Scholarpedia, a free online encyclopaedia, has achieved a unique feat that Wikipedia can only aspire to – peer-reviewed articles. The site, launched in 2006, allows experts in various fields to pen articles, which are then reviewed by a curator, typically a recognised expert in the same field. This process ensures that all content published on Scholarpedia is accurate, reliable, and up-to-date.

The database, which is smaller than Wikipedia, is valued for its quality rather than quantity. Each article on Scholarpedia is a collaborative effort between the author and the curator, with the latter having the final say on the content. This differs from Wikipedia, which allows anyone to edit its articles, leading to concerns about the accuracy of the information.

Scholarpedia also has a unique ‘curatorship’ model. Once an article is published, it is owned by the curator, who is responsible for approving any changes. This model ensures that the information remains relevant and accurate. Notably, Scholarpedia’s model has its roots in academia, where peer-review is a standard practice, ensuring a high level of credibility. Despite these differences, both platforms share a common goal – to make knowledge accessible to all.

Go to source article: