Ad
related to: consequences of peer review research paper checklist
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Peer review in scientific journals assumes that the article reviewed has been honestly prepared. The process occasionally detects fraud, but is not designed to do so. [204] When peer review fails and a paper is published with fraudulent or otherwise irreproducible data, the paper may be retracted. A 1998 experiment on peer review with a ...
The declaration identifies four main publication and peer review phases that should be better documented: At submission: details on the governance of the journal, its scope, the editorial board or the rejection rates. [79] During review: criteria for selection, timing of the review and model of peer review (double bind, single bind, open). [79]
Various journal review websites (crowd-sourced or expert-run) have been started, some focusing on the quality of the peer review process and extending to non-OA publications. [128] [129] A group of libraries and publishers launched an awareness campaign. [130] [131] A number of measures have been suggested to further combat predatory journals.
For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised. Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves (see Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of ...
The potentially severe consequences for individuals who are found to have engaged in misconduct also reflect on the institutions that host or employ them and also on the participants in any peer review process that has allowed the publication of questionable research.
The PRISMA flow diagram, depicting the flow of information through the different phases of a systematic review. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) is an evidence-based minimum set of items aimed at helping scientific authors to report a wide array of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, primarily used to assess the benefits and harms of a health care ...
There are deep problems with science publishing. But the way to fix this is not to curtail open-access publishing. It is to fix peer review." [24] Eisen pointed out the irony of a subscription-based journal like Science publishing this report when its own peer review has failed so badly before, as in the 2010 publication of the arsenic DNA paper.
The possibility of rejections of papers is an important aspect in peer review. The evaluation of quality of journals is based also on rejection rate. The best journals have the highest rejection rates (around 90–95%). [39] American Psychological Association journals' rejection rates ranged "from a low of 35 per cent to a high of 85 per cent."