chemgal
Research, studies, the media and citations
Posted on: 03/16/2012 14:51
Various media sources often report on a 'study' that has come out. Most of the time, the study has been published in a peer-reviewed journal.
If these studies were mentioned as background in a peer-reviewed journal, either the original paper would be citied, or it would be mentioned that it is unpublished work. Why are newspapers and other media not held to the same standard? It makes it easier to find the paper if someone wants to look into it more, and it ensures they are looking at the correct paper, and not one that is related but slightly different. Due to the poor reporting often done by people lacking an expertice in a particular area, I think this is even more important.
Search
Recently Active...
Comments
Elanorgold
Posted on: 03/16/2012 15:41
That would be good if they did. Maybe they're thinking of airtime and loosing listeners. Maybe they have the sources at hand if one were to contact the radio station.
chemgal
Posted on: 03/16/2012 15:45
I'm a little more forgiving when it's airtime. It's when it's print or online that it really annoys me. When it's online they should be linking to the abstract!
Mendalla
Posted on: 03/16/2012 16:20
I get my science news via Science Daily (I have it on my iGoogle page) and they do provide full cites for everything. Online, I think any article on science/research should be providing a cite and, if it's available online, a link. Few seem to, though. As chemgal suggests, I'm more forgiving of radio and TV but since most stations have a web page where they post text versions of the stories or a video/audio stream of the stories, they could post cites there.
Mendalla