Javasatu:Sumber terpercaya: Perbedaan antara revisi

Loncat ke navigasi Loncat ke pencarian

Javasatu:Sumber terpercaya (lihat sumber)

Revisi per 6 Oktober 2023 16.21

176 bita ditambahkan ,  1 tahun yang lalu
→‎Scholarship
VisualTeks wiki
Baris 69: Baris 69:


* '''Lebih memilih sumber sekunder''' – Artikel harus mengandalkan sumber sekunder bila memungkinkan. Misalnya, makalah yang mengulas penelitian yang sudah ada, artikel ulasan, monografi, atau buku teks seringkali lebih baik daripada makalah penelitian utama. Saat mengandalkan sumber primer, disarankan untuk sangat berhati-hati. Para penulis tidak boleh menafsirkan sendiri isi sumber primer (lihat [[Javasatu:Bukan riset orisinal]] dan [[Javasatu:Sudut pandang netral]]).
* '''Lebih memilih sumber sekunder''' – Artikel harus mengandalkan sumber sekunder bila memungkinkan. Misalnya, makalah yang mengulas penelitian yang sudah ada, artikel ulasan, monografi, atau buku teks seringkali lebih baik daripada makalah penelitian utama. Saat mengandalkan sumber primer, disarankan untuk sangat berhati-hati. Para penulis tidak boleh menafsirkan sendiri isi sumber primer (lihat [[Javasatu:Bukan riset orisinal]] dan [[Javasatu:Sudut pandang netral]]).
* '''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.  
* '''Beasiswa yang dapat diandalkan''' – Materi seperti artikel, buku, monografi, atau makalah penelitian yang telah diperiksa oleh komunitas ilmiah dianggap dapat diandalkan, jika materi tersebut telah dipublikasikan di sumber-sumber peer-review yang memiliki reputasi baik atau oleh pers akademis yang ternama.
* '''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.
* '''Disertasi''' – Disertasi atau tesis yang telah selesai ditulis sebagai bagian dari persyaratan untuk mendapatkan gelar doktor, dan tersedia untuk umum (sebagian besar melalui pinjaman antar perpustakaan atau dari Proquest), dapat digunakan tetapi kehati-hatian harus dilakukan, karena sering kali, sebagian, merupakan sumber utama . Beberapa dari mereka telah melalui proses tinjauan sejawat akademis, dengan tingkat ketelitian yang berbeda-beda, namun ada pula yang tidak. Jika memungkinkan, gunakan tesis yang telah dikutip dalam literatur; diawasi oleh spesialis yang diakui di bidangnya; atau ditinjau oleh pihak independen. Disertasi yang sedang diproses belum diperiksa dan tidak dianggap diterbitkan sehingga pada umumnya bukan merupakan sumber yang dapat diandalkan. Beberapa tesis kemudian diterbitkan dalam bentuk monografi ilmiah atau artikel tinjauan sejawat, dan, jika tersedia, biasanya sumber-sumber ini lebih disukai daripada tesis asli. Disertasi dan tesis master dianggap dapat diandalkan hanya jika terbukti memiliki pengaruh ilmiah yang signifikan.
* '''Citation counts''' – One may be able to confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking what scholarly citations it has received in [[citation index]]es or lists such as [[DOAJ]]. Works published in journals not included in appropriate databases, especially in fields well covered by them, might be isolated from mainstream academic discourse, though whether it is appropriate to use will depend on the context. The number of citations may be misleading if an author cites [[Self-citation|themselves]] often.
* '''Jumlah kutipan''' – Seseorang mungkin dapat memastikan bahwa pembahasan sumber telah memasuki wacana akademis umum dengan memeriksa kutipan ilmiah apa yang telah diterimanya dalam indeks atau daftar kutipan seperti DOAJ. Karya-karya yang diterbitkan dalam jurnal-jurnal yang tidak termasuk dalam database yang sesuai, terutama dalam bidang-bidang yang banyak dicakup oleh jurnal-jurnal tersebut, mungkin terisolasi dari wacana akademis arus utama, meskipun kelayakan penggunaannya akan bergantung pada konteksnya. Jumlah kutipan mungkin menyesatkan jika penulis sering mengutip dirinya sendiri.
* '''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.
* '''Studi terisolasi''' – Studi terisolasi biasanya dianggap tentatif dan dapat berubah seiring dengan penelitian akademis lebih lanjut. Jika penelitian yang terisolasi merupakan sumber primer, sebaiknya tidak digunakan jika terdapat sumber sekunder yang mencakup konten yang sama. Keandalan suatu penelitian tergantung pada bidangnya. Hindari bobot yang tidak semestinya ketika menggunakan studi tunggal di bidang tersebut. Studi yang berkaitan dengan bidang yang kompleks dan sulit dipahami, seperti kedokteran, kurang definitif dan harus dihindari. Sumber sekunder, seperti meta-analisis, buku teks, dan artikel tinjauan ilmiah lebih diutamakan jika tersedia, sehingga dapat memberikan konteks yang tepat.
* <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 [[Javasatu:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Predatory journals|WP:MEDRS]].
* {{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]].
Diperoleh dari "https://wiki.javasatu.com/wiki/Istimewa:MobileDiff/4434"

Menu navigasi