Madoff Ponzi Scheme

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

He was under an immense amount of stress and various health problems and later died at age 47 but his company still moved on with his wife maintaining it in his honor.

They checked on him the next morning on the date of July 22 2015 and he was found dead. It says that he had died from natural causes. However, This shouldn’t be taken lightly. If

Link to audience: He died of heart failure in his sleep at the age of 57. It was peaceful but unnecessary. He left behind his wife, son, and two daughters. The youngest daughter, my aunt, was only 16.

Sadly enough Rich "suffered from a heart condition, and following surgery for a malignant brain tumor, died from heart failure in Los Angeles

When the medics finally got to the demolished plane, they found Root swimming toward them. It turned out Root had three bullet wounds in his chest. Some people thought that Root was trying to commit suicide. After all he was deep in debt. In 1990 Root was found guilty of fraud and was sent to prison.

mysteriously found dead in one of the rooms. Although he was highly esteemed for his wealth and

Between 1998 and late 2008, Madoff’s Ponzi scheme finally became unraveled and revealed. However, FutureSelect continued to invest in the Rye Funds because Tremont and its auditors continued to reassure FutureSelect. FutureSelect invested a total of $195 million with Tremont into the Rye Funds. It was revealed that Madoff never reinvested any of the funds he received through the Rye Funds, and FutureSelect lost its entire

There are different journals which follow different types of peer review, based on the kind of research they publish as well as their journal management style. The single and double-blinded peer reviews are the most commonly adopted by many journals. In the single-blind review, the reviewer is aware of the author’s identity, but not vice versa. In the double-blind review, both the author and reviewer are not aware of the other’s identity. In the recent time, some academic journals have started adopting two other kinds of peer reviews called open and post-publication peer review. In the open review system, the identity of the author and reviewers is known, and this system may allow the comments made by the peer reviewer as well as authors’ responses to be published along with the final version of the manuscript. The post-publication peer review is a relatively new trend adopted by some open access publications in which reviewers evaluate a manuscript after it has been published on an open access platform. At this time, the identity of the author and the reviewer is known (published), and so is the peer review evaluation of the manuscript. This system may allow reviewers to get credit for their reviews (Rajagopalan, 2014). As seen by Ware and Monkman (2008), the double-blind review was the most effective approach appreciated by authors (71%), followed by single-blind (52%), post-publication (37%) and open peer review (26%).

rating. In addition, the peer reviewer evaluation process ensures the evaluation is fair and free

Peer reviewing is a framework that is utilized by researchers to choose which research results ought to be distributed in scientific journals. Peer reviewing subject the logical examination papers to free investigation by other qualified experimental specialists, called peers, before they are published for the common people. More than one million exploratory research papers and articles are

After more digging, I came across an article about his wife. A year after they got married, they found her dead in the bathroom of his million dollar mansion. She had committed suicide by slitting her veins open on her wrists. She had left a note expressing her feelings about him straying the path from their marriage.

Nay. Also, if proper procedures were taken into effect, the unveiling of the escrow syndicate fund would have led auditors, Ernst & Ernst to take initiative action in investigating this fund. However, this was left undetected and gave Mr. Nay the opportunity to act fraudulently toward others. In addition the defrauded investors argue that if this mail rule was discovered then this would have led to the investigation of the escrow fund by the Midwest Stock Exchange and SEC, directing us to critical factor #4.

The publication of scientific work is critically important to scientific communication (Twaij et al. 2014). Scientists communicate their new research or studies to their audience by publishing their work in scholarly journals and books. People who are not from the area of expertise or are unfamiliar with the given topic must be able to trust in the credibility of published journal articles. A common process that controls the high quality of scientific publication is called ‘peer review’, which ensures that the published work has met the specific standards of a given discipline, a process that usually begins with a professional reviewing of an author’s article by a community of qualified experts before publication. The reviewers are usually chosen from relevant academic fields and in some cases, the authors are allowed to suggest names of their preferred peer reviewers (Bornmann 2011). The reviewer is responsible for identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the paper, giving constructive comments along with acceptance-revision-rejection decisions (Do 2003) to the author. More importantly, the peer review process makes a substantial contribution to determine whether the manuscript contains any “fatal” flaws (Brand 2012), such as plagiarism, duplicated research or even wrong science.

It was Roy Olofson, along with suing investors who “blew the whistle” for Global Crossing Ltd. According to Olofson’s attorney, he just wants a restitution for the job that he lost but isn’t likely to get it from the entity since it was then under a bankruptcy protection. Roy Olofson was formerly the VP for Finance of Global Crossing and is responsible for preparing the Financial Statements and SEC filings.