Close

01/16/2020

Finally, to make a comprehensive scientific analysis, you will also need a good understanding of the field and of the research questions, but these will be covered later. There is no single method to produce an excellent paper; instead each person needs to develop his own approach to the scientific problem he is studying.

Finally, to make a comprehensive scientific analysis, you will also need a good understanding of the field and of the research questions, but these will be covered later. There is no single method to produce an excellent paper; instead each person needs to develop his own approach to the scientific problem he is studying.
After completing the pre-reading of the manuscript, this author decided to include specific details about certain scientific concepts in the introduction section of the article. Unfortunately, after the publication of the article (in 2007), the journal refused to re-issue the study, and there is no trace of it in any electronic database. The manuscript was rejected by two professional journals based in China [13], which suggests a low chance of being read by a scientific audience. We conclude that, while it can be used to demonstrate the scientific accuracy of an article, the topic is very complicated in its own right. It would be more suited to a student of engineering or philosophy than to a specialist. There are better ways to produce a comprehensive scientific analysis for the general public, and it will be of more use to other authors than this one. There are a number of papers in the literature that include detailed information on the subject, and it is likely that additional publications of this type exist [14], [15], [16]–[19].
This study has four major conclusions. 1) Science is based upon experimental and controlled results. 2) The scientific method cannot be used to derive conclusions. 3) The author of the article was not aware of the limitations of her technique, and she did not attempt to correct them. 4) It is difficult to establish a causal relationship between the results. Further studies of this type are therefore advisable.
As can be seen, the article contains a number of flaws. Firstly, it lacks scientific background and does not explain basic principles of science well. It is therefore difficult to determine whether the authors’ conclusions are sound—particularly as the methodology was not specified. Indeed, the technique, while clearly based upon experimental and controlled experiments, could not, by itself, support any kind of conclusions about causality. Further, the article is quite long, and as a result the reader cannot easily skim through it and absorb only the most relevant parts. Furthermore, at the end of the article many questions remain unanswered, such as what did the authors do to correct the issues? How does one assess the results of this type of analysis?
The main limitation of this study is that the author does not specify how the technique was used. While the author has described the process to generate the results (described in a previous study and published in the same journal), this is not possible to show exactly what was done (if anything) to generate the results. It is, of course, possible to find such a description in journals with an open publishing policy; it is also possible to find the author in any number of other places that provide details of research papers on the internet (for example, the US National Library of Medicine and Wikipedia). However, these journals rarely provide details regarding the scientific process, so this is a significant deficiency of this study.
It seems that the technique itself has an interesting background, which has been described before [16], [29], although without much detail. The author has shown that the technique can be used for the generation of a ‘single subject’ (although it has been used to analyse many other topics without restriction). The authors