Abstract
The peer review system does not always detect fraud, plagiarism, poor quality or gross error and there is editorial reluctance to correct errors or to publish criticisms of sacred cows or ‘controversial’ or nonconformist views of sceptics and dissident minorities. Mediocrity is thereby perpetuated, with highly innovative science stifled by the conflict of interest and reviewer shortcomings underlying the review system. The effective court of appeal should be the editor. Self-correction of review procedures is recommended by:(I) improving the editorial quality control of peer reviews; (ii) abolition of the cloak of secrecy and anonymity of reviewers; and (iii) active encouragement of critical debate of unorthodox submissions.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
