3,209
edits
Changes
MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Tuesday November 26, 2024
Jump to navigationJump to searchDirectory:The Wikipedia Point of View/FT2 (view source)
Revision as of 20:53, 18 September 2008
, 20:53, 18 September 2008→Peer-reviewed published research (June 2007)
* The fact that someone is published in the field, or has a doctorate, or is well-known, or has had their writings vetted by somebody else of note, is utterly irrelevant
* The fact that someone is published in the field, or has a doctorate, or is well-known, or has had their writings vetted by somebody else of note, is utterly irrelevant
* The International Society for Anthrozoology is not a recognised journal [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zoophilia&oldid=140444558#Peer_Reviewed_studies_in_this_area]
* The International Society for Anthrozoology is not a recognised journal [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zoophilia&oldid=140444558#Peer_Reviewed_studies_in_this_area]
---------------------------
I'm not sure that we should attach a greater expectation to research than those experts actually writing in the field do. Miletski, Beetz, Donfrio, and others, are constantly cited in academia when the topic is written on, and both they and their work is treated invariably as credible, accepted-as-common-knowledge-by-the-consensus, carefully written, and reputable, by others writing in the field. The writings have been published and used by their peers now for a significant number of years. In addition I have found no notable minority of writings from within the field by others denouncing them for bias or poor research - a quite remarkable absence for such a controversial topic and conclusion if the research was even slightly questioned. Instead of doubt, they are treated as foundational and accepted-as-obvious, and cited accordingly. I find it hard to conclude we as reporters of the topic, should do otherwise. FT2 (Talk | email) 20:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
FT2, the points you make do not refute the point I made. If you disagree with me, I suggest you ask someone who is a true medical or psychological expert for comment. In the last decade, there has been a big swing towards evidence-based medicine (please read that wikipage). Under the new regime, much of the preceding research is inadequate, and not only in this area -- far from it! The fact that someone is published in the field, or has a doctorate, or is well-known, or has had their writings vetted by somebody else of note, is utterly irrelevant. Much higher standards now apply for the publication of research, especially in august and pre-eminent journals. I think your understanding of this point is seriously flawed, especially when you point to journals like the one put out by The International Society for Anthrozoology. This is not a recognised journal. It is not indexed by Medline and is not formally recognized in the fields of medicine or psychology. And lastly, it is not a peer-reviewed journal. From the journal's own website [1] we see they state: "Each issue contains (non-refereed) articles on topics related to the human-animal relationship, interviews with key figures in the field, book announcements, conference news and so forth." Skopp (Talk) 23:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
