Progress: 0/8

πŸ” 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 complex interactive challenges. Navigate through misinformation, build proper citations, detect bias patterns, and demonstrate advanced academic prowess to escape!

Source Credibility Matrix

Drag and rank these sources from MOST credible (top) to LEAST credible (bottom) for academic research. Consider multiple factors: peer review, author credentials, publication venue, methodology, and potential bias.

πŸ“š Available Sources

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Not yet peer-reviewed, submitted 1 week ago

πŸ† Credibility Ranking

1. MOST CREDIBLE - Drop here
2. HIGH CREDIBILITY - Drop here
3. MODERATE CREDIBILITY - Drop here
4. LOW CREDIBILITY - Drop here
5. LEAST CREDIBLE - Drop here

Interactive Citation Constructor

Build a proper APA citation by arranging these components in the correct order. Pay attention to punctuation, formatting, and required elements.

Chen, S., & Rodriguez, M.
(2023).
Radiation effects on cellular DNA repair mechanisms.
Journal of Radiation Biology,
45(3),
234-251.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrb.2023.05.012
Retrieved March 15, 2024

🎯 Drop citation components here in correct order:

Drag citation components here...
Live Citation Preview:
Drag components above to build citation...

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?

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?

βš–οΈ Epistemic Credibility Calibrator

Research Claim: "Low-dose radiation has hormetic benefits"

πŸ“Š Study Characteristics
Inadequate Adequate Robust
No Review Some Review Rigorous Review
Poor Adequate Excellent
πŸ›οΈ Source Factors
Unqualified Relevant Expert
Biased Mixed Independent
Contradicts Mixed Supports

🎯 Overall Credibility Assessment

Not Credible Somewhat Credible Highly Credible

Claim: "Blog post says seed oils cause infertility"

πŸ“Š Study Characteristics
None Low Large
None Partial Peer Reviewed
Anecdotal Mixed Empirical
πŸ›οΈ Source Factors
None Some High
Conflict Mixed None
Contradicts Unclear Supports

🎯 Overall Credibility Assessment

Not Credible Somewhat Credible Highly Credible

Claim: "Lancet review shows pollution causes heart disease"

πŸ“Š Study Characteristics
Small Moderate Large
Low Medium High
Weak Standard Strong
πŸ›οΈ Source Factors
Low Related Expert
Industry Mixed Independent
Contradicted Partial Widespread

🎯 Overall Credibility Assessment

Not Credible Somewhat Credible Highly Credible

Claim: "Podcast says 5G towers cause cancer"

πŸ“Š Study Characteristics
None Some Comprehensive
None Some Rigorous
Speculative Weak Strong
πŸ›οΈ Source Factors
None Limited Expert
Conflict Mixed None
Opposed Mixed Supported

🎯 Overall Credibility Assessment

Not Credible Somewhat Credible Highly Credible

Claim: "Expert interview in NYT supports climate action"

πŸ“Š Study Characteristics
None Some Extensive
Low Medium High
Unclear Traceable Rigorous
πŸ›οΈ Source Factors
Low Relevant Expert
Industry Unclear Independent
Contradicted Mixed Supported

🎯 Overall Credibility Assessment

Not Credible Somewhat Credible Highly Credible

Source Network Mapper

Trace the connections between sources to identify potential conflicts of interest or circular citation patterns. Click nodes to reveal connections.

Study 1
"Safe levels"
Dr. Smith
Lead Author
TechCorp
Funding
Study 2
"No risk"
Dr. Jones
Co-author
Risk Journal
Publisher
Policy Institute
Think Tank

πŸ” Network Analysis

Click on nodes above to reveal connections and potential conflicts of interest.

❓ What patterns do you identify?

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!