Progress: 0/6

🔍 LIBRARY LOCKDOWN

⚠️ EMERGENCY PROTOCOL ACTIVATED ⚠️

You're trapped in the university library during a nuclear emergency drill. The automated lockdown system will only release when you prove your research literacy skills through interactive challenges. Navigate through misinformation, detect bias patterns, and demonstrate advanced academic prowess to escape!

🎯 Source Credibility Matrix

Rank these sources from 1 (MOST credible) to 5 (LEAST credible) for academic research. Consider peer review, author credentials, methodology, and potential bias.

Peer-Reviewed Study
"Radiation Effects on Cellular DNA" - Journal of Radiation Biology (Impact Factor: 3.2)
Authors: Dr. Chen (PhD Nuclear Physics), Dr. Rodriguez (MD Oncology)
Methodology: Double-blind, n=1,200, 5-year longitudinal
Government Report
"EPA Radiation Safety Guidelines 2024" - Environmental Protection Agency
Authors: EPA Radiation Protection Division
Based on meta-analysis of 50+ studies, regulatory authority
Wikipedia Article
"Ionizing Radiation Health Effects" - Wikipedia
Authors: Multiple anonymous contributors
47 citations, last edited 3 days ago, semi-protected
Health Blog Post
"Radiation Truth They Hide!" - HealthFreedomNow.com
Author: Mike Johnson (Self-described health researcher)
No citations, sells supplements, 50K social shares
Preprint Paper
"New Radiation Data Analysis" - bioRxiv preprint server
Authors: Dr. Smith (Postdoc), Prof. Wilson (Chemistry)
Not yet peer-reviewed, submitted 1 week ago

🌳 Research Logic Tree

Navigate this decision tree to evaluate a research claim. Each choice affects your path - choose wisely based on research methodology principles.

Research Claim:
"New study proves radiation is completely safe"
What's your first step?

⚖️ Quick Credibility Assessment

Rate the credibility of these research claims. Click your assessment for each scenario.

Scenario 1: "Low-dose radiation has health benefits"

Source: Non-peer-reviewed preprint by nuclear engineer (not biologist)
Sample: n=45 participants
Funding: Nuclear industry
Scientific consensus: Contradicts mainstream research

HIGH CREDIBILITY - Trust this source completely
LOW CREDIBILITY - Multiple red flags present
MEDIUM CREDIBILITY - Some concerns but worth considering

Scenario 2: "Climate change linked to health impacts"

Source: Lancet meta-analysis by public health researchers
Sample: Analysis of 100+ studies
Funding: WHO and NIH grants
Scientific consensus: Widely supported by experts

HIGH CREDIBILITY - Strong evidence and methodology
LOW CREDIBILITY - Don't trust any research
MEDIUM CREDIBILITY - Need more information

Scenario 3: "Miracle supplement cures everything"

Source: Health blog by self-taught coach
Sample: Personal testimonials only
Funding: Sells the supplements mentioned
Scientific consensus: No peer-reviewed support

HIGH CREDIBILITY - Personal experience counts most
LOW CREDIBILITY - Clear conflict of interest
MEDIUM CREDIBILITY - Worth trying

🧩 Cognitive Bias Pattern Matcher

Match each research scenario with the specific cognitive bias it demonstrates. Drag bias cards to the appropriate scenarios.

🎯 Research Scenarios

Scenario A: A researcher only cites studies that support their hypothesis while ignoring contradictory evidence from 12 other studies.
Scenario B: An undergraduate student with one statistics course claims to have found "fatal flaws" in expert epidemiological research.
Scenario C: A scientist's risk assessment is heavily influenced by the first study they read, despite later finding more comprehensive data.
Scenario D: A researcher overestimates radiation risks because they recently watched a documentary about Chernobyl.

🧩 Cognitive Bias Cards

Confirmation Bias
Seeking information that confirms existing beliefs
Dunning-Kruger Effect
Overconfidence due to limited knowledge
Anchoring Bias
Over-relying on first information encountered
Availability Heuristic
Judging by easily recalled examples

🕵️ Data Manipulation Detective

Examine this interactive chart and identify potential data manipulation techniques. Click on suspicious elements to investigate.

"Radiation Exposure Rates Across Cities" (Click bars to investigate)

City A
0.3 mSv
City B
0.4 mSv
City C
0.75 mSv
City D
0.225 mSv
City E
0.45 mSv

🚨 What manipulation techniques do you detect?

⚡ P-Hacking Speed Challenge

You have 60 seconds to identify all the p-hacking techniques in this research summary. Click on suspicious elements as quickly as possible!

🔐 EMERGENCY ESCAPE PROTOCOL

Complete the challenges above to prove your research literacy and unlock the library doors!