NationStates Jolt Archive

In the media, there are always reports on scientific discoveries and controversies. Unfortunately, all too often such reports are inaccurate or even grossly distorted, and it can be hard for laypeople to judge which reports to trust and which to discard. And since scientific accuracy is vital for making good policy decisions, this is obviously a problem.

With this in mind, I'd like to give you some short guidelines on determining the overall trustworthiness of cited scientific experts:

- First of all, read through the article and note down the names of scientists quoted in the article. These do have to be actual scientists working in the field, not political pundits and the like. If it does not list any scientists, consider the article to be untrustworthy unless you find other scientific sources confirming its claims.

- Now enter the names of those scientists into Google Scholar. Use their family names, and only enter a single name at a time. Verify that the given name of the scientists matches.

- If you don't get any returns on this query, the person in question is either not a scientist, or someone who has just started out - either way, not someone whose "expert opinion" you should trust.

- If there are articles listed under that name, check if they are actually in the field the scientist has been quoted on. If the scientist is working in an entirely different field, his expert opinions should be taken with a grain of salt. After all, would you ask a dentist for advice about your hemorrhoids?

- Finally, check the number of times the scientist's papers have been cited by other articles. If it's a large number, then it means that his research is generally well-regarded. If it's in the triple digits, he is likely a leader in the field. Conversely, someone whose citations are only in his single digits is likely only starting out and inexperienced.


These guidelines aren't perfect. Sometimes the view of scientists are being distorted to make it look as if they claimed something they didn't. And some listed articles are actually published in journals with no rigorous peer review - or in books. But for the most part, these should help you sort out the trustworthy sources from the untrustworthy ones.

You think something in its beta stage, which is likely not to have indexed every scientist on the planet, is likely to be a reliable way of determining whether someone is an established scientist or not?

You think something in its beta stage, which is likely not to have indexed every scientist on the planet, is likely to be a reliable way of determining whether someone is an established scientist or not?

This, one billion times this.

I fail to see the concern. If you never question the media, then it's a personal problem.

Skepticism is a cornerstone of science. People should question what they hear.

Sometimes I wonder if some people would ingest uranium if they heard an "expert" tell them it would cure obesity.

I fail to see the concern. If you never question the media, then it's a personal problem.

Skepticism is a cornerstone of science. People should question what they hear.

Sometimes I wonder if some people would ingest uranium if they heard an "expert" tell them it would cure obesity.
It seems to me that not every scientist does that. Could I be wrong?

Remember the thousands of scientists that all said global warming is a hoax? That must have turned a few heads. But it was still just a scam.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

Our local weatherman actually did what the OP suggest (online searching) a while back and found out these "climate experts" were just regular doctors and even some vets. (woof woof)

Sometimes I wonder if some people would ingest uranium if they heard an "expert" tell them it would cure obesity.

You wonder if?

Sometimes I wonder if some people would ingest uranium if they heard an "expert" tell them it would cure obesity.

Well, technically...

Side effects are mild to severe and may include: Radiation Poisening, Cancer, hair loss, and various other effects. Honestly, don't take this stuff, being even morbidly obese is far more healthy LISTEN TO THIS WARNING!

You wonder if?

Perhaps someone has a higher opinion of human intelligence than is warranted. Or maybe they just haven't been around long enough to ralize that humans are both vain AND stupid.:D

Or you could follow the links to the study data included in many articles. Or you could read articles from reputable sources, like peer-reviewed scientific journals, or, you know, the freaking AP, since they actually have to check their sources.

Do you get paid to pimp Google Scholar?

Jstor works better

Sometimes I wonder if some people would ingest uranium if they heard an "expert" tell them it would cure obesity.
They did. When radiation was first discovered a few con artists built a bandwagon and jumped on it to peddle radioactive water and other miracle elixirs. It was right up there with ingesting parasites as a cure for obesity and blood-letting to cure anything for stupidity.

They did. When radiation was first discovered a few con artists built a bandwagon and jumped on it to peddle radioactive water and other miracle elixirs. It was right up there with ingesting parasites as a cure for obesity and blood-letting to cure anything for stupidity.

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/offbeat-news/10-radioactive-products-that-people-actually-used/1388

Thanks for the list, greed and death.

I shouldn't be surprised.

Ever look into the beginning of listerine? Guaranteed to grow hair at one point. :eek:

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/offbeat-news/10-radioactive-products-that-people-actually-used/1388

Awesome. Radium suppositories. Maybe the sun doesn't shine out of my butt, but something sure does...

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/offbeat-news/10-radioactive-products-that-people-actually-used/1388

I wonder if cigarettes will be on such a list down the line...

I wonder if cigarettes will be on such a list down the line...

The Germans had chocolate and bread.

Somewhat surprised to find myself on Google scholar, twice. I think that tells you everything you need to know...

Somewhat surprised to find myself on Google scholar, twice. I think that tells you everything you need to know...
L053R. I searched for myself and it gave 120,000 results.



They did. When radiation was first discovered a few con artists built a bandwagon and jumped on it to peddle radioactive water and other miracle elixirs.
Which is not all that weird, considering they didn't know about side effects yet.

Nanotech may well be the new Miracle Radiation Cure.

L053R. I searched for myself and it gave 120,000 results.




Which is not all that weird, considering they didn't know about side effects yet.

Nanotech may well be the new Miracle Radiation Cure.

Yes but I am not a scientist or an academic, I am a librarian.

You think something in its beta stage, which is likely not to have indexed every scientist on the planet, is likely to be a reliable way of determining whether someone is an established scientist or not?

Google scholar isn't brilliant, but generally it's issue is liable to be over-inclusiveness not underinclusiveness. It does have the advantage of being free to non-academics unlike a lot of search engines.

My personal view is, if you have access to Ovid, Jstor or any of the other 'professional' search engines - use them. If not, use google scholar and don't just count the results but actually follow the links provided. These will often take you to the abstracts either on the page for the journal or a subject-specific search engine.

I would very strongly disagree that number of publications and citations will necessarily be a good borrometer - a lot of good research is conducted by young scientists who may only have a dozen or so publications under their belt. It's better to check out the abstracts of their work, see if their work is directly relevant to what's being talked about. Personally I'm a lot more likley to trust a young scientist with a handful of publications on the exact topic the article is on rather than an older well-established scientist who may have his publications in the general field but not necessarily that particular area. For example, someone who has published all his work on the specific ice flows of the NW region of the Arctic will be more qualified to talk about this than a veteran climatologist who may specialise more in ice levels in Antarctica.

Yes but I am not a scientist or an academic, I am a librarian.
But I didn't put it into quotation marks :p

A trick almost as old as grad and PhD students copying the lists of references from each of the few books they have actually referenced, though not remotely as useful.

My advice would be to get your hands on the primary source instead. Read the actual work for yourself. You'd be surprised how easy it can be to spot bad science.

My advice would be to get your hands on the primary source instead. Read the actual work for yourself. You'd be surprised how easy it can be to spot bad science.

That can often be quite difficult if you're not associated to a university. Journal access is usually restricted to subscribers. It's always worth having a look at the authors websites - some do make their papers available. And do read the abstract - that will be freely available. If you;re really interested drop the author an e-mail and see if you can get a copy, most academics are more than happy to do so as long as it's for personal use.

That can often be quite difficult if you're not associated to a university. Journal access is usually restricted to subscribers. It's always worth having a look at the authors websites - some do make their papers available. And do read the abstract - that will be freely available. If you;re really interested drop the author an e-mail and see if you can get a copy, most academics are more than happy to do so as long as it's for personal use.
This is true.

It can seem very intimidating to ask an expert for their papers, but in my experience most scientists are absolutely delighted to talk about their work, and will be thrilled if a layperson shows interest in their field. They'll usually be only too glad to email you a PDF of anything they've published, and if you ask them reasonable questions they'll probably share some of their unpublished data as well.

This is true.

It can seem very intimidating to ask an expert for their papers, but in my experience most scientists are absolutely delighted to talk about their work, and will be thrilled if a layperson shows interest in their field. They'll usually be only too glad to email you a PDF of anything they've published, and if you ask them reasonable questions they'll probably share some of their unpublished data as well.

I find that quite a few academics have their papers on their personal page or on the department page of their university's website.

Somewhat surprised to find myself on Google scholar, twice. I think that tells you everything you need to know...

141, I win. Or Google Scholar fails.