De Facto Adoption of Blog and Wikipedia in Research Reporting

O. Pusatli
{"title":"De Facto Adoption of Blog and Wikipedia in Research Reporting","authors":"O. Pusatli","doi":"10.5824/1309-1581.2017.4.001.X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Assessing references in the review process of academic research is a common requirement. One of the criteria in the credibility of the works is to support arguments with solid and peer-reviewed resources from the literature. Having non peer-reviewed resources in the references can degrade the work and this may be a reason for rejection or retraction, later. Recently, works taking such resources as reference appear more often with increasing number of blogs and Wikipedia usage; hence, the motivation of this study is to investigate given credit to such works. As the case study, investigation is done in the huge online database of ScienceDirect. Queries to extract number of works housing such references are run per research fields classified in the database. The results show there are considerable number of examples where blogs and Wikipedia are seen as resources to be used in academic papers. This finding is limited to the case study and it is too early to declare that blogs and Wikipedia can be used as references; however, a de facto adoption exits in some research fields.","PeriodicalId":244910,"journal":{"name":"AJIT‐e: Online Academic Journal of Information Technology","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJIT‐e: Online Academic Journal of Information Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5824/1309-1581.2017.4.001.X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Assessing references in the review process of academic research is a common requirement. One of the criteria in the credibility of the works is to support arguments with solid and peer-reviewed resources from the literature. Having non peer-reviewed resources in the references can degrade the work and this may be a reason for rejection or retraction, later. Recently, works taking such resources as reference appear more often with increasing number of blogs and Wikipedia usage; hence, the motivation of this study is to investigate given credit to such works. As the case study, investigation is done in the huge online database of ScienceDirect. Queries to extract number of works housing such references are run per research fields classified in the database. The results show there are considerable number of examples where blogs and Wikipedia are seen as resources to be used in academic papers. This finding is limited to the case study and it is too early to declare that blogs and Wikipedia can be used as references; however, a de facto adoption exits in some research fields.
博客和维基百科在研究报告中的实际应用
在学术研究评审过程中评估参考文献是一项普遍要求。作品可信度的标准之一是用来自文献的可靠和同行评审的资源来支持论点。在参考文献中使用未经同行评审的资源会降低工作质量,这可能是后来被拒绝或撤回的一个原因。近年来,随着博客和维基百科的使用越来越多,以这些资源为参考的作品越来越多;因此,本研究的动机是调查这些作品的信用。作为案例研究,调查是在ScienceDirect庞大的在线数据库中进行的。在数据库中分类的每个研究领域运行查询以提取包含此类参考文献的作品数量。结果显示,有相当多的例子表明,博客和维基百科被视为学术论文中使用的资源。这一发现仅限于案例研究,现在宣布博客和维基百科可以作为参考还为时过早;然而,在一些研究领域存在着事实上的采用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信