Kcse computer project 2016 pdf

in manual by

Please forward this error screen to sharedip-1071800229. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Peer review is generally considered kcse computer project 2016 pdf to academic quality and is used in most major scientific journals, but it does by no means prevent publication of invalid research.

Editors of scientific journals at that time made publication decisions without seeking outside input, i. Nobel prize winners and together experts on the topics of these papers. On another occasion, Einstein was severely critical of the external review process, saying that he had not authorized the editor in chief to show his manuscript “to specialists before it is printed”, and informing him that he would “publish the paper elsewhere”. While some medical journals started to systematically appoint external reviewers, it is only since the middle of the 20th century that this practice has spread widely and that external reviewers have been given some visibility within academic journals, including being thanked by authors and editors. In the 20th century, peer review also became common for science funding allocations. This process appears to have developed independently from that of editorial peer review.

The first Peer Review Congress met in 1989. In parallel with ‘common experience’ definitions based on the study of peer review as a ‘pre-constructed process’, some social scientists have looked at peer review without considering it as pre-constructed. Hirschauer proposed that journal peer review can be understood as reciprocal accountability of judgements among peers. Publications that have not undergone peer review are likely to be regarded with suspicion by academic scholars and professionals. It is difficult for authors and researchers, whether individually or in a team, to spot every mistake or flaw in a complicated piece of work. This is not necessarily a reflection on those concerned, but because with a new and perhaps eclectic subject, an opportunity for improvement may be more obvious to someone with special expertise or who simply looks at it with a fresh eye. Therefore, showing work to others increases the probability that weaknesses will be identified and improved.

For both grant-funding and publication in a scholarly journal, it is also normally a requirement that the subject is both novel and substantial. Similarly, the decision whether or not to fund a proposed project rests with an official of the funding agency. These individuals usually refer to the opinion of one or more reviewers in making their decision. However, some reviewers may choose to waive their anonymity, and in other limited circumstances, such as the examination of a formal complaint against the referee, or a court order, the reviewer’s identity may have to be disclosed. Since reviewers are normally selected from experts in the fields discussed in the article, the process of peer review helps to keep some invalid or unsubstantiated claims out of the body of published research and knowledge. Scholars will read published articles outside their limited area of detailed expertise, and then rely, to some degree, on the peer-review process to have provided reliable and credible research that they can build upon for subsequent or related research. Significant scandal ensues when an author is found to have falsified the research included in an article, as other scholars, and the field of study itself, may have relied upon the invalid research.

Nowadays, communication is normally by e-mail or through a web-based manuscript processing system. Depending on the field of study and on the specific journal, there are usually one to three referees for a given article. These referees each return an evaluation of the work to the publisher, noting weaknesses or problems along with suggestions for improvement. Referees’ evaluations usually include an explicit recommendation of what to do with the manuscript or proposal, often chosen from options provided by the journal or funding agency. During this process, the role of the referees is advisory.