Search results
Mar 6, 2014 · Objectives To examine indexed health science journals to evaluate the prevalence of Wikipedia citations, identify the journals that publish articles with Wikipedia citations, and determine how Wikipedia is being cited. Design Bibliometric analysis. Study selection Publications in the English language that included citations to Wikipedia were retrieved using the online databases Scopus and Web ...
Mar 21, 2023 · Wikipedia as tertiary source. We shall begin with the most obvious categorization of Wikipedia – as a tertiary source. This is how encyclopaedias have traditionally been defined throughout the ages and indeed how Wikipedia defines itself: ‘Wikipedia is a tertiary source: Wikipedia summarizes descriptions, interpretations and analyses that are found in secondary sources, or bases such ...
Entries will be sent to peer review for approval. The publisher will be in charge of the peer review process. As with the usual process for peer review, authors may be required to revise the papers based upon the feedback from the peer review process. The paper will be accepted for publication if the content is improved after essential revision.
Oct 22, 2020 · The encyclopedia Britannica is NOT considered a scholarly source, it can only be used as a reference material as well as a tertiary source. The content in the encyclopedia Britannica is written by academicians for an academic audience. It is edited by real editorial staff. Use the online encyclopedia Britannica to search for all kinds of topics ...
Mar 13, 2024 · The format may be a first indicator of whether or not a source is primary, but evaluating the content will be the ultimate judgement call. Primary and secondary sources often differ based on the academic discipline. This page will give you some guidance on deciding whether a source can be considered primary or not.
Like any source, source criticism is needed, and an encyclopedia requires the highest level of source criticism because of its nature, but that doesn't mean it cannot be useful. Citing it is a bad idea except in the rare case where the general context is being sought, where, for example, the author wants to demonstrate how something is ...
Generally the rule of thumb is that the older the article is, the more reliable it is, but the issue is because it is crowd sourced, you get inconsistent details that are true, but need more context. They have a great way for senior editors to check and sign off on before the updates go into production. But still take newer articles with a ...
