| Revision as of 02:49, 3 October 2009 editSkipsievert (talk | contribs)13,044 edits Don'tMassRevertEditConstructivelySeeTalkOwnershipIssue?Undid revision 317576529 by Lawrencekhoo (talk)← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:16, 3 October 2009 edit undoLawrencekhoo (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers29,833 edits Reverted 1 edit by Skipsievert; Convoluted and against policy. (TW)Next edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| {{Essay|WP:ECONRS}} | {{Essay|WP:ECONRS}} | ||
| {{nutshell|Academic and peer reviewed sources |
{{nutshell|Academic and peer reviewed sources are to be preferred when they exist. Weight for different viewpoints should depend on '''reliable, third-party, published''' sources, such as reputable ]s, the series, and widely recognized standard textbooks written by recognized experts in the field.}} | ||
| :''See also: ], ] and ].'' | :''See also: ], ] and ].'' | ||
| When editing, as |
Economics Wikiproject members should keep in mind core Misplaced Pages policies. When editing, as mandated by '']'' and '']'', we should attribute economic theories and viewpoints presented to reliable, published sources. We should strive to use reliable sources, which according to '']'' are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Also according '']'', academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available. The series often provides a definitive reference source. | ||
| Following '']'', all significant economic theories and viewpoints should be presented fairly. Heterodox views and views from other fields, such as ] and ], should not be excluded. |
Following '']'', all significant economic theories and viewpoints should be presented fairly, and in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. Heterodox views and views from other fields, such as ] and ], should not be excluded. However, per '']'', theories and viewpoints held by a small minority should not receive as much attention as the majority view, and views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. Articles on minority economic theories and viewpoints should also make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. According to '']'', majority and minority views should be described as such. | ||
| == Summarize academic consensus == |
== Summarize academic consensus == | ||
| The fact that a statement is published in a refereed journal does not make it true. Be careful of material in a publication that is not peer-reviewed by both opponents as well as proponents of a view. Survey articles in academic journals are the best place to find out the consensus view of economists in the profession. | |||
| ] and ] policies |
] and ] policies demand that we present the prevailing ] or ], which can be found in recent, authoritative review articles or textbooks and some forms of monographs. Although significant-minority views are welcome in Misplaced Pages, such views must be presented in the context of their acceptance by experts in the field. The views of tiny minorities need not be reported. (See ].) | ||
| 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. | |||
| ==Searching for sources== | ==Searching for sources== | ||
Revision as of 15:16, 3 October 2009
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Misplaced Pages contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. | Shortcut |
 | This page in a nutshell: Academic and peer reviewed sources are to be preferred when they exist. Weight for different viewpoints should depend on reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable academic journals, the Handbooks in Economics series, and widely recognized standard textbooks written by recognized experts in the field. |
- See also: Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources, Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Sources and Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view#Undue weight.
Economics Wikiproject members should keep in mind core Misplaced Pages policies. When editing, as mandated by Verifiability and No original research, we should attribute economic theories and viewpoints presented to reliable, published sources. We should strive to use reliable sources, which according to Sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Also according Sources, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available. The Handbooks in Economics series often provides a definitive reference source.
Following Neutral point of view, all significant economic theories and viewpoints should be presented fairly, and in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. Heterodox views and views from other fields, such as history and political economy, should not be excluded. However, per Undue weight, theories and viewpoints held by a small minority should not receive as much attention as the majority view, and views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. Articles on minority economic theories and viewpoints should also make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. According to Giving "equal validity", majority and minority views should be described as such.
Summarize academic consensus
The fact that a statement is published in a refereed journal does not make it true. Be careful of material in a publication that is not peer-reviewed by both opponents as well as proponents of a view. Survey articles in academic journals are the best place to find out the consensus view of economists in the profession.
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 Misplaced Pages, such views must be presented in the context of their acceptance by experts in the field. The views of tiny minorities need not be reported. (See Misplaced Pages: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.
Searching for sources
- Google Scholar covers all scholarly sources. It is useful not only as a sanity check for PubMed searches, but also to cover topics outside PubMed's core purview, such as the sociological or cultural aspects of medicine.
- Google Books can also be quite useful for medical searches: it can let readers peek at a few sentences in books even when full access is not granted, and can help editors find reliable sources quickly, either by looking at the book's references or by citing the book itself.
- Google News can be useful when covering newer events, or when the topic in question has not been adequately treated in the academic literature.