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 paper was published in the United States-based Social Text spring/summer 1996 "Science Wars" issue. At that time, the journal did not practice academic peer review, and it did not submit the article for outside review by a physicist. [24] [25] On the day of its publication in May 1996, Sokal revealed in Lingua Franca that the article was a ...
The process here resembles the Wikipedia:Peer review process. Indeed it has been suggested that we work in part through that process, but this is something for the future. A special page, such as Wikipedia:Scientific peer review/Science is created to collect the review comments. Interested participants scan the notice board, and participate in ...
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.
Wikipedia's peer review is a way to receive ideas on how to improve articles that are already decent. It may be used for potential good article nominations, potential featured article candidates, or an article of any "grade" (but if the article isn't well-developed, please read here before asking for a peer review).
Ah yes, the dreaded peer review. Everyone at featured article candidacy always telling you to go there, get the article polished up, and come back. Trouble is, it can be extremely difficult to get even a single comment, even for many months! Surely, there must be a better way to get comments than that.
A Fox News Digital focus group reacted to President Donald Trump promising tax cuts and eliminating wasteful government spending, which Independents largely approved of.
Their paper was published in a 2014 special edition of the journal Biostatistics along with extended, supporting critiques from other statisticians. Leek summarized the key points of agreement as: when talking about the science-wise false discovery rate one has to bring data; there are different frameworks for estimating the science-wise false ...