4 ms·
Well, now Wikipedia is the review. Depending on the field, you may just do all the real research on Wikipedia and then add in citations in your paper to look pr
by tormeh 12y ago
Well, now Wikipedia is the review. Depending on the field, you may just do all the real research on Wikipedia and then add in citations in your paper to look professional.
How about a Wikipedia with original research? "Sciencepedia"? Each article gets a section for each editor. If you want to contribute you can either submit a pull request to an editor you view favourably or you can write your own section. Sections can be voted up or down.
- jszymborski 12y agoWikipedia is not the review, not in the life sciences sense of the word. A review, despite "reviewing" the literature, offers a unique perspective, and does have an argument, although one that is based solely on the aggregation of existing evidence and literature. Wikipedia just describes parts of the field, reviews offer insight and perspective.
- return0 12y agoThere is scholarpedia, which was initially crippled by the fact that each article (which was similar to a review) would often be limited to the (invited and authoritative) author's point of view. In fact they have iterated their policies . Still their contents are often adapted copies of review articles published in "real" journals.