<p>The problem with phys.org is that it mostly just reprints press releases from universities and other research institutions, rather than doing actual journalism. (You can tell by checking the byline; if it says something like &quot;By Santa Fe Institute&quot;, then it's a press release.)</p>
<p>Proper science journalism involves, at a minimum, checking with other scientists in the field who are not affiliated with the study being reported, to provide some context beyond the sort of study-author and institutional hype that press releases tend to feature.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-02-20T01:11:33.980Z
Actually, phys.org's articles *frequently* quote experts who are not authors nor associated with the research published. I think if you go there now and click through several articles you'll see that they generally do indeed meet your standard for "actual journalism".
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-02-20T04:05:47.627Z
@uhoh Ok, I looked at the first 39 stories on their front page (skipping the "Corporate Sponsor" pieces). There were 4 actual articles by Phys.org staff, 4 reprints from other sources (The Conversation, LA Times, Denver Post) — and 31 press releases. That’s about 80% press releases.
Peter Erwin
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-02-20T15:48:00.120Z
Were these about Astronomy, Physics and similar hard sciences?
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-02-20T21:52:47.963Z
The first 20 articles on the "Astronomy & Space" sub-page include 2 by Phys.org staff, 9 from other sources (AP, Orlando Sentinal, etc.), and 9 press releases. (A lot of the "other sources" articles relate to the launch industry.) For the "Physics" sub-page, it's 1 article by Phys.org and 19 press releases. For "Chemistry", it's (again) 1 by Phys.org and 19 press releases.
Peter Erwin
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-02-21T00:24:51.650Z
I've added an answer about the "Space News" section, which is what the question asks about. I'll go look at Physics now. I'm curious have you found anything at all that you think is in any way *less than reliable* information? I think you are trying to suggest that if something is not "proper science journalism" that that makes it less reliable. Yes, a university press-release about a recent Phys Rev Letter can have errors in it, all written material can contain errors, even peer-reviewed. But I am pretty certain these will be few and far-between, and since they link to the source material...
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-02-21T00:42:42.947Z
- which is what we really should be reading for accurate information in the first place - I think there is nothing wrong with considering a **carefully c8rateed** set of news items to make us aware of them. We can also turn to longer journalistic articles, or the primary sources (the papers themselves) if we want more, but few of us have the bandwidth to do that several times a day.
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-02-16T13:41:28.993Z
2024-02-16T13:41:28.993Z
Peter Erwin
<blockquote>
<p>Is phys.org/space-news reliable source?</p>
</blockquote>
<h3>Yes.</h3>
<blockquote>
<p>...in comments people arguing about the validity of the information...</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Well the question does not quote any of those arguing comments, so we can't investigate any specific claim, but comments from non-science and anti-science people, and cranks, trolls and conspiracy theorists are an uncountable noun, like muddy water.</p>
<p>I've looked through the most recent 20 articles in phys.org/space-news, and didn't see any comments that seriously called the article's facts into question.</p>
<p>What I see is that (as has been my experience over the last 10 years) the articles strive to be fact-driven and well-sourced. They do accumulate news from other news outlets by <em>letting those journalists publish in this collection</em> (e.g. look for authors like &quot;Universe Today&quot; and &quot;NASA&quot; and &quot;ESO&quot; below)</p>
<p>I also notice that almost all articles draw from arXiv preprints or journal articles or other authoritative source. Even when YouTube videos are included, they are from well-recognized sources.</p>
<h3>For the speed, comprehensiveness and breadth of the news covered in phys.org/space-news the information is as reliable as you are going to get, and if you find what you think is a credible comment that some information is wrong ask about it in a new Stack Exchange question!</h3>
<ol>
<li>Feb 20, 2024 <a href="https://phys.org/news/2024-02-ultra-short-period-exoplanet.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">New ultra-short-period exoplanet discoveredNew ultra-short-period exoplanet discovered</a> by &quot;Tomasz Nowakowski, Phys.org&quot; links to arXiv preprint <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.07451" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Ultra-Short-Period Planet Possibly Clinging to a High-Mean-Molecular-Weight Atmosphere After the First Gyr</a></li>
<li>Feb 19, 2024 <a href="https://phys.org/news/2024-02-brightest-fastest-astronomers-quasar.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Brightest and fastest-growing: Astronomers identify record-breaking quasar</a> by &quot;ESO&quot; links to Nature Astronomy <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-024-02195-x" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The accretion of a solar mass per day by a 17-billion solar mass black hole</a> and to two ESO YouTube videos</li>
<li>Feb 19, 2024 <a href="https://phys.org/news/2024-02-planet.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">There's one last place Planet Nine could be hiding</a> by &quot;Laurence Tognetti, Universe Today&quot; links to arXiv preprint <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.17977" rel="nofollow noreferrer">A Pan-STARRS1 Search for Planet Nine</a> and to a TED talk video by Caltech astronomer and lead author.</li>
<li>Feb 19, 2024 <a href="https://phys.org/news/2024-02-rocket-propellant-tanks-nasa-artemis.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Rocket propellant tanks for NASA's Artemis III mission take shape</a> by &quot;Lee Mohon, NASA&quot; links to a YouTube video by &quot;NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center&quot;.</li>
<li>Feb 19, 2024 <a href="https://phys.org/news/2024-02-nasa-vows-organizational-silence-problems.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">NASA vows to battle 'organizational silence' as problems arise amid Artemis delays</a> by &quot;Richard Tribou, Orlando Sentinel&quot; and sources members of &quot;a panel held Jan. 31 at the SpaceCom conference at the Orange County Convention Center.&quot;</li>
<li>Feb 19, 2024 <a href="https://phys.org/news/2024-02-retooled-cape-canaveral-pads-spacex.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">New or retooled Cape Canaveral launch pads considered for SpaceX Starship</a> by &quot;by Richard Tribou, Orlando Sentinel&quot; and links to <a href="https://spaceforcestarshipeis.com/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">spaceforcestarshipeis.com</a> a US Air Force website</li>
<li>Feb 19, 2024 <a href="https://phys.org/news/2024-02-subglacial-microbial-life-earth.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Subglacial microbial life on Earth and beyond</a> by &quot; American Society for Microbiology&quot; and links to an article in Science <a href="https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.1167350" rel="nofollow noreferrer">A Contemporary Microbially Maintained Subglacial Ferrous &quot;Ocean&quot;</a> and the American Society for Microbiology's  <a href="https://asm.org/Articles/2023/March/How-Extremophiles-Push-the-Limits-of-Life" rel="nofollow noreferrer">How Extremophiles Push the Limits of Life</a></li>
<li>Feb 19, 2024 <a href="https://phys.org/news/2024-02-pandora-cluster-explored.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Pandora's Cluster explored by researchers</a> by &quot;by Tomasz Nowakowski , Phys.org&quot; links to the arXiv preprint <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.08364" rel="nofollow noreferrer">An improved Magellan weak lensing analysis of the galaxy cluster Abell 2744</a></li>
<li>Feb 19, 2024 <a href="https://phys.org/news/2024-02-japanese-space-debris-probe.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Japanese space debris inspection probe launched</a> by &quot;Editors' notes&quot; sources ESA and Astroscale</li>
<li>Feb 19, 2024 <a href="https://phys.org/news/2024-02-mars-samples-looms-large.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Mars samples project looms large in final spending talks</a> by &quot;Aidan Quigley, CQ-Roll Call&quot; quotes US Senate Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations Chair Jeanne Shaheen, D-N. and Rep. Judy Chu, D-Calif, whose district includes the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the California Institute of Technology, and Mike Garcia and  a Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations Subcommittee member.</li>
<li>Feb 17, 2024 <a href="https://phys.org/news/2024-02-image-hubble-views-massive-star.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Image: Hubble views a massive star forming</a> by &quot;NASA&quot; sources the NASA.gov article.</li>
<li>Feb 17, 2024 <a href="https://phys.org/news/2024-02-newborn-gas-planets-flat.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Newborn gas planets may be surprisingly flat, says new research</a> by &quot;Dimitris Stamatellos, The Conversation&quot; links to the Astronomhy and Astrophysics paper <a href="https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2024/02/aa48753-23/aa48753-23.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The 3D structure of disc-instability protoplanets</a></li>
<li>Feb 16, 2024 <a href="https://phys.org/news/2024-02-clue-true-nature-fast-radio.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Another clue into the true nature of fast radio bursts</a> by &quot;Brian Koberlein, Universe Today&quot; links to the arXiv preprint <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.09291" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Rapid spin changes around a magnetar fast radio burst</a></li>
<li>Feb 16, 2024 <a href="https://phys.org/news/2024-02-nasa-tally-spacecraft-amount-asteroid.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">NASA's final tally shows spacecraft returned double the amount of asteroid rubble</a> by &quot;Marcia Dunn&quot; seems unsourced</li>
<li>Feb 16, 2024 <a href="https://phys.org/news/2024-02-aurora-borealis-dynamics-polar-vortex.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Aurora borealis dynamics suggest the polar vortex is breaking up again</a> by &quot;University of Oulu&quot; links to Scientific Reports <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-47605-8" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Electricity consumption in Finland influenced by climate effects of energetic particle precipitation</a></li>
<li>Feb 16, 2024 <a href="https://phys.org/news/2024-02-ground-based-lasers-spacecraft-stars.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Ground-based lasers could accelerate spacecraft to other stars</a> by &quot;Matt Williams, Universe Today&quot; links to <a href="https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2024-2029" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Laser-Sustained Plasma for Deep Space Propulsion: Initial LTP Thruster Results</a> and <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0094576521006305?via%3Dihub" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Design of a rapid transit to Mars mission using laser-thermal propulsion</a></li>
<li>Feb X, 2024 <a href="https://phys.org/news/2024-02-martians-nasa-simulated-yearlong-mars.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Martians wanted: Apply here now for NASA's simulated yearlong Mars mission</a> by &quot;Roxana Bardan, NASA&quot; is sourced to NASA</li>
<li>Feb X, 2024 <a href="https://phys.org/news/2024-02-lab-artificial-magnetosphere-explore-spontaneous.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Lab study creates artificial magnetosphere to explore spontaneous excitation of chorus emissions</a> by &quot;National Institutes of Natural Sciences&quot; and links to Nature Communications <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-44977-x" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Experimental study on chorus emission in an artificial magnetosphere</a></li>
<li>Feb 16, 2024 <a href="https://phys.org/news/2024-02-stars-impact-galaxies.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Even if we can't see the first stars, we could detect their impact on the first galaxies</a> by &quot;Evan Gough, Universe Today&quot; links to the arXiv preprint <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.06016" rel="nofollow noreferrer">How Population III Supernovae Determined the Properties of the First Galaxies</a></li>
<li>Feb 16, 2024 <a href="https://phys.org/news/2024-02-nasa-highly-moon.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">NASA experiment sheds light on highly charged moon dust</a> by &quot;Elyna N. Niles-Carnes, NASA&quot; is source to NASA.</li>
</ol>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-02-21T00:12:16.213Z
2024-02-21T00:12:16.213Z
uhoh
<p>Because of the .org, you probably can trust it, because it's an organization. Remember, anyone can write a comment.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-18T05:10:54.653Z
anyone can make an organization too, but it takes a little more effort
SE - stop firing the good guys
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-02-20T01:14:23.793Z
*Welcome to Stack Exchange!* This is a very good point and I was going to find a place to make it until I saw that you have already. Personally, I almost never, ever pay any attention to comments outside of Stack Exchange comments. However, what you've written here, "... you probably can trust it, because it's an organization." while also a good Stack Exchange comment, does not rise to the level of a proper Stack Exchange answer post. Can you add some more information to support your assertion?
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-02-21T02:08:30.117Z
Anyone can purchase a .org domain. It's no harder than .com.
Sten
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-18T00:55:16.387Z
2016-02-18T00:55:16.387Z
Ella Hut
<p>I've been reading <a href="http://phys.org/">phys.org</a> for years.
It's right up there with <a href="http://physics.aps.org/">physics.aps</a>
and <a href="http://physicsworld.com/">physicsworld</a>.</p>

<p>All good sources that provide decent refs.
Comments are often where people who like to argue, argue. Sometimes they are useful, often not.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-17T02:20:56.487Z
2016-02-17T02:20:56.487Z
Wayfaring Stranger
<p>I found this page: <a href="http://phys.org/space-news/" rel="nofollow">http://phys.org/space-news/</a> . It seems to me pretty good page with interesting news and so on and I like that it is free. But I noticed in comments people arguing about the validity of the information and so on. Are they just "trolls" or is this page really bad source of information, if that is so, how much can I trust it?
Thanks in advance!</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-17T00:51:22.947Z
I checked out a couple of stories - it looks ok as a source of news. Good that it publishes abstracts and gives links to actual peer-reviewed papers.
ProfRob
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-02-20T01:24:49.770Z
I've been reading and appreciating phys.org for years, and it's always rung true whenever it's discussing something I'm already familiar with. And of course almost all articles link to the actual peer-reviewed papers they discuss, except when they link to preprints in arXiv which are usually in the process of peer-review. In most if not all cases they also do their own "peer review" by quoting other established researchers in the same field who are not associated w/ work. After all these years I never knew there were comment sections. Had I known I certainly would not have payed any attention
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-02-20T01:24:58.060Z
...to them. Certainly some will be trolls, many more just bored people who like to "well, what I think is..." everything they encounter on the internet. Perhaps there are a few, but don't waste your time. Instead, go read the actual papers cited in the phys.org article, and if you don't understand something, use it to start a Stack Exchange question. See [uhoh's use of phys.org](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/search?q=user%3A7982+%22phys.org%22) and [phys.org's](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/search?q=user%3A7982+%22phys.org%27s%22)
uhoh
<astrophysics>
Is phys.org/space-news reliable source?
Vojta Klimes
# Is phys.org/space-news reliable source?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-02-16)

I found this page: <http://phys.org/space-news/> . It seems to me pretty good page with interesting news and so on and I like that it is free. But I noticed in comments people arguing about the validity of the information and so on. Are they just "trolls" or is this page really bad source of information, if that is so, how much can I trust it?
Thanks in advance!

**Tags:** astrophysics
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I checked out a couple of stories - it looks ok as a source of news. Good that it publishes abstracts and gives links to actual peer-reviewed papers.  
> **username_2**: I've been reading and appreciating phys.org for years, and it's always rung true whenever it's discussing something I'm already familiar with. And of course almost all articles link to the actual peer-reviewed papers they discuss, except when they link to preprints in arXiv which are usually in the process of peer-review. In most if not all cases they also do their own "peer review" by quoting other established researchers in the same field who are not associated w/ work. After all these years I never knew there were comment sections. Had I known I certainly would not have payed any attention  
> **username_2**: ...to them. Certainly some will be trolls, many more just bored people who like to "well, what I think is..." everything they encounter on the internet. Perhaps there are a few, but don't waste your time. Instead, go read the actual papers cited in the phys.org article, and if you don't understand something, use it to start a Stack Exchange question. See [uhoh's use of phys.org](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/search?q=user%3A7982+%22phys.org%22) and [phys.org's](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/search?q=user%3A7982+%22phys.org%27s%22)  

---

## 4 answers

### Answer by username_7 on 2016-02-17. Score: 8 | Accepted answer

I've been reading [phys.org](http://phys.org/) for years.
It's right up there with [physics.aps](http://physics.aps.org/)
and [physicsworld](http://physicsworld.com/).

All good sources that provide decent refs.
Comments are often where people who like to argue, argue. Sometimes they are useful, often not.


---

### Answer by username_3 on 2024-02-16. Score: 2

The problem with phys.org is that it mostly just reprints press releases from universities and other research institutions, rather than doing actual journalism. (You can tell by checking the byline; if it says something like "By Santa Fe Institute", then it's a press release.)

Proper science journalism involves, at a minimum, checking with other scientists in the field who are not affiliated with the study being reported, to provide some context beyond the sort of study-author and institutional hype that press releases tend to feature.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: Actually, phys.org's articles *frequently* quote experts who are not authors nor associated with the research published. I think if you go there now and click through several articles you'll see that they generally do indeed meet your standard for "actual journalism".  
> **username_3**: @uhoh Ok, I looked at the first 39 stories on their front page (skipping the "Corporate Sponsor" pieces). There were 4 actual articles by Phys.org staff, 4 reprints from other sources (The Conversation, LA Times, Denver Post) — and 31 press releases. That’s about 80% press releases.  
> **username_2**: Were these about Astronomy, Physics and similar hard sciences?  
> **username_3**: The first 20 articles on the "Astronomy & Space" sub-page include 2 by Phys.org staff, 9 from other sources (AP, Orlando Sentinal, etc.), and 9 press releases. (A lot of the "other sources" articles relate to the launch industry.) For the "Physics" sub-page, it's 1 article by Phys.org and 19 press releases. For "Chemistry", it's (again) 1 by Phys.org and 19 press releases.  
> **username_2**: I've added an answer about the "Space News" section, which is what the question asks about. I'll go look at Physics now. I'm curious have you found anything at all that you think is in any way *less than reliable* information? I think you are trying to suggest that if something is not "proper science journalism" that that makes it less reliable. Yes, a university press-release about a recent Phys Rev Letter can have errors in it, all written material can contain errors, even peer-reviewed. But I am pretty certain these will be few and far-between, and since they link to the source material...  
> **username_2**: - which is what we really should be reading for accurate information in the first place - I think there is nothing wrong with considering a **carefully c8rateed** set of news items to make us aware of them. We can also turn to longer journalistic articles, or the primary sources (the papers themselves) if we want more, but few of us have the bandwidth to do that several times a day.  

---

### Answer by username_2 on 2024-02-21. Score: 0

> Is phys.org/space-news reliable source?

### Yes.

> ...in comments people arguing about the validity of the information...

Well the question does not quote any of those arguing comments, so we can't investigate any specific claim, but comments from non-science and anti-science people, and cranks, trolls and conspiracy theorists are an uncountable noun, like muddy water.

I've looked through the most recent 20 articles in phys.org/space-news, and didn't see any comments that seriously called the article's facts into question.

What I see is that (as has been my experience over the last 10 years) the articles strive to be fact-driven and well-sourced. They do accumulate news from other news outlets by *letting those journalists publish in this collection* (e.g. look for authors like "Universe Today" and "NASA" and "ESO" below)

I also notice that almost all articles draw from arXiv preprints or journal articles or other authoritative source. Even when YouTube videos are included, they are from well-recognized sources.

### For the speed, comprehensiveness and breadth of the news covered in phys.org/space-news the information is as reliable as you are going to get, and if you find what you think is a credible comment that some information is wrong ask about it in a new Stack Exchange question!

1. Feb 20, 2024 [New ultra-short-period exoplanet discoveredNew ultra-short-period exoplanet discovered](https://phys.org/news/2024-02-ultra-short-period-exoplanet.html) by "Tomasz Nowakowski, Phys.org" links to arXiv preprint [Ultra-Short-Period Planet Possibly Clinging to a High-Mean-Molecular-Weight Atmosphere After the First Gyr](https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.07451)
2. Feb 19, 2024 [Brightest and fastest-growing: Astronomers identify record-breaking quasar](https://phys.org/news/2024-02-brightest-fastest-astronomers-quasar.html) by "ESO" links to Nature Astronomy [The accretion of a solar mass per day by a 17-billion solar mass black hole](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-024-02195-x) and to two ESO YouTube videos
3. Feb 19, 2024 [There's one last place Planet Nine could be hiding](https://phys.org/news/2024-02-planet.html) by "Laurence Tognetti, Universe Today" links to arXiv preprint [A Pan-STARRS1 Search for Planet Nine](https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.17977) and to a TED talk video by Caltech astronomer and lead author.
4. Feb 19, 2024 [Rocket propellant tanks for NASA's Artemis III mission take shape](https://phys.org/news/2024-02-rocket-propellant-tanks-nasa-artemis.html) by "Lee Mohon, NASA" links to a YouTube video by "NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center".
5. Feb 19, 2024 [NASA vows to battle 'organizational silence' as problems arise amid Artemis delays](https://phys.org/news/2024-02-nasa-vows-organizational-silence-problems.html) by "Richard Tribou, Orlando Sentinel" and sources members of "a panel held Jan. 31 at the SpaceCom conference at the Orange County Convention Center."
6. Feb 19, 2024 [New or retooled Cape Canaveral launch pads considered for SpaceX Starship](https://phys.org/news/2024-02-retooled-cape-canaveral-pads-spacex.html) by "by Richard Tribou, Orlando Sentinel" and links to [spaceforcestarshipeis.com](https://spaceforcestarshipeis.com/) a US Air Force website
7. Feb 19, 2024 [Subglacial microbial life on Earth and beyond](https://phys.org/news/2024-02-subglacial-microbial-life-earth.html) by " American Society for Microbiology" and links to an article in Science [A Contemporary Microbially Maintained Subglacial Ferrous "Ocean"](https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.1167350) and the American Society for Microbiology's [How Extremophiles Push the Limits of Life](https://asm.org/Articles/2023/March/How-Extremophiles-Push-the-Limits-of-Life)
8. Feb 19, 2024 [Pandora's Cluster explored by researchers](https://phys.org/news/2024-02-pandora-cluster-explored.html) by "by Tomasz Nowakowski , Phys.org" links to the arXiv preprint [An improved Magellan weak lensing analysis of the galaxy cluster Abell 2744](https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.08364)
9. Feb 19, 2024 [Japanese space debris inspection probe launched](https://phys.org/news/2024-02-japanese-space-debris-probe.html) by "Editors' notes" sources ESA and Astroscale
10. Feb 19, 2024 [Mars samples project looms large in final spending talks](https://phys.org/news/2024-02-mars-samples-looms-large.html) by "Aidan Quigley, CQ-Roll Call" quotes US Senate Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations Chair Jeanne Shaheen, D-N. and Rep. Judy Chu, D-Calif, whose district includes the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the California Institute of Technology, and Mike Garcia and a Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations Subcommittee member.
11. Feb 17, 2024 [Image: Hubble views a massive star forming](https://phys.org/news/2024-02-image-hubble-views-massive-star.html) by "NASA" sources the NASA.gov article.
12. Feb 17, 2024 [Newborn gas planets may be surprisingly flat, says new research](https://phys.org/news/2024-02-newborn-gas-planets-flat.html) by "Dimitris Stamatellos, The Conversation" links to the Astronomhy and Astrophysics paper [The 3D structure of disc-instability protoplanets](https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2024/02/aa48753-23/aa48753-23.html)
13. Feb 16, 2024 [Another clue into the true nature of fast radio bursts](https://phys.org/news/2024-02-clue-true-nature-fast-radio.html) by "Brian Koberlein, Universe Today" links to the arXiv preprint [Rapid spin changes around a magnetar fast radio burst](https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.09291)
14. Feb 16, 2024 [NASA's final tally shows spacecraft returned double the amount of asteroid rubble](https://phys.org/news/2024-02-nasa-tally-spacecraft-amount-asteroid.html) by "Marcia Dunn" seems unsourced
15. Feb 16, 2024 [Aurora borealis dynamics suggest the polar vortex is breaking up again](https://phys.org/news/2024-02-aurora-borealis-dynamics-polar-vortex.html) by "University of Oulu" links to Scientific Reports [Electricity consumption in Finland influenced by climate effects of energetic particle precipitation](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-47605-8)
16. Feb 16, 2024 [Ground-based lasers could accelerate spacecraft to other stars](https://phys.org/news/2024-02-ground-based-lasers-spacecraft-stars.html) by "Matt Williams, Universe Today" links to [Laser-Sustained Plasma for Deep Space Propulsion: Initial LTP Thruster Results](https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2024-2029) and [Design of a rapid transit to Mars mission using laser-thermal propulsion](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0094576521006305?via%3Dihub)
17. Feb X, 2024 [Martians wanted: Apply here now for NASA's simulated yearlong Mars mission](https://phys.org/news/2024-02-martians-nasa-simulated-yearlong-mars.html) by "Roxana Bardan, NASA" is sourced to NASA
18. Feb X, 2024 [Lab study creates artificial magnetosphere to explore spontaneous excitation of chorus emissions](https://phys.org/news/2024-02-lab-artificial-magnetosphere-explore-spontaneous.html) by "National Institutes of Natural Sciences" and links to Nature Communications [Experimental study on chorus emission in an artificial magnetosphere](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-44977-x)
19. Feb 16, 2024 [Even if we can't see the first stars, we could detect their impact on the first galaxies](https://phys.org/news/2024-02-stars-impact-galaxies.html) by "Evan Gough, Universe Today" links to the arXiv preprint [How Population III Supernovae Determined the Properties of the First Galaxies](https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.06016)
20. Feb 16, 2024 [NASA experiment sheds light on highly charged moon dust](https://phys.org/news/2024-02-nasa-highly-moon.html) by "Elyna N. Niles-Carnes, NASA" is source to NASA.


---

### Answer by username_4 on 2016-02-18. Score: -2

Because of the .org, you probably can trust it, because it's an organization. Remember, anyone can write a comment.

> **Comments:**
> **username_5**: anyone can make an organization too, but it takes a little more effort  
> **username_2**: *Welcome to Stack Exchange!* This is a very good point and I was going to find a place to make it until I saw that you have already. Personally, I almost never, ever pay any attention to comments outside of Stack Exchange comments. However, what you've written here, "... you probably can trust it, because it's an organization." while also a good Stack Exchange comment, does not rise to the level of a proper Stack Exchange answer post. Can you add some more information to support your assertion?  
> **username_6**: Anyone can purchase a .org domain. It's no harder than .com.  

---

