Boldpost
Login

Academic Information Sciences CanonExample canon

Boldpost Example: University Information Sciences Department

Information Sciences / Library Studies

A peer-review-first guide to sources in information and library science.

About our perspective

This canon represents how a university department anchored in empirical methods evaluates sources. We privilege transparent methodology, editorial oversight, reproducibility norms, and domain expertise. We acknowledge that peer review is itself a human institution with gaps (publication bias, prestige hierarchies). Where we list "Cautionary" sources, the concern is usually mission-driven framing rather than factual unreliability.

Good and bad bias in a Canon →

5 endorsed · 3 cautionary · 2 rejected
Endorsed (5)

Nature / Science / PNAS External· VariousNone

Nature / Science / PNAS

Rationale

Transparent methodology, editorial oversight, reproducibility norms. One of the most rigorous review regimes in science.

Oxford University Press External· Oxford University PressNone

Oxford University Press

Rationale

Rigorous editorial standards, expert review, long institutional track record.

U.S. Census Bureau External· U.S. Census BureauNone

U.S. Census Bureau

Rationale

Transparent data collection methods, nonpartisan statutory mandate, publicly documented methodology.

Bureau of Labor Statistics External· U.S. Bureau of Labor StatisticsNone

Bureau of Labor Statistics

Rationale

Same rationale as Census Bureau. Primary source for employment and economic statistics.

National Academies of Sciences External· National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and MedicineNone

National Academies of Sciences

Rationale

Consensus reports by leading domain experts; clearly documented dissenting opinions.
Cautionary (3)

Brookings Institution External· Brookings InstitutionNone

Brookings Institution

Rationale

High-quality research, rigorous methodology. Center-left policy orientation may influence framing of findings.

Domain notes

Reliable for empirical descriptive work; apply more scrutiny to normative recommendations.

Heritage Foundation External· The Heritage FoundationNone

Heritage Foundation

Rationale

Professional research staff; explicitly conservative policy mission shapes which questions get asked.

Domain notes

Strong on regulatory cost analysis; less reliable on distributional impact claims.

Major daily newspapers (NYT, WSJ, NY Post, WaPo) External

Major daily newspapers (NYT, WSJ, NY Post, WaPo)

Rationale

Strong reporting infrastructure and editorial standards; opinion sections reflect distinct ideological commitments.

Domain notes

News reporting is generally reliable; editorial and op-ed pages express institutional viewpoints.
Rejected (2)

Anonymous blogs / unverified social accounts External

Anonymous blogs / unverified social accounts

Rationale

No accountability, unknown expertise, no editorial process.

Advocacy group studies with undisclosed funding External

Advocacy group studies with undisclosed funding

Rationale

Selective evidence use, unknown methodology, conflicts of interest.