On 11/12/2007, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/12/2007, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/12/astronomers-ten.html
The scientists recommends Wikipedia to the journalist for backup of
what he's saying - because we have the references listed and in place.
When citeing journals wikipedia seems to favor high impact journals to
a slightly higher degree than the general scientific community.
I'm not sure how this is directly relevant, or indeed how it's measure
at all, but it's entirely unsurprising - we're writing for a more
general, more popular audience, and thus are less likely to delve into
the more obscure works. The nature of the high-impact journals is that
the work published in them is usually among the most prominent in its
field...
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk