Independent review: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Scientizzle (talk | contribs) m spelling |
DoctorKubla (talk | contribs) Redirecting to peer review – there was a strong consensus on the talk page, and here, to merge these articles, but I can't see anything worth merging that isn't already covered in the target article |
||
| (48 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
#REDIRECT [[Peer review]] |
|||
{{unreferenced|date=July 2010}} |
|||
{{for|the title of several magazines, journals and newspapers|Independent Review}} |
|||
'''Independent review''' of scientific results is the cornerstone of scientific accountability. By giving other scientists access to one's own data and methods, and giving them an opportunity to gauge the [[reproducibility]] of one's results, one ensures that any errors due to incompetence, unconscious bias, or other causes will be found by others. It's the scientific version of [[proofreading]]. |
|||
An important part of the independent review process is anonymous [[peer review]] of [[scientific paper]]s before they are published in [[scientific journals]]. |
|||
Sometimes researchers will bypass the pre-publication review process (see "[[ccience by press conference]]") or will refuse to share their data and methods with other scientists. In general, other scientists frown on this, as it makes it difficult or even impossible for other scientists to check whether the research has yielded valid results. |
|||
Another reason for bypassing traditional peer review is when reporting results which are radically at odds with mainstream scientific views. In several historical cases, discoveries announced in this way have eventually reached the mainstream (see [[Semmelweiss]] and his theory of an "invisible substance" infecting women after childbirth; see also [[Continental drift]]). |
|||
{{science-stub}} |
|||
[[Category:Academic journals]] |
|||
Latest revision as of 15:25, 18 March 2013
Redirect to: