the number of hits. [example]
   
2. Number of paleontology hits. This was calculated by searching for all articles within a given journal on Google Scholar that included the words "paleontology" or "fossil," and recording the number of hits. [example]
   
3. Number of article citations. This was calculated by searching for all articles within a given journal on Google Scholar that included the words "paleontology" or "fossil," and recording the number of citations for the top 10 search results. [example]
4. Number of citations of recent articles. This was calculated by searching for all articles within a given journal on Google Scholar that included the words "paleontology" or "fossil," published in 2007 or 2008, and recording the number of citations for the top 10 search results. [example]
   
5. Community rating. A survey was posted with a list of all journals, and respondents were invited to rate each journal as "excellent," "good," "fair," "poor," or "never heard of it." A notice of the survey was posted on this blog, Facebook, the Dinosaur Mailing List, VRTPALEO Mailing List, and Laelaps. Each journal was then given an overall rating, by weighting the number of responses in each category.
   

The journals were ranked in each category, and then an overall ranking incorporating all categories was calculated.

A Disclaimer
These are informal ratings, compiled in a manner that is probably non-scientific and flawed in one or more ways. No ranking system is perfect! Regardless of any imperfections, I think that these rankings may provide some useful information. Just take it with a grain of salt.

Coming up next. . .rankings for Immediate Open Access Only Journals.

Science - Now With Open Access Archives

Another high profile journal has made its first steps towards open access! I learned earlier today that Science now has free access to its archives, for articles older than one year and published on or after January 1997. Registration (free) is required, but this is quick and relatively painless.

Unfortunately, it is too late to add Science to the survey, but it will be included in other ranking methods. If you haven't already, don't forget to fill out the open access journal poll! It closes Friday night, 23 April.

[Note: I also learned that the journal has actually had open archives for since 2001 - wow, am I out of the loop!]

What Are the Best Open Access Journals for Paleontologists?

The number of open access journals available for paleontologists is growing rapidly (see both my previous post as well as a more comprehensive post over at SV-POW!). When it comes time to submit something for publication, the options can be quite disconcerting. What journal will best get that paper out there? Search engines are great for finding specific papers on a specific topic, but it's nice to know that the casual journal reader might also happen across your paper. So, which journals do my colleagues pay attention to? Which journals do my colleagues respect most?

Although inherently flawed in some respects, ranking systems provide a first pass at trying to evaluate publications. So, I've been working on developing a rudimentary ranking system for today's open access paleontology journals. And, I'd like your help! I'll be incorporating citation counts, page rankings, and other metrics, but would also like to consider reader opinion. So, I have developed a highly unscientific survey as part of this effort. Please take a few minutes to fill in your opinions.

As a preview, the survey provides a list of open access journals in paleontology, and asks you to rank them as "excellent," "good," "fair," "poor," or "I've never heard of it." The form will be open until next Friday evening at 11:45 (Pacific time). Results will be published here soon thereafter.

Coming Up, After Your Hard Work on the Poll: The Top Open Access Journals for Paleontology 2009.

Click Here to Take Survey

Open Access Journals in Paleontology

As part of a larger upcoming post (by the weekend, I hope), I am compiling a list of open access journals that regularly publish articles in paleontology. So far, the journals have been selected using the following criteria:

1) The journal must regularly publish articles on the topic of paleontology (a single article every two years is not sufficient).
2) Entire issues must be open access, not just selected articles.
3) The journal must be active, with at least one issue in 2008 (exceptions may be made for irregular museum publications that are not intended to be released on a set schedule).
4) The journal may have either immediate or delayed open access (a year is the cut-off point).

Here's what I have so far. . .any suggestions for additions or corrections? At this point, I am not making statements one way or another on the quality of the journals. . .just assembling a list!

Acta Palaeontologica Polonica
Ameghiniana
American Journal of Science
American Museum Novitates
Biology Letters
Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History
Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology
Coloquios de Paleontología
Contributions from the Museum of Paleontology
Contributions in Science from the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
Estudios Geológicos
Geodiversitas
Geogaceta
Geologica Acta
Joannea - Geologie und Paläontologie
Journal of Paleontological Techniques
Memoir of the Fukui Prefectural Dinosaur Museum
Natura Nascosta
Palaeodiversity
Palaeontologia Electronica
Paläontologische Zeitschrift
PalArch
PLoS Biology
PLoS ONE
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Proceedings of the Royal Society B
Revue de Paléobiologie
Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology
The Open Paleontology Journal
Vertebrata PalAsiatica

Keeping On Top of the Literature

With more journals accessible than ever before, drinking from the stream of knowledge is more like chugging from the fire hydrant of information. Jerry Harris lists over 300 journals that publish vertebrate paleontology-relevant content. . .and the number is increasing all the time! With papers ranging from the obscure to the earth-shaking, it's both an overwhelming and important task to keep on top of the literature.

Fortunately, the same resources that create this flood of information also offer some life rafts to stay afloat. In this post, I'll cover a few tips, tricks, and tools that I use to stay "in the know" on paleontology.

• Journal Subscriptions. If you're a paleontologist (avocational, professional, or otherwise) or paleontological enthusiast, you should be subscribing to one or two of the major journals in the field as part of your professional memberships (e.g., Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, Palaeontological Association, Paleontological Society). These will get you the earliest and easiest access to many of the most important articles in the field. Warning: Rant Ahead! Look - if you're seriously interested in paleontology, you need to join one of these societies. Not only do you get to support organizations that are doing good things in the name of paleontology, but you get journal access (print and/or online) as part of the package deal. And, they're really, truly not that expensive. I was a poor student once myself (and am still not what would be considered rich), but let's get real, folks. A student membership for SVP costs only $70 a year. Yes, I know that's real money. . .but it's also not much more than that copy of Halo 3 that you bought, or that history textbook you'll never read, that cable TV subscription you don't need, or the amount you spent on beer (or bottled water, or soda, or coffee, or energy drinks, or whatever your overpriced beverage of choice is) last month. An associate membership in SVP is but $50 (online access to the journal only, but a viable option for those folks who aren't students and/or don't think they will attend one of the annual meetings), and full membership is $140. Seriously - in most cases (and I recognize that there are some exceptions based on personal circumstances - you folks know who you are), there are no excuses for not joining at least one professional society. Start saving your pennies now, because it's an investment in your future as a paleontologist. (ok, my rant is over)
• Paleontology Mailing Lists. One of the few (in my opinion) remaining uses for the Dinosaur Mailing List is publication alerts posted by some generous members (in particular, Jerry Harris). These alerts often scrape together valuable papers from obscure or hard-to-find journals. The downside with subscribing is that you also get a blizzard of emails on how T. rex could best a pack of Spinosaurus, PDF requests, and the inevitable "that species name isn't spelled correctly" postings.
  
• Journal Web Pages. Most journals (at least, journals worth their salt) have web pages with listings of current content. So, you can always just browse on over, and see what this month's articles bring. Of course, this gets really old if there are more than about three journals to keep track of, and it's easy to forget. So, how about trying. . .
• Journal RSS Feeds. Some journals, such as Palaeontology, have RSS feeds available. These can be really handy, but again overwhelming if you really want to check on a whole host of journals. So, this brings us to. . .
  
• Journal Content Alerts. This is my personal favorite method for keeping updated on the latest and greatest papers. Many publishers and journal bundlers (including Wiley, Evilsevier, BioOne, PLoS, and others) allow you to sign up for free content alerts. So, when a new issue is published, you get a little email with a listing of every article in there. It's kinda like the old-fashioned technique of going to the journal stacks and thumbing through all of the recent issues, except you can do it in your pajamas without funny looks from librarians. As an added bonus, you often can set up searches for alerts whenever a topic of interest, like "dinosaur," shows up in any journal across the publisher's collection. This sometimes results in irrelevant papers (childhood education articles come up frequently), but it also might get you interesting hits from journals that you might not follow otherwise (e.g., respiratory physiology). I've set up a dedicated email account (thanks, Gmail!) just for this purpose.

So, it's easier than ever to be up-to-date on happenings in the journals. And, it isn't always impossible to get copies of these papers, either. The better you know the literature, the better your research will be!