Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
[129] [130] A Cochrane review found little empirical evidence that peer review ensures quality in biomedical research, [131] while a second systematic review and meta-analysis found a need for evidence-based peer review in biomedicine given the paucity of assessment of the interventions designed to improve the process.
Biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge.This guideline supports the general sourcing policy with specific attention to what is appropriate for medical content in any Wikipedia article, including those on alternative medicine.
A reliable source is one that presents a well-reasoned theory or argument supported by strong evidence. Reliable sources include scholarly, peer-reviewed articles or books written by researchers for students and researchers, which can be found in academic databases and search engines like JSTOR and Google Scholar.
Reliable scholarship – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.
The main academic full-text databases are open archives or link-resolution services, although others operate under different models such as mirroring or hybrid publishers. . Such services typically provide access to full text and full-text search, but also metadata about items for which no full text is availa
A systematic review is a scholarly synthesis of the evidence on a clearly presented topic using critical methods to identify, define and assess research on the topic. [1] A systematic review extracts and interprets data from published studies on the topic (in the scientific literature), then analyzes, describes, critically appraises and summarizes interpretations into a refined evidence-based ...
A result or statement from a reliable secondary source should be included without attribution if it is not disputed by any other recent secondary sources. You should do a search to check that the secondary source you are citing is the most up-to-date assessment of the topic.
In Wikipedia, these research papers are "primary sources." Hopefully, you now have a good understanding of why these papers are not reliable descriptions of reality. They shouldn't be used by the general public for anything, much less creating encyclopedic content. Now from time to time, scientists sit down and read a bunch of research papers.