User:OMCV/Sourcing science material

Scientific sources
The treatment of scientific sources is very important to finding what is established mainstream science. Since wikipedia is open to everyone (and not all editors are familiar with scientific citation) it is important to explicitly describe the value of potential scientific sources. The list below is a description of how modern sources are considered. Historic contexts are not considered in this list, for example a "specialized text" was historically a common and accepted avenue for the presentation of original research. In the present day all original scientific research is expected to be initially presented in a peer-reviewed journal.


 * Peer-reviewed primary publication: This "work" is the expected first official presentation of original scientific research. Such a publication indicates the author(s)', usually trained specialists, belief and support for the presented "work".  Furthermore an established editor believed the "work" warranted consideration by the scientific community.  This decision is made after considering reviews from two or more established researchers in the pertinent scientific field and requesting necessary revisions from the author(s).
 * Peer-reviewed review article: Review articles are not primary sources of information.  This is usually the first summation of active science put together by well established specialists and their associates.  Review articles are often very technical and contain detailed inline citation to primary work.  This work is usually the first "artifact" of a scientific consensus.
 * Specialized text: Similar to a review article the specialized text is usually longer and has a slightly lower density of inline references. Also written by a specialist, such "works" are usually reviewed and edited by other specialists.  These "works" are often used as texts in higher level courses and as general references by other specialists.  While small portions of these texts might deal with controversial science and other portions may quickly become outdated they are usually a fair representation of scientific consensus.
 * Mainstream textbook: Their intended use is to present a general overview of a field to those not yet trained in the field. Textbooks rarely contain inline citation to primary articles however they may provide references to significant works at the ends of chapters.  General textbooks are useful as a starting point for finding general ideas regarding well established mainstream science. Nonetheless, caution is advised because general, introductory texts are not necessarily written by experts in the field at hand. As such they may include erroneous or outdated material, and should be cross-checked against more rigorous sources.
 * Research group report: Such reports are published by funding agencies, scientific societies, as well as national and internal national panels.  Such reports are usually intended to represent the consensus opinion of a significant portion of the scientific community.  Depending on the notability of the group issuing the report such reports can be extremely important to presenting mainstream science beliefs.
 * Oral and poster presentation: These are often the preliminary and incomplete reports of findings; they are not usually subject to peer review. The more formal and complete peer-reviewed articles intended to reach a wider audience are considered the first official presentations of original research. Unless the poster or a transcript is published, an abstract for these events demonstrates no more than there was an intended presentation on the subject.
 * Patent: By a patent's very nature it does not contain well established science. The science in patents should be treated extremely skeptically because neither the description of, nor the evidence for, a patent must meet the standards of a peer-reviewed journal.  Patents must instead meet legal standards that place a higher priority on the patentee's capacity to own a technology than they do on the soundness of the scientific observations.  Patents often precede peer-reviewed articles for legal reasons but the peer-reviewed article is still considered the first official presentation of original research to the scientific community.
 * Institute journal: There are a variety of non-peer-reviewed journals published by think tanks, research institutes, and similar organizations. These sources are intended to appear as objective scientific publications.  However, the articles from these journals are not the same as peer-reviewed sources.  These sources often represent the POV of the commercial, political, or religious "entity(s)" that fund the publication and should be treated as such.
 * Popular media third-party report: Newspaper articles and television reports are generally considered poor sources for scientific fact and information. However, popular media can be expected to reliably quote individuals (though important context may be omitted).  There are many assertions that aren't dealt with in mainstream peer-reviewed publications. For example accusations of pseudoscience or censorship can not be made in a peer-reviewed publication.  This makes popular media one of the few open channels for such commentary and as a result it should be taken seriously.
 * Popular media self-documentation: Self-documentation is currently not the expected or approved format for the presentation of original research. In modern science this format should be regarded as little better than self-publication when dealing with original research.  As a source of established science these "works" can be considered similar to a textbook if the author is an authority on the subject.
 * Self-publication/press conference: Should not be used as evidence of anything but the authors/presenter's opinion. Such works are considered to be well outside the mainstream scientific community but are appropriate sources for clarifying the opinions of a notable person in a field.  Here, notable means that the person is recognized as an expert by his or her peers as demonstrated by more than one peer reviewed journal article on the subject.  Self published opinions of anyone below this level of notability should probably be deleted.
 * General law: that contains science (excluding Patent Law). Case laws and legislative law are often informed by scientific knowledge, however, the concerns of the legal system and the concern of the scientific community do not fully overlap and no law proves scientific fact.  Luckily such material is rarely a concern on Wikipedia.
 * Forensic evidence: usually the results of a specific experiment supported by law, legal precedent, and/or expert testimony to be used as evidence in relation to a specific event. In contrast science uses specifics experiences to establish knowledge that can be generalized to all settings and events.  Forensic evidence is rarely relevant to science articles on Wikipedia.
 * Expert testimony: the method through which technical material including scientific material is presented in court. Rarely relevant to science articles on Wikipedia.