View source for Wikipedia, Scholarpedia, and References to Journals in the Brain and Behavioral Sciences: a Comparison of Cited Sources and Recommended Readings in Matching Free Online Encyclopedia Entries

{{Infobox work
| title = Wikipedia, Scholarpedia, and References to Journals in the Brain and Behavioral Sciences: a Comparison of Cited Sources and Recommended Readings in Matching Free Online Encyclopedia Entries
| date = 2010
| authors = [[Tony Stankus]]<br />[[Sarah E. Spiegel]]
| doi = 10.1080/0194262X.2010.497711
| link = http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0194262X.2010.497711
}}
'''Wikipedia, Scholarpedia, and References to Journals in the Brain and Behavioral Sciences: a Comparison of Cited Sources and Recommended Readings in Matching Free Online Encyclopedia Entries''' - scientific work related to [[Wikipedia quality]] published in 2010, written by [[Tony Stankus]] and [[Sarah E. Spiegel]].

== Overview ==
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.