197
Views
1
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
FROM THE EDITOR

Bad Science, Sloppy Reporting, and Retracted Publications: Should Peer Review be the Scapegoat?

, PhD, RN, FAAN

REFERENCES

  • Committee on Publication Ethics Digest. (2013a). Publication Ethics in Practice, 1(1), 1–6.
  • Committee on Publication Ethics Digest. (2013b). Publication Ethics in Practice, 1(3), 1–5.
  • Committee on Publication Ethics Forum. (2013, December 4). Retrieved from http://publicationethics.org
  • Dyer, C. (2013). Journal agrees to retract paper after university found study was never done. British Medical Journal, 347, 15500.
  • Rennie, D. (1986). Guarding the guardians: A conference on editorial peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 256, 2391–2392.
  • Rennie, D., & Flanagin, A. (2014). Research on peer review and biomedical publication: Furthering the quest to improve the quality of reporting. Journal of the American Medical Association, 311, 1019–1020.
  • Shattell, M. M., Chinn, P., Thomas, S. P., & Cowling, W. R. (2010). Authors’ and editors’ perspectives on peer review quality in three scholarly nursing journals. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 42, 58–65.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.