|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| Scientific quality contains several properties including the following. Is the issue (scope) clearly stated, are existing relevant data well covered, is the reasoning (definition) and data use adequate, does the result cover all hypotheses that have not been shown wrong, does the result truthfully reflect the likelihood of existing hypotheses. | | Scientific quality: clear scope, data coverage, good reasoning. Does result cover all plausible hypotheses? |
| | |
| This page is read automatically, and should contain at least two sentences to not confuse the script. This page should probably be protected once it is done.
| |
|
| |
|
| {| | | {| |
| Line 25: |
Line 23: |
| | 100 | | | 100 |
| | Outstanding | | | Outstanding |
| |}
| |
|
| |
| {{variable|moderator=Tekerane}}
| |
|
| |
| ==Scope==
| |
|
| |
| What should be the instructions to a reader, and what descriptions should be used to clarify the scale 0..100?
| |
|
| |
| ==Rationale==
| |
|
| |
| ==Result==
| |
|
| |
| {| {{prettytable}}
| |
| |+ '''Rating description table
| |
| ! Max rating
| |
| ! Description of rating
| |
| ! More detailed description
| |
| |-
| |
| | 10
| |
| | Misleading
| |
| | The page gives a misleading impression of its topic, and the user is better off by not reading it at all.
| |
| |-
| |
| | 20
| |
| | Inadequate
| |
| | The page contains hardly anything that holds against scientific criticism.
| |
| |-
| |
| | 35
| |
| | Poor
| |
| | The page has some good parts but also severe problems in quality.
| |
| |-
| |
| | 60
| |
| | Moderate
| |
| | The page is overall reasonable but would not be accepted as a scientific article.
| |
| |-
| |
| | 80
| |
| | Acceptable in peer review
| |
| | The page would be acceptable as an article in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Note! The originality of the page should '''not''' be used as a criteria in [[Opasnet]], as many pages are derivative, not original, work.
| |
| |-
| |
| | 100
| |
| | Outstanding
| |
| | The quality of the page is clearly higher than an average scientific article.
| |
| |} | | |} |
Revision as of 09:59, 2 September 2010
Scientific quality: clear scope, data coverage, good reasoning. Does result cover all plausible hypotheses?
Rating description table
| Max rating
|
Description of rating
|
| 10
|
Misleading
|
| 20
|
Inadequate
|
| 35
|
Poor
|
| 60
|
Moderate
|
| 80
|
Acceptable in peer review
|
| 100
|
Outstanding
|