A tremendous amount of scientific information is
published every week. As a
scientist, you will face the continuing challenge of keeping up with the
scientific literature. It's
important to recognize early on that available sources of information differ
greatly in quality. The most
fundamental distinction we make is between information published in refereed
journals vs. information published in non-refereed sources. A
refereed publication is one that has been reviewed and approved by several
experts in the field. Almost all
scientific journals publish papers only after several (usually anonymous)
reviewers have agreed that the information contained in the paper is both
credible and important.
For instance, suppose Dr. Darwin wants to publish
some of his recent research on interactions between moths and orchids. After gathering data and writing the
paper, Dr. Darwin sends the paper (called a "manuscript") to the
journal of an appropriate scientific journal (let's suppose he submits the
manuscript to the Journal of Chemical Ecology). After
receiving Dr. Darwin's manuscript, the editor of J. Chem. Ecol. sends the paper to several reviewers, who are
scientists (usually faculty at other universities throughout the country) who
can objectively evaluate Dr. Darwin's manuscript. The reviewers read the manuscript and send their opinions
back to the editor.
Each reviewer recommends either,
(a)
the paper be accepted
for publication without revision (this is extremely rare),
(a)
the paper be accepted
for publication with minor revision (this is the best recommendation an author
can reasonably expect),
(a)
the paper be accepted
for publication with major revision, or,
(a)
the paper be rejected
(this is probably the most common recommendation for all journals).
The editor of the journal makes a decision based on
the recommendations of the reviewers.
Very few manuscripts are accepted without revision the first time they
are submitted. Approximately 99%
manuscripts are either rejected or recommended for publication only if the
author agrees to make the appropriate revisions. Suppose Dr. Darwin's manuscript is accepted with minor
revision. He would then revise the
paper to satisfy the comments of the reviewer and resubmit it. The paper would be published
approximately 6 months later.
The point of this story is that there is strong quality
control on information published in refereed journals (refereed journals
are collectively referred to as the "primary literature").
This primary literature
can include research articles like that of Dr. Darwin described above and also
review articles in major, discipline-specific journals, or in pre-eminent
journals such as Nature and Science and journals of the major scientific societies like
the British Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences.
The two other major sources of published scientific
information described below have considerably less quality control. A new category of review article has
also emerged in the last 10 years: that of discipline-specific ÒTrendsÓ or
commentary-style articles in
journals such as Trends in Ecology and Evolution (TREE). These
articles are usually peer-reviewed but they are published quickly with
considerable editorial input to ensure that they are up to date with recent
developments. These current
journals are often a good source of new ideas based on the data-intensive
research published in the primary literature.
A second major source of published scientific
information is books. Books are
useful because they contain a large amount of related information. However, books have two major
weaknesses. First, the information
published in books does not usually experience the degree of peer review
described for journals above (an exception is widely used introductory
textbooks, such as the 3rd edition of Begon et alÕs Ecology, which generally receive considerable
scrutiny prior to publication, followed by revisions based on feedback from
peers). Second, the most recent
edition of a book is often several years old, so recent information may not be
included.
The third major source of published scientific
information is the Internet.
Technically, any information available on the Web is considered
"published," though legal issues still remain unresolved. For our purposes, it is important to
recognize that most information available on the Web is not peer reviewed, so
is not necessarily credible. An
exception is information published on the web pages of recognized scientific
organizations, such as the National Science Foundation.
An additional source of readily available information
is non-refereed publications.
These include magazine and newspaper articles, which generally are
written by non-scientists and reviewed only by editors who are not
scientists. As you might expect,
these are relatively poor sources of information that may promote unjustified
viewpoints or conclusions and should be considered unreliable. There is a small number of non-refereed
magazines, such as Scientific American, American Scientist, New Scientist and Natural History, that might be acceptable as cited sources in your
term papers. As a rule, however,
magazines and newspapers should not be used as sources of scientific
information.
The above discussion makes it clear that we should
use refereed journal articles (the primary literature) as our major source of
scientific information.
There are many ways to track down research articles
published in the primary literature.
You could start with a textbook, find your subject in the index, read
the appropriate section in the book, and look up the scientific articles cited
by the author of the textbook.
Fortunately a variety of databases have recently been developed to help
us locate information in the primary literature. Biosis Previews, Web of Science, Environmental Sciences and Pollution
Management and several
databases within FirstSearch are all excellent sources of citations. The individual databases in FirstSearch most relevant to this class are, Agricola,
Basic Biosis, and
Biological & Agricultural Science Index. In
todayÕs lab, we will be guided through the use of these databases, by Dr
Barbara Cockrell of the Science Reference Desk in Waldo Library.
Dr Cockrell will speak to us for about an hour, after
which each student should be capable of effectively searching and working with
the published literature. Although
Dr Cockrell has a doctorate in ecology and will be available to help you with
your literature searches, please recognize that her office hours at the Science
Reference desk are:
Monday 1:00-4:00
p.m.
Wednesday 10:00
a.m. Ð 12 noon
Thursday 1:00-4:00
p.m.
Other times can be arranged by appointment (tel:
387-5142, or email: barbara.cockrell@wmich.edu)
Laboratory
Assignment:
(1) Prepare lists of primary literature articles published in the last 2 years about feeding
by larval Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths)1. Your task is to compare the
effectiveness of 3 databases at retrieving relevant citations. To do this you should construct a
search using key words or subject headings and choose three article indexes. At least one of these should be either Biosis
Previews or Web of Science. Compare the results you get with the different
indexes. Do you get the same results if you use the same keywords? Which
index(es) do you like more and why?
(2) Once you have compared the effectiveness of the 3
databases you should compile a complete list of at least 10 citations relevant
to feeding by larval Lepidoptera1.
(3) Then we would like you to track down three of
these articles, either online or in print, and provide annotated summaries of
them. The ÒFind it@WMUÓ button in the article indexes will direct you to
full text online, to the call number of the journal in print or (if the library
does not have the journal) the libraryÕs interlibrary loan service. Your annotated summaries of each paper
in the annotated bibliography should include:
a) the
Òbig pictureÓ that provides the rationale for the study (i.e. why is it interesting?)
b) the
major hypotheses under investigation
c) the
basic methods used to test those hypotheses
d) the
major results, and
e) the
relevance of those results to the big picture (i.e. why are the results interesting?).
This summary must be in your own words (donÕt
plagiarize!) and can include any comments you might want to add about the
nature or usefulness of the paper.
You should aim at about a third to half of a page for each paper (3
citations = about 1-1.5 pages).
Please hand in:
(1)
your 3 searches with
key words and a comparison of the 3 indexes including a conclusion as to which
you preferred and why.
(2)
your complete
bibliography of at least 10 citations.
(3)
3 annotated citations
(can be part of the total 10).
1Note: you may search for a term paper
topic of your choice instead of larval Lepidoptera.