While going through some journals on heavy metals concentration of some food spices, I discovered that in reporting their research, at least three authors cited different standards from the World Health Organization, 2005 yet all citing the same reference. Some might see such work and without making further research, analyze their result on wrong standards as quoted by previous authors. I feel it is wrong that such work be released to the general public after passing through the review process. Such authors are either inexperienced, lazy or simply ignorant because they rely on a secondary reference without going ahead to checkup the primary reference. I feel reviewers need to look into such cases and reject any article that is built upon the foundation of wrong standards because it potrays the journal and reviewers in bad light and causes great harm to this generation and the next generation that would pick up such article to study. What's your take on this?
I would expand the topic to the use of secondary sources in general. It happened in the past and probably will happen in the future as well (unfortunately). Reviewers might occasionally spot these and report them. But it remains the responsibility of the authors and not of the reviewers or editorial boards.
Authors have to be honest, jeniuine, authentic and take the academic integrity into account. They have to read the original sources and understand them very well. The reviewer only double check the references or the information that are suspicious.
- Badges
- Science topic