Hello everyone,
I was wondering what the title says. If I'm writing a paper or master thesis, and I find some interesting information from a non-reviewed paper. Is it ok to use that information source? I mean, I know it is possible... but how reliable can that source be?
Thanks a lot,
Aitor
Hola! I do not think there is any problem in citing a paper published in a journal without review practice. However, as for any paper, reviewed or not, you should assess yourself whether the information is reliable or not, and whether it is relevant for what you are discussing. Sometimes the best source of information is in a report or similar publication. What you should in addition consider is availability. So if say the same data or ideas have been published in a report series that is not widely available and in a high ranking series then I would probably choose the one with better availability. However, one needs to take into account publication priority. Say, if the refereed publication has a later date and does not cite the earlier publication, or if the authors are different, I would cite both, as even if not refereed the authors of the earlier article have published the idea first and must be acknowledged.
If you feel like the information is reliable, I think it is acceptable to cite it. However, such sources should be used rarely, and only as supporting information. They won't carry much weight with reviewers and readers.
You can but always cite them as (Altonen unpublish data) and try to avoid use many of them.
Thank you Mar! I meant published data but in a non-reviewed journal. I think I didn't make myself clear at all
Hola! I do not think there is any problem in citing a paper published in a journal without review practice. However, as for any paper, reviewed or not, you should assess yourself whether the information is reliable or not, and whether it is relevant for what you are discussing. Sometimes the best source of information is in a report or similar publication. What you should in addition consider is availability. So if say the same data or ideas have been published in a report series that is not widely available and in a high ranking series then I would probably choose the one with better availability. However, one needs to take into account publication priority. Say, if the refereed publication has a later date and does not cite the earlier publication, or if the authors are different, I would cite both, as even if not refereed the authors of the earlier article have published the idea first and must be acknowledged.
If you found the paper reliable enough, then you you can cite the paper with detailed references. If it is unpublished thesis then just follow the instruction of the journal that you are going to submit.
Of course you can cite articles published in Non-reviewed journals if it contains useful information. Many of the earlier journals published before 2000's were under this category, but many of them were very good, informative and provide the foundation of many researchers.
Sanatombi Devi Yumkham you are making an important point here. I often use both old and unreviewed sources, but you must ask what is acceptable at the place you study. Even from reviewed sources you need to pay attention.
I think no. I didn't cite any work without published by a renowned journal. Because it has no worth, how you cite it.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Papers