Blog Editor


  • Copyright 2005-20012 by Adam Kolber
    All rights reserved.

« Cognitive Bias in Fingerprint Matching | Main | Law and Emotion Article on SSRN »


I advocate not referencing the stuff on Science Daily as "articles" or "news" or even "stories." These are press releases. More often than not they're written by somebody who doesn't understand the topic, works in a university PR office and is seeking to call attention to the work by making it sound as important and impressive as possible. My understanding is that any release that any university (and perhaps any company) puts out gets a spot on Science Daily. It's not like reading the same words in the New York Times!

BTW what's a "mock interview"? How does the performance of child liars differ between mock interviews and lying from the stand after swearing an oath on the Bible? I can't help thinking they lie better.

I believe that Science Daily publishes somewhat modified or summarized versions of press releases. I think you are right that readers should critically read press releases for the reasons you mention and ought to obtain the original research whenever relying on the material in any significant way. Of course, the same is probably true (albeit to a lesser degree) for summarized research in the New York Times.

I do appreciate and thank you for the comment and will rethink the way that I describe material from Science Daily.

The comments to this entry are closed.