Category: Post 2: Sources of Scientific Information

Blog Post 2: Sources of Scientific Information

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

The scientific information source for the research is Lamarre, G. P., Juin, Y., Lapied, E., Le Gall, P., & Nakamura, A. (2018). Using field-based entomological research to promote awareness about forest ecosystem conservation. Nature Conservation, 29, 39. The source is important since it addresses the main stages of the entomological research and provides general entomological knowledge and insects’ role in the ecosystem. This article is peer-reviewed as it was edited by an academic editor and was indicated to be a peer-reviewed open access journal in Nature Conservation.

Lamarre, G. P., Juin, Y., Lapied, E., Gall, P. L., & Nakamura, A. (2018). Using field-based entomological research to promote awareness about forest ecosystem conservation. Nature Conservation, 29, 39-56. DOI:10.3897/natureconservation.29.26876

Blog Post 2. Sources of Scientific Information

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

a) This is an online scientific article.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-12462-9

b) It falls into the category of academic, peer-reviewed research material.

c) It contains a method and results section, references, acknowledgments, in-text  citations and was written by experts in the field.  The ‘scientific report’ website it was published by corroborates this and states that it only publishes peer-reviewed materials and shows the date received, accepted, and published on the article.

 

Batanero, G.L., León-Palmero, E., Li, L. et al. Flamingos and drought as drivers of nutrients and microbial dynamics in a saline lake. Sci Rep 7, 12173 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-12462-9

Blog post 2: Sources of Scientific Information

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

The paper I have chosen is ‘Tree canopy cover constrains the fertility-diversity relationship in plant communities in plant communities of southeastern United States’. This paper has been written by professionals in the field and has gone through peer review as stated in the ‘Acknowledgements’ section of the paper. It also contains a method and result section showing the experimental data collected and different analyses done. In the discussion, the findings are compared to the past literature on the topic as shown by the in-text citations and there is a bibliography at the end of the paper.

Therefore, this paper is an academic peer-reviewed research article.

https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ecy.3119 

Instructor: Robyn Reudink

Post 2: Sources of Scientific Information

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

The source I have chosen to evaluate is Ecology & Wonder in the Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks World Heritage Site by author Robert William Stanford.

Based on the How to Evaluate Sources of Scientific Information Tutorial presented in module 1, in order to determine whether a paper is academic or not, three criteria must be met. The first is that the text is written by an expert in the field, second is that it includes in-text citations and lastly that it contains a bibliography. With this in mind, while reviewing my chosen study, I can definitely say it is an academic study. A multitude of experts in their field are noted through the text, along with a wide variety of in text references to other material that solidify claims and a bibliography that provides easy to access pathways to the materials referenced in the text to verify their standing as well.

To determine if this text was peer reviewed, I found in the acknowledgements portion a brief summary of the authors peer review process to ensure publication through a university. The author also notes editors and many others who helped revise the text prior to publication. 

To assess if this text is academic material, I am seeking a summary of findings or results. This is a very large text that covers many topics when viewing the ecology of each unique rocky mountain and its history. This means that the findings are listed at the end of every subject covered as opposed to all in one place at the end of the text. I feel that this qualifies the research as academic.

This source is classified as academic, peer-reviewed research material.

References

Sandford, Robert W. Ecology & Wonder in the Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks World Heritage. Edmonton: AU Press, 2014. 

Tutorial: How to Evaluate Sources of Scientific Information [Internet]. Kamloops, BC: Thompson Rivers University [cited 2020 Jul 20]. Available from: https://barabus.tru.ca/biol3021/evaluating_information.html#1

Blog Post 2: Sources of Scientific Information.

TRU Open Learning 1 Comment

The paper that I chose is- The protective effectiveness of control interventions for malaria prevention: a systematic review of the literature. The paper is written by experts in the field associated with Malaria Research Unit, Institut Pasteur de Madagascar and  Institute for Biomedical Research of the French Armed Forces (IRBA), there are in-text citations and the paper also contains a bibliography. It is academic material that has been peer reviewed. The paper has methods and results so it is considered as a research article.

I found this article on F1000Research.com, so using the tutorial: How to Evaluate sources of Scientific Information I can say that this paper is an academic, peer reviewed research material.

Thomas Kesteman, Milijaona Randrianarivelojosia, Christophe Rogier(2017).The protective effectiveness of control interventions for malaria prevention: a systematic review of the literature.https://f1000research.com/articles/6-1932.

Blog post 2: Sources of scientific information

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

Trophic ecology of alpine stream invertebrates: current status and future research needs.

 

This article on ecology is an academic peer reviewed review. The article is written as part of a doctoral dissertation in affiliation with a university (Fureder and Niedrist 2017); these authors can be considered as experts in the field.  It contains citations throughout and a bibliography at the end, this and the expertise of the authors makes this an academic resource. There is an acknowledgement to two anonymous referees making it a peer reviewed paper.  Finally, it would be considered a review as there is no methods or results section.

 

https://eds-b-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.tru.ca/eds/delivery?sid=45b0b78a-8552-49f4-9830-4bd75c899487%40pdc-v-sessmgr02&vid=10&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2feds.b.ebscohost.com%2feds%2fdetail%2fdetail%3fvid%3d9%26sid%3d45b0b78a-8552-49f4-9830-4bd75c899487%2540pdc-v-sessmgr02%26bdata%3dJnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%253d%253d

 

 

Fureder L, and Niedrist G. 2017. Trophic ecology of alpine stream invertebrates: current status and future research needs. Freshwater Sci. 36(3): 466-478. Doi:10.1086/692831

Blog Post 2

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

a.) Source Used: Online article by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) which states that wildfires could be worse in 2020 than in 2019, globally. Link : https://wwf.panda.org/es/?659911/incendios2020

b.) Classification: non-academic material

c.) How do I know this?

In order to classify this source of ecological information I first had to decide if this source was academic material or non-academic material by answering 3 questions:

1. Is this written by an expert in the field? Although this article is from the WWF website there was no mention of an author and therefore it is not possible to identify if the writer of this article was in fact an expert in the field. Because of this, I labelled this article as not written by an expert in the field.

2. Includes in-text citations? This text gives credit to multiple quotes in the article and gives links to 2 other articles throughout the paragraphs, one of which allows you access to the full report “Forest Fires and the Future: A Crisis Out of Control?”

3. Contains a bibliography? This article does not contain a bibliography

Even though one of the answers to these 3 questions was “yes”, it is not enough to confirm that this piece is in fact academic material, and for this reason I chose to label this article as non-academic material.

If was was to further discriminate among different sources I would then look into this piece and observe if it has been peer reviewed or not by at least 1 referee before publication, which I could find no evidence of. I could further confirm my labelling of the source by finally deciphering if this piece is research material or review material, and since it is not even academic material nor is it peer reviewed, this question need not apply.

Blog Post 2: Sources of Scientific Information

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

Through the Wiley Online Library, I found the source of ecological scientific information I wish to use. I have chosen a journal article titled “Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) feeding on lumpfish (Cyclopterus lumpus) in northern Norway”, published in the journal of “Marine Mammal Science”. Press following link to find the article: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/mms.12618

I have also attached it as a PDF:

Blog Post 2

To classify this article, I followed the following chart:

Does the information source have all the following characteristics?

  1. Written by an expert in the field? Yes. A few of the authors are from the Universite de Montpellier and can be considered experts in their field.
  2. Does the source contain in-text citations? Yes. The authors use numerous in-text citations in their introduction to provide relevant background information and in their discussion to support and contrast their findings with past literatures.
  3. Contain a bibliography? Yes. Reference section begins on page 12 of article.

Since the article has YES to all three questions it can be classified as Academic Material.

Has the source been reviewed by at least 1 referee before publication?

Yes, this article had three anonymous reviewers (mentioned in Acknowledgments on page 11). Since the article is YES to being reviewed it is considered peer-reviewed.

Does the source report results of a field or lab study completed by the authors (containing “Methods” and “Results” sections)?

Yes. This article has a methods, data analysis, results, and discussion section. It can be considered Research Material.

 In Summary:  ACADEMIC – PEER-REVIEWED – RESEARCH MATERIAL

Citation:

Jourdain E, Karoliussen R, de Vos J, Zakharov SE, Tougard C. Killer whales (Orcinus orca) feeding on lumpfish (Cyclopterus lumpus) in northern Norway. Mar Mam Sci. 2020;36:89–102. https:// doi.org/10.1111/mms.12618

Blog Post 2- Sources of Scientific Information

TRU Open Learning 1 Comment

I found an ecology research paper in the online library (Cooke et al., 2016).

a) Cooke, J., DeGabriel, J. L., & Hartley, S. E. (2016). The functional ecology of plant silicon: Geoscience to genes. Functional Ecology, 30(8), 1270–1276. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12711

b) This paper is academic peer-reviewed review-material

c) This is academic because it is written by experts in the field associated with the Department of Earth, Environment and Ecosystems, The Open University, Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment, Western Sydney University, York Environmental Sustainability Institute and University of York. There are in text citations and a bibliography. It does not have a “method” or “results” section so therefore would be considered a review article. There are no acknowledgments of a peer review process but the website for the British Ecological Society has a review process for the Functional Ecological journal.

Blog 2: Sources of Scientific Information

TRU Open Learning 1 Comment

The paper I chose to look over was Herbivore grazing—or trampling? Trampling effects by a large ungulate in cold high-latitude ecosystems

This article is safe to say that it is academic because it is written by several experts in the respective field and it is based from original research from Department of Environmental and Health Sciences at the University College of Southeast Norway. There are also in text citations are present, followed by a References section that are of credible sources.

This research paper is also peer reviewed based on where it is published. It is from the Wiley Online Library where there are the requirements to meet their manuscript submissions. Including going through the processes of being peer reviewed and going through the editor. Additionally it has an accepted date of Accepted: 26 April 2017 after the received date that was January 27, 2017. So it is clear that it made it through all of those hurdles.

The article can be considered research material because it includes the requirement of materials and methods. And it also has specific experiment and analysis geared directly to this specific study.

Heggenes, J,  Odland, A,  Chevalier, T, et al.  Herbivore grazing—or trampling? Trampling effects by a large ungulate in cold high‐latitude ecosystems. Ecol Evol.  2017; 7: 6423– 6431. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.3130