Wikipedia talk:Identifying and using primary sources: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
WhatamIdoing (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 337:
In an article about a science, between "the first publication of any idea or experimental result" and "Narrative reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analyses" there exists a large range of RS publications about follow-on results, replication, interpretation, and so forth which this criterion-description ignores. IMO, because such publications refer to and inherently comment upon prior research, these too can be cited as secondary literature so long as the editor is not creating a new synthesis (i.e. doing the work of a review or meta-analysis). Shouldn't the advice here recognize this?
<br/>[[User:Bn|Bn]] ([[User talk:Bn|talk]]) 14:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
:@[[User:Bn|Bn]], you are correct that this happens, and that this is a type of secondary material, but in the past [[WP:MEDRS]] authors felt that this material was often incomplete in a somewhat biased way (I only mention the prior research that is relevant to my hypothesis), and that it might be too confusing for most editors. That is why I didn't include it here. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
| |||