English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

We live in an age of rapid development of science which places increasing demands for specialization even for researchers. For laymen, the nuances of cutting edge research are all but impenetrable. This environment places the scientific community in a position of power which demands responsibility. It is imperative that findings are communicated accurately, using appropriate language and terminology, in a manner which is clear but does not misrepresent, mislead, or strip away the relevant substance. While there can be little doubt that the foremost responsibility lies with the authors of a piece of research, the modern framework for the reporting and dissemination of scientific research and findings has evolved to include a robust and multilayered system of checks in order to ensure that the aforementioned ethical and scientific standards are met. The process of peer review is a key part of this framework. The broad principles this process relies on are those of expertise, independence, and complementarily. In particular, an editor in charge of processing a candidate manuscript solicits advice from a number of reviewers. These are selected on the basis of their expertise in specific areas, which may be complementary in their nature, so as to cover the entirety of the technical content of the manuscript. For example, an oncologist and a biomedical statistician may be invited to review a work on cancer epidemiology. Moreover, as much as possible in practice, the reviewers should be independent from one another and have no conflicts of interest with the authors. The reviewers’ opinions and recommendations are finally considered and weighed by the editor, who makes the final decision on the acceptance of the manuscript. Though there are good theoretical and practical reasons to have confidence that the peer reviewing process generally performs well, a number of weaknesses and structural problems have been highlighted by a number of researchers. However, the process is notoriously difficult to study rigorously as most of it lacks transparency and accountability. Rejected submission and the corresponding reviewer and editor reports

Technical Rigour, Exaggeration, and Peer Reviewing in the Publishing of Medical Research: Dangerous Tides and a Case Study