Evaluation of Scholarly Sources

After analyzing an article from a general Google search about animal testing, I will now analyze two more articles on the subject from scholarly sources.

Francais "Dog Cage Only" via pixabay. CC0 Public Domain

Article #1

The first article I will be evaluating is titled "Innovative Non-Animal Testing Strategies for Reproductive Toxicology: "The Contribution of Italian Partners Within the EU Project RePro Tect". I found this article through the Web of Science search using the words "animal testing research", and then followed the links until I came to a full text version.

The article was published by Stefano Lorenzetti, an expert in Molecular Biology, Endocrinology, and Cell Biology. The purpose of this article is to educate the reader and possible policy makers on the horrors and alternatives to animal testing in research in hopes of prompting further discussion and eventual change in the current policy.

It was published on September 19th 2011 after peer review. I could not find where the source was originally published and in what form, however the author is from Rome, Italy. Within this article, ninety three (yes, NINETY THREE) sources are cited, a majority of which are other scholarly sources on the topic.

The words used in the text are pretty complicated, and anyone who is not "science-y" would have a difficult time understanding what Lorenzetti was saying. From these factors I determined that this source was reliable, complete, and really quite scholarly.

Article #2

This next article was found with the same search and procedure as Article #1 on Web of Science, and is titled "Conceptual Approaches to Alternative Methods in Toxicology Testing". This article explains the possibilities for decreasing animal stress in the testing process, and seems to be written to inspire future debate and thought on the possibilities for making animal testing more humane.

The authors Alan M. Goldberg and Andrew N. Rowan both work for Universities (John Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health and Tuft's School of Veterinary Medicine respectively) giving them credibility in the field of animal health.

This source was published by Defense Science Journal and published by annual peer review. Just like the first source, the words and concepts used in this article would be suited to intellectuals with a good background in Biology. In addition, this work has ninety two sources (Article #1 for the win) mostly citing other scientists and their work in similar and related fields. Overall I find this source very credible due to its many qualifications as a scholarly source.