Substandard research: Difference between revisions
Richardpruen (talk | contribs) (Started page for identifying poor research and taking action) |
Richardpruen (talk | contribs) (→Suggestions for additions to this page: added photo to be included later) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Sadly papers are often published that are not of good quality, it is worth checking if there are any comments by others in the field, [https://pubpeer.com/static/about PubPeer] is a very useful way of doing this, and provides a browser extension for ( [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pubpeer/fmcdfigcdfkdghdklblbbpacikcchbbh Chrome], IE, Firefox) that will notify you of such comments (where it can detect the details). | Sadly papers are often published that are not of good quality, it is worth checking if there are any comments by others in the field, [https://pubpeer.com/static/about PubPeer] is a very useful way of doing this, and provides a browser extension for ( [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pubpeer/fmcdfigcdfkdghdklblbbpacikcchbbh Chrome], IE, Firefox) that will notify you of such comments (where it can detect the details). | ||
=== See also === | |||
For details of media and press release misconduct see: [[Information manipulation]] | |||
=== Suggestions for additions to this page === | |||
Here you may add links or information from credible sources, examples of problems ‘in the wild’ screenshots etc. for our regular page editors to address, all information must be factual and based on evidence, anything without sufficient evidence will be deleted. | |||
[[File:7493B21D-5E77-4901-8592-816F2A8DDFBE.jpg|alt=Screenshot of research ethics statement, sourced from Twitter |none|thumb|Screenshot of research ethics statement, sourced from Twitter ]] | |||
=== Instructions for editors of this page === | |||
{{Warnsign|Warning: Contentious subject, please would Page Authors take care to remain factual and include evidence/examples.}} | |||
=== External links === | |||
{{Stub}} | {{Stub}} | ||
[[Category:Ethics]] | |||
[[Category:Misconduct]] | |||
__FORCETOC__ | |||
Latest revision as of 22:31, 2 November 2022
Tips tricks and resources for spotting research that is not up to standard, including tips on what you can do about it.
Sadly papers are often published that are not of good quality, it is worth checking if there are any comments by others in the field, PubPeer is a very useful way of doing this, and provides a browser extension for ( Chrome, IE, Firefox) that will notify you of such comments (where it can detect the details).
See also
For details of media and press release misconduct see: Information manipulation
Suggestions for additions to this page
Here you may add links or information from credible sources, examples of problems ‘in the wild’ screenshots etc. for our regular page editors to address, all information must be factual and based on evidence, anything without sufficient evidence will be deleted.
Instructions for editors of this page
Warning: Contentious subject, please would Page Authors take care to remain factual and include evidence/examples.