Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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.
More transparent peer review, such as open peer review and post-publication peer review, has been advocated to combat predatory journals. [124] [125] Others have argued instead that the discussion on predatory journals should not be turned "into a debate over the shortcomings of peer review—it is nothing of the sort. It is about fraud ...
Sham peer review or malicious peer review is a name given to the abuse of a medical peer review process to attack a doctor for personal or other non-medical reasons. [1] The American Medical Association conducted an investigation of medical peer review in 2007 and concluded that while it is easy to allege misconduct and 15% of surveyed physicians indicated that they were aware of peer review ...
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 ...
"Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" is a 2005 essay written by John Ioannidis, a professor at the Stanford School of Medicine, and published in PLOS Medicine. [1] It is considered foundational to the field of metascience .
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 disputed, with some arguing that it is morally equivalent to other forms of fraud. [1]
Open peer review is the various possible modifications of the traditional scholarly peer review process. The three most common modifications to which the term is applied are: [ 1 ] Open identities: Authors and reviewers are aware of each other's identity.
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.