Wikipedia, Scholarpedia, and references to journals in the brain and behavioral sciences: a comparison of cited sources and recommended readings in matching free online encyclopedia entries

From WikiLit
Jump to: navigation, search
Publication (help)
Wikipedia, Scholarpedia, and references to journals in the brain and behavioral sciences: a comparison of cited sources and recommended readings in matching free online encyclopedia entries
Authors: Tony Stankus, Sarah E. Spiegel [edit item]
Citation: Science & Technology Libraries 29 (3): 258-265. 2010. Taylor Francis.
Publication type: Journal article
Peer-reviewed: Yes
Database(s):
DOI: 10.1080/0194262X.2010.497711.
Google Scholar cites: Citations
Link(s): Paper link
Added by Wikilit team: Yes
Search
Article: Google Scholar BASE PubMed
Other scholarly wikis: AcaWiki Brede Wiki WikiPapers
Web search: Bing Google Yahoo!Google PDF
Other:
Services
Format: BibTeX
Wikipedia, Scholarpedia, and references to journals in the brain and behavioral sciences: a comparison of cited sources and recommended readings in matching free online encyclopedia entries is a publication by Tony Stankus, Sarah E. Spiegel.


[edit] Abstract

In a follow up to an earlier article in the previous issue of this journal on book references in 47 matching entries in the brain and behavioral sciences in two competing free online encyclopedias, the anonymously authored and unrefereed Wikipedia and the assigned expert authored and refereed Scholarpedia, references to journals are now compared. Much as was the case with book references, it is now shown that both encyclopedias predominantly cite reputable scholarly and professional journals, with Scholarpedia predictably having more entries and Wikipedia just as predictably having somewhat newer ones. However, in all categories except journals related to psychiatry and psychotherapy, Scholarpedia authors placed a notably stronger emphasis on citing papers from the most highly ranked titles.

[edit] Research questions

"It investigated how journal articles are cited in some Wikipedia articles. As it says, "In a follow up to an earlier article in the previous issue of this journal on book references in 47 matching entries in the brain and behavioral sciences in two competing free online encyclopedias, the anonymously authored and unrefereed Wikipedia and the assigned expert authored and refereed Scholarpedia, references to journals are now compared""

Research details

Topics: Reliability, Encyclopedias [edit item]
Domains: Health, Biology, Library science [edit item]
Theory type: Analysis [edit item]
Wikipedia coverage: Case [edit item]
Theories: "Undetermined" [edit item]
Research design: Statistical analysis [edit item]
Data source: Wikipedia pages [edit item]
Collected data time dimension: Cross-sectional [edit item]
Unit of analysis: Article [edit item]
Wikipedia data extraction: Live Wikipedia [edit item]
Wikipedia page type: Article [edit item]
Wikipedia language: Not specified [edit item]

[edit] Conclusion

"Much as was the case with book references, it is now shown that both encyclopedias predominantly cite reputable scholarly and professional journals, with Scholarpedia predictably having more entries and Wikipedia just as predictably having somewhat newer ones. However, in all categories except journals related to psychiatry and psychotherapy, Scholarpedia authors placed a notably stronger emphasis on citing papers from the most highly ranked titles"

[edit] Comments


Further notes[edit]

See also Wikipedia, Scholarpedia, and references to books in the brain and behavioral sciences: a comparison of cited sources and recommended readings in matching free online encyclopedia entries, an article with almost the same title.

Facts about "Wikipedia, Scholarpedia, and references to journals in the brain and behavioral sciences: a comparison of cited sources and recommended readings in matching free online encyclopedia entries"RDF feed
AbstractIn a follow up to an earlier article in thIn a follow up to an earlier article in the previous issue of this journal on book references in 47 matching entries in the brain and behavioral sciences in two competing free online encyclopedias, the anonymously authored and unrefereed Wikipedia and the assigned expert authored and refereed Scholarpedia, references to journals are now compared. Much as was the case with book references, it is now shown that both encyclopedias predominantly cite reputable scholarly and professional journals, with Scholarpedia predictably having more entries and Wikipedia just as predictably having somewhat newer ones. However, in all categories except journals related to psychiatry and psychotherapy, Scholarpedia authors placed a notably stronger emphasis on citing papers from the most highly ranked titles.papers from the most highly ranked titles.
Added by wikilit teamYes +
Collected data time dimensionCross-sectional +
ConclusionMuch as was the case with book references,Much as was the case with book references, it is now shown that both encyclopedias predominantly cite reputable scholarly and professional journals, with Scholarpedia predictably having more entries and Wikipedia just as predictably having somewhat newer ones. However, in all categories except journals related to psychiatry and psychotherapy, Scholarpedia authors placed a notably stronger emphasis on citing papers from the most highly ranked titles papers from the most highly ranked titles
Data sourceWikipedia pages +
Doi10.1080/0194262X.2010.497711 +
Google scholar urlhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar?ie=UTF-8&q=%22Wikipedia%2C%2BScholarpedia%2C%2Band%2Breferences%2Bto%2Bjournals%2Bin%2Bthe%2Bbrain%2Band%2Bbehavioral%2Bsciences%3A%2Ba%2Bcomparison%2Bof%2Bcited%2Bsources%2Band%2Brecommended%2Breadings%2Bin%2Bmatching%2Bfree%2Bonline%2Bencyclopedia%2Bentries%22 +
Has authorTony Stankus + and Sarah E. Spiegel +
Has domainHealth +, Biology + and Library science +
Has topicReliability + and Encyclopedias +
Issue3 +
Pages258-265 +
Peer reviewedYes +
Publication typeJournal article +
Published inScience & Technology Libraries +
PublisherTaylor Francis +
Research designStatistical analysis +
Research questionsIt investigated how journal articles are cIt investigated how journal articles are cited in some Wikipedia articles. As it says, "In a follow up to an earlier article in the previous issue of this journal on book references in 47 matching entries in the brain and behavioral sciences in two competing free online encyclopedias, the anonymously authored and unrefereed Wikipedia and the assigned expert authored and refereed Scholarpedia, references to journals are now compared", references to journals are now compared"
Revid11,072 +
TheoriesUndetermined
Theory typeAnalysis +
TitleWikipedia, Scholarpedia, and references to journals in the brain and behavioral sciences: a comparison of cited sources and recommended readings in matching free online encyclopedia entries
Unit of analysisArticle +
Urlhttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0194262X.2010.497711 +
Volume29 +
Wikipedia coverageCase +
Wikipedia data extractionLive Wikipedia +
Wikipedia languageNot specified +
Wikipedia page typeArticle +
Year2010 +