Re[2]: Journals use of Wing et al "study"

[Ruth Weiner <rfweine@sandia.gov>]

Well since you want to,know what the rest of us think, here is my view:  I do 
check references if they appear to be important to the author's conclusions, and
if I can obtain them.  Also, by default, reference to a refereed journal I 
usually consider to be reliable, even though I review for several journals and I
know that junk gets published (even in SCIENCE!). Citations of agency position 
papers, National Lab reports, and other "gray" literature are less reliable and 
I don't put much stock in them unless I am familiar with them (chalk that one up
to academic snobbery). 

Journalism is another story.  To the best of my knowledge, even a good 
journalist will only claim to quote reliably but will make no claim as to the 
veracity or reliability of what his or her source is saying. Having myself been 
misquoted and quoted out of context I just don't put much stock in what 
newspapers claim unless they can cite good documentation.

Clearly only my own opinion.

Ruth Weiner
Sandia National Laboratories
rfweine@sandia.gov

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Journals use of Wing et al "study"
Author:  schwahn@jlab.org at hubsmtp
Date:    6/15/98 3:17 PM


John Moulder wrote:
     
> Try that one again.  If a health physicist publishes an article based on 
> articles referenced in an NCRP position paper, he/she most certainly is 
> expected to have read, reviewed and evaluated those papers.  A reputable 
> scientist does not base conclusions on secondary sources...
     
While I agree with most of what you said, and I am not sure I agree with you 
here.
How do the rest of you out there think about this?  I usually do not delve into 
references unless I need clarification on the issue that I am researching.  And 
some
references are either no longer easily available, unattainable, etc.  Does that 
make
me an unreputable scientist?
     
"Basing conclusions," I think, on secondary references is just fine.  I would, 
however, not consider _publishing_ without having investigated as many primary 
references as possible.  But I do think we scientists have a responsibility to 
do
this.  Investigative journalists should not be held to the same standard; 
scientists
should expect and demand this of their own, but not of the rest of the world. 
We
should only hope that the rest of the world would follow the same standard, and 
voice our opinion of disapproval when they do not.
     
Glenn (GACMail98@aol.com), would you please do us the courtesy of telling us 
your
last name?
     
--
     
Scott O. Schwahn, CHP
Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility 
schwahn@jlab.org