I don't know if you caught it on these two posts, but I have started to add the Blogging on Peer-Reviewed Research Icon whenever I am analyzing a peer-reviewed paper specifically.

These icons were created by bloggers, including Sciblings Dave Munger, Mike Dunford, and John Wilkins, with the intent of clearly delineating when we are talking about peer-reviewed research, with the general aim of improving the quality of reportage on this research.

If you are a blogger and use peer-reviewed research, I encourage you to check out their site to see how you can include these buttons. Here are the general rules for using these icons:

1. The "Blogging on Peer-Reviewed Research" icons are to be used solely to denote individual blog posts about peer-reviewed research.
2. While there is no hard-and-fast definition of "peer-review," peer reviewed research should meet the following guidelines:
* Reviewed by experts in field
* Edited
* Archived
* Published with clearly stated publication standards
* Viewed as trustworthy by experts in field
3. The post should offer a complete formal citation of the work(s) being discussed.
4. The post author should have read and understood the entire work cited.
5. The blog post should report accurately and thoughtfully on the research it presents.
6. Where possible, the post should link to the original source and / or provide a DOI or other universal reference number.
7. The post should contain original work by the post author -- while some quoting of others is acceptable, the majority of the post should be the author's own work.
8. Users and readers may report potential abuse of the icons by emailing the site administrator, Dave Munger (remove dashes). Reported abuses may be brought to the attention of readers and discussed publicly online.
9. Repeated abuse of the icons will result in removal from our aggregation system.

Right now the system is self-policing -- we'll see how well that works over time -- but I would encourage you to participate. At the very least, this will allow us to call out people on presenting bogus research as fact.