>>11242421Came in here to post exactly this, what matters is the author being a shady twat using ambiguous/specific wording to deceive readers and whether the logic at all matches other research I've done (for example if an author is going on about the efficacy of an SSRI I want to see them demonstrate they understand the pharmacologic action of them rather than just guessing or parroting someone else)
Meanwhile scholarly articles I use for school either add absolute nothing to collective knowledge and were published for the sake of being published and/or written in a manner where the reader isn't expected to understand any of it and will just cite it to fluff a citations page
