On 6/4/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
This all depends on how rigidly you look at the term
"source".
Scientific American does not typically have a lot of footnotes, but it
does give opportunities such as this for further exploration. Are you
saying that this makes the magazine less credible?
Ec
Scientific American generally gives far more references than most
other science magazines I can think of (Discover is generally on or
below SA's par, and Science News is definitely way below)
~maru