Research credibility

I am already aware of how to cite websites. But discussion forums are a bit of a special case because they have content from other people besides the website owner.

Citing the entire thread itself should be straightforward enough because it has a title, date, author, and URL.
This article has suggestions for how to cite an answer in a reddit AMA and I guess it would be similar:'s%20Last%20name%2C%20First%20name.,URL.
For the forum posts here you might want to include the post number in the thread (i.e. yours is apparently Post #50)

1 Like

Your letter would go in the pile, along with the ones from the statisticians, geneticists, taxonomists, modellers, evolutionary biologists, naturalists etc, all worried that no one with their expertise is reviewing papers (and yet very few offering to actually do the reviewing). The reality is its a struggle to find two people with expertise on any aspect of a paper to review it, and most papers combine at least two or three different areas (collection records, statistics, genetics, natural history etc).

What might be useful would be to publish an article or two to make your case for best practices in working with iNaturalist data, in order to make more reviewers aware of the issues!


gen Z are quite comfortable using their online names as real, serious names. millennials don’t seem to be quite ready, but at least know what a “gamertag” or “tag” is. I go by astra_the_dragon not only here, but across almost all my online spaces.
granted, that’s partially because I hate my deadname and haven’t decided whether to choose a new family/last name. but also, more than half of my social time for the last 18+ years is over the internet, through an avatar and name of my choosing and within my control.

1 Like

Six peer reviewers, none of whom are experts in the main subject matter of the paper. Nothing would ever get published.

This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.