In contrast, newspapers and popular scientific magazines (PSM) are not peer reviewed and do not go through such a rigorous process of editing or reviewing. Instead, newspapers and PSMs will go through a copy-editing process, in which the formatting, style, accuracy of text, balance and facts of the article are checked.
Journalists, who often do not have any credential on the subject of interest write newspapers articles. A clear example of this is Carrell (2009), and Gray (2009) who don’t have science degrees and who write about different issues on a weekly basis. Therefore, newspapers can potentially be misleading in their analysis of scientific research that is presented to them. This is not always the case; Mckie (2011) is authored by the science editor of the Observer (well-established broadcast newspaper). PSMs, on the other hand are occasionally written by scientists Brewer (2008) and at least science graduates, Zielinski (2011). Though credible, The Economist (2010) is written by an anonymous author however due to the reputation and prestige of the magazine, it is assumed that the article is of high quality.
Equally, articles from newspapers and PSMs are based upon individual scientific research as well as research conducted by research centres. The Economist (2010) uses research carried out by the Mediterranean Institute for Advanced Studies while Carrell (2009) makes use of an EPOCA report presented to the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. In some cases journals are used, such as an article from Ecology Letters journal in Zielinski (2011). The fact that such a wide variety of scientific research is used in both newspapers and PSMs is a sign of their credibility.
However, a problem with newspapers is that they are subject to media bias and often have political affiliations. As a result the language and attitude can differ from one paper to another as revealed in (Gray, 2009), and (Mckie, 2011). Also, newspaper articles are written in a style that will achieve their ultimate aim, the purchasing of the newspaper and in order to reach this, they tend to exaggerate evidence while using descriptive and dramatic language to interest their readers.
NGO reports typically contain: valuable research, thorough analysis and useful conclusions. They may or may not go through the peer review process, but will be reviewed on the whole by scientists or graduates. Feely et al. (2006) hasn’t been peer reviewed but instead is written by specialist scientists, scientists that have been cited in numerous publications. Even though not scientifically reviewed, it remains a credible source as a result of their expertise in the field. Harrould-Kolieb et al. (2010) on the other hand was reviewed by three expert scientists while Moss (2008), written by a science graduate wasn’t reviewed at all and lacked any mention of important journals or organisations. NGOs are constantly working for political action or changes in policy and therefore reports have a pre-identified agenda, which can result in biased opinions.
Other web-based sources are significantly different in their credibility. For example Turley and Boot (2010) are senior experts who have authored research carried out by UNEP on the environmental consequences of ocean acidification. This in fact is a peer reviewed article, which reads as a balanced scientific report, citing other credible research. Similarly, a report conducted by EPOCA (2009) lacks information on authorship but does have a specific section entitled “quality assurance”, where it thanks expert scientists for their role in the peer review process of the report. Although they are well-researched publications, if sponsored or funded by a large corporation, it could be highly biased. However, lack of expertise, authorship and credential is found in (The Reef Tank, 2009), an article in a blog. Printed material (newspapers and scientific magazines) are heavily invested pieces of work and for this reason the information they present is likely to be credible. Unlike printed material, blogs are free to publish and can be written by anyone who wishes to do so and for this reason are less credible. In spite of this, eminent scientists do publish blogs and therefore should not be avoided completely.
Table 1. Summary of advantages and disadvantages of different source types:
Word Count: 1116
Reference List
A special introductory guide for policy advisers and decision makers (2009) [Online] Available from: http://www.us-ocb.org/publications/oa_guide_english.pdf [Accessed 15 October 2011]
Brewer, P.G., Barry, J. (2008) Rising Acidity in the Ocean: The Other CO2 Problem. Scientific American [Online]. Available from: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=rising-acidity-in-the-ocean [Accessed 15 October 2011]
Carrell, S. (2009) Ocean acidification rates pose disaster for marine life, major study shows. The Guardian, 10 December, p.6.
Feely, R.A., Sabine, C.L. and Fabry, V.J. (2006) Carbon Dioxide and Our Ocean Legacy [Online] Available from:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/PDF/feel2899/feel2899.pdf [Accessed 14 October 2011]
Getting The Word Out on Ocean Acidification (2009) [Online] Available from: http://www.thereeftank.com/blog/getting-the-word-out/ [Accessed 15 October 2011]
Gray, L. (2009) Copenhagen climate conference: ocean acidification could leave one billion hungry [Online] Available from:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6811984/Copenhagen-climate-conference-ocean-acidification-could-leave-one-billion-hungry.html [Accessed 13 October 2011]
Harrould-Kolieb, E., Huelsenbeck, M., and Selz,. V. (2010) OCEAN ACIDIFICATION THE UNTOLD STORIES [Online] Available from: http://na.oceana.org/en/news-media/publications/reports/ocean-acidification-the-untold-stories [Accessed 15 October 2010]
Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Anthony, K.R.N., Kline, D.I., Diaz-Pulido, G. and Dove, S. (2008) Ocean acidification causes bleaching and productivity loss in coral reef builders. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(45), 17442-17446.
Mckie, R. (2011) Ocean acidification is latest manifestation of global warming [Online] Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/29/global-warming-threat-to-oceans [Accessed 16 October 2011]
Moss, R. (2008) Our Endangered Oceans [Online] Available from: http://www.worldwildlife.org/climate/oceans.html [Accessed 15 October 2011]
Sponberg, A.F. (2007) Ocean Acidification: The Biggest Threat to Our Oceans? BioScience, 57(10), 822.
The other carbon-dioxide problem (2010) New York, The Economist
Turley, C., Boot, K. (2010) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF OCEAN ACIDIFICATION: A THREAT TO FOOD SECURITY [Online] Available from: http://www.grid.unep.ch/product/publication/download/Environmental_Consequences_of_Ocean_Acidification.pdf [Accessed 15 October 2011]
UK Ocean Acidification Programme (2011) [Online] Available from: http://www.oceanacidification.org.uk/ [Accessed October 15 2011]
Wood, H.L., Spicer, J.I., Widdicombe, S. (2008) Ocean acidification may increase calcification rates, but at a cost. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 275(1644), 1767-1773.
Zielinski, S. (2011) [Online]. Available from: http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/science/2011/05/ocean-acidification-and-the-battle-between-coral-and-seaweed/ [Accessed 17 October 2011]