DOCSLIB.ORG

NUFFIELD COUNCIL on BIOETHICS Council (06) 01

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
NUFFIELD COUNCIL on BIOETHICS Council (06) 01 The culture of scientific research Background paper Published December 2014 Contents Introduction 2 Research funding 3 Short-term project grants from research councils, charities and foundations 5 Peer review in funding allocation 8 Core funding and Research Assessment Framework (REF) 9 REF and Impact 11 REF and Publications 12 Effects of the REF on research priorities 13 Cost effectiveness of the REF 14 Publication of scientific research 14 Publication metrics 16 Publication bias towards positive findings 18 Duplication 19 Verification and reproducibility of published research 20 Clinical trial data 22 Open access 22 Authorship 25 Peer review and publication ethics 27 Conducting scientific research 29 Interdisciplinarity and team science 30 Internationality 31 Training 32 Commercialisation of research 33 Media coverage of science 35 Careers 36 Doctoral students 37 Early career researchers and short-term contracts 38 Research assessment and workloads 40 Women in science 41 Leadership and organisational culture 42 Impact on wellbeing 43 Research integrity, regulation and governance 43 Misconduct in science 43 Regulation and governance 45 Management of charges of misconduct 46 1 Introduction 1 This paper provides a review of recent research, evidence, media and policy activities related to the culture of scientific research in the UK in order to provide background information for the Nuffield Council on Bieothics’ project on this topic. 2 The paper does not attempt to map exhaustively the issues or to reach any particular conclusions or recommendations. It instead seeks to set out the background as a basis for work by the Council and others in understanding whether and how concerns about the current culture of research might influence research behaviour and activity. 3 Scientific research is conducted by individuals in a variety of environments, for different purposes. Scientists work at universities, research institutions, research charities, trusts and foundations, Goernment departments, agencies and research councils, as well as in industry for profit-focused organisations such as pharmaceutical or technology companies. Some researchers work on collaborative projects combining expertise from the public, charitable and private sectors. 4 The research sector has grown significantly over the last 60 years. It is estimated that the numbers working in science research have increased from a few hundred thousand in the 1950s to 6 – 7 million today.1 5 A range of different factors work together to influence how researchers do science, including competition for funding, research assessment, publication of research and peer review, career paths and research governance. A short overview of the some key issues affecting science is set out in this paper, including: • science funding, looking at where money for science comes from, and how it is allocated; the prevalence of short term grants in the sciences; and research assessment activities that determine the allocation of core funding to higher education research institutions in the UK. • science publishing, in particular, claims that there are biases in how science journals select papers for publication; debates around open access publishing; issues relating to peer review including questions around its efficacy and fairness; proposals for different models of post publication peer review; and authorship and publication ethics. 1 The Economist (19 October 2013) How science goes wrong. 2 • how science is conducted, including growing trends towards interdisciplinary approaches, as well the impact of the progressively international nature of science, training, commercialisation and the influence of the media. • science careers, including pressures affecting particular groups of UK scientists and how the field is viewed by researchers as a profession. • the current regulatory and governance frameworks for scientific researchers and issues around research integrity and misconduct; the prevalence and nature of scientific misconduct, the procedures to which researchers are subject, and the effectiveness of initiatives developed to promote research ethics. Research funding 6 In the UK, funding for publicly supported research has diminished over the last four years. Whilst science was considered to have fared less badly than other areas of public spending in the Coalition Government’s 2010 spending review, scientific research nevertheless experienced a real-terms cut of around ten per cent.2 Though recent Government announcements make commitments to maintain steady levels of funding for the UK science research councils, funding across the higher education sector as a whole is due to decrease by £125m for 2014-15.3 This trend is not confined to public sector funding. In the private sector, spend on research and development increased by just one per cent between 2007 and 2013, compared with an increase of 34per cent between 1995 and 2011.4 The discrepancy between demand for, and availability of, research funding means competition for money to support science is high. 7 Public funding for scientific research comes from a range of sources. These include Government departments, such as the Department of Health and the Ministry of Defence, through the UK research councils, including the Medical Research Council and the Science and Technology Facilities Council, and through the higher education funding bodies. There are three bodies that have this function in the UK: the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), the Scottish Funding Council (SFC), and the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (HEFCW). In Northern Ireland, this role is undertaken directly by the Department for Employment and Learning. The bodies deliver institutions’ ‘core funding’, money allocated for teaching, 2 The Guardian (19 October 2010) Spending review spares science budget from deep cuts. 3 Research Fortnight (11 February 2014) Another year of tight cash for the UK research councils. 4 National Audit Office (2013) Research and Development funding for science and technology in the UK, available at: http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Research-and-development-funding-for-science- and-technology-in-the-UK1.pdf. 3 research and related activities, over which each institution takes its own, local decisions about allocation. 8 Research council funding, on the other hand, is typically allocated through short-term (typically three year) awards for particular projects led by individual scientists or small teams. Funding administered through the UK’s higher education funding bodies (core funding) to higher education institutions (HEIs) amounted to £2.5475 billion in 2011, whereas money allocated through the individual research councils for projects run in HEIs, public research institutions, private non-profit orgnasations, UK businesses and overseas research, totalled £3.130 billion.6 Area-specific bodies, such as the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) which funds research aimed at improving national health services in the UK, also allocate Government money to 7 particular projects. 9 Other sources of funding are charities, trusts and foundations which typically make grants or awards for short-term or defined-length projects. The Wellcome Trust is the UK’s largest non-Government funder of biomedical research, investing around £600m per year in science with the potential to improve human and animal health.8 The Royal Society, one of the principal learned societies for science, is another funder of research in the UK. There are also a number of charitable trusts and foundations, such as The Leverhulme Trust and The Wolfson Foundation, providing grants and awards to individual research projects, usually for defined periods of time. Medical research charities, such as the Multiple Sclerosis Society and Cancer Research UK for example, provide support for basic and clinical research, on research into particular diseases. 10 European Union (EU) funding is now a significant source of support for science in European universities and businesses. UK science is typically successful in competing for EU research grant money, receiving a larger share than any other EU state, excluding Germany.9 The European Commission’s primary science funding scheme over the last seven years, the 7th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development or ‘FP7’ recently concluded and had a budget of 53.2 billion euros (£42.1 billion) for the seven years between 2007 and 2013. It was estimated that this resulted in 1 billion 5 See Figure 2 of National Audit Office (2013) Research and Development funding for science and technology in the UK, available at: http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Research-and- development-funding-for-science-and-technology-in-the-UK1.pdf. 6 The proportion of money distributed to scientific research through short-term project-specific funding is particularly high in the UK, as compared to some of the other European states, which do not all have state research councils, as in the UK. 7 The NIHR model now makes use of a model ‘Adding Value in Research’, designed to optimise use of resources, which proactively commissions research it has previously identified as necessary or useful for improving health services. National Insitutue of Health Research (2014) Research. 8 Wellcome Trust (2014) Frequently asked questions. 9 BBC news (31 January 2014) Horizon 2010: UK launch for EU’s £67bn research budget. 4 euros (£0.8 billion) per year, on average, being directed to UK science during
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Plan S in Latin America: a Precautionary Note
    Plan S in Latin America: A precautionary note Humberto Debat1 & Dominique Babini2 1Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (IPAVE-CIAP-INTA), Argentina, ORCID id: 0000-0003-3056-3739, [email protected] 2Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales (CLACSO), Argentina. ORCID id: 0000-0002- 5752-7060, [email protected] Latin America has historically led a firm and rising Open Access movement and represents the worldwide region with larger adoption of Open Access practices. Argentina has recently expressed its commitment to join Plan S, an initiative from a European consortium of research funders oriented to mandate Open Access publishing of scientific outputs. Here we suggest that the potential adhesion of Argentina or other Latin American nations to Plan S, even in its recently revised version, ignores the reality and tradition of Latin American Open Access publishing, and has still to demonstrate that it will encourage at a regional and global level the advancement of non-commercial Open Access initiatives. Plan S is an initiative from a European consortium of research funders, with the intention of becoming international, oriented to mandate Open Access publishing of research outputs funded by public or private grants, starting from 2021. Launched in September 2018 and revised in May 2019, the plan supported by the so-called cOAlition S involves 10 principles directed to achieve scholarly publishing in “Open Access Journals, Open Access Platforms, or made immediately available through Open Access Repositories without embargo” [1]. cOAlition S, coordinated by Science Europe and comprising 16 national research funders, three charitable foundations and the European Research Council, has pledged to coordinately implement the 10 principles of Plan S in 2021.
    [Show full text]
  • Sci-Hub Provides Access to Nearly All Scholarly Literature
    Sci-Hub provides access to nearly all scholarly literature A DOI-citable version of this manuscript is available at https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.3100. This manuscript was automatically generated from greenelab/scihub-manuscript@51678a7 on October 12, 2017. Submit feedback on the manuscript at git.io/v7feh or on the analyses at git.io/v7fvJ. Authors • Daniel S. Himmelstein 0000-0002-3012-7446 · dhimmel · dhimmel Department of Systems Pharmacology and Translational Therapeutics, University of Pennsylvania · Funded by GBMF4552 • Ariel Rodriguez Romero 0000-0003-2290-4927 · arielsvn · arielswn Bidwise, Inc • Stephen Reid McLaughlin 0000-0002-9888-3168 · stevemclaugh · SteveMcLaugh School of Information, University of Texas at Austin • Bastian Greshake Tzovaras 0000-0002-9925-9623 · gedankenstuecke · gedankenstuecke Department of Applied Bioinformatics, Institute of Cell Biology and Neuroscience, Goethe University Frankfurt • Casey S. Greene 0000-0001-8713-9213 · cgreene · GreeneScientist Department of Systems Pharmacology and Translational Therapeutics, University of Pennsylvania · Funded by GBMF4552 PeerJ Preprints | https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.3100v2 | CC BY 4.0 Open Access | rec: 12 Oct 2017, publ: 12 Oct 2017 Abstract The website Sci-Hub provides access to scholarly literature via full text PDF downloads. The site enables users to access articles that would otherwise be paywalled. Since its creation in 2011, Sci- Hub has grown rapidly in popularity. However, until now, the extent of Sci-Hub’s coverage was unclear. As of March 2017, we find that Sci-Hub’s database contains 68.9% of all 81.6 million scholarly articles, which rises to 85.2% for those published in toll access journals.
    [Show full text]
  • Ten Simple Rules for Scientific Fraud & Misconduct
    Ten Simple Rules for Scientic Fraud & Misconduct Nicolas P. Rougier1;2;3;∗ and John Timmer4 1INRIA Bordeaux Sud-Ouest Talence, France 2Institut des Maladies Neurodeg´ en´ eratives,´ Universite´ de Bordeaux, CNRS UMR 5293, Bordeaux, France 3LaBRI, Universite´ de Bordeaux, Institut Polytechnique de Bordeaux, CNRS, UMR 5800, Talence, France 4Ars Technica, Conde´ Nast, New York, NY, USA ∗Corresponding author: [email protected] Disclaimer. We obviously do not encourage scientific fraud nor misconduct. The goal of this article is to alert the reader to problems that have arisen in part due to the Publish or Perish imperative, which has driven a number of researchers to cross the Rubicon without the full appreciation of the consequences. Choosing fraud will hurt science, end careers, and could have impacts on life outside of the lab. If you’re tempted (even slightly) to beautify your results, keep in mind that the benefits are probably not worth the risks. Introduction So, here we are! You’ve decided to join the dark side of Science. at’s great! You’ll soon discover a brand new world of surprising results, non-replicable experiments, fabricated data, and funny statistics. But it’s not without risks: fame and shame, retractions and lost grants, and… possibly jail. But you’ve made your choice, so now you need to know how to manage these risks. Only a few years ago, fraud and misconduct was a piece of cake (See the Mechanical Turk, Perpetual motion machine, Life on Moon, Piltdown man, Water memory). But there are lots of new players in town (PubPeer, RetractionWatch, For Beer Science, Neuroskeptic to name just a few) who have goen prey good at spoing and reporting fraudsters.
    [Show full text]
  • How Frequently Are Articles in Predatory Open Access Journals Cited
    publications Article How Frequently Are Articles in Predatory Open Access Journals Cited Bo-Christer Björk 1,*, Sari Kanto-Karvonen 2 and J. Tuomas Harviainen 2 1 Hanken School of Economics, P.O. Box 479, FI-00101 Helsinki, Finland 2 Department of Information Studies and Interactive Media, Tampere University, FI-33014 Tampere, Finland; Sari.Kanto@ilmarinen.fi (S.K.-K.); tuomas.harviainen@tuni.fi (J.T.H.) * Correspondence: bo-christer.bjork@hanken.fi Received: 19 February 2020; Accepted: 24 March 2020; Published: 26 March 2020 Abstract: Predatory journals are Open Access journals of highly questionable scientific quality. Such journals pretend to use peer review for quality assurance, and spam academics with requests for submissions, in order to collect author payments. In recent years predatory journals have received a lot of negative media. While much has been said about the harm that such journals cause to academic publishing in general, an overlooked aspect is how much articles in such journals are actually read and in particular cited, that is if they have any significant impact on the research in their fields. Other studies have already demonstrated that only some of the articles in predatory journals contain faulty and directly harmful results, while a lot of the articles present mediocre and poorly reported studies. We studied citation statistics over a five-year period in Google Scholar for 250 random articles published in such journals in 2014 and found an average of 2.6 citations per article, and that 56% of the articles had no citations at all. For comparison, a random sample of articles published in the approximately 25,000 peer reviewed journals included in the Scopus index had an average of 18, 1 citations in the same period with only 9% receiving no citations.
    [Show full text]
  • Consultative Review Is Worth the Wait Elife Editors and Reviewers Consult with One Another Before Sending out a Decision After Peer Review
    FEATURE ARTICLE PEER REVIEW Consultative review is worth the wait eLife editors and reviewers consult with one another before sending out a decision after peer review. This means that authors do not have to spend time responding to confusing or conflicting requests for revisions. STUART RF KING eer review is a topic that most scientists And since 2010, The EMBO Journal has asked have strong opinions on. Many recognize reviewers to give feedback on each other’s P that constructive and insightful com- reviews the day before the editor makes the ments from reviewers can strengthen manu- decision (Pulverer, 2010). Science introduced a scripts. Yet the process is criticized for being too similar (and optional) cross-review stage to its slow, for being biased and for quashing revolu- peer review process in 2013. tionary ideas while, at the same time, letting all Improving the peer review system was also sorts of flawed papers get published. There are one of the goals when eLife was set up over five also two concerns that come up time and again: years ago. Towards this end the journal’s Editor- requests for additional experiments that are in-Chief Randy Schekman devised an approach beyond the scope of the original manuscript to peer review in which editors and reviewers (Ploegh, 2011), and reports from reviewers that actively discuss the scientific merits of the manu- directly contradict each other. As Leslie Vosshall, scripts submitted to the journal before reaching a neuroscientist at The Rockefeller University, a decision (Box 1). The aim of this consultation, puts it: "Receiving three reviews that say which starts once all the reviews have been completely different things is the single most received, is to identify the essential revisions, to infuriating issue with science publishing." resolve any conflicting statements or uncertainty Editors and reviewers are also aware of these in the reviews, and to exclude redundant or problems.
    [Show full text]
  • SUBMISSION from SPRINGER NATURE Making Plan S Successful
    PLAN S IMPLEMENTATION GUIDANCE: SUBMISSION FROM SPRINGER NATURE Springer Nature welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback to the cOAlition S Implementation Guidance and contribute to the discussion on how the transition to Open Access (OA) can be accelerated. Our submission below focuses mainly on the second question posed in the consultation: Are there other mechanisms or requirements funders should consider to foster full and immediate Open Access of research outputs? Making Plan S successful: a commitment to open access Springer Nature is dedicated to accelerating the adoption of Open Access (OA) publishing and Open Research techniques. As the world’s largest OA publisher we are a committed partner for cOAlition S funders in achieving this goal which is also the primary focus of Plan S. Our recommendations below are therefore presented with the aim of achieving this goal. As a first mover, we know the (multiple) challenges that need to be overcome: funding flows that need to change, a lack of cooperation in funder policies, a lack of global coordination, the need for a cultural change in researcher assessment and metrics in research, academic disciplines that lack OA resources, geographic differences in levels of research output making global “Publish and Read” deals difficult and, critically, an author community that does not yet view publishing OA as a priority. While this uncertainty remains, we need the benefits of OA to be better described and promoted as well as support for the ways that enable us and other publishers to cope with the rapidly increasing demand. We therefore propose cOAlition S adopt the following six recommendations which we believe are necessary to deliver Plan S’s primary goal of accelerating the take-up of OA globally while minimising costs to funders and other stakeholders: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Do You Speak Open Science? Resources and Tips to Learn the Language
    Do You Speak Open Science? Resources and Tips to Learn the Language. Paola Masuzzo1, 2 - ORCID: 0000-0003-3699-1195, Lennart Martens1,2 - ORCID: 0000- 0003-4277-658X Author Affiliation 1 Medical Biotechnology Center, VIB, Ghent, Belgium 2 Department of Biochemistry, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium Abstract The internet era, large-scale computing and storage resources, mobile devices, social media, and their high uptake among different groups of people, have all deeply changed the way knowledge is created, communicated, and further deployed. These advances have enabled a radical transformation of the practice of science, which is now more open, more global and collaborative, and closer to society than ever. Open science has therefore become an increasingly important topic. Moreover, as open science is actively pursued by several high-profile funders and institutions, it has fast become a crucial matter to all researchers. However, because this widespread interest in open science has emerged relatively recently, its definition and implementation are constantly shifting and evolving, sometimes leaving researchers in doubt about how to adopt open science, and which are the best practices to follow. This article therefore aims to be a field guide for scientists who want to perform science in the open, offering resources and tips to make open science happen in the four key areas of data, code, publications and peer-review. The Rationale for Open Science: Standing on the Shoulders of Giants One of the most widely used definitions of open science originates from Michael Nielsen [1]: “Open science is the idea that scientific knowledge of all kinds should be openly shared as early as is practical in the discovery process”.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloads Presented on the Abstract Page
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.27.063578; this version posted April 28, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. A systematic examination of preprint platforms for use in the medical and biomedical sciences setting Jamie J Kirkham1*, Naomi Penfold2, Fiona Murphy3, Isabelle Boutron4, John PA Ioannidis5, Jessica K Polka2, David Moher6,7 1Centre for Biostatistics, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom. 2ASAPbio, San Francisco, CA, USA. 3Murphy Mitchell Consulting Ltd. 4Université de Paris, Centre of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), Inserm, Paris, F-75004 France. 5Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS) and Departments of Medicine, of Epidemiology and Population Health, of Biomedical Data Science, and of Statistics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. 6Centre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada. 7School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. *Corresponding Author: Professor Jamie Kirkham Centre for Biostatistics Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health The University of Manchester Jean McFarlane Building Oxford Road Manchester, M13 9PL, UK Email: [email protected] Tel: +44 (0)161 275 1135 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.27.063578; this version posted April 28, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
    [Show full text]
  • Are Funder Open Access Platforms a Good Idea?
    1 Are Funder Open Access Platforms a Good Idea? 1 2 3 2 Tony Ross-Hellauer , Birgit Schmidt , and Bianca Kramer 1 3 Know-Center, Austria, (corres. author: [email protected]) 2 4 Goettingen State and University Library, Germany 3 5 Utrecht University Library, Netherlands 6 May 23, 2018 1 PeerJ Preprints | https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.26954v1 | CC BY 4.0 Open Access | rec: 23 May 2018, publ: 23 May 2018 7 Abstract 8 As open access to publications continues to gather momentum we should continu- 9 ously question whether it is moving in the right direction. A novel intervention in this 10 space is the creation of open access publishing platforms commissioned by funding or- 11 ganisations. Examples include those of the Wellcome Trust and the Gates Foundation, 12 as well as recently announced initiatives from public funders like the European Commis- 13 sion and the Irish Health Research Board. As the number of such platforms increases, it 14 becomes urgently necessary to assess in which ways, for better or worse, this emergent 15 phenomenon complements or disrupts the scholarly communications landscape. This 16 article examines ethical, organisational and economic strengths and weaknesses of such 17 platforms, as well as usage and uptake to date, to scope the opportunities and threats 18 presented by funder open access platforms in the ongoing transition to open access. The 19 article is broadly supportive of the aims and current implementations of such platforms, 20 finding them a novel intervention which stand to help increase OA uptake, control costs 21 of OA, lower administrative burden on researchers, and demonstrate funders’ commit- 22 ment to fostering open practices.
    [Show full text]
  • Index of /Sites/Default/Al Direct/2012/June
    AL Direct, June 6, 2012 Contents American Libraries Online | ALA News | Booklist Online Anaheim Update | Division News | Awards & Grants | Libraries in the News Issues | Tech Talk | E-Content | Books & Reading | Tips & Ideas Great Libraries of the World | Digital Library of the Week | Calendar The e-newsletter of the American Library Association | June 6, 2012 American Libraries Online Transforming libraries—and ALA— continued When Maureen Sullivan becomes ALA president on June 26, one thing that is certain to continue ALA Annual Conference, from Molly Raphael’s presidency is the thematic Anaheim, June 21–26. If focus on transforming libraries. “Our shared you can’t attend the vision around community engagement and whole ALA Annual transforming libraries will move forward without a break,” Raphael Conference, the Exhibits said. She added that ALA is uniquely positioned to contribute to Only passes starting at efforts underway all over the country—indeed the world—to transform $25 are ideal. In addition libraries into places that engage with the communities they serve.... to the 800+ booths to American Libraries feature explore, the advance Happy Birthday, Prop. 13 reading copy giveaways, the many authors, and Beverly Goldberg writes: “Proposition 13, the the knowledgeable California property tax–cap initiative that unleashed vendors, you can enjoy an era of fervent antitax sentiment and activism dozens of events. You can across the US, is 34 years old today. It wasn’t that attend ALA Poster Californians had tired of government services, Sessions, visit the ALA explains Cody White in his award-winning essay in Conference Store, or drop Libraries & the Cultural Record.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategische Und Operative Handlungsoptionen Für Wissenschaftliche Einrichtungen Zur Gestaltung Der Open-Access-Transformation
    ! ! ! !"#$"%&'()*%+,-.+/0%#$"'1%+2$-.3,-&(/0"'/-%-+ 45#+6'((%-()*$4"3')*%+7'-#')*",-&%-+8,#+ 9%("$3",-&+.%#+:0%-;<))%((;=#$-(4/#>$"'/-+ ! "#$$%&'('#)*! "#$!%$&'()#()!*+,!'-'*+./,01+(!2$'*+,! ")+')&!,-#.)$),-#(%! /"&0!,-#.01! ! +/()+$+/013! '(!*+$!41/&5,561/,01+(!7'-#&383! *+$!9#.:5&*3;<(/=+$,/383!"#!>+$&/(! ! =5(!9+/("!4'.6+&! ! ! ?/+!4$8,/*+(3/(!*+$!9#.:5&*3;<(/=+$,/383!"#!>+$&/(@!! 4$5AB!?$B;C()B!?$B!D':/(+!E#(,3! ! ?/+!?+-'(/(!*+$!41/&5,561/,01+(!7'-#&383@! 4$5AB!?$B!2':$/+&+!F+3"&+$! ! ! 2#3'013+$! %$,3)#3'013+$@!! ! 4$5AB!?$B!4+3+$!D01/$.:'01+$! GH+/3)#3'013+$@!! 4$5AB!?$B!I5&A$'.!95$,3.'((! ! ?'3#.!*+$!?/,6#3'3/5(@!JKB!F'/!LMLJ! !"#$%&'()*+),-#",'. G#,'..+(A',,#()!BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB!NC! O:,3$'03!BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB!NCC! ?'(-,')#()!BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB!NCCC! O:-P$"#(),=+$"+/01(/,!BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB!CQ! R':+&&+(=+$"+/01(/,!BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB!QCC! O::/&*#(),=+$"+/01(/,!BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB!QCCC!
    [Show full text]
  • List of Search Engines
    A blog network is a group of blogs that are connected to each other in a network. A blog network can either be a group of loosely connected blogs, or a group of blogs that are owned by the same company. The purpose of such a network is usually to promote the other blogs in the same network and therefore increase the advertising revenue generated from online advertising on the blogs.[1] List of search engines From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia For knowing popular web search engines see, see Most popular Internet search engines. This is a list of search engines, including web search engines, selection-based search engines, metasearch engines, desktop search tools, and web portals and vertical market websites that have a search facility for online databases. Contents 1 By content/topic o 1.1 General o 1.2 P2P search engines o 1.3 Metasearch engines o 1.4 Geographically limited scope o 1.5 Semantic o 1.6 Accountancy o 1.7 Business o 1.8 Computers o 1.9 Enterprise o 1.10 Fashion o 1.11 Food/Recipes o 1.12 Genealogy o 1.13 Mobile/Handheld o 1.14 Job o 1.15 Legal o 1.16 Medical o 1.17 News o 1.18 People o 1.19 Real estate / property o 1.20 Television o 1.21 Video Games 2 By information type o 2.1 Forum o 2.2 Blog o 2.3 Multimedia o 2.4 Source code o 2.5 BitTorrent o 2.6 Email o 2.7 Maps o 2.8 Price o 2.9 Question and answer .
    [Show full text]