Quick Checks of an Unfamiliar Academic Source
Before investing time in an unfamiliar academic source, check its background and reputation. The book’s Medical Hypotheses example illustrates how a quick external check can reveal reasons to investigate a claim more carefully.
THE IDEA
Quick Checks of an Unfamiliar Academic Source
You’ve stayed away from cigarettes. You’ve learned about the dangers of vaping. But a friend invites you to a hookah bar with the assurance that it’s safe: “The chilled water and the charcoal filter remove the toxins. There’s research on it.” Your friend texts you a link to a study in something called Medical Hypotheses.
You could read the article and do battle with sentences like “Even the level of NNAL, metabolite of the potent carcinogen NNK, was not different from that of controls.” Or, you could see if Wikipedia says anything about this source so you can better answer the question, “Is this what I think it is—a respected medical journal?”
Figure unavailable in the source files. Figure 7.8 [Image missing from the supplied article.] Abstract from article from Medical Hypotheses (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2009.11.036)
Figure unavailable in the source files. Figure 7.9 [Image missing from the supplied article.] Wikipedia article on the journal Medical Hypotheses (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_Hypotheses, September 202 [date truncated in source])
The book describes Medical Hypotheses as controversial, citing HIV/AIDS-denialist articles and reporting its removal from PubMed. This is the authors’ account of the journal’s history, not a current indexing check. In the example, it gives the reader reason to doubt the friend’s reassurance and decline the invitation.
When to use it
A student is assigned a research paper and finds a controversial claim cited from a little-known journal. They use a quick check to decide whether the source is credible.
A friend shares a health article online referencing a study from an obscure publication. You evaluate the journal's reputation before sharing or acting on the information.
A journalist receives a press release citing an unfamiliar academic source and checks its background before investigating the research claim.
You are fact-checking a social media post that links to a study. A rapid source check helps you determine if the claim is worth investigating further.
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
Evaluating a Hookah Safety Study
In the book’s hookah example, a friend cites Medical Hypotheses to reassure someone that filtration makes smoking safe. Checking the journal’s background reveals controversies that the friend’s description omitted. That finding prompts scrutiny of the evidence rather than accepting the reassurance at face value.
Using Wikipedia for Source Check
You encounter an unfamiliar journal in a news article. A quick background search reveals its history and reputation and points to references worth following. This helps you decide what to investigate; it does not determine whether every paper in the journal is sound.
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
Think of a time you encountered a study or article from an unfamiliar source. How could a quick Wikipedia check have changed your assessment?
What are the limitations of using Wikipedia or similar quick checks to evaluate an academic source? When might they be insufficient?
How would you adapt this heuristic for evaluating non-academic sources, such as news websites or blogs?
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- Verified How to Think Straight, Get Duped Less, and Make Better Decisions about What to Believe Online (Mike Caulfield, Sam Wineburg)