Wikipedia:Notability (science)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy".
A proposal's acceptance or rejection is not determined simply by counting votes. |
| Notability and inclusion guidelines |
|---|
| Notability guidelines |
|
Academics |
| Active proposals |
|
Science |
| See also |
Ideas related to science are an important part of any comprehensive encyclopedia. This guideline and its criteria are intended for use in determining whether a topic is notable due to being a part of or related to science. A topic that is acceptable under this guideline is an appropriate part of Wikipedia. However, the failure of a topic to meet this guideline's criteria does not automatically exclude it, as it may attain notability through WP:N itself or another of its subsidiary guidelines.
Contents |
[edit] Notability of topics related to science
This notability guideline derives its relevance from the policies What Wikipedia is not (in particular Not an indiscriminate collection of information and Not a crystal ball), No original research and Neutral point of view (in particular Undue weight and Pseudoscience), as well as the guidelines Conflict of interest and Autobiography. Also of importance are verifiability and reliability policies.
A key element to understanding this guideline is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a research publication, and as such Wikipedia does not usurp the usual validation processes of scientific institutions such as peer review, scientific consensus, and academic recognition. Decisions about including or excluding material must always reflect the opinions of outside authorities, not those of Wikipedia editors. Inclusion or exclusion is therefore not a judgement on the validity, importance or accuracy of a scientific contribution, but simply a reflection of the quality and quantity of responses it received inside and outside the scientific community.
Although publication creates verifiability and reputable journals are reliable sources, publication by itself is not a sufficient (and sometimes not necessary) standard for encyclopedic notability. Unpublished research fails no original research and often lacks verifiability, so it is unacceptable by policy. Research published in a reputable publication passes these thresholds but reflects the point of view of one researcher or research term and, unless it generates a significant outside response by the scientific community or the population at large, focusing on such research in a Wikipedia article does not adequately conform to Wikipedia's policy on neutrality, in particular the section on undue weight. This guideline clarifies how the Wikipedia community has applied NPOV to articles on scientific topics. It does however not apply to the inclusion of scientific research as authorative sources within articles. The criterion for such sources is not that they are notable, but that they are reliable.
[edit] Criteria
A notable topic should be the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. Such sources should be reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source should be considered. Once notability is established, other verifiable and attributable sources can be used to add content.
[edit] General
In general, a contribution in the field of science is notable enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia if it meets at least one of the following criteria:
- Textbook science. There is a non-incidental mention of the contribution in general or specialized textbooks published by reputable presses.1
- Widely cited. Papers covering the contribution have been widely cited2 in its research field3 relative to other publications in the same area. Self-citations, and citations in non-peer-reviewed journals should be excluded.
- Institutional recognition. The scientific contribution received significant institutional recognition. Such recognition might come from a major award, significant research funding, or organization of a conference. The institution involved should be itself notable and independent of the idea's original proponents.
- Prominent advocacy. It is or was advocated by prominent persons, or by notable individuals in the political or religious spheres, or is a tenet of a notable religion or political philosophy, or is part of a notable cultural tradition or folklore.
- Press and fiction. It is or was well known due to extensive press coverage, or due to being a recurrent theme in notable works of fiction. In this case the article should make note of this status. A single article on the theory, even if from a major media source such as New Scientist or Scientific American, is not a sufficient criterion.
- Historical interest. It has historically met any of the above criteria within the scientific community or the culture at large but has since either been superseded, disregarded, or dismissed by the scientific community or the culture at large. The article should make note of the subject's status in this regard.
- Popular belief. It is or was believed to be true by a significant part of the general population, even if rejected by scientific authorities.
Notable topics which are primarily non-scientific in nature but which contain claims concerning scientific phenomena, should not be handled as scientific. For example, the Book of Genesis itself is primarily covered as a religious scripture rather than as a cosmology. On the other hand, subjects such as creationism or creation science, which involve a direct conflict between scientific and religious doctrine, are properly evaluated both on a scientific and theological basis. Similarly, subjects purporting to have a scientific basis may be noteworthy primarily on cultural or sociological bases, such as UFOs, which can usefully be discussed from several different perspectives.
[edit] Scientific terms
- See also Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms
A scientific term is considered notable and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia if the following can be established:
- A commonly agreed-upon formal or informal definition
- A trajectory of use for the term in the scientific literature from reliable and verifiable sources
To determine notability it is important to keep in mind that different fields sometimes use the same term to describe different concepts. On the other hand, especially in the early stages of a field, terminology is often not standardized and different terms are used for the same concept. The policy on naming conventions gives more information on the choice of the proper term when more than one term is used in the scientific literature.
[edit] Sources
Scientific discovery is often disconnected from public discourse, so standard methods of sourcing and verifying are not always applicable. A scientific topic which yields low hit counts in the Google test might still be very notable in its particular field. On the other hand, a high hit count might reflect common usage of a term in everyday speech, but not necessarily in the proposed scientific definition. Web (and library) searches should therefore be evaluated based on the quality rather than the quantity of the finds. In addition, scientific terms are often used to mean different things in different fields (see for instance normal form), so standard search engine or news archive searches might be deceiving. The following is a list of sources with qualifications of their usefulness. Some of those sources are restricted and can only be accessed by subscribers, which usually include university and larger public libraries.
- Google, Yahoo, or any multi-purpose search engine. A general search can provide background information on the originators of scientific ideas and also, via online lecture notes, whether they have become classroom material. Google counts usually shed very little information on the notability of scientific concepts, but it can be used to find evidence for classroom usage of textbooks. The links often lead to freely available version of article and reports.
- Google Scholar. Purports to track scientific output but also includes web-only publications and working papers. As of January 2007, Google Scholar is in beta and does not include all publishers. Includes variable amount of indirect references--must be used carefully, counts alone are unreliable. Includes many links to freely available articles.
- Google Books. Allows full-text search for selected scientific and non-scientific books. The selection is based on the publishers' willingness to cooperate with Google, so the selection is non-representative. Relatively few recent works are included, but the number is rapidly increasing as of March 2007.
- Windows Live Academic. Currently in beta.
- JSTOR. Full-text searchable online repository of research journals in the sciences and humanities. Individual journals have moving walls of up to five years, so the newest editions are generally not available. (abstracts frequently available to all, text only to subscribers.) JSTOR alone is not a proper citation, but rather the individual journal.
- ScienceDirect. An online repository of research journals and reference books published by Elsevier. Depth of coverage varies by field, but a topic that is the subject of a major article in a reference book or several journal articles can usually be considered notable. (Abstracts usually available to all, actual contents only to subscribers.)
- PubMed a comprehensive index of biomedical research articles. (Available without charge; includes abstracts; links to free full text of many articles)
- ISI Web of Knowledge citation index. A citation index provides information on how frequently a journal article or book has been cited in the academic literature, and therefore offers a measure of notability of the original article. Again, since citation standards in scientific subfields differ, the quantity of citations might be less instructive than the quality. (Available only to subscribers.)
- ISI journal citation reports. The Institute for Scientific Information also calculates metrics for whole journals and ranks them within their fields. The most common metrics are impact factor, immediacy index and cited half-life. Other criteria on which to judge a journal are its age and the reputability of its publisher. (Available only to subscribers.)
- Scopus a citation index from Elsevier, providing similar functionality to Web of Knowledge. (Available only to subscribers.)
- Amazon.com sales ranks and reviews might be very misleading because scientific books are often geared towards a small audience and are priced for institutional purchases. Nevertheless, information about the publisher, multiple editions and printings, and reviews can help identify widely used textbooks. However, editorial reviews at Amazon.com are provided by the publisher and reader reviews are not considered reliable sources.
- Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System, is "a NASA-funded project which maintains three bibliographic databases containing more than 5.3 million records: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Physics, and arXiv e-prints.". The search page allows quite sophisticated queries and filters, including requiring refereed articles. Abstract to articles are common, full text articles less so.
[edit] Notes
Note 1: The scientific contribution must have a major entry in the work. A passing mention of the concept is not sufficient.
Note 2: Citation counts and peer review mechanisms differ vastly between sciences, fields, and subfields, and editors are urged to inform the relevant WikiProject about ongoing debates to get expert input. It should also be noted that quantity of citations is often only a rough approximation of quality.
Note 3: A "research field" indicates an established area of study for which the topic in question is only a part. A topic cannot be its own research field, nor can it gain notability from being part of a field which is non-notable.
