11.314
suntingan
Javasatu:Sumber terpercaya: Perbedaan antara revisi
Loncat ke navigasi
Loncat ke pencarian
→Scholarship
Tidak ada ringkasan suntingan |
|||
| Baris 67: | Baris 67: | ||
===Scholarship=== | ===Scholarship=== | ||
{{shortcut|WP:SCHOLARSHIP}} | {{shortcut|WP:SCHOLARSHIP}} | ||
* '''Prefer secondary sources''' – Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised. Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves (see [[ | * '''Prefer secondary sources''' – Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised. Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves (see [[Javasatu:No original research]] and [[Javasatu:Neutral point of view]]). | ||
* '''Reliable scholarship''' – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. | * '''Reliable scholarship''' – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. | ||
* '''Dissertations''' – Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Some theses are later published in the form of scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources. Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. | * '''Dissertations''' – Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Some theses are later published in the form of scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources. Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. | ||
| Baris 73: | Baris 73: | ||
* '''Isolated studies''' – Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. If the isolated study is a primary source, it should generally not be used if there are secondary sources that cover the same content. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Avoid [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight]] when using single studies in such fields. Studies relating to complex and [[wikt:abstruse|abstruse]] fields, such as [[medicine]], are less definitive and should be avoided. Secondary sources, such as [[meta-analysis|meta-analyses]], textbooks, and scholarly [[review articles]] are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context. | * '''Isolated studies''' – Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. If the isolated study is a primary source, it should generally not be used if there are secondary sources that cover the same content. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Avoid [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight]] when using single studies in such fields. Studies relating to complex and [[wikt:abstruse|abstruse]] fields, such as [[medicine]], are less definitive and should be avoided. Secondary sources, such as [[meta-analysis|meta-analyses]], textbooks, and scholarly [[review articles]] are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context. | ||
* <span id="QUESTIONABLEJOURNAL"></span>'''POV and peer review in journals''' – Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.<ref group="notes">Examples include ''The Creation Research Society Quarterly'' and ''Journal of Frontier Science'' (the latter uses [http://jfspeerreview.blogspot.com blog comments as peer review]). {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190420060736/http://jfspeerreview.blogspot.com/|date=2019-04-20}}).</ref> | * <span id="QUESTIONABLEJOURNAL"></span>'''POV and peer review in journals''' – Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.<ref group="notes">Examples include ''The Creation Research Society Quarterly'' and ''Journal of Frontier Science'' (the latter uses [http://jfspeerreview.blogspot.com blog comments as peer review]). {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190420060736/http://jfspeerreview.blogspot.com/|date=2019-04-20}}).</ref> | ||
* {{anchor|Predatory journals}}'''Predatory journals''' – Some journals are of very low quality that have only token peer-review, if any (see [[predatory journals]]). These journals publish whatever is submitted if the author is willing to pay a fee. Some go so far as to mimic the names of established journals (see [[hijacked journals]]).<ref>{{cite web |last=Beall |first=Jeffrey |authorlink=Jeffrey Beall |date=1 January 2015 |title=Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers |edition=3rd |publisher=Scholarly Open Access |url=http://scholarlyoa.com/2012/11/30/criteria-for-determining-predatory-open-access-publishers-2nd-edition/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170105195017/https://scholarlyoa.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/criteria-2015.pdf| archive-date=5 January 2017}}</ref><ref name=NYT4713>{{cite news |last=Kolata |first=Gina |authorlink=Gina Kolata |date=April 7, 2013 |title=Scientific Articles Accepted (Personal Checks, Too) |newspaper=The New York Times |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/health/for-scientists-an-exploding-world-of-pseudo-academia.html |accessdate=April 11, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130411001403/http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/health/for-scientists-an-exploding-world-of-pseudo-academia.html |archive-date=April 11, 2013 |url-status=live |df=mdy-all }}</ref><ref name=Nature032713>{{cite journal |last=Butler |first=Declan |date=March 28, 2013 |title=Sham journals scam authors: Con artists are stealing the identities of real journals to cheat scientists out of publishing fees |journal=Nature |volume=495 |issue=7442 |pages=421–422 |doi=10.1038/495421a |pmid=23538804 |s2cid=242583 |url=http://www.nature.com/news/sham-journals-scam-authors-1.12681 |accessdate=April 11, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130413064730/http://www.nature.com/news/sham-journals-scam-authors-1.12681 |archive-date=April 13, 2013 |url-status=live |df=mdy-all }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Bohannon |first=John |authorlink=John Bohannon |date=4 October 2013 |title=Who's afraid of peer review? |journal=Science |doi=10.1126/science.342.6154.60 |pmid=24092725 |volume=342 |issue=6154 |pages=60–65}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/science/predatory-journals-academics.html|title=Many Academics Are Eager to Publish in Worthless Journals|first=Gina|last=Kolata|date=30 October 2017|accessdate=2 November 2017|newspaper=The New York Times|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171108014011/https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/science/predatory-journals-academics.html|archive-date=8 November 2017|url-status=live|df=dmy-all}}</ref> The lack of reliable peer review implies that articles in such journals should ''at best'' be treated similarly to [[WP:SPS|self-published sources]].<ref group="notes">Many submissions to these predatory journals will be by scholars that a) cannot get their theories published in legitimate journals, b) were looking to quickly publish something to boost their academic resumes, or c) were honestly looking for a legitimate peer-review process to validate new ideas, but were denied the feedback by fraudulent publishers.</ref> If you are unsure about the quality of a journal, check that the editorial board is based in a respected [[Higher education accreditation|accredited university]], and that it is included in the relevant high-quality [[citation index]]—be wary of indexes that merely list almost all publications, and do not vet the journals they list. For medical content, more guidance is available at [[ | * {{anchor|Predatory journals}}'''Predatory journals''' – Some journals are of very low quality that have only token peer-review, if any (see [[predatory journals]]). These journals publish whatever is submitted if the author is willing to pay a fee. Some go so far as to mimic the names of established journals (see [[hijacked journals]]).<ref>{{cite web |last=Beall |first=Jeffrey |authorlink=Jeffrey Beall |date=1 January 2015 |title=Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers |edition=3rd |publisher=Scholarly Open Access |url=http://scholarlyoa.com/2012/11/30/criteria-for-determining-predatory-open-access-publishers-2nd-edition/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170105195017/https://scholarlyoa.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/criteria-2015.pdf| archive-date=5 January 2017}}</ref><ref name=NYT4713>{{cite news |last=Kolata |first=Gina |authorlink=Gina Kolata |date=April 7, 2013 |title=Scientific Articles Accepted (Personal Checks, Too) |newspaper=The New York Times |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/health/for-scientists-an-exploding-world-of-pseudo-academia.html |accessdate=April 11, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130411001403/http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/health/for-scientists-an-exploding-world-of-pseudo-academia.html |archive-date=April 11, 2013 |url-status=live |df=mdy-all }}</ref><ref name=Nature032713>{{cite journal |last=Butler |first=Declan |date=March 28, 2013 |title=Sham journals scam authors: Con artists are stealing the identities of real journals to cheat scientists out of publishing fees |journal=Nature |volume=495 |issue=7442 |pages=421–422 |doi=10.1038/495421a |pmid=23538804 |s2cid=242583 |url=http://www.nature.com/news/sham-journals-scam-authors-1.12681 |accessdate=April 11, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130413064730/http://www.nature.com/news/sham-journals-scam-authors-1.12681 |archive-date=April 13, 2013 |url-status=live |df=mdy-all }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Bohannon |first=John |authorlink=John Bohannon |date=4 October 2013 |title=Who's afraid of peer review? |journal=Science |doi=10.1126/science.342.6154.60 |pmid=24092725 |volume=342 |issue=6154 |pages=60–65}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/science/predatory-journals-academics.html|title=Many Academics Are Eager to Publish in Worthless Journals|first=Gina|last=Kolata|date=30 October 2017|accessdate=2 November 2017|newspaper=The New York Times|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171108014011/https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/science/predatory-journals-academics.html|archive-date=8 November 2017|url-status=live|df=dmy-all}}</ref> The lack of reliable peer review implies that articles in such journals should ''at best'' be treated similarly to [[WP:SPS|self-published sources]].<ref group="notes">Many submissions to these predatory journals will be by scholars that a) cannot get their theories published in legitimate journals, b) were looking to quickly publish something to boost their academic resumes, or c) were honestly looking for a legitimate peer-review process to validate new ideas, but were denied the feedback by fraudulent publishers.</ref> If you are unsure about the quality of a journal, check that the editorial board is based in a respected [[Higher education accreditation|accredited university]], and that it is included in the relevant high-quality [[citation index]]—be wary of indexes that merely list almost all publications, and do not vet the journals they list. For medical content, more guidance is available at [[Javasatu:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Predatory journals|WP:MEDRS]]. | ||
{{anchor|Preprints}} | {{anchor|Preprints}} | ||
{{shortcut|WP:PREPRINT|WP:PREPRINTS}} | {{shortcut|WP:PREPRINT|WP:PREPRINTS}} | ||