首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Proteomes >Reporting of Hybrid Data and the Difficulties with Cross-Discipline Research Techniques
【2h】

Reporting of Hybrid Data and the Difficulties with Cross-Discipline Research Techniques

机译:跨学科研究技巧报告混合数据及困难

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Peer review is the way in which we, as scientists, criticise, check, and confirm the findings of our colleagues. The process of peer review relies on individuals in all fields applying their particular expertise and determining if they agree with the findings submitted for publication. In recent years, there has been a significant rise in the number of manuscripts submitted for publication that draw from a range of disparate and complementary fields. This has created the curious situation where an expert may be requested to review a manuscript that is only partially within their immediate field of expertise. The issue that arises is that, without full knowledge of the data, techniques, methodologies, and principles that are presented, it is difficult for reviewers to make properly informed decisions, especially when it can take an entire career to reach that specific level of expertise in a single field. From this perspective, we explore these issues and also provide a commentary on how peer review could evolve in the context of a changing cross-disciplinarily-focused scientific landscape.
机译:同行评审是我们作为科学家,批评,检查和确认我们同事的调查结果的方式。同行评审的过程依赖于应用其特定专业知识的所有领域的个人,并确定是否同意提交的出版物的调查结果。近年来,提交的发布的手稿数量显着上升,从一系列不同和互补的领域吸引。这造成了令人奇怪的情况,可以要求专家审查仅在其直接专业领域内的稿件。出现的问题是,无需全面了解所提出的数据,技术,方法和原则,审阅者很难做出正确的明智决策,特别是当它可以达到整个职业时达到特定的专业水平在一个字段中。从这个角度来看,我们探讨了这些问题,并提供了对同伴审查如何在变化的跨学科的科学景观的背景下发展的评论。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号