Science

sl8

(13,948 posts) Wed Feb 7, 2018, 05:15 PM Feb 2018

Valid scientific sources?

Other than publications like Nature, Scientific American, etc, what sources are consideted credible? What about aggregators?

I find myself questioning the accuracy of ""articles" from phys.org,sciencedaily.com, et. al., and other, more mainstream publications. Many of these "articles" seem to be slightly rephrased press releases.

This a an old article (2009), but I find it relevant. I would be very interested in any other, perhaps more recent, references.

SCIENCE — PR or science journalism? It’s getting harder to tell
Https://arstechnica.com/science/2009/09/universities-band-together-to-aggregate-research-news/

3 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Valid scientific sources? (Original Post) sl8 Feb 2018 OP

Here are a few of my favorites PJMcK Feb 2018 #1

Thanks for the references. sl8 Feb 2018 #2

This is an example of poor reporting/writing/journalism PJMcK Feb 2018 #3

PJMcK

(22,056 posts)

1. Here are a few of my favorites

Reply to sl8 (Original post)

Wed Feb 7, 2018, 06:00 PM

Feb 2018

https://www.sciencedaily.com

http://earthsky.org

https://www.space.com/news

sl8

(13,948 posts)

2. Thanks for the references.

Reply to PJMcK (Reply #1)

Wed Feb 7, 2018, 06:24 PM

Feb 2018

Do you have any thoughts about Ars Technica's comments about ScienceDaily.com?

Blurring lines, or responding to the blur?
The quality of press releases, like the quality of scientific journalism, can be extremely variable, so a degree of editorial control seems essential. Still, Futurity may raise fears that the line between promotional materials meant for journalists and actual journalism will be further eroded. According to both Lapin and Leonard, it's too late for that—the lines have already been blurred.

It's easy to see that they have a case. For an illustrative example, it's worth looking at some of the coverage of the neurobiology of torture story (our own is here). The coverage at Science Daily and PhysOrg is eerily similar, with many instances of identical phrasing, starting with the title itself. That's because both are using mildly edited versions of a press release made by the publisher, Cell Press, which was available via Eurekalert, an aggregator of science press releases. If others are presenting science press releases as news, why shouldn't the universities cut out the middleman?

...

(Emphasis added)

PJMcK

(22,056 posts)

3. This is an example of poor reporting/writing/journalism

Reply to sl8 (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 8, 2018, 08:56 AM

Feb 2018

The overuse of a press release to tell a story permeates much of our general journalism and its reflected in the science story you quoted. It demonstrates weak thinking on the part of the writer and they add little to the story unless they do their own reporting and investigating.

I have a thought that is merely an opinion. Much of science is done within corporations and they release information about their findings, usually in glowing terms since that pleases their stock holders. This results in superficial and non-critical reporting.

Ultimately, I understand your point about news aggregate sites. I suggested ScienceDaily because it does have the latest headlines. It's kind of like Axios in that they give you the headline and the lede but if you want more information, you have to go elsewhere.

Sometimes, for me, the headline is enough!

Reply to this discussion