I think that this question may help in improving the quality of peer-reviews for all those authors that spend much time and efforts against irresponsible peer-reviewers. By this doing, it will help all conferences and journals in selecting the real quality papers.
Personally, I think that research quality elements like those one may find in Litman (2012), "Evaluating research quality: Guidelines for scholarship", RAND (2005) in "Standards for high-quality and analysis", and RAND Europe (2005), in the report prepared by Wooding and Grant "Assessing research - The researchers’ view", and faulty reasoning and fallacies to be avoided as those underlined by Damer (2009) in the book "Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-free Arguments", are crucial in qualifying a research paper of quality or not.
Do you experienced the above or other elements of quality - to be mentioned, please - in your paper acceptances or rejections either in conferences or journals?
Journals with high impact factors, particularly those on the top of their field, usually request comments on the research quality. Questions about internal validity, external validity, conduct validity, statistical methods used, research assessment tools, biases and sources of bias, and ethical issues and other parameters are part of the online peer-review system. However, journals vary a lot in their quality and standards, and this cannot be generalised to all scientific journals.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Papers