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 ...
Pre-prints, mainly computer science, mathematics, statistics, chemistry, and biology. Free Yes Synthical Zendy [22] Multidisciplinary: Unknown (31,266,280 [23] Focus on scholarly content including full-text papers, conference proceedings, indexed journals, books, and book chapters from open access sources. Content is available in 38 languages ...
Scholarly journals are normally reliable sources, but some journals have a reputation for bias or unreliability. QuackWatch has a list of non-recommended periodicals, however, a short list of journals which should be used with extreme caution include: Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (JPandS), publishes from an unscientific viewpoint
Potentially unreliable sources ; Reliable source examples ; Topic-specific essays. Identifying reliable sources (history) Identifying reliable sources (law) Identifying reliable sources (science) Identifying reliable sources (medicine) Identifying and using style guides (WP:STYLEGUIDES)
As of 2024, the database has 439 non-partisan organizations around the world. [6] [7] The Lab's inclusion criteria are based on whether the organization: [8] reviews statements by all parties and sides; examines discrete claims and reaches conclusions; transparently identifies its sources and explains its methods; discloses funding/affiliations;
[a] For example, the statement "the capital of France is Paris" does not require a source to be cited, nor is it original research, because it's not something you thought up and it is easily verifiable; therefore, no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it even if they are not cited.
Ideal sources for biomedical information include general or systematic reviews in reliable, independent, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies.
Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used for the purposes of attribution in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse primary sources. For that reason, edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge.