Post 2: Two Decades taken at speed – Sources of Scientific Information

BLOG POST 2:

1. An article taken from the TRU Online Library Database: Dacks, J. B., & Ginger, M. L. (2023). Two decades taken at speed: genomics, cell biology, ecology, and evolution of protists. BMC Biology, 21(1), 283. https://doi-org.ezproxy.tru.ca/10.1186/s12915-023-01787-9 I utilized this platform as I can verify the source more easily, and ensure my result section is largely filled with information that will benefit me and be (mostly) accurate, investigation is of course always needed!
2. Academic, peer-reviewed review material
3.  The first step to determining the kind of information source, was to verify the level of expertise the authors had “1. Written by an expert in the field?” (BIOL 3021 Tutorial: How to Evaluate Sources of Scientific Information, 2024). The authors were Joel B. Dacks from; The Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine and Department of Biological Sciences, the Institute of Parasitology, Biology Centre, Czech Academy of Sciences, the Centre for Life Origins and Evolution through the Department of Genetics and Evolution and Michael L. Ginger from; the Environment at the University College of London and the School of Applied Sciences at the University of Huddersfield. The next step was to see if there were in-text citations, the second page features the 1st of 10: “the Last Eukaryotic Common Ancestor, e.g.” [1] (Koumandou VL et al. 2013). Then, determine if there was a biography included. 10 references are listed at the bottom of the paper, just before the publisher’s note. After all the above was confirmed, I could then move on to see if the guide had been reviewed by at minimum, 1 referee before being publicized. The guide included an acknowledgment: “we wish to thank M. Field and J. Burns…as well as members of the Dacks and Ginger Labs”. This being included I can deduce that it was indeed considered academic material. Next was discriminating the guide being academic, peer-reviewed research or review material, determined by results of a field or lab study completed by authors and often containing a Methods and Results sections (BIOL 3021 Tutorial: How to Evaluate Sources of Scientific Information, 2024). I concluded that there were no field or lab results, and findings, narrowing my response to: “Academic, peer-reviewed review material”.