<<n a message dated 1/5/2009 6:57:37 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, cbeckhorn@fastmail.fm writes:
We have always permitted the use of academic research articles published in peer-reviewed journals. These are crucial both for the results they contain and for their link to the historical record. The difficulty is that these sources have to be considered "secondary sources" in order to mesh our best practices with the literal wording of NOR. But many people like to consider them "primary sources". >>
Our purpose in writing an encyclopedia, as opposed to a "Today's New For You" sheet, is that we synthesize the "current state of belief" in system A. In our articles on the Neutrino, we present the current state of belief in the Neutrino community on the properties of the Neutrino.
We do not present each new paper published. We can however, once a secondary source has stated that "the neutrino has no mass..." present a summary of a new paper which states "however a new experiment by Smith & Wesson has recently shown...."
When a secondary source brings forth a statement, it can be balanced by a primary source. What would be wrong would be to present a brand-new claim directly from a primary source, which no secondary source mention whatsoever.
"The Neutrino has no mass. In other news, it's been recently found that the neutrino is made of Spam."
That would be an incorrect use of sources, as we deliberately categorized them. Peer-review or not.
Will Johnson
**************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)