Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine): Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
Next edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Initial version containing text directly lifted from WP:MEDMOS
 
Expanded, with details on journals and books.
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Proposed|[[WP:MEDRS]]}}
:''See also: [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Cite_peer-reviewed_scientific_publications_and_check_community_consensus|Wikipedia:Reliable sources]].''


:''See also: [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources]] and [[Wikipedia:No original research#Sources|Wikipedia:No original research]].''
In general, Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable '''[[secondary source]]s'''. Good secondary sources are, for example, medicine textbooks.


Wikipedia's medical articles should use reliable published sources. These guidelines supplement the general guidelines at [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]]. The ideal source would be a general or [[systematic review]] in a reputable [[medical journal]], or a widely recognised standard textbook written by experts in their field. It is also useful to reference seminal papers on the subject, as part of documenting the history of the subject.
If the '''latest research''' findings arrived in your post-box today, great! But as you add them to an article make sure they are supported by background content. You might also want to consider waiting until other researchers have confirmed it, or it is integrated in review articles or medical books. If desired, you can broadly signify a trend without endeavouring to keep the reference list completely up-to-date with the very latest studies.


==Some definitions==
Ideally every medical article should have
*a few historical references (e.g. first reported case, discovery of pathogenesis)
*one or two recent systematic reviews in core journals (like ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'', ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'', ''[[Cell (journal)|Cell]]'',...).
*Textbooks are important as secondary sources.
*Some databases (like [[OMIM]] or [[eMedicine]]) provide in-depth peer-reviewed information (but remember, nobody's perfect).


:''See also: [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Some definitions]]''
Ideally any online reference will be to an open sites that do not restrict access to non-professionals or require a subscription. [[Template:PMC]] (see below) may be very helpful to this end.


* A '''[[primary source]]''' in medicine is one where the authors participated in research or documented their personal experiences. They examined the patients, injected the rats or filled the test tubes, or at least supervised those who did. Many, but not all, papers published in medical journals are primary sources. Most medical journals have high editorial standards and ensure research papers are [[peer review|peer reviewed]].
*'''References''' - are sources used as background to a whole topic and should be included as a bulleted list (start each line with an asterisk '*'). Citation details may be manually formatted, but the use of [[Wikipedia:Template_messages/Sources_of_articles#Citations_of_generic_sources|generic citation templates]] helps standardise their appearance.
*'''Footnotes''' - are sources provided to expand or verify specific details in the text. The same manual or template formating of citation details is used, but additional markup is needed to generate the footnote numbered links (e.g. <sup>[1]</sup>). [[WP:Footnotes]] describes cite.php, the latest of several methods, as summarised below.


* A '''[[secondary source]]''' in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to give an overview on a medical speciality. Review papers and textbooks are examples of secondary sources. A good secondary source from a reputable publisher will be written by an expert in the field and be editorially or peer reviewed. Journalists writing in the popular press, and marketing departments who issue press releases tend to write poor secondary source material.
==Good online resources==

* A '''[[tertiary source]]''' usually summarizes secondary sources. Encyclopedias, including Wikipedia, are tertiary sources.

In general, Wikipedia's medical articles should use published reliable secondary sources whenever possible. Reliable primary sources may be used only with great care, because it's easy to misuse them. For that reason, edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source.

==Periodicals==

Periodicals include newspapers, magazines and journals. The very latest research is often published first here. Where an archive is provided however, then many decades of research can be accessed.

===Medical journals===

These are a natural choice as a source for up-to-date information for medical articles. They contain a mixture of primary and secondary sources, as well as less technical material such as biographies. Although almost all such material will count as a reliable source, not all the material is equally useful.

====Core journals====

[[Impact factor]] is a crude guideline to a journal's authority.[http://www.epidemiologic.org/2006/10/journal-impact-factors-for-2005.html] If the articles in the top journals tend to be cited most often by other expert authors, then it is not a bad idea to do likewise on Wikipedia. The core general medical journals include

* [[New England Journal of Medicine]]
* [[The Lancet]]
* [[Journal of the American Medical Association]] (JAMA)
* [[Annals of Internal Medicine]]
* [[British Medical Journal]] (BMJ)
* [[Canadian Medical Association Journal]]

Core basic science and biology journals include

* [[Science (journal)|Science]]
* [[Cell (journal)|Cell]]
* [[Nature (journal)|Nature]]

====Article type====

Journal articles come in many types: original research, reviews, editorials, book reviews, correspondence, biographies and eulogies. Research papers are, of course, primary sources. A general review of a subject by an expert in the field makes a good secondary source. Such reviews often contain no original research but can make interpretations and draw conclusions from primary sources that no Wikipedia editor would be allowed to do. A systematic review is both a primary and secondary source - it sumarizes other papers but it does so in order to research the field and possibly come to a novel conclusion.

===Popular science===

Popular science magazines such as [[New Scientist]] and [[Scientific American]] sometimes feature articles on medical subjects. Whilst not peer reviewed, their advantage is that the material is explained in plain English.

===Newspapers===

Quality broadsheet newspapers can sometimes report medical news responsibly. Often, however, the distinction between science and pseudo-science is not maintained. Tabloid newspapers are virtually never a suitable source. The dictum "never let the truth get in the way of a good story" applies here more than anywhere.

==Books==

===Medical textbooks===

Medical textbooks published by the academic press are an excellent secondary source. Ensure the book is up-to-date, unless a historical perspective is required.

===Popular science and medicine books===

These are usually tertiary sources, but there are exceptions. Some well known and respected popular science authors include [[Oliver Sacks]], [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Stephen Jay Gould]].

==Online==

===Reliable references===


*[[OMIM]] provides a lot of useful info with regards to [[genetic disease]]s.
*[[OMIM]] provides a lot of useful info with regards to [[genetic disease]]s.
⚫
*[[MedlinePlus]] has encyclopedic content in plain English from the [[National Institutes of Health|NIH]].
*[[eMedicine]] is a very big and reliable source.
*[[eMedicine]] is a very big and reliable source.
⚫
*[[Diseases Database]].
*[[Who Named It|WhoNamedIt]] is an excellent reference for [[eponyms]] in medicine.
*[[Who Named It|WhoNamedIt]] is an excellent reference for [[eponyms]] in medicine.

===Background reading===

⚫
*[[MedlinePlus]] has encyclopedic content in plain English from the [[National Institutes of Health|NIH]].
⚫
*[[Diseases Database]].
*[[GPnotebook]] is a UK website which provides an easy access for general practitioners and may be an interesting source.
*[[GPnotebook]] is a UK website which provides an easy access for general practitioners and may be an interesting source.
*[[SUNY Downstate Medical Center]] has an excellent set of online anatomic preparations.
*[[SUNY Downstate Medical Center]] has an excellent set of online anatomic preparations.

Revision as of 16:57, 10 November 2006

See also: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources and Wikipedia:No original research.

Wikipedia's medical articles should use reliable published sources. These guidelines supplement the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The ideal source would be a general or systematic review in a reputable medical journal, or a widely recognised standard textbook written by experts in their field. It is also useful to reference seminal papers on the subject, as part of documenting the history of the subject.

Some definitions

See also: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Some definitions
  • A primary source in medicine is one where the authors participated in research or documented their personal experiences. They examined the patients, injected the rats or filled the test tubes, or at least supervised those who did. Many, but not all, papers published in medical journals are primary sources. Most medical journals have high editorial standards and ensure research papers are peer reviewed.
  • A secondary source in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to give an overview on a medical speciality. Review papers and textbooks are examples of secondary sources. A good secondary source from a reputable publisher will be written by an expert in the field and be editorially or peer reviewed. Journalists writing in the popular press, and marketing departments who issue press releases tend to write poor secondary source material.
  • A tertiary source usually summarizes secondary sources. Encyclopedias, including Wikipedia, are tertiary sources.

In general, Wikipedia's medical articles should use published reliable secondary sources whenever possible. Reliable primary sources may be used only with great care, because it's easy to misuse them. For that reason, edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source.

Periodicals

Periodicals include newspapers, magazines and journals. The very latest research is often published first here. Where an archive is provided however, then many decades of research can be accessed.

Medical journals

These are a natural choice as a source for up-to-date information for medical articles. They contain a mixture of primary and secondary sources, as well as less technical material such as biographies. Although almost all such material will count as a reliable source, not all the material is equally useful.

Core journals

Impact factor is a crude guideline to a journal's authority.[1] If the articles in the top journals tend to be cited most often by other expert authors, then it is not a bad idea to do likewise on Wikipedia. The core general medical journals include

Core basic science and biology journals include

Article type

Journal articles come in many types: original research, reviews, editorials, book reviews, correspondence, biographies and eulogies. Research papers are, of course, primary sources. A general review of a subject by an expert in the field makes a good secondary source. Such reviews often contain no original research but can make interpretations and draw conclusions from primary sources that no Wikipedia editor would be allowed to do. A systematic review is both a primary and secondary source - it sumarizes other papers but it does so in order to research the field and possibly come to a novel conclusion.

Popular science

Popular science magazines such as New Scientist and Scientific American sometimes feature articles on medical subjects. Whilst not peer reviewed, their advantage is that the material is explained in plain English.

Newspapers

Quality broadsheet newspapers can sometimes report medical news responsibly. Often, however, the distinction between science and pseudo-science is not maintained. Tabloid newspapers are virtually never a suitable source. The dictum "never let the truth get in the way of a good story" applies here more than anywhere.

Books

Medical textbooks

Medical textbooks published by the academic press are an excellent secondary source. Ensure the book is up-to-date, unless a historical perspective is required.

Popular science and medicine books

These are usually tertiary sources, but there are exceptions. Some well known and respected popular science authors include Oliver Sacks, Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould.

Online

Reliable references

Background reading

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)&oldid=86964405"