Scientific Journals are 'faith based': is there sciencebehind Peer review?

Faina Y. Linkov · Mita T. Lovalekar · Ronald E. LaPorte

32 citations0/0 files storedJournal of the Royal Society of Medicine

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Publishing and Scholarly Communication Academic Writing and Publishing Academic Publishing and Open Access

Abstract

‘The strongest arguments prove nothing so long as the conclusions are not verified by experience. Experimental science is the queen of sciences and the goal of all speculation.’ (R Bacon)

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 32 citations exist upstream.

References

2002Effects of Editorial Peer Review 2002Papyrus to PowerPoint (P 2 P): metamorphosis of scientific communication

Cited by

2009The Air We Breathe: A Critical Look at Practices and Alternatives in the Peer-Review Process 2019Speaking of gender bias 2024The Impact of Generative Artificial Intelligence on the External Review of Scientific Manuscripts and Editorial Peer Review Processes 2020Manuscript review continuing medical education: a retrospective investigation of the learning outcomes from this peer reviewer benefit

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.