Search results
People also ask
Is peer review biased against some authors?
What are the controversies associated with the current peer-review process?
Why is peer review so difficult?
Why do reviewers choose to peer review?
Is peer review a barrier to bad science?
What is a good & bad peer review?
Feb 12, 2018 · Consequences of weak peer review include publication of faulty research that misleads clinicians and potentially harms patients (Kearney, 2016). The burgeoning number of scams and retractions creates public mistrust in the integrity of science.
- Sandra P. Thomas
- 2018
4 days ago · Adapting a questionnaire from the examinations of the peer-review process in accounting and finance journals, Bailey et al. conducted a survey to understand how 653 marketing academicians assess the process concerning perceptions of fairness, timeliness, anonymity, improvement of the quality of the research, and prevalence and seriousness of the ethicality of process behaviours. The ...
Sep 20, 2017 · Why do we need peer review? Peer review provides a filtering system. Studies that are not well conceived or performed will not be published. They will be filtered out either by a journal’s ...
- Brenda Wingfield
Nov 21, 2023 · A task force convened by the American College of Cardiology identified the 5 most significant controversies associated with the current peer-review process: the effect of preprints, reviewer blinding, reviewer selection, reviewer incentivization, and publication of peer reviewer comments.
Oct 15, 2024 · Researchers reveal the emotional and professional cost of drawn-out peer review. The initial process was much more informal than the one scientists know today, which became formalized in the...
Aug 1, 2019 · This article offers succinct guidance about peer review: not only “what to do” (the Good) but also “what not to do” (the Bad) and “what to never do” (the Ugly). It outlines models of peer review and provides an overview of types of reviewer bias, including conflict of interest.
Mar 13, 2023 · Peer review is central to the scientific process and scientists’ career advancement, but bias at various stages of the review process disadvantages some authors.
