Scholarly Journals On Scientific Communication

Scholarly peer review, also known as refereeing, is the process of subjecting an author’s scholarly manuscript to the scrutiny of others who are experts and working in the same field (Ware 2013).

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.

1. List the title of the article , author (s) , and the name of the journal of the peer - reviewed journal

For example, a Dentist could not write a research article on the best delivery method for babies because that is not their specialty. Therefore, good indicators of credibility would consist of evidence that the article has been peer-reviewed by other scholars in a similar field and the writer’s credentials.2 The “A” stands for accuracy, which focuses on ensuring that the information that is presented is not only up to date but also exact, detailed and comprehensive.2 Science is an ever changing field and research studies that might have been conducted 20 years ago may not be true today because of the technical advances. Therefore, it is essential that when dealing with accuracy certain indicators need to be considered such as the timeliness of the information, is the information presented in an un-bias approach and is the information

Evidence is worked into the literature review effectively. The evidence and reasons are organized chronologically, and this organization is extremely important since the proposition focuses on the chronological progression of the argumentation style. One element I think is missing is a conclusion paragraph. The literature review seems to end abruptly on evidence. Score: 3

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.

In order to meet the standards a student’s claim must be written in a full sentence, states a stance on the topic/theme, and is based on their evidence and supported by his/her reasoning. The percentage of students meeting this standard was fifty percent, and the other half of the class was placed in the approaching standards category. Students that are approaching standards produced a claim that lacks some specific data or does not tie into the question being asked. Scientists that cannot produce a proper evidence-based claim are often ignored in a professional setting, so it is important for the students to master the art of crafting evidence-based

INSTRUCTIONS: Peer Reviews will be conducted in class discussion forums during Week 7. Be sure to review the Lecture and the Discussion area for additional details and guidance. Please complete the following steps below, returning a separate peer review worksheet for each of the two classmates whose papers you review.

The article discusses the increasing trend of conducting replications, as opposed to novel idea studies Additionally, the article highlights that replications are becoming more common and can lead to debunking and discrediting another’s work. Unfortunately, with the focus being on replication, the time spent conducting and exploring new knowledge is consequently reduced. However, it is also suggested that replications provide accountability for scientists to ensure their work is of high quality. Questions to discuss in class: What do we think is the ultimate goal of conducting a replication versus an original study? How can scientists ensure that as a field, the

Hitherto, over millions of articles and paper about research have been published into journal annually. In order for a paper to get published or an article to be documented, researchers tend to present their research findings and results to journal. They further sends the paper out to be assessed based on competency, implication, and originality through autonomous qualified experts who are conducting research and publishing work on the same field. This results must be reviewed by peers in order to attain credibility. This paper identifies a number of sources that clarify the connection between credibility and peer review.

In section D, I was unknowingly employing the method of peer review that I had engaged in during my first semester at Spelman. Teachers would always say that peer review was beneficial for both the reviewer and the person whose paper was being reviewed. While helping students decide which question to select, I was able to gain a better understanding of each question and decide that Question 1 was the question that I enjoyed me the most. While working with other students, I gained a better

Other authors endorse the new species stating the hobbits are indeed not pygmy like. They say that the fossils share characteristics of the Homo erectus who had been in the region for a few million years. No concrete assertion has been solidified and the hobbits debate cannot be settled. Still both sides have come up with many rights to it. We can say though, that hobbits are different than any hominid record. In any part of science, peer review will be an important part. Like in this debate, peers review others work in hope of finding possible faults or mistakes that may help their side. Both sides were scrutinized, but it helped in finding more information in general about hobbits of the island Flores. It pushes the envelope in efforts of getting answers to a certain communities’ hypothesis too. Peer review serves as a judicial branch to a researchers work. Without it, researchers wouldn’t get the feedback needed to go back and explain disputed areas. I believe peer review is essential in the scientific method and is one more reason that papers are

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