Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
This page in a nutshell: Cite reviews, don't write them. Appropriate sources for discussing the natural sciences include comprehensive reviews in independent, reliable published sources, such as recent peer reviewed articles in reputable scientific journals, statements and reports from reputable expert bodies, widely recognized standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or standard ...
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.
Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretable in accordance with the scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls. [citation needed]
A reliable source is one that presents a well-reasoned theory or argument supported by strong evidence. Reliable sources include scholarly, peer-reviewed articles or books written by researchers for students and researchers, which can be found in academic databases and search engines like JSTOR and Google Scholar.
The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles. Most medical news articles fail to discuss important issues such as evidence quality, [27] costs, and risks versus benefits, [28] and news articles too often convey wrong or misleading information about health care. [29]
I consider that the evidence from Wikipedia can be taken at face value." The case turned substantively upon evidence cited from Wikipedia in 2006 as to the usage and interpretation of the term Formula One. In the United States, the United States Court of Federal Claims has ruled that "Wikipedia may not be a reliable source of information."
Fairly reliable Doubts. Provided valid information in the past. D: Not usually reliable Significant doubts. Provided valid information in the past. E: Unreliable Lacks authenticity, trustworthiness, and competency. History of invalid information. F: Reliability unknown Insufficient information to evaluate reliability. May or may not be reliable.
Credibility dates back to Aristotle's theory of Rhetoric.Aristotle defines rhetoric as the ability to see what is possibly persuasive in every situation. He divided the means of persuasion into three categories, namely Ethos (the source's credibility), Pathos (the emotional or motivational appeals), and Logos (the logic used to support a claim), which he believed have the capacity to influence ...