Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Johnny Matson (US), former professor of psychology at Louisiana State University, who was criticized starting in 2015 for his peer review practices as a journal editor, [127] [128] in 2023 had 24 of his research papers retracted because of undisclosed conflicts of interest, duplicated methodology, and a compromised peer-review process. [129] [130]
A system to distinguish papers from "good" and "bad" would be beneficial to researchers. This system may save the reputation of scientists and researchers. Most researchers publish honest work and sometimes simple mistakes happen to be overlooked by the peer review process. Retraction should not be for simple spelling errors, but for inaccurate ...
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 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.
Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people with similar competencies as the producers of the work . [1] It functions as a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are used to maintain quality standards, improve performance, and provide credibility.
The journal gives unrealistic promises regarding the speed of the peer review process (hinting that the journal's peer review process is minimal or non-existent)—or boasts an equally unrealistic track-record; The journal does not describe copyright agreements clearly or demands the copyright of the paper while claiming to be an open-access ...
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."
The peer review provided by PLOS ONE was reported to be the most rigorous of all, and it was the only journal that identified the paper's ethical problems, for example the lack of documentation of how animals were treated in the creation of the cancer cell lines.