Wikipedia talk:No original research

Original Research in science

I am a chemist and regularly search the scientific literature for various chemistry and biochemistry topics, and have done so for many years. Although I read reviews I usually only use them to find papers that have made the original discovery, for example a new catalyst. Incidentally, this has also made me realise that secondary sources, like reviews, can have mistakes in them. All scientists I know do something similar and if they themselves are writing a review will cite those original papers in preference to the secondary literature. Wikipedia articles are really reviews and at least as far as scientific subjects are concerned I find it really odd that one should not cite original research in them. Philip Jewess — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:ECA6:6D01:28B1:9C9C:4547:D150 (talk) 22:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The second sentence of this policy says The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.

The rule is to not present one's one original research here but that it should be published elsewhere. It doesn't say "don't use someone's novel research that has been peer-reviewed and published." Such research would be a primary source. Further down, the policy says Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.

It is interpretation of primary sources that's restricted, not their actual use. And that's because anyone here can mess up the interpretation as much as those reviews you point to -- but non-primary literature is published and someone on the internet saying "because I said so" isn't. And for scientific and especially medical statements, you should understand why tertiary meta-analysis (or textbooks based on meta-analysis) beats individual studies. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Books published by university presses

Books published by university presses are high in the list of reliable sources. Perhaps this needs revision. I am currently editing a Wikipedia article about a book published by Amsterdam University Press (AUP) that has caused a huge controversy. When I read the reviews about the book and information about the AUP I learned that the AUP is a commercial enterprise that operates independently from the University of Amsterdam. In the case of this book, the author is not an academic, the AUP employee who organized the publication is not an academic, and according to a review published in the Netherlands nobody at the AUP or the university has critically reviewed the text. It is my understanding that the AUP has split from the university several years ago and publishes popular books to avoid bankrupty. This policy disqualifies the AUP as a reliable source I would say. I wonder how many other university presses have found themselves in similar circumstances and have either become independent companies or have adapted their publishing policy to increase sales in order to survive. Saflieni (talk) 08:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Prestigious Melbourne University Publishing has gone the other way, to publish nothing but mainstream scholarship. Critics see this move as political rather than financial. Errantius (talk) 11:13, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

It is quite common for university presses to be separate companies from the universities they are associated with, so that much means nothing. Also, university presses are not sources at all, they are publishers of sources. It is our practice, and I believe justifiably so, that being published by a university press is one of the things we take into account when deciding if a book is reliable. It isn't an absolute guarantee of reliability, and if there is evidence of unreliability it is fine to present a case for unreliability and try to get a consensus. I have done that, sometimes successfully and sometimes not. Zero^talk 11:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• Why are we discussing this here at WP:No original research? Seems more of a WP:RS issue. Blueboar (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Quite right, Blueboar. I have no objection to moving all this to there. Errantius (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
    • That's ok. I responded to the list of reliable sources I found here but the WP:RS page raises a similar question. It does define publishers as sources (one of three types) and puts "well-regarded academic presses" on par with peer-reviewed research. My example shows that for a Wikipedia editor it's not always easy to decide on reliability without investigating and forming a personal opinion about it. This might conflict with Wikipedia guidelines on NPOV and original research. Saflieni (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Calculation of dates.

Just checking. I believe that if I have an article in a newspaper with a relative date in it, calculation of the actual date is *not* original research For example, I have a newspaper dated December 1, 2020 and it says something happened "last Friday", then stating in an article referenced to that newspaper that something occured on November 27, 2020 is fine, right?Naraht (talk) 10:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Note that people disagree on the similar phrase "next Tuesday", see https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/3841/which-day-does-next-tuesday-refer-to. I think the same confusion can occur for "last Friday", but in your example the previous Frida y was also in the previous week so everyone should agree on what it means. I would allow this. Zero^talk 21:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Source Based Research vs Original Research

Using Sources:

"Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. The best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources."

Original Research:

"Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."

Question: what is the official distinction between Source Based Research and Original Research, and where does the one end and the other begin?