Category: Post 2: Sources of Scientific Information

Reudink, Post 2: Sources of Scientific Information

TRU Open Learning 1 Comment

Source of Scientific Information:

Lu, P., Parker, W. H., Cherry, M., Colombo, S., Parker, W. C., Man, R., & Roubal, N. (2014). Survival and growth patterns of white spruce (picea glauca [Moench] Voss) rangewide provenances and their implications for climate change adaptation. Ecology and Evolution, 4(12), 2360-2374. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.1100

Quality of Information:

Academic, peer-reviewed research material.

Rationale:

  • This paper is “academic material” because it is written by several ecology experts, includes in-text citations, and has a references list.

 

  • This paper is “peer-reviewed’ because it explicitly said that was reviewed in the Acknowledgements section and because it can currently be found on PMC, which only uploads publications from journals after they have been peer reviewed (Disclaim, 2020).

 

  • This paper is considered “research material” because the authors conducted field research and a statistical analysis that is reflected in their Methods and Results sections

 

Reference:

Disclaimer. (2020). National Center for Biotechnology Information. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/about/disclaimer/

Post 2: Sources of Scientific Information

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

a)The source I’ve chosen is “The resilience and functional role of moss in boreal and arctic ecosystems”. It is a academic, peer-reviewed, review manuscript, combining and modelling non-original research to show growth responses of mosses related to nutrients, heat, water, and especially disturbances in northern climates. This article was chosen since currently we are in winter in a northern climate. Although it especially focuses on boreal forests in Alaska, there are similarities that I thought would bring insight into my Field Research Project surround mosses and their place in an ecosystem. (https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2012.04254.x)

b) The article is peer-reviewed because it was reviewed by Courtney Miller, and advice and discussions with Jill Johnstone, Dale Vitt, Werner Kurz, David Olefeldt, Teresa Hollingsworth, and comments from two anonymous reviewers.
The article is academic as it is lead by Merritt R. Turetsky, who is a part of the Department of Integrative Biology, University of Guelph, Guelph ON N1G 1G2, Canada.
The article is a review article since the research shown is not originally done by the author, and the modelling done by the authors is the combination of other researcher’s findings.

Blog Post 2: Sources of Scientific Information

TRU Open Learning 1 Comment

The chosen information source to evaluate was the paper “Reconnecting Amphibian Habitat through Small Pond Construction and Enhancement, South Okanagan River Valley, British Columbia, Canada.” Written by S.L. Ashpole, C.A. Bishop, and S.D. Murphy.

This source has been classified as Academic peer-reviewed research material. This is justified by meeting the conditions noted below:

Academic:

The paper is written by expert authors affiliated with institutions and government as stated in the article heading (St. Lawrence University, University of Waterloo, Environment and Climate Change Canada) (Ashpole et al., 2018). The material also uses in text citations to other literature and is complete with a bibliography on pages 13-16.

Peer-reviewed:

“Diversity” is a peer reviewed journal as stated on the publishers website (MDPI, n.d.). The paper also mentions additional referees in the “Acknowledgments” section on page 13 (Ashpole et al., 2018).

Research:

The paper reports results of a study completed by the authors, containing both methods and results sections on pages 2 and 6 respectively (Ashpole et al., 2018).

References:

Ashpole, S. L., Bishop, C. A., & Murphy, S. D. (2018). Reconnecting amphibian habitat through small pond construction and enhancement, South Okanagan River Valley, British Columbia, Canada. Diversity, 10(4), 108. https://doi.org/10.3390/d10040108

MDPI. (n.d.). Diversity. https://www.mdpi.com/journal/diversity

Post 2: Sources of Scientific Information

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

The source of ecological information I have chosen to evaluate is Birds as mediators of passive restoration during early post-fire recovery from Biological Conservation, Volume 158.

Using the course information from the tutorial on how to evaluate sources of scientific information, I would classify this article as academic, peer-reviewed research material.This article contains in-text citations as well as a list of all cited literature. This article is research material because it contains materials and methods, results, and discussion sections. It is also peer-reviewed because it specifically mentions editors, as well as the dates the article was edited and then accepted.

Article link:

Cavallero, L. Raffaele, E. Aizen, M. (2013). Birds as mediators of passive restoration during early post-fire recovery, Biological Conservation: Vol. 158: p. 342-350. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006320712004247

Post 2: Sources of Scientific Information

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

Non-academic scientific source

Kimmerer, R. W. 2020. Braiding Sweetgrass (2nd Hardcover Edition). Milkweed Editions, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.

Type of scientific information: Non-academic scientific source.

Written by an expert in the field

  • Kimmerer is an ecology professor at SUNY-ESF
  • This book isn’t affiliated with her institution but the subject of the book is the same as her professional work, and the book is included on her faculty bio

Has a bibliography

  • pages 379-380 of the 2nd Hardcover Ed. 
  • Also has a note on page 378 about citations for oral history and storytelling

Does not have in-line citations

Because this book does not meet the requirements to be considered an academic source of scientific information (by not having in-line citations), but is still scientific writing (the subject of the book is traditional ecological knowledge, written by an expert in the field), I conclude that the book Braiding Sweetgrass is a non-academic scientific source. 

Peer-reviewed academic scientific research.

Kimmerer, R. W. 2005 Patterns of Dispersal and Establishment of Bryophytes Colonizing Natural and Experimental Treefall Mounds in Northern Hardwood Forests. The Bryologist 108(3): 391-401

Type of scientific information: Peer-reviewed academic scientific research.

Written by an expert in the field

  • Also written by Robin Wall Kimmerer, but this time explicitly affiliated with SUNY-ESF.
    • her institution is printed below her name on the first page

Has in-text citations

Has a bibliography

Is peer-reviewed

  • There is no acknowledgements section, but the paper’s timeline indicates several months passed between receipt and acceptance of the manuscript.
  • The journal, The Bryologist, states that all submissions will undergo, at minimum, two peer reviews.

Is original research, not a review.

  • The article has a methods and a results section

Because this article meets the requirements to be considered academic (written by an expert, and has both in-text citations and a bibliography), the journal says that all submissions are peer-reviewed, and the work presented is details of original research, I conclude that this scientific article is an academic, peer-reviewed, original research source of scientific information.

Blog Post 2: Sources of Scientific Information

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

The source of ecological information I have chosen to evaluate is “A note on the observable bark coloration of quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides)” from the Western North American Naturalist.

Using the course information on how to evaluate sources of scientific information I would classify this article as academic, peer-reviewed research material.

This article is academic because both authors are associated with the University of Colorado. The article also contains in-text citations and a list of all cited literature. It is peer-reviewed because it specifically mentions anonymous editors in the acknowledgment section of the article. This article is research material because it contains methods and results sections.

Article link:

Rabinowitz, Oren and Tripp, Erin A. (2015) “A note on the observable bark coloration of quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides),” Western North American Naturalist: Vol. 75 : No. 3 , Article 12. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/wnan/vol75/iss3/12

Blog Post 2: Sources of Scientific Information

TRU Open Learning 1 Comment

The source I chose is “Plants of Coastal British Columbia including Washington, Oregon and Alaska” which was compiled and edited by Jim Pojar and Andy MacKinnon. I would classify this source as academic, peer-reviewed review material.

 

It is an academic source because it was written by experts from universities such as the University of Victoria and Simon Fraser University, and the B.C. Forest Service. It includes in-text citations and a bibliography on pages 511 and 512. This source has been “technically reviewed by George Douglas and Chris Marchant” (p. 7), showing that it is peer-reviewed. Finally, this source does not include results from a study so it is review material.

 

Works cited:

MacKinnon, A., & Pojar, J. (1994). Plants of Coastal British Columbia including Washington, Oregon and Alaska. Lone Pine Publishing.

Blog Post 2: Sources of Scientific Information

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

The source of scientific ecological information I have chosen to evaluate is “Linkage of Plant Trait Space to Successional Age and Species Richness in Boreal Forest Understorey Vegitation”, a journal article found in the Journal of Ecology Volume 103.

 

This article should be categorized as non peer-reviewed academic material for the following reasons:

The article is written by a number of experts, each with their own noted qualifications, working at prestigious schools. It has in-text citations throughout and contains a rich bibliography at the end. However, the article does not overtly identify a referee prior to publication as it does not contain any critique or evaluation.

 

Original Article Information:

Kumordzi, Bright B., et al. “Linkage of Plant Trait Space to Successional Age and Species Richness in Boreal Forest Understorey Vegetation.” Journal of Ecology, vol. 103, no. 6, 2015, pp. 1610–1620., www.jstor.org/stable/24542707. Accessed 13 Jan. 2021.

Blog Post 2: Sources of Scientific Information

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

The paper I chose was ‘Winter ecology of striped bass (Morone saxatilis) near its northern limit of distribution in the Saint John River, New Brunswick’ written by S.N. Andrews, T. Linnansaari, R.A.Curry, N.M. Leblanc and S.A.Pavey.

This is an example of an academic, peer-reviewed research paper. It is considered an academic paper because the authors are all affiliated with universities in New Brunswick and therefore it can be deduced that this research was conducted as part of their professional work. Furthermore, the paper includes in-text citations and a reference list at the end, adding to the academic nature of the report.

It does not explicitly state that it is peer-reviewed, however, it does list “received” “accepted” and “published” dates at the beginning of the paper. Furthermore, the journal in which it was published, Environmental Biology of Fishes, only accepts peer-reviewed articles, as stated on their website:

“All papers must undergo the normal peer-review process, which includes the possibility of rejection. This process will be handled by the guest editors within the online reviewing system. The Managing Editor will provide proper training to the guest editors as requested.” (Environmental Biology of Fishes: Submission Guidelines).

It is a research paper because it reports original research, and includes ‘results’ and ‘methods’ sections. It does not synthesize or review research from previous studies, therefore it is not a review paper.

References:

Andrews, S.N., Linnansaari, T., Curry, R.A., Leblanc, N.M. & Pavey, S.A. (2020). Winter ecology of striped bass (Morone saxatilis) near its northern limit of distribution in the Saint John River, New Brunswick.Environ Biol Fish 103, p 1343–1358. https://doi-org.ezproxy.tru.ca/10.1007/s10641-020-01027-x

Environmental Biology of Fishes: Submission Guidelines. [website]. Retrieved from: https://www-springer-com.ezproxy.tru.ca/journal/10641/submission-guidelines on December 30, 2020.

Blog Post 2: Sources of Scientific Information

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

The source of scientific information I have chosen for this post is titled Spatial patterns and competition of tree species in a Douglas‐fir chronosequence on Vancouver Island. The article was found using google scholar and can be accessed here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.2006.0906-7590.04675.x

Based on the module 1 tutorial on how to evaluate sources of scientific information I would classify this source as academic, peer-reviewed research material. My reasoning is as follows.

The authors are all affiliated with either universities or relevant scientific research centres as shown in Figure 1. This demonstrates relevant expertise on the subject matter.

Figure 1: Author Affiliation

The material also has both in-text citations and a bibliography listing all sources used as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Bibliography

The material is published in the journal Ecography which has a double-blind peer review process for publishing content as described in their author guidelines shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Double Blind Peer Review

Lastly, the paper contains both a methods and results section demonstrating that it has undergone research as shown in figures 4 and 5.

Figure 4: Methods Section

Figure 5: Results Section