Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
A randomised investigation of journal responses to academic and journalist enquiry about possible scientific misconduct
9
Zitationen
5
Autoren
2018
Jahr
Abstract
10/12 journals responded: 3 after one email, 5 after two emails, and 2 after three emails (median time from first email to response: 21 days; no difference in response times to journalist or academics, P = 0.25). Of the 10 responses, 8 indicated the journal was investigating, 5 had a positive tone, 4 a neutral tone, and 1 a negative tone. Five of the enquiries by the academics produced information of limited use and 1 no useful information, whereas none of the 6 journalist enquiries produced useful information (P = 0.015). None of the 10 responses was considered very useful. In conclusion, journal responses to a journalist were less useful than those to academics in understanding the status or outcomes of journal investigations.
Ähnliche Arbeiten
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications
2022 · 2.691 Zit.
Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach
1998 · 2.518 Zit.
Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling
2012 · 2.320 Zit.
Comparison of Two Methods to Detect Publication Bias in Meta-analysis
2006 · 2.209 Zit.
How Does ChatGPT Perform on the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE)? The Implications of Large Language Models for Medical Education and Knowledge Assessment
2023 · 1.976 Zit.