Timeline for What are reliable sources?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
35 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 17, 2020 at 7:49 | history | edited | Chris Rogers | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 311 characters in body
|
| Jun 17, 2020 at 9:58 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Dec 30, 2018 at 8:39 | history | edited | Chris Rogers | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 112 characters in body
|
| Feb 10, 2018 at 18:24 | history | edited | Chris Rogers | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added UK reputable sites
|
| Jul 26, 2017 at 8:50 | comment | added | Tim | @MarkDWorthenPsyD feel free to edit. This is a CW post so you can. | |
| Jul 26, 2017 at 4:42 | comment | added | Mark D Worthen PsyD | Thank you for this excellent list! I would add two more: PsycINFO (subscription required but available through many public and university libraries); and Google Scholar - quite comprehensive (which means some junk, but all search engines produce questionable articles), and links to free PDF downloads if available (more than any other site of this type). | |
| Mar 7, 2017 at 21:14 | comment | added | lvella | Strictly speaking, arXiv is not a scientific journal. While they ensure their publications have the form of scientific papers, the contents are not peer reviewed on technical grounds. It is just a preprint repository, and any article there may or may not have been accepted in a peer reviewed publication. | |
| May 21, 2015 at 1:00 | comment | added | anongoodnurse Mod | @Sue - I should have added, though (please forgive me) that if you have access to it, by all means, use it! As I said, I agree that it's a very good site. | |
| May 20, 2015 at 22:21 | comment | added | anongoodnurse Mod | @Sue - I like your two sources, but the Harvard site is mostly behind a paywall. :-( | |
| Apr 9, 2015 at 15:20 | history | edited | kenorb | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added Cochrane Library.
|
| Apr 9, 2015 at 14:07 | comment | added | Tim | @Mad why do you not think it is (just asking, not arguing)? :) | |
| Apr 9, 2015 at 13:47 | history | edited | user10 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
EWG is not a reliable source
|
| Apr 9, 2015 at 13:08 | history | edited | kenorb | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added TGA and EWG.
|
| Apr 7, 2015 at 13:10 | history | edited | kenorb | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.
|
| Apr 6, 2015 at 22:12 | history | edited | JorgeArtware | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 98 characters in body
|
| Apr 6, 2015 at 13:45 | comment | added | Tim | Okay, that's fine :) Thanks for the edits! | |
| Apr 6, 2015 at 13:25 | comment | added | kenorb | @Tim All these databases are linked on the main NIH site. It's also saying on that site ('A service of the U.S. National Institutes of Health'). | |
| Apr 6, 2015 at 13:23 | comment | added | Tim | @Kenorb is the Clinical trials one atually a nih one? | |
| Apr 6, 2015 at 13:17 | history | edited | kenorb | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added Clinical Trials and DB on Toxicology.
|
| Apr 6, 2015 at 13:11 | history | edited | Tim | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 43 characters in body
|
| Apr 6, 2015 at 13:03 | history | edited | kenorb | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added European Food Safety Authority, arXiv and many more. Plus post re-formatting.
|
| Apr 6, 2015 at 12:57 | history | edited | kenorb | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added European Food Safety Authority and arXiv. Plus post re-formatting.
|
| Apr 5, 2015 at 18:58 | history | edited | Tim | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 139 characters in body
|
| Apr 5, 2015 at 18:49 | comment | added | Susan | @anongoodnurse I didn’t mean to imply that Pubmed shouldn’t be there - most peer-reviewed stuff is indexed there, the links are organized and easy to create from a PMID, and usually there is at least an abstract there. I see your point about the access issue, and I’m not really advocating taking any of those other (publicly accessible) sources out of here. I was just voicing a concern without offering any particular solution. Helpful, isn’t it? ;-) | |
| Apr 5, 2015 at 18:29 | comment | added | anongoodnurse | I have no problem removing PubMed. The problem about references to me is that not everybody (including me when at home) has access to NEJM, Nature, Science, Cell, etc. It's a problem. In general, though, I think the Mayo Clinic does a good job; I'm inclined to keep that as a reference. | |
| Apr 5, 2015 at 18:16 | history | edited | michaelpri | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 42 characters in body
|
| Apr 5, 2015 at 17:15 | comment | added | Susan | I appreciate the addition (@anon) of PubMed, although the quality of journals indexed there varies tremendously. Honestly, I only trust peer -reviewed literature that either is itself primary data or properly cites primary data. The trouble with using other websites that seem reliable but don’t follow normal rules about references for non-obvious points is exemplified here. I cited primary data suggesting that low-oxalate diet is not helpful, and she cited a website that says that it is helpful. How is the reader to interpret? | |
| Apr 5, 2015 at 1:11 | comment | added | JorgeArtware | +1 for Center for Disease Control | |
| Apr 5, 2015 at 0:47 | history | edited | anongoodnurse | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 68 characters in body
|
| Apr 4, 2015 at 21:55 | history | edited | michaelpri | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Apr 4, 2015 at 21:11 | history | edited | michaelpri | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 109 characters in body
|
| Apr 4, 2015 at 21:08 | history | edited | Tim | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 3 characters in body
|
| Apr 4, 2015 at 21:04 | history | edited | anongoodnurse | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 314 characters in body
|
| S Apr 4, 2015 at 15:13 | history | answered | Tim | CC BY-SA 3.0 | |
| S Apr 4, 2015 at 15:13 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Tim |