Arab Authors ' Perspective On The Peer Review Quality

Peer-Review Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Science peer review is important with the role that it plays in the experiment. It helps confirm the research, establish a method to be evaluated, and increase different kinds of possibilities within research groups. There are three types of peer review such as single blind, double blind and open review. Single blind is where only the participate doesn’t know if they are in the controlled group or treatment. Double blind is when both the participate and the experimenter are kept in the dark. An open blind is where both sides

A peer review is a process of subjecting research methods and findings to the study of others who are experts in the same field. The purpose is designed to prevent dissemination of irrelevant findings, unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations, and personal views. It relies on colleagues that review one another’s work and make an informed decision about whether it is legitimate, and adds to the large dialogue or findings in the field.

There are a vast variety of publications for just about every profession. These publications range from anything to scholarly journals, magazines, and online blogs.

While I was reading the overview for chapter 9, the words “academic journals” struck out at me because I have been familiar with academic journals since I was a senior in high school.

Scholarly source and magazine articles may share a common level of knowledge on a certain article topic; some magazine articles can be written by a journalist with an extensive knowledge on the article subject (Academic Journals, n.d.). Some magazine articles are to inform the public on its

The importance of relying on scholarly - peer reviewed - articles and journals become clearer with each passing day; it is difficult to discern fact from fiction.

The multifaceted nature of the audience of the Journal can be clearly seen in a 2013

Feedback: Reviewers work hard to identify errors of any sort, almost always identify many, and then the reviewers and editors insist that those errors be fixed before publication. Review is done voluntarily by scientists; this is part of the cost of being a member of this great human undertaking. Science doesn’t claim Truth; although science strives to be as accurate as humanly possible, that is often well short of Truth.

Isolated and other journal or magazines, Scholarly journals' scholars are educators, graduate understudies, or powers who have had a not too dreadful measure of direct relationship in making academic journals. While the subject may have all the earmarks of being stupefied, they use their vocabulary and their industry understanding how to sufficiently differentiate and unmistakable get-togethers of spectators. Their inclination makes insightful journals a remarkable resource for understudies and diverse experts

Upon further deliberation, driven by the evaluation of my peer's speeches, I have revised my view on the true extensiveness of the concept of Discovery.

Through the 17th century, scientific learning had become very popular. “Universities in Europe established new chairs of science, especially in medicine” (Spielvogel 494). The scientific method was crucial to the progression of science in the current universe. Francis Bacon was a lord chancellor of England. He believed that scientists shouldn’t just depend on ideas of ancient authorities.

In the paper titled: “a A graduate student‘s guide to publishing scholarly journal articles”, Donna Lee Van Cott (2005) addresses the detailed process of publishing scholar papers for graduate students. In this text, the summary of this paper including these steps and the main guidelines of publishing papers are presented.

After the great disappointment, the journal Nature investigated in depth its system of review and publication of articles. They found some inconsistencies in their system, which the worst consequence could be the loss of confidence in science by the citizens. Furthermore, the RIKEN centre also became the target of criticism, which focused on the lack of ethics and the decline of the institution in recent years.

Assumptions in the title of this essay imply that results, theories and laws resulting from the current system of peer review multiple perspectives produce completely infallible objective truth, this is a false premise. Whilst the group of knowers known as the scientific community have collectively less bias than one lone knower trying to understand the universe, there is still collective and engrained level of institutional bias. The same problems of confirmation bias and expectation are present in a group of knowers just as they are with one single knower. According to Karl Popper (1902-1994) the best way to eliminate any expectation and confirmation bias was to falsify and disprove rather than confirm one’s hypothesis and predictions. Popper argues: no matter how convincing an argument or theory is, all that is needed to disprove it is one piece of valid counterclaiming evidence. Whilst this theory is valid on an individual level, it really becomes an effective tool in the objectivity of science on a large scale. Despite this attempt at objectifying and ‘protecting against’ error and bias it is inadequate due to inherent flaws in the scientific method. Induction, moving from the specific to the general, is the key element in scientific logic. Any theory or law ‘proved’ through this logic has some key flaws: the main flaw being that inductive logic can never be certain of any event happening or of any prediction. Richard van de Lagemaat