PubMed
Shares rank 2 of 4 academic search engines by recommenders
Free search of peer-reviewed studies, not limited to preprints, valued for deterministic query operators. Its heavy reCAPTCHA use is the main complaint.
Free search of peer-reviewed studies, not limited to preprints, valued for deterministic query operators. Its heavy reCAPTCHA use is the main complaint.
9 people gave an opinion
- recommend it
- 8
- criticize it
- 1
- approval share
- 89%
Recommended in 6 of 13 months
- November 2025: recommended
- December 2025: recommended
- January 2026: recommended
- February 2026: recommended
- March 2026: not recommended
- April 2026: not recommended
- May 2026: recommended
- June 2026: recommended
- July 2026: not recommended
- August 2026: not recommended
- September 2026: not recommended
- October 2026: not recommended
- November 2026: not recommended (month in progress)
Why it doesn’t carry the badge
- 8 people recommend itNeeds 10 or more, not met.
- 8 recommenders for every criticNeeds 2 to 1 or better, met.
- Recommended in 6 of 13 monthsNeeds 4 or more, met.
The same three rules apply to every product, and the badge can’t be bought. How the badge works
What people say about it
The reasons people give, with the number of comments that give each one. Open a reason to read what they said.
Why people recommend it
Each mark is one comment
Deterministic search operators and query logic
“Thank god for pubmed and deterministic search operators.”
Comment from 14 Feb 2026 in “Internet Increasingly Becoming Unarchivable” “the logic you can craft in your queries”
Comment from 17 May 2026 in “AI is a technology not a product” Free access to peer-reviewed studies
“Peer reviewed studies are surprisingly accessible (e.g. PubMed et al.)”
Comment from 12 Jan 2026 in “Introducing ChatGPT Health” “pubmed is free and not limited to preprints”
Comment from 31 Dec 2025 in “Show HN: Use Claude Code to Query 600 GB Indexes over Hacker News, ArXiv, etc.” Good for overview and cross-checking
“The potentially easier way at least to get a lay of the land is to follow pubmed”
Comment from 6 Nov 2025 in “New gel restores dental enamel and could revolutionise tooth repair” “Pubmed isn't bad for cross-checking and simple searches.”
Comment from 25 May 2026 in “Search engines alternatives now that Google isn't Google anymore”
Other academic search engines people recommend
The three most recommended other academic search engines, with the same counts for each, so you can compare like for like. The tick on each bar marks the 2 to 1 line the badge needs.
| Product | Recommend | Criticize | Approval | Months | Owned | Badge |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Google Scholar | 17 | 13 | 57% | 8 | — | — |
| PubMedThis page | 8 | 1 | 89% | 6 | — | — |
| Semantic Scholar | 8 | 3 | 73% | 7 | — | — |
| Papers with Code | 6 | 1 | 86% | 1 | — | — |
What people said
All 9 comments that mention it, newest first. Each links to the original comment.
“PubMed and PMC use Recaptcha and it's atrocious.”
“I value the text only principles of everything serious from archivex and Pubmed”
“Pubmed isn't bad for cross-checking and simple searches.”
“the logic you can craft in your queries”
“Thank god for pubmed and deterministic search operators.”
“Peer reviewed studies are surprisingly accessible (e.g. PubMed et al.)”
“pubmed is free and not limited to preprints”
“leveraging the NLM's billions of dollars in indexing infrastructure feels like the right lever to pull”
“The potentially easier way at least to get a lay of the land is to follow pubmed”
Counts come from 1,795,640 Hacker News comments, November 2025 to November 2026. How we count. Report a mistake.