Wikipedia:Scientific point of view

Readers of scientific articles and articles mentioning scientific topics expect to find information that describes the topic in a way that is consistent with the existing scientific knowledge. To make sure this is indeed the case, editors are instructed not to engage in original research, but instead to write articles using information from peer reviewed scientific sources, preferring those with high impact factors. The impact factor (IF) of an academic journal is a measure reflecting the average number of citations to recent articles published in that journal. It is frequently used as a proxy for the relative importance of a journal within its field, with journals with higher impact factors deemed to be more important than those with lower ones.

It is allowed to use information from sources other than peer reviewed literature, if such information is known to be consistent with current accepted scientific knowledge. Examples include textbooks, mainstream popular science magazines with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, preprints written by scientists with a good publication record, and personal websites or blogs of such scientists. Such sources can be considered reliable sources for a scientific article, if editors agree that what is found in them is consistent with existing scientific knowledge.

Consistency with WP:Neutral point of view
This scientific point of view for science articles is consistent with the neutral point of view policy. For a scientific topic to be presented in a neutral way requires one to stick to the scientific point of view as described in this essay. When there are widely held views that are inconsistent with the scientific point of view, then that can merit inclusion in a section of the article or in another article that is specifically about the non-scientific aspects of the topic.