|
Post by dinosauria101 on Aug 27, 2019 1:59:41 GMT 5
Is it really a newspaper article? I thought earth.com was a scientific journal
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Aug 27, 2019 2:20:42 GMT 5
Err... ...no, it's definitely a news article; a scientific journal is something completely different. It's a basic summary - one with scientific verbosity less than the standards of an actual scientific paper - of the paper's findings with quotes from the authors that aren't from the paper itself, but from conversations the news site's staff had when reaching out to the authors for information about their findings. It also tells you in which scientific journal the study was originally published. What you're looking at is indeed a news site (it even says at the top earth.com news), one that happens to report science-related news. A scientific journal looks like this-> (this is the journal the paper was published in btw). Just papers all around, published by a renowned academic journal-publishing company.
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Aug 27, 2019 2:29:55 GMT 5
I myself almost forgot that this thread was not originally intended to be a news-sharing thread…
I wonder if we should actually make such a thread because I'm pretty sure some people just want to post the newspaper headlines.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Aug 27, 2019 2:32:06 GMT 5
Well, as I wrote in the opening post, you can post popular articles, but only if they are exceptionally relevant. An article that contains insights into rigorous research not (yet) published in peer review for example, such as preliminary notes on new fossil discoveries, so long as the journalism can be expected to be at least reasonably good. As I wrote, well-researched blog posts of websites might also qualify, as long as they contain content that is interesting and relevant. I think it is implied, but goes without saying, that said content should be original in some way, not just a plain language summary of information entirely available from another, better source. If an article is just a summary of a specific paper that came out, the article probably has nothing relevant to add to the contents of the paper, and it might leave out or misrepresent parts of it, hence, please stick to posting the primary source in such cases.
So yeah, if you have a news article that is of high quality and contains something novel, feel free to post it, but this was not originally intended as a thread for sharing press releases for every new discovery (and originally I intended focus to be on technical research works of particularly high quality and relevance, see examples in first post).
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Aug 27, 2019 2:46:54 GMT 5
Well then, how's about this? If I find a piece of good literature but I don't know if it's an article or journal, I post what the source is and only post what I found if it fits the criteria. creature386I like that idea! A news thread may be useful for the 'news-y' parts of new discoveries and whatnot
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Aug 27, 2019 2:55:29 GMT 5
That's okay. Although, like I explained in my previous post, you can readily tell apart a news article from a scientific article, and a news site from a scientific journal, if you know what you're looking for.
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Aug 27, 2019 2:58:09 GMT 5
Just look if it has headings titled abstract, introduction, materials & methods, results, discussion and conclusion if you are not sure. That's all you have to do, really.
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Aug 30, 2019 16:13:42 GMT 5
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Aug 31, 2019 6:33:10 GMT 5
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Sept 3, 2019 7:17:04 GMT 5
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Sept 3, 2019 16:39:17 GMT 5
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Sept 5, 2019 0:41:50 GMT 5
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Sept 5, 2019 21:31:38 GMT 5
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Sept 8, 2019 3:35:33 GMT 5
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Sept 10, 2019 3:33:08 GMT 5
A sixth mass extinction was proposed a few years back. No, not the shit we're doing to our planet right now, but one that occurred before the end Permian mass extinction (c. 262 mya; if true, this suggests that it should be the "Big Six" and that what we're going through may be the seventh mass extinction). gsabulletin.gsapubs.org/content/early/2015/04/15/B31216.1.abstractAnother study has come in support of this very recently. In fact, the end-Guadalupian (end-Capitanian) extinction event was ranked third in taxonomic severity. Also, this would mean two major mass extinctions occurred within <8 million years of each other. Brutal. This is by far the shortest interval of time between two mass extinctions.www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08912963.2019.1658096Edit: it had some profound effects on terrestrial tetrapods too. royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2015.0834
|
|