Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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.
Once the method and analysis plan is vetted through peer-review, publication of the findings is provisionally guaranteed, based on whether the authors follow the proposed protocol. One goal of registered reports is to circumvent the publication bias toward significant findings that can lead to implementation of questionable research practices ...
Peer review in writing is a pivotal component among various peer review mechanisms, often spearheaded by educators and involving student participation, particularly in academic settings. It constitutes a fundamental process in academic and professional writing, serving as a systematic means to ensure the quality, effectiveness, and credibility ...
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 duties of peer review may conflict with social interests or institutional loyalties; to avoid such COIs, reviewers may be excluded if they have some forms of COI, such as having collaborated with the author. [41] Readers of academic papers may spot errors, informally or as part of formal post-publication peer review.
Research Integrity and Peer Review is an international, open access, peer reviewed journal that was launched in 2016. It is published by BioMed Central and focuses on problems in peer review, replication , and the scientific process.
Peer reviews are different from general articles about Wikipedia because they give a critique of one or more articles specifically, often noting problems or highlighting their good qualities. This list aims to be both a record of the findings of these reviews and a way to highlight any problems (or indeed positive aspects) that were encountered.
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 ...