Ce diaporama a bien été signalé.
Nous utilisons votre profil LinkedIn et vos données d’activité pour vous proposer des publicités personnalisées et pertinentes. Vous pouvez changer vos préférences de publicités à tout moment.
Evaluating Science Literature
Step One: Is It Original Research? <ul><li>The article focuses on a single, well-defined topic, the hypothesis, which is t...
Step Two: Is It From An Authoritative Source? <ul><li>The standard of authority among scientists and the academic communit...
Step Three: Is the Research Objective? <ul><li>The hypothesis posed by the author(s) can be tested. </li></ul><ul><li>The ...
Step Four: Is the Research Valid? <ul><li>Responsiveness : The evidence answers the question put forth in the hypothesis. ...
Guidelines for Approaching Different Type of Scientific Literature
Peer-Reviewed, Primary Research <ul><li>These are materials published in a peer-reviewed source that meet the requirements...
Peer-Reviewed, Secondary Research <ul><li>These are materials published in a peer-reviewed source that do not meet the req...
Non Peer-Reviewed, Primary Research <ul><li>These are materials that are not published in a peer-reviewed source but still...
Non Peer-Reviewed, Secondary Research <ul><li>This category covers the widest range of materials.  </li></ul><ul><li>Thing...
<ul><li>Karenann Jurecki </li></ul><ul><li>131 Owen Library </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>AIM: JKare...
Prochain SlideShare
Chargement dans…5
×

3

Partager

Télécharger pour lire hors ligne

Evaluating Science Literature

Télécharger pour lire hors ligne

Livres associés

Gratuit avec un essai de 30 jours de Scribd

Tout voir

Evaluating Science Literature

  1. 1. Evaluating Science Literature
  2. 2. Step One: Is It Original Research? <ul><li>The article focuses on a single, well-defined topic, the hypothesis, which is the starting point of the research. </li></ul><ul><li>The article contains the experimental or computational design. </li></ul><ul><li>The article outlines the methods </li></ul><ul><li>The article contains statistical/quantifiable data that either supports or refutes the hypothesis. </li></ul><ul><li>The article discusses the results. </li></ul><ul><li>The article suggests a course for future research. </li></ul>
  3. 3. Step Two: Is It From An Authoritative Source? <ul><li>The standard of authority among scientists and the academic community in general is PEER-REVIEW. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Aka: juried, refereed, or juried. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory will tell you if a journal is peer-reviewed or not </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Ulrich’s is available online through the WSU Libraries. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Otherwise, check the editorial statement in a print copy of the journal. That should tell you if it’s peer-reviewed or not </li></ul><ul><li>Peer-review means that the author has met the requirements for publications established by that journal, including: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The article fits the scope of the journal. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The reviewers and the editor(s) find the science and the results to be sound. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The paper contributes to the body of scientific knowledge. </li></ul></ul>
  4. 4. Step Three: Is the Research Objective? <ul><li>The hypothesis posed by the author(s) can be tested. </li></ul><ul><li>The objectives and methods are written clearly and explained adequately. </li></ul><ul><li>The results are written in language that is unambiguous and free of bias. </li></ul><ul><li>It is easy to ascertain who sponsored the research. </li></ul><ul><li>It is easy to ascertain the author(s)’ credentials. </li></ul>
  5. 5. Step Four: Is the Research Valid? <ul><li>Responsiveness : The evidence answers the question put forth in the hypothesis. </li></ul><ul><li>Robustness : The authors used established methods and techniques. </li></ul><ul><li>Reliability : Other researchers performed the same tests, under the same conditions, with the same instruments and got the same result. </li></ul><ul><li>Rigor : The interpretation of the results makes sense and is consistent with the results of similar work, and if the results are not consistent the authors explain those inconsistencies adequately. </li></ul>
  6. 6. Guidelines for Approaching Different Type of Scientific Literature
  7. 7. Peer-Reviewed, Primary Research <ul><li>These are materials published in a peer-reviewed source that meet the requirements of originality, objectivity, and validity. </li></ul><ul><li>The most important factor is clarity; do the authors explain everything in sufficient detail that the experiment could be reproduced exactly. </li></ul><ul><li>Examples: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Research articles in peer-reviewed journals </li></ul></ul>
  8. 8. Peer-Reviewed, Secondary Research <ul><li>These are materials published in a peer-reviewed source that do not meet the requirements of originality, but still meet the requirements of objectivity, and validity. </li></ul><ul><li>In this category the emphasis shifts to the connectivity of ideas. Do the authors cite the previous research consistently? Are the connections thoughtful, logical, and consistent? </li></ul><ul><li>Examples: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Review articles </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Meta-analysis (an article that condenses the research results from other articles. Look at a Cochrane report from the Cochrane Library, it’s a great example of meta-analysis.) </li></ul></ul>
  9. 9. Non Peer-Reviewed, Primary Research <ul><li>These are materials that are not published in a peer-reviewed source but still meet the requirements of originality, objectivity, and validity. </li></ul><ul><li>In addition to having sufficient information to reproduce the experiment, examine how the authors treat the source material. </li></ul><ul><li>Examples: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Theses/Dissertation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Government White Papers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Conference Proceedings/Abstracts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Manuals </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Protocols </li></ul></ul>
  10. 10. Non Peer-Reviewed, Secondary Research <ul><li>This category covers the widest range of materials. </li></ul><ul><li>Things to watch out for: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Are sufficient primary sources to support this work? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Check whether the research has been done before </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Do the authors cite sufficient peer-reviewed sources? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Are they citing facts or opinions? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Who pubished this? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Do they have an agenda? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Examples: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Textbooks </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Handbooks </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Popular Science Books </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Newspaper articles </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Magazine articles </li></ul></ul>
  11. 11. <ul><li>Karenann Jurecki </li></ul><ul><li>131 Owen Library </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>AIM: JKarenann </li></ul><ul><li>Yahoo IM: k.jurecki </li></ul>
  • drmanjula7

    Nov. 16, 2018
  • JaniceSalanatin

    Feb. 13, 2016
  • anneblapierre

    Jan. 12, 2014

Vues

Nombre de vues

638

Sur Slideshare

0

À partir des intégrations

0

Nombre d'intégrations

2

Actions

Téléchargements

9

Partages

0

Commentaires

0

Mentions J'aime

3

×