Initial commit

skills/academic-research-writer/references/SOURCE-VERIFICATION.md

@@ -0,0 +1,415 @@
+# Source Verification Guide
+
+## Table of Contents
+1. Identifying Peer-Reviewed Sources
+2. Academic Database Overview
+3. Source Quality Assessment
+4. Predatory Publishing Warning Signs
+5. Verification Checklist
+6. Citation Metrics and Impact
+
+## 1. Identifying Peer-Reviewed Sources
+
+### What is Peer Review?
+
+Peer review is a quality control process where experts in the field evaluate research before publication. Legitimate peer review involves:
+
+- **Expert evaluation**: Multiple qualified reviewers assess methodology, validity, and significance
+- **Blind or double-blind process**: Reviewer/author identities may be hidden to reduce bias
+- **Revision requirements**: Authors typically must address reviewer concerns
+- **Editorial oversight**: Editors make final publication decisions based on reviews
+
+### Indicators of Peer Review
+
+**Strong indicators:**
+- Published in indexed journals (Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed)
+- Journal describes peer review process on website
+- Established publication history (>5 years)
+- Affiliated with reputable academic organizations (IEEE, ACM, APA, etc.)
+- Selective acceptance rates mentioned
+- Detailed author guidelines for submission
+
+**Verification steps:**
+1. Check journal website for "About" or "Submission" sections
+2. Look for editorial board with institutional affiliations
+3. Verify journal indexing status
+4. Check journal's impact factor or citation metrics
+5. Search for journal in Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) or Ulrichsweb
+
+### Publication Types by Peer Review Status
+
+**Peer-Reviewed:**
+- Academic journal articles
+- Conference papers from major conferences
+- Book chapters in academic publishers
+- Doctoral dissertations (university-reviewed)
+
+**Not Peer-Reviewed (use cautiously):**
+- Newspaper articles
+- Magazine articles
+- Blog posts
+- White papers
+- Technical documentation
+- Preprints (arXiv, bioRxiv) - not yet peer-reviewed but may be acceptable in fast-moving fields
+- Books (generally not peer-reviewed in same way)
+
+**Gray area:**
+- Conference abstracts (minimal review)
+- Posters (limited review)
+- Workshop papers (varies by venue)
+- Technical reports (institutional review, not external peer review)
+
+## 2. Academic Database Overview
+
+### General Interdisciplinary
+
+**Google Scholar (scholar.google.com)**
+- Scope: All academic disciplines
+- Coverage: Broadest, includes preprints, theses, books
+- Strengths: Comprehensive, easy to use, citation tracking
+- Limitations: No quality filter, includes predatory journals
+- Best for: Initial broad searches, finding recent work
+
+**Web of Science**
+- Scope: Selective across all disciplines
+- Coverage: High-quality journals only
+- Strengths: Quality control, citation analysis, impact factors
+- Limitations: Subscription required, more limited coverage
+- Best for: High-impact research, citation metrics
+
+**Scopus**
+- Scope: All academic disciplines
+- Coverage: Large curated database
+- Strengths: Quality journals, author profiles, metrics
+- Limitations: Subscription required
+- Best for: Comprehensive literature review
+
+### STEM Databases
+
+**IEEE Xplore (ieeexplore.ieee.org)**
+- Disciplines: Electrical engineering, computer science, electronics
+- Coverage: IEEE publications, conferences, standards
+- Strengths: High-quality technical content, standards access
+- Best for: Engineering and CS research
+
+**PubMed (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)**
+- Disciplines: Medicine, biology, health sciences
+- Coverage: MEDLINE plus additional life science journals
+- Strengths: Free access, highly curated, MeSH indexing
+- Best for: Biomedical research
+
+**arXiv (arxiv.org)**
+- Disciplines: Physics, mathematics, CS, statistics
+- Coverage: Preprints (not peer-reviewed)
+- Strengths: Latest research, free access, quick dissemination
+- Limitations: Not peer-reviewed, quality varies
+- Best for: Cutting-edge research in physics/math/CS
+
+**ACM Digital Library (dl.acm.org)**
+- Disciplines: Computer science, information technology
+- Coverage: ACM publications and conferences
+- Strengths: Computer science focus, high-quality venues
+- Best for: CS and IT research
+
+### Social Sciences & Humanities
+
+**JSTOR**
+- Disciplines: Humanities, social sciences
+- Coverage: Archived scholarly journals, books
+- Strengths: Historical depth, high-quality sources
+- Best for: Historical research, humanities
+
+**PsycINFO**
+- Disciplines: Psychology, behavioral sciences
+- Coverage: APA publications, international psychology journals
+- Strengths: Comprehensive psychology coverage
+- Best for: Psychology and behavioral research
+
+**SSRN (Social Science Research Network)**
+- Disciplines: Social sciences, humanities
+- Coverage: Working papers, preprints
+- Limitations: Not peer-reviewed
+- Best for: Latest social science research
+
+### Discipline-Specific
+
+**ScienceDirect**: Chemistry, materials science, engineering
+**ERIC**: Education research
+**EconLit**: Economics
+**MathSciNet**: Mathematics
+**ChemSpider**: Chemistry
+**GeoRef**: Earth sciences
+
+## 3. Source Quality Assessment
+
+### Evaluating Journal Quality
+
+**High-quality indicators:**
+- Indexed in major databases (WoS, Scopus, PubMed)
+- Impact factor >1.0 (discipline-dependent)
+- Published by reputable academic publishers:
+  - Springer, Elsevier, Wiley, IEEE, ACM, Nature, Science, AAAS
+  - University presses (Oxford, Cambridge, MIT, etc.)
+- Long publication history (>10 years)
+- Selective acceptance rate (<30%)
+- Clear peer review process described
+- Distinguished editorial board with major institutions
+
+**Red flags:**
+- Excessive promotional emails soliciting papers
+- Promises of rapid publication (<1 month)
+- High article processing charges (>$2000) without clear reputation
+- No clear peer review process
+- Generic journal name ("International Journal of Science")
+- Poor website quality or multiple domains
+- Editorial board with no institutional affiliations or stock photos
+
+### Evaluating Author Credibility
+
+**Positive indicators:**
+- University or research institution affiliation
+- Multiple publications in field
+- H-index appropriate for career stage
+- Research funded by recognized organizations (NSF, NIH, etc.)
+- Collaboration with established researchers
+- Institutional email address
+
+**Verification:**
+- Check author's institutional webpage
+- Review publication history on Google Scholar
+- Verify current affiliation
+- Check for research grants and funding
+
+### Evaluating Article Quality
+
+**Methodology assessment:**
+- Clear research questions/hypotheses
+- Appropriate research design
+- Sufficient sample size
+- Proper statistical analysis
+- Acknowledged limitations
+- Reproducible methods
+
+**Content quality:**
+- Comprehensive literature review
+- Logical argumentation
+- Clear contribution to field
+- Appropriate conclusions from data
+- Proper acknowledgment of funding/conflicts
+- Well-structured and clearly written
+
+## 4. Predatory Publishing Warning Signs
+
+### What is Predatory Publishing?
+
+Predatory publishers exploit open-access model by charging fees without providing proper peer review or editorial services. They harm research integrity by:
+- Publishing low-quality or fraudulent research
+- Misleading researchers about journal quality
+- Damaging researcher reputations
+- Contaminating academic literature
+
+### Warning Signs
+
+**Journal-level red flags:**
+
+1. **Aggressive solicitation**: Excessive spam emails inviting submissions
+2. **Rapid publication promises**: Guaranteed acceptance within weeks
+3. **Generic naming**: "International Journal of Advanced Research"
+4. **Misleading metrics**: Fake impact factors or made-up indices
+5. **Unclear peer review**: No description of review process
+6. **High fees, low service**: Expensive APCs without quality services
+7. **Poor website**: Grammar errors, broken links, stock photos
+8. **Fake editorial boards**: Non-existent people or unauthorized use of names
+9. **Lack of indexing**: Not in major databases (WoS, Scopus, DOAJ)
+10. **Address inconsistencies**: Multiple addresses, PO boxes only
+
+**Submission red flags:**
+- Instant acceptance letters
+- No reviewer comments
+- Request for payment immediately after submission
+- Editors who don't respond to queries
+- No retraction policy
+- Copyright assignment unclear
+
+### Verification Resources
+
+**Check these resources:**
+
+1. **Think.Check.Submit** (thinkchecksubmit.org)
+   - Checklist for evaluating journals
+   
+2. **Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)** (doaj.org)
+   - Whitelist of legitimate OA journals
+   
+3. **Cabells Predatory Reports** (subscription)
+   - Blacklist of predatory journals
+   
+4. **Web of Science Master Journal List**
+   - Indexed legitimate journals
+   
+5. **Scopus Source List**
+   - Indexed legitimate journals
+   
+6. **Journal Citation Reports**
+   - Impact factors for legitimate journals
+
+**Historical note:**
+- Beall's List (discontinued 2017) was a prominent predatory journal list
+- Some archives exist but use with caution as they're outdated
+
+## 5. Verification Checklist
+
+### Quick Verification Protocol
+
+For each source, verify:
+
+**Level 1 - Basic Verification (Required for all sources):**
+- [ ] Published in identifiable journal/venue
+- [ ] Authors have institutional affiliations
+- [ ] Year of publication clear
+- [ ] Peer-review status determinable
+
+**Level 2 - Quality Verification (Required for key sources):**
+- [ ] Journal indexed in major database (verify on WoS/Scopus)
+- [ ] Journal has impact factor or citation metrics
+- [ ] Publisher is reputable
+- [ ] Editorial board exists with real, affiliated researchers
+- [ ] Peer review process described
+- [ ] Author credentials verifiable
+
+**Level 3 - Content Verification (Required for controversial/critical claims):**
+- [ ] Methodology appropriate and clearly described
+- [ ] Results support conclusions
+- [ ] Limitations acknowledged
+- [ ] Conflicts of interest disclosed
+- [ ] Data availability stated
+- [ ] Ethical approval mentioned (if human/animal research)
+
+**Level 4 - Impact Verification (For establishing importance):**
+- [ ] Citation count appropriate for publication date
+- [ ] Cited by other peer-reviewed sources
+- [ ] Part of ongoing research conversation
+- [ ] Findings replicated or confirmed (if applicable)
+
+### Red Flag Scoring
+
+Assign concern levels:
+
+**High concern (Do not use):**
+- 3+ predatory indicators
+- No verifiable peer review
+- Anonymous or fake authors
+- Retracted or disputed findings
+
+**Moderate concern (Use with caution):**
+- 1-2 predatory indicators
+- Limited citation or impact
+- Unclear methodology
+- Preliminary findings only
+
+**Low concern (Generally acceptable):**
+- Established journal
+- Clear peer review
+- Verified authors
+- Appropriate methodology
+
+## 6. Citation Metrics and Impact
+
+### Understanding Citation Metrics
+
+**Journal Impact Factor (JIF):**
+- Average citations per article in previous 2 years
+- Discipline-dependent (compare within field)
+- Physics/Medicine: 3-5 = good, >10 = excellent
+- Social Sciences: 1-2 = good, >5 = excellent
+- Limitations: Can be manipulated, favors review articles
+
+**H-Index (Author metric):**
+- H papers with at least H citations each
+- Career-stage dependent
+- New researcher: 5-10
+- Mid-career: 15-30
+- Senior researcher: 30+
+- Limitations: Favors older researchers, quantity over quality
+
+**CiteScore:**
+- Citations in year X to papers published in years X-3
+- Alternative to Impact Factor
+- Generally higher numbers than JIF
+
+**SJR (SCImago Journal Rank):**
+- Weighted citation metric (prestigious journals count more)
+- Alternative quality indicator
+
+### Using Metrics Appropriately
+
+**Do:**
+- Compare within same discipline
+- Consider multiple metrics
+- Account for article age (older = more time for citations)
+- Use as one quality indicator among many
+
+**Don't:**
+- Rely solely on metrics
+- Compare across disciplines
+- Assume high citations = truth
+- Ignore recent, potentially important work
+
+### Alternative Impact Indicators
+
+**Article-level metrics:**
+- Download counts
+- Altmetrics (social media mentions, news coverage)
+- Post-publication peer review
+
+**Journal-level alternatives:**
+- Acceptance rates
+- Time to publication
+- Editorial board quality
+- Publisher reputation
+
+## Best Practices Summary
+
+### Before Using a Source:
+
+1. **Verify venue**: Check if journal/conference is indexed
+2. **Check authors**: Confirm institutional affiliations
+3. **Assess peer review**: Ensure proper review process
+4. **Evaluate content**: Review methodology and conclusions
+5. **Cross-reference**: Find corroborating sources
+6. **Check citations**: See if others cite this work positively
+
+### When in Doubt:
+
+- Search for journal in DOAJ or WoS
+- Check if other researchers cite this work
+- Look for author's other publications
+- Ask librarian or subject expert
+- Use higher-standard source instead
+
+### Document Your Process:
+
+- Keep notes on verification steps
+- Record database searches conducted
+- Note why sources included/excluded
+- Maintain audit trail for thesis/dissertation
+
+## Common Questions
+
+**Q: Can I use preprints (arXiv, bioRxiv)?**
+A: In fast-moving fields (CS, physics), preprints acceptable but note "preprint" status. Prefer published versions when available.
+
+**Q: How recent should sources be?**
+A: Generally last 5-7 years, but depends on field. Foundational older work appropriate. Rapidly evolving fields need more recent sources.
+
+**Q: What if I can't verify a source?**
+A: Don't use it. Find alternative verified sources instead.
+
+**Q: Are all Google Scholar results acceptable?**
+A: No. Google Scholar includes predatory journals, theses, and non-peer-reviewed work. Always verify independently.
+
+**Q: Can I cite Wikipedia?**
+A: No for academic papers. Use Wikipedia to find original sources, then cite those directly.
+
+**Q: What about conference papers vs. journals?**
+A: Top-tier conferences (especially in CS) equivalent to journals. Lower-tier conferences less rigorous. Check conference ranking.