Blog Post 2: Sources of Scientific Information
In my search for an Ecological source, I found a source containing sites of waterbodies in areas where I grew up; this piqued my interest. The source I chose is titled: Summer assessment of zooplankton biodiversity and environmental control in urban waterbodies on the Island of Montréal.
The source is: Mimouni, E.-A., B. Pinel-Alloul, B. E. Beisner, and P. Legendre. 2018. Summer assessment of zooplankton biodiversity and environmental control in urban waterbodies on the Island of Montréal. Ecosphere 9(7):e02277. 10.1002/ecs2.2277
- This source is academic, peer-reviewed research material.
As per the “How to Evaluate Sources of Scientific Information Tutorial” from the course, here is how I assessed the source.
-The source is written by 4 experts in the field. Each author writing on behalf of different reputable academic institutions (e.g. Université de Montréal, McGill University, University of Québec at Montréal)
– Starting with the first sentence and continuing throughout the article, this source contains many citations.
-This source contains a bibliography including 120 sources.
This makes my chosen source Academic Material.
Has the source been reviewed by at least 1 referee before publication?
Although there are no specific references to a referee, the editor for the journal is named. Furthermore, the source was submitted for review on March 20th 2018, accepted March 26th 2018, amended for May 1st 2018, and published in Ecosphere journal in July of 2018.
This tells me that the source is Peer-Reviewed.
Does the source report results of a field or lab study completed by the authors (containing “Methods” and “Results” sections)?
This source contains both a “Methods” and a “Results” section, including many graphs, maps and charts to interpret the data. This is then followed by a “Discussion” section and a “Conclusion”.
This proves that the source is Research Material.