On 11/12/2007, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/12/2007, David Gerard dgerard@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...