What I'm proposing is something similar to the over on Worldbuilding (the tag wiki):

For questions that require answers to be backed up by equations, empirical evidence, scientific papers, other citations, etc. Review the tag info before using this tag, and flag your question for moderator attention once posted to have the hard-science notice added. Consider alternatively the science-based and reality-check tags. Avoid using this tag as the only tag on a question.

I've noticed that, (and I myself am guilty of this) many questions tagged don't provide a reference in the answer, only speculations, which essentially nullifies the point of the tag. I propose that we change the tag wiki of to something similar to that above.

(As a bonus, Worldbuilding has a custom notice set when adding the to your question reminding you that you should only use the tag for questions asking for scientific papers in the answers.)

What are your thoughts?


If a question tagged gets answers without references, I would raise that in comments to those answers. I am sceptical about the assumption (if I understand the question correctly) that a different tag would solve this issue.

However, if a custom notice that popped up when someone answers such a question, that may also help. But I don't see why such a custom notice would require a new tag. Is there a technical reason for that?

Finally, I find that "hard science" sounds too "hard" for research in (second) language acquisition, where too much is uncertain because you are dealing with the black box known as the brain. Numbers in studies on SLA etc, sound "hard", but such studies are often based on relatively small samples of learners, and look into a very small set of languages (typically one or two at a time).

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .