The past year has been an exceptional one for people following changes in global information resources. The digital libraries of the world's libraries have started in earnest, free access to information has been supported internationally (especially in science and medicine), Google, MSN Search and Yahoo have published a number of customization tools for user needs for different types of research.

The Google search engine made such an important contribution to the search industry that librarians began to ask complex questions. What will happen to mainstream libraries in the context of all these technologies and free digital information? Google’s goal is to facilitate access to the information accumulated around the world, but it’s also the essence of the work of librarians. Will they be necessary in the new information age?

Despite the many benefits of new technologies, they also generate fear. Recently, a letter arrived at the editors of the New England Journal of Medicine in which a New York rheumatologist described a case when a professor asked his colleague how he had diagnosed it. The answer was: "I captured the main manifestations of the disease in the patient on Google and got the diagnosis." The attending physician was struck by a diagnosis made by Google. "Are we no longer necessary doctors? Is it possible that a diagnosis can only be made by an observer who can carefully select the data to be entered into Google and the diagnosis appears like a wave of a magic wand?" Diagnose with Google, find treatment with Google - where does all this take us?

Google has won the race among search engines, at least for today, and its most intelligent descendant, Google Scholar, is moving forward. A year after its release, Google Scholar has helped find more information on biomedical magazine sites for more users than PubMed. Many medical students and doctors, becoming familiar with Google Scholar, have started to favor this particular search engine. Google Scholar, without losing the simplicity inherent in Google, successfully indexes peer-reviewed studies and quickly finds frequently cited sources, finding, as the saying goes, a needle in a haystack.

However, the way Scholar presents research results is somewhat unsuccessful and can take valuable time. Part of the Google-specific algorithm for assessing the meaning of an article is worth criticizing. The number of search results is acceptable, but the quality is often not satisfactory. Using some advanced options in the advanced search mode can be helpful and improve the accuracy of your search. But expect a lot of important information to be deleted, as recent publications are not among the first and cannot be sorted, downloaded, or emailed.

However, Scholar simplifies the initial search for doctors and, like PubMed, is free. The ability to search for and access scientific material free of charge is a boon for those who have no ties to major medical centers and universities.

When scientific societies and associations decide to make their journals available for free, Google Scholar and Scirus will likely become a reliable "key" to this information. The most useful innovation this year at Google Scholar is the "cited in" link system. This free tool allows the user to see other scientific publications which have cited the publication consulted. Scholar also allows you to find links to local library catalogs through its own special program and through the international WorldCat database.

When searching for clinical trials and systematic reviews, you should never limit yourself to using only Google Scholar. However, Google Scholar is a useful addition to PubMed, the Cochrane library and other reliable sources of information such as the TRIP and UpToDate databases or a good medical librarian. Use Google to search for government documents and conference publications in addition to Google Scholar.

The main questions for Google Scholar remain: "What is considered scientific data? Will we ever know exactly what is in the Google database? Can Google's algorithm display publications recent at the top of the search results page? And how often will Google databases be updated? "

If the creators of Google really want to do something for medicine, you should consider creating a medical portal. Call it Google Medicine, create an interface with medical filters, more suitable algorithms, index the best evidence (don't forget to consult the librarians where to find this data). Such a universal tool is essential for medicine, especially in developing countries.