Phase 4 - Evaluation of Sources

Markoff, John (2013). “Nanotubes Seen as Alternative When Silicon Chips Hit Their Limits”. New York Times. Retrieved on 20 March, 2013 from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/technology/nanotubes-seen-as-an-alternative-to-silicon-circuits.html?_r=0

Nanotubes Seen as Alternative When Silicon Chips Hit Their Limits

The news article, “Nanotubes Seen as Alternative When Silicon Chips Hit Their Limits” was published by the New York Times online edition on February 19, 2013, so it is very recent. At the end of the article, it is noted that a version of this article appeared in print a day later on February 20, 2013. It is possible that there may have been some revisions before it was published in print. The article covers current information, as silicon chips are working to be replaced by grapheme. Scientists have been working on developing this for over 10 years, and have been recently implementing trials on using grapheme (carbon) within certain electronics. My specific topic of carbon-based electronics can use both current and older sources (within the past 10 years). The older sources can be used to compare the functionality of copper and silicon based electronics to how carbon based electronics function. Research for learning about the reason behind the use of the original materials may be useful as well. The links on the article website are functional, and take the reader back to different sections of the New York Times. There are also advertisements on the side which are functional as well. Clicking on the author’s name takes me to a brief autobiography of the author. This article directly relates to my topic of carbon based electronics. It talks about the soon outdated silicon chips and some studies that have been successful using carbon. The intended audience seems to be engineers, people interested in nanotechnology, those interested in technology, computers, and science. The language is very easy to understand and follow, so the audience does not have to have any sort of technical background to understand it. This is not the first source that I have looked at. I have sifted through various sources and found that this one is in a language that is easy to break down and understand as well as offer some clear concepts that I could learn from. I would feel comfortable using this source, because I think that the information is accurate and it is straight forward and to the point.

The author’s name is John Markoff and he is a senior writer for the New York Times’ science section. He has been writing about technology since 1976, and has been writing for the New York Times since 1988. He has a MA in Sociology, but has spent most of his career as a writer. I think that through his many years of experience as a technology writer, he has gained enough experience to be qualified to write on technology, despite not having credentials in science or technology. The site provides an email address as well as a link to follow him on Twitter. The website ends in .com, so it is a commercial website. The information comes from a group of researchers at Stanford University who were successful in demonstrating an experiment with carbon. The only evidence that this article supports are direct quotes from professors and scientists. The information has not been peer-reviewed. Based on other sources that I have read, I can verify that carbon electronics are being integrated into the electronics field, and silicon and other materials are found to be less effective. The tone that the author uses seems to be unbiased. He is writing in a way of informing his audience of the new and upcoming changes and is not taking sides. I did not find any errors in the article. The purpose of this information is to inform and educate the audience about some new technology advances. I think that the author does a good job with making their intentions clear. I did not find that he was pushing a product or encouraging the audience to take a side, but to be informed that carbon may be a more useful element than what we had thought. I believe that the information found in the article is fact, and it is based off of a study, not simply on what the author feels like writing. The information is objective and he does interview people that explain that some more changes need to happen before carbon is fully implemented, noting that it may not be a perfect substitution at this time. I think that there is definitely an institutional biases by using Stanford University in the study without using any other studies. 

Garaj, S., Hubbard, W., Reina, A., Kong, J., Branton, D., & Golovchenko, J. A. (2010). “Graphene as a subnanometre trans-electrode membrane”. Nature, 467(7312), 190-3. Retrieved on on 20 March, 2013 from doi:10.1038/nature09379

Graphene as a Subnanometre Transelectrode Membrane

The article titled "Graphene as a Subnanometre Transelectrode Membrane" was published in the Nature Journal in September 2010. It is a peer-reviewed article, making it a scholarly source. I did not find that the information was updated or revised. The information that this article covers is current information, which is mostly what my topic is based on. However, older sources (not exceeding more than 10 years) could work as well. Since this is a scholarly journal article, there are no links. The information within this article does relate to my topic. It gives me more of an explanation of why graphene (carbon) is useful by exploring the chemical attributes and the qualities that it maintains when being subjected to various conditions. The intended audience is a more technical audience. It is aimed for people in the chemistry, technology, mechanical/electrical engineering field. I found that the information is fairly advanced and some sections of the article may not be appropriate for a non-scientific research project. I have looked at a variety of sources, although many did exceed 10 pages, so I had to eliminate some based on length. I am unsure whether I would cite this article, only because it is very advanced and technical and I may pull out a few sentences that may prove a point in my research project, but may be out of context in the article itself, because I can't understand what the authors are really trying to convey. 

There are several authors for this article, they are Garaj, S., Hubbard, W., Reina, A., Kong, J., Branton, D., & Golovchenko, J. A. They are physics professors, engineering professors, and molecular and cellular biology professors at Harvard University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, all in Cambridge, MA. The authors are qualified to write on this topic, because it is their profession. There at two Harvard University email addresses given for correspondence. The information comes from a study conducted by the 6 authors with supporting evidence and a methods and results section explaining how the study was carried out as well as the findings that were acquired. The information has been peer reviewed, making it a scholarly article. Due to my limited knowledge, I cannot verify any of the information in this article. This article is difficult to understand because it is not solely to educate the reader, but more to explain the complex study that was conducted by these scientists. The language seems to be informative and not unbiased. The intention is very clear, it is to find results of how graphene reacts on an ionic solution through conducting a study. The information is fact. I found the information to be objective and professional. I did not find any biases in the study.

Comparison of the Two Articles

Both of the articles served their own purpose. The first article was explaining to the public the phasing in of carbon and the phasing out of silicon as well as the potential benefits and downfalls of carbon. It presented itself in a user friendly version to a general audience, but was not written by somebody who has true credentials in the subject matter. The article was only based on one research group from Stanford, which does not leave room for another research project from somebody conducted in the same way, but getting different results. I don't think that you can put all of your faith into one study without seeing it conducted more than once. The second article was more detailed and scientific, almost too scientific to understand. It is a journal article outlining a study that was conducted by 6 professors/scientists at two prestige Universities. The article was also peer reviewed, and I think that that gives it more credibility than the first article. Both of the articles were good articles and I learned something from each of them, but because of research that I have done in the past, I am always more inclined to go with the peer-reviewed journal over anything else.