Ad
related to: peer review problems in research methodology journal list
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]
These are nonsense papers that were accepted by an academic journal or academic conference; the list does not include cases of scientific misconduct. The intent of such publications is typically to expose shortcomings in a journal's peer review process or to criticize the standards of pay-to-publish journals. The ethics of academic stings are ...
Scholarly peer review or academic peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of having a draft version of a researcher's methods and findings reviewed (usually anonymously) by experts (or "peers") in the same field.
Cabells' v1.0 contains 64 criteria, which are organised by subject matter such as “integrity”, “peer review”, and “publication practices”. [6] This v1.0 evaluation list was used for the preparation of the deceptive journal list before it was launched until early 2019, when Cabells launched its new v1.1 criteria version.
The following is a partial list of social science journals, including history and area studies. There are thousands of academic journals covering the social sciences in publication, and many more have been published at various points in the past.
The phrase replication crisis was coined in the early 2010s [6] as part of a growing awareness of the problem. Considerations of causes and remedies have given rise to a new scientific discipline, metascience, [7] which uses methods of empirical research to examine empirical research practice. [8]
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.
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 ...