695:
expert summaries, news, editorials, advocacy pieces, speculation, book reviews, correspondence, biographies, and eulogies. Original research papers are primary sources; although they normally contain a review of previous works that functions as a secondary source, these sections are typically less reliable and comprehensive than reviews. A general narrative review of a subject by an expert in the field makes a good secondary source that can be used to cover various aspects of a subject within a
Knowledge article. Such reviews typically contain no original data but can make interpretations and draw conclusions from primary sources that no Knowledge editor would be allowed to do. A
691:
topic of research into an overall view. Journals generally publish a mix of primary and secondary sources, though some may concentrate on particular types. The line between primary and secondary sources is not always clear. In general, primary sources include descriptions of an individual experiment or a series of experiments by the same research group; secondary sources include independent review articles summarizing a line of research or rectifying apparently discordant results. It is usually best to use review articles where possible, as these give a more balanced and general perspective of a topic, and can be easier to understand.
919:
editors should bear in mind that a particular source may introduce a spin not present in the original paper or present a result not supported by the research. Conference abstracts are often incomplete and preliminary, and may be contradicted if and when the data are published; they should be avoided. Patents and patent applications likewise do not receive the critical review necessary for reliability in this context, and should be avoided except when the patent itself is under discussion; the
475:, but the quality of available evidence should be kept in mind when assessing whether a particular idea or viewpoint is well-accepted by the relevant academic community. Such evidence should include reviews of the literature including the work of several different research groups. Individual papers often disagree with each other, but there are several indicators that may be assessed even without specialist knowledge to differentiate high quality papers from low, including:
966:
typically takes experience to recognize when a search has not been effective; even if you find useful sources, you may have missed other sources that would have been more useful, or you may find large amounts of less-than-useful material. A good strategy for avoiding sole reliance on search engines is to find a few recent high-quality sources and follow the citations backwards and forwards to see what your search engine may have missed. Limiting a general search using the
153:, statements and reports from reputable expert bodies, widely recognized standard textbooks and handbooks written by experts in a field, expert-curated databases and reference material, or high-quality non-specialist publications. Although news reports are inappropriate as reliable sources for the technical aspects of scientific results or theories, they may be useful when discussing non-technical context or impact of science topics, particularly controversial ones.
844:, which may be an indication of exaggeration or worse. Popular press articles tend to overemphasize the certainty and importance of any result, for instance presenting a new theory as overturning previous knowledge or a new technology as just around the corner. Newspapers and magazines may also publish articles about scientific results before those results have been published in a peer-reviewed journal or reproduced by other experimenters. Such articles
801:, occasionally produce formal scientific reports, which can be as reliable as the best traditional journal papers. Public guides and service announcements have the advantage of being freely readable, but are generally less authoritative than the underlying literature. Such organizations often contain working groups and subcommittees, which cannot be presumed to speak for the society as a whole.
535:. A secondary source reporting on preliminary results might be appropriate as part of a well-documented section on research directions in a field. To prevent misunderstandings, the text should clearly identify the level of research cited. If a result does not accurately indicate its place in the scientific discourse, it is unlikely to be reliable.
35:
91:
1079:
or at a relevant WikiProject either to provide you with a copy or to read the source for you and summarize what it says. If neither is possible you may need to settle for using a lower-impact source or even just an abstract, with an eye to updating or replacing the text when a better or more complete
1049:
Sometimes a paper or series of papers will be summarized by an expert in the field, usually in a research journal with a target audience of other researchers in the field. Such articles provide context for the impact of a result or relative importance of a line of research. If you have access to both
851:
A news article should therefore not be used as a sole source for a scientific fact or figure, nor should they be considered when describing what aspects of a field the relevant experts consider interesting, surprising, or controversial. Editors are encouraged to seek out the scholarly research behind
515:
should not be presented as authoritative, nor should the description of a broad consensus view be presented as less well-founded until such exceptional claims are replicated or widely cited. Be careful of material in a journal that is not peer-reviewed, especially if reporting material in a different
510:
Cutting edge science is built on the foundation of previous research, and paradigms almost always change only slowly. Preliminary results, whether reported in the popular press, a conference abstract, or a peer-reviewed journal, are a form of anecdote and generally fall below the minimum requirements
918:
Press releases, blogs, newsletters, advocacy and self-help publications, and other sources offer a broad spectrum of scientific information ranging from factual to fraudulent, with a high percentage being of low quality. As much as possible
Knowledge articles should cite the literature directly, and
905:
Some scientific databases can be used as sources in their own right. Such databases need to have evidence of being A) manually curated/reviewed, i.e. not fully automated; B) by more than one expert, i.e. not a pet project of a single individual; and C) well-established, i.e. cited by others. This is
785:
in the traditional sense, but may nonetheless provide accurate and accessible information. When assessing the suitability of such a source, consider the reputation of the publishing organization, the reliability and proper use of the sources cited, and how the source is in turn cited or discussed by
703:
methodology to select primary studies meeting explicit criteria in order to answer a specific question. Such reviews should be more reliable, accurate and less prone to bias than a narrative review. However, systematic reviews focus on answering one or a few specific questions, so that complementing
567:
Here are some rules of thumb for keeping an article up-to-date while maintaining the more important goal of reliably reflecting the current state of a field of research. These guidelines are appropriate for actively-researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews, and they may need to
502:
The authors and the paper itself are widely cited by other researchers in the paper's field. In most scientific fields, the order of the author list usually indicates importance of each researcher's contribution to the article, except that the final author is commonly the senior researcher in charge
418:
The fact that a statement is published in a refereed journal does not make it relevant. Many ideas are proposed and disregarded in the context of scientific discourse. If an idea is cited by a small minority of researchers, but rejected or ignored by the majority of researchers in a field, it should
1074:
Try to avoid citing a source having read only its abstract, as the abstract necessarily presents a stripped-down version of the conclusions and omits the background that can be crucial for understanding what the source says. You may need to visit a university library to access the full text, or ask
1045:
Approaching the problem from the other end, many large research organizations and funding agencies publish research highlights. These summaries can be helpful in recognizing the most important result of a piece of research or in ascertaining current research directions, though press releases should
639:
Many scientific claims lack independent replication or confirmation of the legitimacy of statements made by proponents. In such cases, reliable sources may be much more difficult to find and unreliable sources can often be more readily available. Especially when writing about ideas not supported by
576:
Within this range, things can be tricky. Although the most-recent reviews include later research results, do not automatically give more weight to the review that happens to have been published most recently. The prominence of the publishing journal, the quality and comprehensiveness of the review,
440:
in them. Many values, such as the masses of transuranian elements or the isotopic composition of the solar system, have an associated uncertainty, and even up-to-date highly reliable sources may report slightly different values. Where there is no clear reason to report solely one of several values,
740:
publish specialized book series with good editorial oversight. Volumes in these series summarize the latest research in narrow areas usually in a more extensive format than journal reviews. Specialized encyclopedias published by such established publishers are often of good quality, but may be too
613:
until the relevant community has evaluated the evidence. If a result is cited only by the research group originating the claim and ignored by the rest of the field, it should probably not be included even if present in a review authored by the group. Blogs by relevant subject matter experts may be
588:
might mention the hot-off-the-presses latest material or model found to undergo the transition, but such observations should be treated as tentative until confirmed by another research group or affirmed by a broad review of the field. More detail should be devoted to discussion supported by recent
735:
When using a book as a source, books should be chosen that are up-to-date and published by experts in the field. Postsecondary science textbooks published by academic publishers are often excellent secondary sources, though they may need to be supplemented with more recent research. If a book has
694:
Many journals serve their community by also publishing less technical material such as biographies and obituaries. Although almost all such material will count as a reliable source, not all the material is equally useful. Journal articles come in many types, including: original research, reviews,
382:
and presented in the context of their acceptance by experts in the field. If mainstream secondary sources in a field do not consider a detail or opinion relevant, it may not be appropriate to cover it at that article; such details and opinions may be desirable at an article on a sub-topic or at a
241:
by major scientific associations. News reports are also secondary sources, but should be used with caution as they are seldom written by persons with disciplinary expertise. An appropriate secondary source is one that is published by a reputable publisher, is written by one or more experts in the
690:
Articles published in respected peer-reviewed scientific journals are preferred for up-to-date reliable information. Scientific literature contains two major types of sources: primary publications that describe novel research for the first time, and review articles that summarize and integrate a
311:
In all cases, the reliability and relevance of a work is determined by other researchers in the relevant field. Using high-quality sources ensures that our articles reflect the current state of knowledge and proportionately represent the aspects and controversies considered most important by the
753:
Popular science books can be useful tertiary sources, though information may be oversimplified or lacking in nuance or the full range of opinion in a field may not be adequately represented. Even in such cases, it may be useful to seek them out as an example of the material being presented in a
551:
or are otherwise ignored by researchers; such ideas should be presented only in the context of the broader field and only in articles devoted to the proponent(s) or specific to the idea. Until a significant fraction of the astrophysics community indicates doubt as to the general validity of the
812:
Advocacy organizations formed for a specific purpose or to advance a cause may be composed of scientists and mimic the structure and naming conventions of the general purpose societies. Statements and reports from such organizations are not reliable except to cite the organization's opinion or
307:
Although popular-press news articles and press releases may tout the latest experiments, they often exaggerate or speak of "revolutionary" results where the researchers refer to the context of the gradual progress of the field. Including an accessibility link to such a source may aid in reader
1083:
The requirement for a fee or a subscription does not affect the reliability of a source. However, when all else is equal it is preferable to cite a source whose full text is freely readable so that readers can more easily follow the link to the source and editors can double check the content.
965:
are often used to find sources. When searching for sources, it is wise to skim-read everything available (including abstracts of papers you cannot fully access) to get a feel for expert opinion on the most important aspects of a topic. Each system has quirks, advantages, and disadvantages. It
572:
Look for reviews published in the last five years or so, preferably in the last two or three years. The range of reviews examined should be wide enough to catch at least one full review cycle, containing newer reviews written and published in the light of older ones and of more-recent primary
273:
In general, scientific information in
Knowledge articles should be based on published, reliable secondary sources, or on widely cited tertiary and primary sources. Sources that are robust in methodology, published in high quality venues, and authored by widely cited researchers are preferred.
296:
If a reliable and comprehensive review article cites a study, result, or idea, the review should usually be cited in preference to the primary source. If a primary source is cited by few or no reliable sources outside the originating lab, the primary source may be removed as not reporting an
289:, as primary sources are more prone to misuse than secondary or tertiary sources. An individual primary source should never be cited or juxtaposed so as to "debunk" or contradict the conclusions of a reliable secondary source, unless the primary source itself directly makes such a claim (see
848:, which can be a biased source even when issued by the public relations department of a university or national laboratory. News articles also tend neither to report adequately on the scientific methodology and the experimental error, nor to express risk or uncertainty in meaningful terms.
530:
and early-stage research should not be cited in ways that suggest wide acceptance. For example, ideas and results that have been reported only in conference proceedings or on a researcher's website are unlikely to be appropriate for inclusion except when reported as such in the author's
431:
Make readers aware of legitimate uncertainty or controversy within the particular field of study. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers. Knowledge neither accepts nor rejects any particular position -
869:
On the other hand, the high-quality popular press can be a good resource for presenting science to a non-technical audience, and often as a source in its own right to supplement (but not supplant) the peer-reviewed literature. For example, while popular science magazines such as
1021:
often offers readers a few sentences even when full access is not granted, and can help editors find reliable sources quickly, either by looking at the book's references or by citing the book itself. Check that a particular book is published by a reliable academic publishing
625:
to such results. Reporting on political and social impacts and controversies is often done in separate article sections, and sometimes separate articles. Sourcing for political and social aspects and controversies is beyond the scope of this guideline, but is governed by the
320:
A primary source, such as a report of a pivotal experiment cited as evidence for a hypothesis, may be a valuable component of an article. A good article may appropriately cite primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Use of primary sources should always conform to the
825:
The popular press is readily accessible and can contain valuable supplemental information of a social, biographical, current-affairs, or historical nature. However, news articles should be used with caution when describing scientific results, studies, or hypotheses.
888:
are not peer-reviewed, they sometimes feature articles written by experts that explain scientific subjects in plain
English. As the quality of press coverage of science ranges from excellent to irresponsible, use common sense, and see how well the source fits the
145:, but they are nonetheless an important and widely used resource. Scientific information should be based on reliable published sources and should accurately reflect the current state of knowledge. Ideal sources for these articles include comprehensive reviews in
1115:; if the editor can only access the preprint of a published paper, the preprint can be cited (with reliability similar to grey literature) with the citation to be eventually replaced with the final version later by someone who has it available double-checks.
423:
according to its acceptance; ideas held by a tiny minority of researchers need not be reported in our articles, except in articles devoted to these ideas. Very new papers should be used sparingly until enough time has passed to make this assessment -
441:
discussion on the article's talkpage or the appropriate
Wikiproject can help determine which value(s) to use. For values or classes of values affecting many articles, consistency across articles and Wikiproject-level discussion should be preferred.
830:
may fail to discuss important issues such as the uncertainty range of a conclusion, how a result has been received by experts in the field, the context of related results and theories, and barriers to widespread adoption or realization of an idea.
982:, but the results can be useful both in finding additional sources and as a rough metric of the impact of a particular paper on the field in general. It can also be helpful to perform a plain web search rather than one of scholarly articles only.
1236:
and some other form, normally the HTML form should be linked, as it is more likely to work on a wider variety of browsers. If the full text of a source is found in a location other than at the publisher's website, check that the copy does not
745:
may overemphasize the importance of the researchers or laboratory groups who authored them, without fully reflecting the views of other experts. If monographs are used as sources, they should therefore be accorded appropriate
808:
often produce reports that are internally vetted and reviewed. When using such a report as a source, consider the purpose of the organization, its reputation in the desired context, and the reception of the specific report.
406:
culture of academia. Preference should be given to citing articles in top tier journals wherever possible. Similarly, if you find dubious unreferenced or poorly referenced text in an article, your first question should be
215:
in science is one where the authors directly participated in the research. They filled the test tubes, analyzed the data, or designed the particle accelerator, or at least supervised those who did. Many, but not all,
344:, and the like, should not be used to generate content about those subjects, which are controversial. High quality secondary sources as described above should be used instead. Genetic studies of human anatomy or
444:
Political, social, and historical context and impact and public perceptions are important when deciding whether to cover an idea at an article, but should not be considered when assessing scientific consensus.
542:
or publish results that call some aspect of the theory into question. Usually these ideas are proposed by serious researchers who pose a question as part of an endeavor to understand the results more deeply:
1028:
is a preprint server; near-final versions of many physics and astronomy papers may be read freely, but these papers have not yet undergone peer review, and any citation should be checked against the final
1167:
parameters, respectively. If you are citing a source along with an expert summary, it is helpful to list them together, with the main source first to indicate that it is more authoritative. For example:
1084:
Journals more likely to be available at a reader's local university library should also be preferred. Although most high-quality journals require a payment or subscription for access, some, such as
852:
the news story; good quality science news articles will indicate their sources. One possibility is to cite a higher-quality source along with a more-accessible popular source, for example with the
621:
Sometimes scientific results have or are taken to have political or social relevance. Knowledge articles should avoid sensationalism, and should follow the relevant research community in according
394:
The fact that a statement is published in a refereed journal does not make it true. Even a well-designed experiment or study can produce flawed results or fall victim to deliberate fraud. (See the
682:
No source is universally reliable. Each source must be carefully weighed in the context of an article to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source.
293:). Primary sources favoring a minority opinion should not be aggregated or presented devoid of context in such a way as to undermine proportionate representation of expert opinion in a field.
656:. If the only independent sources discussing a subject are of low quality, then it is likely that the subject itself is not notable enough for inclusion. For example, coverage of individual
1041:
Journals occasionally devote all or most of an issue to a particular topic or sub-field. Such issues can provide a valuable snapshot of the current state and research directions of a field.
580:
Prefer recent reviews to older primary sources on the same topic. If recent reviews do not mention an older primary source or result, the older source is dubious. For example, the articles
664:) or actual impact (did a large company invest in the inventor? did an eminent scientist comment on the device?) rather than a detailed recapitulation of the supposed principles involved.
428:. Additionally, material that is appropriate for a highly focused article on one specific part of a field may not be appropriate for a higher level article about the field as a whole.
242:
field, and is peer reviewed. University presses and other publishing houses known for publishing reliable science books will document their review process. Do not confuse a scientific
603:
An older primary source that is seminal, replicated, and often-cited in reviews is notable in its own right and can be mentioned in the main text in a context established by reviews.
169:
736:
students as its declared target audience, it may not be as complete as a monograph or chapter in a book intended for professionals or postgraduates. Major academic publishers and
547:
Such nuances are often missed in popular press reports, but should be included in articles if the proposed modification is cited. Sometimes "revolutionary" ideas are proposed by
304:
Tertiary sources can provide a valuable overview of a topic, but often oversimplify complex material. It is usually better to cite the secondary or primary literature directly.
1107:" to scientific research, particularly since much of the research is publicly-funded. Even for journals where there is no open access, the vast majority of journals allow for
1255:
1265:
134:
115:, statements and reports from reputable expert bodies, widely recognized standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or standard handbooks and reference guides.
606:
Consider scope and focus: articles on broader topics and more mature fields should contain less primary research than articles on narrow, actively researched topics.
1085:
652:
personal opinions, but extreme care should be taken when using such sources lest the more controversial aspects of their opinions be taken at face value or, worse,
962:
395:
220:
are primary sources—particularly original research articles. An appropriate primary source is one that was peer reviewed and published by a reputable publisher.
1270:
834:
Articles in newspapers and popular magazines generally lack the context needed to judge experimental results. Be particularly wary of any result reported as
927:
as recently as this decade. Personal or group blogs from prominent scientists writing in their field of expertise may be usable when properly attributed.
285:
Primary sources may be used when discussing recent research directions or a particular result. When citing a primary source, be especially mindful of the
1460:
920:
1342:(2005). "Internet encyclopaedias go head to head: Jimmy Wales' Knowledge comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries".
1281:
907:
259:
usually summarizes a range of secondary sources. Encyclopedias, general textbooks, popular science books, and tables of values are tertiary sources.
532:
1111:
of either preprints or postprints. Google
Scholar can often aid in finding pre-and-postprints. Editors should always cite to the version which
894:
173:
126:
1038:
University librarians are often aware of specialized resources, and can be exceedingly helpful when approached in a friendly and open fashion.
978:, also list the papers citing a particular paper; these results may not be comprehensive, especially tending to miss citations that are not
278:
results, the description should adhere closely to the interpretation of the data given by the authors or by reliable secondary sources (see
1250:
798:
1276:
50:
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more
Knowledge contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
51:
308:
comprehension, but the language of the actual study should be used; more detailed and less sensational lay sources are preferred.
1137:
to a source if and only if full text is freely readable. Check that the URL given does not depend on a cookie on your machine or
17:
1050:
the original source(s) and the summary and you find the summary helpful, it is good practice to cite both sources together (see
1286:
479:
The paper has been appropriately reviewed through formal or informal peer review. Any serious scientific journal is formally
361:
279:
203:
130:
805:
641:
370:
should be presented as the dominant view and articles should be framed accordingly. Scientific consensus can be found in
1124:
614:
useful in talk page evaluation of the relevance of very new results, though they should rarely be cited themselves (see
1141:-based subscription access. Some journals offer free access for only a limited period after publication, so check for
1097:
845:
472:
341:
503:
of the laboratory or research group where the work was done. These conventions may vary by field, journal, and paper.
1112:
737:
724:
568:
be relaxed for mature fields or in areas where little progress is being made and few reviews are being published.
229:
is a source presenting and placing in context information originally reported by different authors. These include
1455:
1130:
1089:
951:
794:
1437:
1134:
1104:
1032:
585:
971:
942:
host many such experts, as do more specific portals such as the public outreach and service blogs at the
1153:
860:
677:
142:
301:, but seeks an overall survey of the literature as it has been synthesized by the experts in a field.
1353:
1339:
1319:
1146:
661:
649:
560:
While articles should be kept up to date by citing current literature, care should be taken to avoid
399:
367:
939:
878:
872:
817:
to the coverage of a topic, they should be attributed and the role of the organization made clear.
673:
561:
55:
1129:
A citation should document precisely how to access a source. Normally, citations should contain a
490:
Experimental and mathematical methods are clearly explained and are appropriate to the experiment.
827:
539:
454:
425:
185:
150:
112:
65:
1388:"How to read a paper: Papers that summarise other papers (systematic reviews and meta-analyses)"
765:
undergo no independent fact-checking or peer review and consequently are not reliable sources.
564:, focusing too much on new sources that have not yet been evaluated by the relevant community.
1408:
1369:
1241:
before linking it and be aware that the text may have been altered from the original version.
1238:
1221:
1194:
1142:
1065:
835:
758:
709:
696:
610:
581:
527:
512:
403:
384:
322:
298:
275:
234:
230:
1399:
1361:
1344:
1213:
1186:
924:
814:
720:
715:
657:
645:
622:
388:
379:
225:
43:
1424:
1093:
884:
778:
747:
653:
349:
290:
255:
217:
165:
157:
100:
1096:, publish a few freely-readable articles even though most are not free; still others use
974:
may help focus results to the relevant topic. Some resources, such as Google
Scholar and
1357:
1403:
1387:
1315:
1306:
1294:
1108:
1013:
993:
548:
211:
161:
1449:
790:
781:
discussing or summarizing various aspects of a field. These papers are typically not
719:, and subject-specific journals published by professional associations. A listing of
644:, independent sources be used. Sources written and reviewed by the advocates of such
496:
Uncertainty and the paper's place in the wider scientific discourse are acknowledged.
420:
375:
374:
recent, authoritative review articles, high quality journal articles, or widely used
286:
172:. For queries about the reliability of specific sources for a given purpose, use the
58:. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
1174:
1076:
1018:
935:
762:
700:
627:
545:
how can these results be understood in terms of the theory they seem to contradict?
521:
1427:
perspective, while humorous, illustrates some of the real-world problems involved.
552:
theory, the articles treating general relativity should not imply any such doubt.
1440:
showed that 90% of journals listed in the "Romeo directory" allow self-archiving.
1069:
979:
890:
782:
774:
480:
247:
238:
108:
1190:
1138:
517:
409:
does including this material add to the full and accurate summary of the topic
1271:
Knowledge:Identifying and using style guides § Topical academic style guides
742:
345:
337:
1372:
1224:
1217:
1197:
506:
Recognized experts in the field have commented or offered informal opinion.
1411:
998:
333:
329:
204:
Knowledge:No original research § Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources
577:
and the respectability of the authors should also be taken into account.
99:
Cite reviews, don't write them. Appropriate sources for discussing the
1204:
Yeung CA (2007). "Fluoride prevents caries among adults of all ages".
499:
Funding sources and any potential conflicts of interest are disclosed.
493:
Model fitting and statistical analysis are meaningful and appropriate.
1008:
1003:
436:
any disputes and their place in the scientific discourse, but do not
243:
1365:
947:
704:
with other sources may be necessary to more broadly cover a topic.
237:
articles, topical monographs, specialist textbooks, handbooks, and
1025:
291:
Knowledge:Synthesis of published material that advances a position
750:
and checked against prevailing viewpoints in the relevant field.
18:
Knowledge:Identifying reliable sources (science-related articles)
1233:
1159:
template is used, all this information can be supplied with the
660:
should focus on their importance to the creator's biography (if
402:). There is an informal hierarchy of journals, abetted by the
299:
Knowledge does not apply any special emphasis to breaking news
85:
29:
928:
609:
Editors should be especially leery of citing papers making
1277:
Reliable source examples in physical sciences and medicine
1175:"Effectiveness of fluoride in preventing caries in adults"
1103:
There is a growing movement towards allowing the public "
943:
707:
Core basic science journals include such publications as
640:
or contradicted by mainstream research, it is vital that
538:
For example, every year, people propose modifications to
378:
textbooks. Significant minority views should be accorded
141:
Knowledge's science articles are not intended to provide
462:
193:
73:
970:(usually listed under a paper's abstract), or using a
906:
separate from whether inclusion in such a database is
413:
can I track down a source somewhere that supports this
170:
Knowledge:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles)
1173:
Griffin SO, Regnier E, Griffin PM, Huntley V (2007).
1133:(DOI) if available. A common practice is to supply a
593:
These are just rules of thumb. There are exceptions:
600:
sections often cite older work, for obvious reasons.
487:
may be less transparent in their review methodology.
336:research into human ancestry, ancient populations,
1322:which highlights potentially unreliable citations.
773:Many organizations research, produce, and publish
1266:Knowledge:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)
135:Knowledge:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)
1086:Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
471:Editors should be careful to avoid engaging in
1092:reports are freely-available. Others, such as
484:
396:Retracted article on neurotoxicity of ecstasy
8:
1438:Open_access_(publishing)#Adoption_statistics
789:The various national societies, such as the
176:or the talk page of a relevant WikiProject.
1256:Dispatches: Sources in biology and medicine
383:separate article, with linking governed by
1402:
1052:
921:United States Patent and Trademark Office
846:may rely uncritically on a press release
348:like intelligence should be sourced per
1331:
147:independent, reliable published sources
105:independent, reliable published sources
1164:
1160:
853:
754:fashion accessible to non-scientists.
127:Knowledge:Identifying reliable sources
963:Search engines and academic databases
7:
1149:semi-automates this process. If the
1035:covers astronomy and physics papers.
328:However, primary sources describing
156:The scope of this page includes the
1251:Knowledge:Advanced source searching
986:Other useful search engines include
799:Royal Australian Chemical Institute
757:Most books and monographs that are
168:. For articles about medicine, see
895:general reliable sources guideline
741:terse for detailed articles. Some
628:reliable sources content guideline
615:
56:thoroughly vetted by the community
52:Knowledge's policies or guidelines
25:
1232:If a source is available in both
1046:generally not be used directly.
813:position. If such statements are
786:the relevant academic community.
103:include comprehensive reviews in
1461:Knowledge reliable source guides
908:sufficient to support notability
513:Exceptional or surprising claims
89:
33:
1282:Scientific citation guidelines
806:non-governmental organizations
362:Knowledge:Scientific consensus
356:Summarize scientific consensus
280:Knowledge:No original research
131:Knowledge:No original research
1:
1077:WikiProject Resource Exchange
511:of reliable science sources.
1125:Knowledge:Citation templates
246:(the article/document) with
174:reliable sources noticeboard
944:Large Hadron Collider blogs
276:surprising or extraordinary
1477:
1191:10.1177/154405910708600504
1145:when updating references.
1122:
1080:source becomes available.
1063:
725:Category:Academic journals
671:
452:
359:
201:
183:
63:
27:Essay on editing Knowledge
1131:digital object identifier
1090:National Research Council
952:American Physical Society
948:STEM policy oriented blog
795:American Physical Society
769:White and grey literature
658:perpetual motion machines
485:white and gray literature
269:Respect secondary sources
1033:Astrophysics Data System
925:perpetual motion patents
804:Government agencies and
648:can be used to describe
97:This page in a nutshell:
727:and its subcategories.
635:Use independent sources
586:List of superconductors
556:Use up-to-date evidence
449:Assess evidence quality
316:Respect primary sources
1260:The Knowledge Signpost
1218:10.1038/sj.ebd.6400506
972:semantic search engine
287:policy on undue weight
111:articles in reputable
1386:Greenhalgh T (1997).
1064:Further information:
958:Searching for sources
828:Science news articles
678:Scientific literature
672:Further information:
528:Speculative proposals
54:, as it has not been
1287:Scientific standards
1119:Formatting citations
1053:Formatting citations
891:verifiability policy
426:there is no deadline
368:scientific consensus
323:No original research
312:experts in a field.
149:, such as reputable
1358:2005Natur.438..900G
1098:delayed open access
873:Scientific American
686:Scientific journals
674:Academic publishing
151:scientific journals
113:scientific journals
1113:they actually read
1088:and similarly all
738:university presses
611:exceptional claims
540:general relativity
297:important result.
231:literature reviews
143:formal instruction
1436:As of August 10,
1239:violate copyright
901:Curated databases
721:academic journals
697:systematic review
582:superconductivity
473:original research
404:publish or perish
235:systematic review
121:
120:
107:, such as recent
84:
83:
16:(Redirected from
1468:
1456:Knowledge essays
1441:
1434:
1428:
1422:
1416:
1415:
1406:
1383:
1377:
1376:
1336:
1311:
1305:
1299:
1293:
1228:
1201:
1166:
1162:
1158:
1152:
1075:somebody at the
865:
859:
855:
761:or published by
723:can be found in
668:Choosing sources
654:asserted as fact
465:
419:receive limited
226:secondary source
218:journal articles
196:
101:natural sciences
93:
92:
86:
76:
37:
36:
30:
21:
1476:
1475:
1471:
1470:
1469:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1435:
1431:
1423:
1419:
1398:(7109): 672–5.
1385:
1384:
1380:
1366:10.1038/438900a
1352:(7070): 900–1.
1338:
1337:
1333:
1329:
1309:
1303:
1297:
1291:
1247:
1206:Evid Based Dent
1203:
1172:
1156:
1150:
1127:
1121:
1094:Physical Review
1072:
1062:
976:Physical Review
960:
916:
903:
885:Popular Science
863:
857:
823:
771:
733:
688:
680:
670:
637:
558:
469:
468:
461:
457:
451:
366:The prevailing
364:
358:
318:
274:Especially for
271:
266:
256:tertiary source
250:(the activity).
206:
200:
199:
192:
188:
182:
166:formal sciences
90:
80:
79:
72:
68:
60:
59:
34:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1474:
1472:
1464:
1463:
1458:
1448:
1447:
1443:
1442:
1429:
1417:
1378:
1330:
1328:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1313:
1301:
1289:
1284:
1279:
1274:
1268:
1263:
1253:
1246:
1243:
1230:
1229:
1120:
1117:
1109:self-archiving
1061:
1058:
1056:for details).
1043:
1042:
1039:
1036:
1030:
1023:
1016:
1014:Google Scholar
1011:
1006:
1001:
996:
994:Web of Science
990:
989:
987:
959:
956:
950:hosted by the
940:Discover blogs
915:
912:
902:
899:
822:
819:
770:
767:
763:vanity presses
759:self-published
732:
729:
687:
684:
669:
666:
646:marginal ideas
636:
633:
632:
631:
619:
607:
604:
601:
591:
590:
578:
574:
557:
554:
508:
507:
504:
500:
497:
494:
491:
488:
467:
466:
458:
453:
450:
447:
357:
354:
317:
314:
270:
267:
265:
262:
261:
260:
251:
221:
212:primary source
198:
197:
189:
184:
181:
178:
139:
138:
119:
118:
94:
82:
81:
78:
77:
69:
64:
61:
49:
48:
40:
38:
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1473:
1462:
1459:
1457:
1454:
1453:
1451:
1439:
1433:
1430:
1426:
1421:
1418:
1413:
1410:
1405:
1401:
1397:
1393:
1389:
1382:
1379:
1374:
1371:
1367:
1363:
1359:
1355:
1351:
1347:
1346:
1341:
1335:
1332:
1326:
1321:
1317:
1314:
1308:
1302:
1296:
1290:
1288:
1285:
1283:
1280:
1278:
1275:
1272:
1269:
1267:
1264:
1261:
1257:
1254:
1252:
1249:
1248:
1244:
1242:
1240:
1235:
1226:
1223:
1219:
1215:
1211:
1207:
1199:
1196:
1192:
1188:
1184:
1180:
1176:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1155:
1148:
1147:WP:CHECKLINKS
1144:
1140:
1136:
1132:
1126:
1118:
1116:
1114:
1110:
1106:
1101:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1087:
1081:
1078:
1071:
1067:
1060:Accessibility
1059:
1057:
1055:
1054:
1047:
1040:
1037:
1034:
1031:
1027:
1024:
1020:
1017:
1015:
1012:
1010:
1007:
1005:
1002:
1000:
997:
995:
992:
991:
988:
985:
984:
983:
981:
977:
973:
969:
964:
957:
955:
953:
949:
945:
941:
937:
933:
931:
926:
922:
914:Other sources
913:
911:
909:
900:
898:
896:
892:
887:
886:
881:
880:
875:
874:
867:
862:
856:parameter of
849:
847:
843:
842:
841:revolutionary
838:
832:
829:
821:Popular press
820:
818:
816:
810:
807:
802:
800:
796:
792:
791:Royal Society
787:
784:
783:peer reviewed
780:
776:
768:
766:
764:
760:
755:
751:
749:
744:
739:
730:
728:
726:
722:
718:
717:
712:
711:
705:
702:
698:
692:
685:
683:
679:
675:
667:
665:
663:
659:
655:
651:
647:
643:
634:
629:
624:
620:
617:
612:
608:
605:
602:
599:
596:
595:
594:
587:
583:
579:
575:
571:
570:
569:
565:
563:
555:
553:
550:
546:
541:
536:
534:
529:
525:
523:
519:
514:
505:
501:
498:
495:
492:
489:
486:
482:
481:peer-reviewed
478:
477:
476:
474:
464:
460:
459:
456:
448:
446:
442:
439:
435:
429:
427:
422:
416:
414:
410:
405:
401:
397:
392:
390:
386:
381:
377:
376:postsecondary
373:
369:
363:
355:
353:
351:
347:
343:
339:
335:
331:
326:
324:
315:
313:
309:
305:
302:
300:
294:
292:
288:
283:
281:
277:
268:
263:
258:
257:
252:
249:
245:
240:
236:
232:
228:
227:
222:
219:
214:
213:
208:
207:
205:
195:
191:
190:
187:
179:
177:
175:
171:
167:
163:
159:
154:
152:
148:
144:
137:
136:
132:
128:
123:
122:
117:
114:
110:
109:peer reviewed
106:
102:
98:
95:
88:
87:
75:
71:
70:
67:
62:
57:
53:
47:
45:
39:
32:
31:
19:
1432:
1420:
1395:
1391:
1381:
1349:
1343:
1334:
1262:(2008-06-30)
1259:
1231:
1209:
1205:
1185:(5): 410–5.
1182:
1178:
1154:Cite journal
1128:
1102:
1082:
1073:
1051:
1048:
1044:
1019:Google Books
975:
967:
961:
946:or the more
936:ScienceBlogs
929:
923:has granted
917:
904:
883:
877:
871:
868:
861:Cite journal
854:|laysummary=
850:
840:
836:
833:
824:
811:
803:
788:
775:white papers
772:
756:
752:
734:
714:
708:
706:
701:reproducible
693:
689:
681:
638:
597:
592:
566:
559:
544:
537:
526:
522:Sokal affair
509:
470:
463:WP:SCIASSESS
443:
437:
433:
430:
417:
412:
411:rather than
408:
400:Schön affair
393:
371:
365:
327:
319:
310:
306:
303:
295:
284:
272:
264:Basic advice
254:
239:white papers
224:
210:
155:
146:
140:
124:
116:
104:
96:
41:
1320:user script
1212:(3): 72–3.
1105:open access
1070:Open access
980:well-formed
779:grey papers
642:third-party
516:field (see
248:peer review
202:Main page:
180:Definitions
125:See also:
42:This is an
1450:Categories
1327:References
1179:J Dent Res
1123:See also:
1066:WP:PAYWALL
837:surprising
743:monographs
518:Marty Rimm
385:WP:SPINOUT
380:due weight
360:See also:
346:phenotypes
1340:Giles, J.
1202:Summary:
968:key words
815:necessary
797:, or the
562:recentism
533:biography
483:, though
389:WP:ONEWAY
338:ethnicity
194:WP:SCIDEF
1373:16355180
1312:– adds:
1300:– adds:
1245:See also
1225:17891121
1198:17452559
1029:version.
999:InfoTrac
893:and the
879:Discover
589:reviews.
573:studies.
520:and the
455:Shortcut
434:describe
398:and the
350:WP:MEDRS
325:policy.
186:Shortcut
74:WP:SCIRS
66:Shortcut
1412:9310574
1404:2127461
1354:Bibcode
1316:WP:UPSD
1273:(essay)
1143:linkrot
710:Science
699:uses a
662:notable
650:notable
598:History
334:genomic
330:genetic
158:natural
1345:Nature
1163:, and
1022:house.
1009:PubMed
1004:Scopus
938:, and
930:Nature
882:, and
793:, the
748:weight
716:Nature
623:weight
549:cranks
438:engage
421:weight
244:review
162:social
133:, and
1307:SCIRS
1295:SCICN
1165:|url=
1161:|doi=
1026:arXiv
932:Blogs
731:Books
616:below
44:essay
1425:This
1409:PMID
1370:PMID
1318:, a
1234:HTML
1222:PMID
1195:PMID
1068:and
777:and
676:and
584:and
387:and
372:e.g.
342:race
164:and
1400:PMC
1396:315
1392:BMJ
1362:doi
1350:438
1214:doi
1187:doi
1135:URL
839:or
524:).
332:or
282:).
1452::
1407:.
1394:.
1390:.
1368:.
1360:.
1348:.
1310:}}
1304:{{
1298:}}
1292:{{
1258:.
1220:.
1208:.
1193:.
1183:86
1181:.
1177:.
1157:}}
1151:{{
1139:IP
1100:.
954:.
934:,
910:.
897:.
876:,
866:.
864:}}
858:{{
713:,
618:).
415:.
391:.
352:.
340:,
253:A
233:,
223:A
209:A
160:,
129:,
1414:.
1375:.
1364::
1356::
1227:.
1216::
1210:8
1200:.
1189::
630:.
46:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.