Really, I'm confused many people guess that to publish in wikipedia it is easy but really i see the converse , Many attempts i did to psublish something in wikipedia but it's looks very hard and i think to publish in refeered journal is easy than to publish in wikipedia , and my question : Why wikipedia dosn't accept Original research ? Always they ask about reliable source , Why this ?
My humble opinion to you is that the original research of yours need proper references to justify your research work.
you need to state your source, so credit can go to the originating researcher (s).
You are right, my classes have found that it is tougher than expected to publish a finished article in Wikipedia. Just as tough as publishing in a scientific journal! The difference is that you get many little attacks from the general Wikipedia arm-chair critic, but filtered "gold-plated" advice from the selected, invited, specialist Scientific journal referees.
Wikipedia does not accept research papers because it is not able to provide the best specialist, knowledgeable reviewers to referee. Only scientific journal editors are able (and paid) to do this screening and submission to referees.
Wikipedia tries to work above the research papers, and provide an encyclopaedic "Reader's Digest" of the work. To do this, they rely on non-invited volunteer reviewers, but also on volunteer editors.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publisher