For non-scientists, learning about science online can be rather daunting. What's real information? What's an exaggeration of a real fact, and what's simply made up nonsense? The internet is full of crap science: even on websites with reputable names or ones that seem fancy and expensive. We've all seen those ad-filled clickbait websites that talk about how chocolate cures cancer one day, then talk about how it causes cancer the next day. But there's a great wide spectrum of reliability between the latest research published on the cover of Nature and your Great Aunt's rambly blog about how 5G towers are mind-control devices. Where do you draw the line on that spectrum? And how do you even know where things fall on it?

A term you probably hear thrown around a lot when it comes to scientific writing is "peer review." But what is peer review, and why is it considered the "gold standard" of scientific writing? Well, science ultimately aims to learn things about the universe from a completely unbiased lens. Humans are biased by nature, though, and it's not always possible to be totally neutral. When scientists design experiments, we are supposed to do it in the way will limit as much of our human feelings and preconcieved notions as possible. However, sometimes we miss things.

Before any research is considered true science, the research will be sent to three scientists in your field who don't know the author and have no conflict of interest with the research. They will read through what's been done: every method, every step, every statistical analysis. They will make sure it really is unbiased, and that the conclusions accurately match the data in the study. Only once all three scientists agree that the research is good, can it be published in a journal. In addition to this high level of scrutiny, peer reviewed publications are required to contain a description of every test the researchers did to produce their data, how they did it, and what the raw numerical results of each test were. In this way, every scientist who reads the paper can make up their own mind about whether or not it really is unbiased science. This is why they are the gold standard. However, peer reviewed publications are difficult for even veteran scientists to read. For the average person, it's like reading ancient Greek. So we have to rely on more digestible scientific writing that may or may not be an accurate representation of the truth...

This calculator takes different aspects of scientific writing and assigns them a numerical value. If the article in question is in good form, it will have many points added and few points taken away. If it is in poor form, the result will be the inverse. These are the parameters:

Source Reliability: Articles get points for the more peer-reviewed articles they cite. If they cite none at all, points are removed. Some articles that appear peer reviewed are not actually peer reviewed; these are called predatory journals. The second question asks you to check if the "peer reviewed" citations are actually peer-reviewed by checking if the journal is predatory or not. Predatory journals do not conduct peer review. They try to pass off fake science as real science exclusively to make a profit. Interviews with scientists are also reliable sources. The more scientists willing to speak on a topic, the more universally accepted it's likely to be. In addition, articles that include dissenting opinions from scientists are showing you science how it really is, a discussion, rather than trying to prove a point. Dissenting opinions make scientific articles more reliable.

Author Scientific Literacy: Authors with a scientific background are expected to understand science and how to communicate it better than writers without them. Articles written by scientific authors get a small addition of points.

Scientific Language: Take note of the language in the writing. Does it speak in absolutes and rely on anecdotes and feelings? Science is based on probabilities and research. Anecdotes are not science, and can lead to bias. A good science comunicator will never include them. So too, a scientist will never use certainty when they speak. We are only ever "very certain" that a scientific principle is true because it's impossible to prove a negative. Good scientific communicators should use this type of language too, so points will be removed from articles that do not write this way.