Skip to main content

Useful tools for researchers...

Yes, this isn't a review of an article or neuroscience topic as such (more of those soon).  That said, I've found the following pieces of software have become indispensable to me as a researcher - and what's more, they're free.



I started using Mendeley (a reference and bibliographic organizer) a couple of years ago and was using Endnote (C) at the time.  I've found that as time has passed, Mendeley has become increasingly user friendly and my envy for those with the Mac software "Papers" has decreased exponentially.  This software practically does it all: import PDFs and it will automatically rename them according to your preference (mine are all author, year, title) which makes finding references later a breeze.  All your references will be saved to a single directory (which you can further subdivide into folders according to author name, year, title, or journal).  

There is also in-text citation integration for word and LaTex which last time I checked, Papers had only just implemented.  Multiple journal styles are available for download, and if you happened to write the document using one style and you need to switch to a journal specific citation method, you can change your style after the fact.

Perhaps one of the best (most underutilized) aspect of this software is the ability to collaborate with fellow researchers and share references and notes.  Likely the biggest barrier to this is that many people already have a citation system in place and getting an entire research group to move over to a new one is a bit of an undertaking - unless you happen to be the P.I., in which case you could just "suggest" it.  



Endnote has been gathering dust on my desktop for at least a year and I will likely uninstall it soon; Mendeley is just too good a competitor.  If you haven't checked it out, do so, it's definitely worth it.


The other software that I am starting to use much more regularly is 'R'.  This is largely due to a recent, much more user friendly interface that has been released - RStudio.   On it's own R is a pain to learn - one of the most trying things in the beginning (especially if one comes from a non-programming background) is actually loading data into the program in the correct format.  RStudio, a GUI front for R makes this and more far, easier, and in doing so, makes it much more likely that this tool will be used not only by statisticians, but by the wider scientific community.

R's Basic Terminal - quite daunting for those unfamiliar with programming or Linux/Unix based systems
The far more friendly RStudio Graphic User Interface.  R still runs the show, RStudio just makes sure it doesn't give you a headache in the process.


So, if you're using SPSS, STATA, MATLAB or otherwise, why consider RStudio?

Well, it's free, it's very good at statistical computing, and it has beautiful (publication level) graphical capabilities.  It's also highly customizable meaning that you can run the analysis you want/need to without being constrained by what the program thinks you should do (I'm looking at you SPSS).

Yes, it is a programming language, yes it will be a bit of a learning curve, but because the software is free, constantly updated and very well supported by a vibrant community, it's definitely worth the effort to get to know.  For the more nerdy, RStudio is also well integrated with LaTex which means that it is now quite easy to create beautiful PDFs containing text, code and outputs of your R analyses.  What's more, should you need to update your data, you can simply recreate the PDF from your code and it will update all the relevant data.


If you have any comments or suggestions for programs you've found useful for research, feel free to post below.  
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

On the use and abuse of Hairballs. What might graph-theory mean for cognitive neuroscience?

Olaf Sporns Discovering the Human Connectome H aving just returned from the OHBM (Organization for Human Brain Mapping) it's not hard to be phenomenally ecstatic about the state of research and raring to apply new techniques and theories to my data.   There is much to be hopeful for; I encountered many brilliant people who are excited about their research and how neuroscience is helping to unlock the secrets of the mind. That said, there did seem to be a great deal of research that was following the coat-tails of last year's big ideas.  This year the "big thing" was graph theory - the branch of mathematics and computer science that was previously applied to other fields such as social network visualization and biology  by Olaf Sporns and applied to brain networks.   Graph theory works on the notion that you can reduce a matrix (normally a correlation matrix) to a set of nodes (which represent specific brain regions) and edges (which represent either phys...
3 comments
Read more

Video games allow for multitasking? A review of "Improving multi-tasking ability through action videogames"

W ould you believe that playing video games could make you more likely to succeed as a pilot? There's been quite a bit of colloquial evidence on multitasking and task-switching floating around the internet recently, thanks in no small part to work by Ophir et al., (2009) who showed that people who are habitual media-multitaskers (i.e. those annoying people who text while watching a movie or even worse while driving) tend to perform worse on a wide variety of cognitive measures of attention.  They concluded that people who are chronic media multitaskers have a "leaky filter", and as such cannot block out irrelevant (and distracting) information.  This agrees nicely other theories of attention, and particularly inhibitory theory (Hasher & Zacks, Michael C. Anderson, Gazzaley). One reason that multitasking has come under such scrutiny is that it is now encouraged and even expected in many professions and by many employers.  Even in situations where multitasking...
Post a Comment
Read more

Review of "Memory's Penumbra: Episodic Memory Decisions Induce Lingering Mnemonic Biases"

Memory can be biased - here's how... As an aside, I always like to see the authors of the papers - that way, if I should ever see them at a conference, I can capitalize on my terrible source memory and approach them saying "don't I know you from somewhere?".  It also helps attribute, recognition where it is due.   Katherine Duncan Arhanti Sadanand Lila Davachi I attended a talk given by Katherine Duncan at the Rotman Research Institute (where I work).  The talk, was largely based on the findings from the Science paper that came out in July.  The talk was great - and just as importantly, so is the paper and its findings. The idea comes from neuroscience, yet the paper itself is entirely behavioral - something some of the senior faculty liked - that it was still possible to get a psychology/neuroscience paper into Science  without resorting to newfangled methods like fMRI.   Even without fMRI, the paper i...
Post a Comment
Read more