Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) at 11:14, 15 May 2007 (remove rejected, since there has been steady progress and no rejection). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 and basics

See also: Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Types of source material
  • 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 specialist 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.

Cite peer-reviewed scientific publications and check community consensus

Scientific journals are the best place to find primary source articles about experiments, including medical studies. Any serious scientific journal is peer-reviewed. Be careful of material in a journal that is not peer-reviewed reporting material in a different field. (See the Marty Rimm and Sokal affairs.)

The fact that a statement is published in a refereed journal does not make it true. Even a well-designed experiment or study can produce flawed results or fall victim to deliberate fraud. (See the Retracted article on neurotoxicity of ecstasy and the Schön affair.)

Neutrality and no original research policies demand that we present the prevailing medical or scientific consensus, which can be found in recent, authoritative review articles or textbooks and some forms of monographs. Although significant-minority views are welcome in Wikipedia, the views of tiny minorities need not be reported. (See Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View.)

Make readers aware of any uncertainty or controversy. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers.

In science, avoid citing the popular press

The popular press generally does not cover science well. Articles in newspapers and popular magazines generally lack the context to judge experimental results. They tend to overemphasize the certainty of any result, for instance presenting a new experimental medicine as the "discovery of the cure" of a disease. Also, newspapers and magazines frequently publish articles about scientific results before those results have been peer-reviewed or reproduced by other experimenters. They also tend not to report adequately on the methodology of scientific work, or the degree of experimental error. Thus, popular newspaper and magazine sources are generally not reliable sources for science and medicine articles.

What can a popular-press article on scientific research provide? Often, the most useful thing is the name of the head researcher involved in a project, and the name of his or her institution. For instance, a newspaper article quoting Joe Smith of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution regarding whales' response to sonar gives you a strong suggestion of where to go to find more: look up his work on the subject. Rather than citing the newspaper article, cite his published papers.

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

Additionally, an authoritative bibliograpy of medical books and journals recommended by medical librarians is the Brandon/Hill Selected List of Print Books and Journals. [2]

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 summarizes 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

The quality of newspaper coverage of medicine ranges from excellent to irresponsible, and they should be verified like any other sources. Even peer-reviewed journals like the New England Journal of Medicine cite articles in newspapers like the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. Some tabloids, like the New York Daily News, have a reputation for careful fact-checking and knowledgeable reporters; others do not. Some academic organizations that evaluate news coverage are Health News Review (U.S.), Media Doctor (Australia), and Media Doctor (Canada). The British Medical Journal reviews U.K. media coverage.

Newspapers can make a good source for social, biographical, current-affairs and historical information in a medical article. They should not be used as a source for medical facts and figures.

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. Self-published or books published by vanity presses are generally not subject to any form of independent fact-checking or peer review and may not be reliable sources.

Online

Reliable references

Background reading

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)&oldid=131006056"