Every research has some weakness/limitations & has strengths as well. What could be the major flaws & weaknesses that compelled a reviewer to regret acceptance of a paper for publication?
Sometimes, pure theoretical results are rejected. Although logical, they are not acceptable unless been applicable.
In a sense, particularly in surgery, many research studies should be repeated for confirmation of research results in different medical institutions and with different surgeons and surgical teams to make that surgical results hold up across institutions as results may reflect the abilities of a particular surgeon or surgical team.
Hello Dr.Rabiul Alam
you can check this article ;
1- http://iosrjournals.org/iosr-jhss/papers/Vol19-issue4/Version-3/N0194399104.pdf
2- https://www.sltinfo.com/strengths-and-weaknesses-of-research-styles/
3- http://www.learningscientists.org/blog/2018/3/8-1
Dear Dennis Mazur , Naeimeh Najafizadeh & Rizk Elazhary , thanks for your valuable comments and links.
We found, sometimes, the research protocols of residents are approved even with some major flaws. So, the research papers based on those protocols appear with significant defects and weaknesses those have very scope to rectify. Thanks once again.
Rabiul Alam
Sir,
For this I think a rigorous study is required (for the literature review) and most of the researchers are failed to do this as its a time consuming a hard work with severe concentration. Secondly the standard analysis. Thirdly and I think its most import to use easy but standard method so that easy communication with the readers.
Thanks
A scientist should be free of any influence.
Thanks Thomas Heinrich Musiolik !!!
Dear Marwah Firas Abdullah Al-Rawe , your point is definitely valuable which express the standard and quality of a research paper. But it's repairable/editable. I said about the critical weaknesses which in fact void the outcome of research work. Thanks- Rabiul.
Dear Md Zafar Alam Bhuiyan , I really honour your three explicit valuable points.
Dear Abbas J Jubear , Originality... that's indeed a point where we're lacking far behind. The guides/mentors have to play major roles to develop this area of interest. Thanks.
Dear Marwah Firas Abdullah Al-Rawe
What do you mean by poor citation ?
Do you mean that poor citation is a weakness of the research ?
I don’t think so
Poor subject background, unappropriate used techniques, and finally remaining of the already existing problematic without even presenting any new horizon for any aspect...
Less than thorough literature review and connection to the present work, derivation of equations not clearly presented, succinct summary of results and interpretations are my major concerns which would cause me as a reviewer to reject a manuscript.
I think in many cases a paper is rejected by reviewer for fallacies on part of the reviewer himself/herself, this can happen if the reviewer fails to actually appreciate the essence of the research work carried out, or the research is too radical for the reviewer to be comprehensible, however, personal grudge, jealously and other human flaws also sometimes play a significant role in this regard.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publication