Primary sources first
When explaining a specific experiment, dataset, tool or scientific claim, Sageweb prefers the original research paper or official resource documentation. Primary sources provide the clearest view of methods, populations, endpoints and limitations.
Peer-reviewed literature
Peer-reviewed journal articles are central to our research coverage. Reviews and meta-analyses are useful for understanding a field as a whole, while individual papers are used to describe specific findings. A review is not substituted for the original study when methodological detail matters.
Research registries and databases
Official registries and scientific databases may be used to verify identifiers, resource names, URLs, availability status and relationships between research resources. For Sageweb's historical resources, RRID and SciCrunch records are particularly useful for documenting resource identity.
Institutional and government sources
Universities, research institutes, public-health agencies and government scientific bodies can be appropriate sources for definitions, reports, datasets and official guidance. Their material is evaluated according to the specific claim being supported.
Secondary reporting
News articles, blogs and general-reference pages may help identify a topic but should not be the sole basis for a technical scientific claim when primary or authoritative sources are available.
Source quality and uncertainty
Source quality is not determined by prestige alone. We consider whether a source directly supports the claim, whether methods are transparent, whether findings have been replicated or synthesized, and whether newer evidence changes the interpretation.
Citations and links
Resource pages and research-focused articles should provide links to the most important source material so readers can inspect the evidence directly. We avoid using a citation to support a stronger statement than the source itself supports.