Category: Post 2: Sources of Scientific Information

Post 2: Sources of Scientific Information

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

Evaluating the source of scientific information

I will be examining the source Levin, M., Jasperse, L., Desforges, J.-P., O’Hara, T., Rea, L., Castellini, J.M., Maniscalco, J.M., Fadely, B., and M. Keogh. 2020. Methyl mercury (MeHg) in vitro exposure alters mitogen-induced lymphocyte proliferation and cytokine expression in Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) pups. Science of The Total Environment 725: 138308. doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138308.  Based on the “How to evaluate sources of scientific information tutorial”, this source is categorized as academic, peer-reviewed research material. This decision was determined based on the following qualifiers. First, the article is written by experts in their field who are affiliated with institutions and are paid to research or have published in the field previously. As shown in Figure 1, all the authors are affiliated with an institution.

The article includes in-text citations and a bibliography with approximately 51 sources, which indicates that it is academic material. The source has been peer reviewed, which has been implied by the fact that the article was received by the publisher, revised and resubmitted, and then published (shown in Figure 2). Moreover, as per the journal’s policy, Science of The Total Environment has a peer review process, which is laid out for their authors here (https://www.elsevier.com/journals/science-of-the-total-environment/0048-9697/guide-for-authors). In short, the journal requires a single blind review process—where the authors do not know who the reviewers are—in which after being checked for suitability by an editor, two independent expert reviewers are called upon to review the paper. 

Next, the source reports the results of a lab study completed by the author and contains both Methods and Results sections, which indicates that it is a research study (as opposed to review material). Therefore, this source can be categorized as academic, peer-reviewed research material.

Post 2: Sources of Scientific Information

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

The source of scientific information I have chosen is a study on the abundance of marsh birds that inhabit the marshlands of the Great Lakes. This scientific paper is an important source of information that I can use as part of my research project as my study site is within a marsh that is connected to Lake Ontario. The paper was accessed from: https://longpointbiosphere.com/download/Birds/Timmermans-Badzinski-Ingram-2008-Marshbirds-GL-Hydrology.pdf

This is an academic peer-reviewed, research paper. The paper was written by experts in the field of both ecology and hydrology. It has a methods, analysis, and results section, with in-text citations and an extensive bibliography. As well, the paper cites two reviewers in the acknowledgment section.

I determined this using two reference materials. The tutorial link, How to Evaluate Sources of Scientific Information in Module One of this course has a flow chart that goes through steps of how to determine the four different categories of information sources. This paper falls in the category of an academic peer-reviewed, research paper by following the criteria through the flow chart. I also referred to the Module One reading of A beginner’s guide to reviewing manuscripts in ecology and conservation (Lepczyk and Donnelly, 2011). This paper provides a more thorough discussion on how to review scientific information sources. Within this paper, there is a figure (Box 1) that provides a quick reference guide for reviewing an information source. Based on this guide, I determined that it was an academic peer-reviewed, research paper as most of the criteria could be answered with a ‘yes’.

References

Lepczyk, C. A. & Donnelly, R. E. (2011). A beginner’s guide to reviewing manuscripts in ecology and conservation. Ideas in Ecology and Evolution, (4) 25-31. doi: 10.4033/iee.2011.4.4.c. CC BY 3.0

Timmermans, S.T.A., Badzinski, S.S., Ingram, J.W. 2008. Associations between Breeding Marsh Bird Abundances and Great Lakes Hydrology. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 34:351-364. Accessed from: https://longpointbiosphere.com/download/Birds/Timmermans-Badzinski-Ingram-2008-Marshbirds-GL-Hydrology.pdf

Post 2: Source of Scientific Information

TRU Open Learning 1 Comment

a) For my scientific information source, I chose the following academic manuscript discussing the variations of Populous trees of riparian zones of Alberta which is a big portion of my site observations:

Floate, K. D. (2004). Extent and patterns of hybridization among the three species of Populus trees that constitute the riparian forest of southern Alberta, Canada. Canadian Journal of Botany. NRC Canada. 82:253–264. doi: 10.1139/B03-135.

b) This scientific paper is an academic peer-reviewed research manuscript. This publication indicates that the author is affiliated with a University and is an expert in his field at the Lethbridge Research Centre. His article has in-text citations, has a reference page, methods and results.

c) The Canadian journal of Botany demand that every piece of literature is refereed prior to publication.

“The Canadian Journal of Botany (Can. J. Bot.) is a refereed, primary research journal that publishes Articles, Notes, Commentaries, and Reviews, in English or French.”

Source: Instructions to Authors. (2001). Canadian Journal of Botany. National Research Council Research Press. 79(1). https://doi.org/10.1139/cjb_instruct01_e

And finally, the amount of time it took to get to publication.

“Received 6 May 2003. Published on the NRC Research Press Website at http://canjbot.nrc.ca on 15 March 2004.”

Post 2: Sources of Scientific Information

TRU Open Learning 2 Comments

I’ve chosen a book entitled “Edible and Medicinal Plants of Canada” by Andy Mackinnon, Linda Kershaw, John Arnason, Patrick Owen, Amanda Karst and Fiona Chambers to use as an ecological reference. This book focuses on the uses of plants, which is of personal interest, but more importantly from an ecological standpoint, has detailed descriptions of the plants, their flowers and fruit as well as where they grow, including moisture preferences and soil type. The book contains references, and the authors are assumed experts that are well decorated with degrees and experience. Based on what we have learned about classifying scientific information, I would classify this book as being a non-peer reviewed academic material.

 

MacKinnon, A., Kershaw, L., Arnason, J., Owen, P., Karst, A., & Hamersley Chambers, F. (2009). Edible and Medicinal Plants of Canada. Edmonton , Canada: Lone Pine Publishing .

Caleb’s Blog Post 2: Sources of Scientific Information

TRU Open Learning 1 Comment

For my source of ecological information I chose a journal article from Ecology (journal).

Poorter, L., L. Bongers, and F. Bongers. 2006. Architecture Of 54 Moist-Forest Tree Species: Traits, Trade-Offs, And Functional Groups. Ecology 87:1289–1301.

Here is the link to the article:

https://www-jstor-org.prxy.lib.unbc.ca/stable/20069069?seq=2#metadata_info_tab_contents

This is a peer-reviewed, academic research paper from Ecology (Ecological Society of America or ESA). It has a materials and methods, results, conclusion, acknowledgments and literature cited section. The journal (Ecology) only accepts peer reviewed articles and reports.

I confirmed this journal is peer reviewed  by looking at this link:

https://www.esa.org/publications/

In the Impact Factors section of this web page close to the bottom it states: “Through its well regarded peer-reviewed journals, the ESA publishes high-quality research and analysis from the ecological community”.

Blog Post 2: Sources of Scientific Information

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

Impact of modified tillage on runoff and nutrient loads from potato fields in

Prince Edward Island

R.J. Gordona, A.C. VanderZaaga,d,∗, P.A. Dekkera, R. De Haanb, A. Madanic

This is a peer-reviewed, academic research paper.

All the authors are affiliated with a university/school or a research facility:

  • School of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Rd. East, Guelph, Ontario N1G2W1, Canada
  • Prince Edward Island Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Canada
  • Nova Scotia Agricultural College, Truro, Nova Scotia, Canada
  • Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

The paper contains methods, results, and a conclusion.

It includes in-text citations and a bibliography

It is peer-reviewed-As Science Direct is a peer-reviewed publication. From their website:

ScienceDirect is Elsevier’s platform of peer-reviewed scholarly literature.

The article does acknowledge:

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the Canada/PEI Water Supply Expansion Program. The funding agency had no involvement in the study design, analysis, interpretation, writing, or publication.

 

 

Blog Post-2

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

Cloyed,C.S., & Eason, P.K., (2017). Niche partitioning and the role of intraspecific niche variation in  structuring a guild of generalist anurans. Royal society open science.,https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.170060

 

The paper I choose  “Niche partitioning and the role of intraspecific niche variation in structuring a guild of generalist anurans” by Cloyed, C.S., & Eason, P.K. This is an academic, peer-reviewed research article published in the Royal society open science. It has a materials and methods, results, conclusion, acknowledgments and literature cited section.The article includes footnotes and citations all cited at the end, and was reviewed by Bryan Hayden and one anonymous reviewer. This paper gives me more depth about studying niche partitioning among birds though this paper examined niche partitioning within a group of five anurans and determined whether variation within species could facilitate resource partitioning.  As their study concludes that these species partition their niches by feeding at different trophic levels and foraging at different distances from ponds.

Post 2: Sources of Scientific Information

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

On my shelf sits a book titled Environmental Science and Theology in Dialogue written by Russell A. Butkus and Steven A. Kolmes, two professors of the University of Portland, as part of a series titled “Theology in Dialogue.” This book is used as a textbook for classes at the University of Portland, and combined human ecology and theology to teach students to examine the impact they have on the world through a theological lens. Dr. Butkus is an environmental theologian, while Dr. Kolmes serves as the Environmental Studies Department chair, and has served on many governmental advisory committees, all that to say that both are experts in the field. The book includes footnotes and citations all cited at the end, and was reviewed by Anne Clifford. Given these facts and the book’s lack of lab or field study, I conclude that this source of information is classified as Academic, peer-reviewed review material, as outlined in the Tutorial on Evaluating Sources of Scientific Information.

Citation:

Butkus, R. A., & Kolmes, S. A. (2011). Environmental science and theology in dialogue. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.

Blog post 2: Sources of Scientific Information

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

I found an interesting study cited here:
Couch, C. S., Burns, J. H. R., Liu, G., Steward, K., Gutlay, T. N., Kenyon, J., Eakin, C. M., & Kosaki, R. K. (2017). Mass coral bleaching due to unprecedented marine heatwave in Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument (Northwestern Hawaiian Islands). PLoS ONE, 12(9), 1–27. https://doi-org.ezproxy.tru.ca/10.1371/journal.pone.0185121

This is academic peer-reviewed research material.

I came to this decision because the authors are professionals in their field and are associated with The University of Hawaii, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, The Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, and Global Science and Technology Inc. The first two authors mentioned have PhD’s in the relevant field of study and are associated with the University of Hawaii. The rest vary, with one author mentioned (Kanoelani Steward) being a student of the Marine Science Program at the University of Hawaii.

Courtney S. Couch1,2*, John H.R. Burns1, Gang Liu3,4, Kanoelani Steward5, Tiffany Nicole Gutlay1, Jean Kenyon6, C. Mark Eakin7, Randall K. Kosaki8

1. Hawai‘i Institute of Marine Biology, Kāne‘ohe, Hawai‘i, United States of America,
2. Ecosystem Sciences Division Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, NOAA Honolulu, Hawai‘i United States of America,
3. Coral Reef Watch,NOAA/NESDIS/STAR,College Park,Maryland, United States of America,
4. Global Science & Technology Inc. Greenbelt, Maryland, United States of America,
5. Marine Science Program University of Hawai‘I at Hilo,Hilo Hawai‘i,United States of America,
6. U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service,Honolulu, Hawai‘i,United States of America,
7. Coral Reef Watch,NOAA/NESDIS/STAR,College Park,Maryland, United States of America,
8. NOAA Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument, Honolulu,Hawai‘i,United States of America

There is also in-text citations that hyperlink to the cited material, which is also all present in the References section. For example:

“Coral bleaching involves the breakdown of the symbiosis between a coral and its endosymbionts (Symbiodinium spp.) in response to environmental stress (such as anomalous changes in temperature[1–3], salinity[4], sedimentation[5], and/or light[6], resulting in the expulsion of the algae[7].”

It is peer reviewed because it explicitly states in the Acknowledgements that it was reviewed by a named woman and three unnamed reviewers.  Shown here:

“Thank you to Eileen Nalley and three anonymous reviewers who provided feedback that greatly improved the quality of this manuscript.”

And finally it is research material because it is clearly a research project with a Methods and Results section including accompanying graphs, stats, and interpretation of the data in reference to the hypothesis.

Blog Post 2: Sources of Scientific Information

TRU Open Learning Leave a comment

I chose the paper “Explanations of Intertidal diversity at regional scales” by Mark A. Zacharias and John C. Roff. This is an academic, peer-reviewed research article published in the journal of biogeography. I came to this conclusion after reviewing the paper and seeing that it had a bibliography and in text citations, as well as anonymous referees acknowledged. This paper also contained a methods and results section that details the research done. 

The paper can be read from the link below: 

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1365-2699.2001.00559.x