Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

:Journal letters may be written by experts in the field, and their may be some validity in their points, but unlike the other journal contents, such information is not subject to peer review. If a wholly new concept is borne out of only a letter to a journal, that seems very iffy to include. [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 17:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

::As Masem notes, such letters are not subject to peer review. This particular letter has been cited a number of times in other non-self-published sources; here's Google Scholar's list of [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=8649118373937859923&as_sdt=20000005&sciodt=0,21&hl=en publications] citing it. At least some of those are peer-reviewed and might turn out to be better sources. I think the letter itself can be used as a source, but only with in-line attribution, along the lines of "Singer has been credited with coining the term 'neurodiversity,' [citations added for the Silberman book and Harris article mentioned in the letter], but in a letter to the editor of Journal J, Persons X, Y, and Z, state that the term was developed collectively ..." [[User:FactOrOpinion|FactOrOpinion]] ([[User talk:FactOrOpinion|talk]]) 18:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)