Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In a follow up to an earlier article in the previous issue of this journal on book references in 47 matching entries in the brain and behavioral sciences in two competing free online encyclopedias, the anonymously authored and unrefereed Wikipedia and the assigned expert authored and refereed Scholarpedia, references to journals are now compared. Much as was the case with book references, it is now shown that both encyclopedias predominantly cite reputable scholarly and professional journals, with Scholarpedia predictably having more entries and Wikipedia just as predictably having somewhat newer ones. However, in all categories except journals related to psychiatry and psychotherapy, Scholarpedia authors placed a notably stronger emphasis on citing papers from the most highly ranked titles.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stankus et al. (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: