Close

01/16/2020

The objective must be to formulate scientifically meaningful conclusions, based on the data available, of the existence of a relationship between the two or, in the case of a theory, between the two theories in question. The aim must be to present in such a way that the reader may decide whether to accept or not the claim contained in the article. The scientific author must be alert that the scientific review published in a scientific journal cannot be used as a means of propagating scientific views and opinions.

The objective must be to formulate scientifically meaningful conclusions, based on the data available, of the existence of a relationship between the two or, in the case of a theory, between the two theories in question. The aim must be to present in such a way that the reader may decide whether to accept or not the claim contained in the article. The scientific author must be alert that the scientific review published in a scientific journal cannot be used as a means of propagating scientific views and opinions.
The review process must be used as a tool to promote scientific research and to stimulate the advancement of science. A scientific review is a professional review whose purpose is to determine if a given idea is valid. The authors of an article are the reviewers.
To be valid, the review should:
have the quality of an editorial. The author should provide only those details which are directly relevant to the idea being investigated. Only the author should receive feedback. Not the other people involved in the research, the media or general public. Inclusion of a review does not give undue status to any of these sources of feedback. If the author needs help to decide if he should publish or not, he should contact the appropriate body.
A scientific review should be objective, not influenced by any preconceived biases.
Solutions
1. It is not sufficient to publish a small study or a few abstracts in the journal of a reputable institution on a single topic. A full review with a full paper containing a quantitative analysis with the results should be submitted. This way the author can obtain expert opinion from expert opinion. The scientific review process for an article about a specific topic should be established by a reputable institution and it should be published in a journal.
2. If a scientific article has been submitted to a journal, the author must inform it about all information and data that is relevant to the idea being investigated.
3. The scientific review should include the data and the interpretation of the data. The data should also be submitted to the journal. The reviewer does not have to send the full paper to the author, but he should send an abstract. The reviewer should send the full paper to the journal when he sends the abstract.
4. Publication of an article in a respected publication is the first step in bringing the idea to a stage where it can be developed. Thus, an article may be accepted or rejected but its quality never deteriorates until the article is published.
5. In an article, the following facts should be reported:
1. A list of references that support the main conclusions drawn in the article.
2. The number of participants in the studies which were conducted and the age, gender and ethnicity of the participants.
3. The number of participants who died as a result of the interventions or other treatment regimes.
4. The number of participants who were treated successfully.
5. All other findings that support the conclusions drawn in the article. The review should be conducted independently.
6. In reviewing an article, the most important aspect of it is to present the findings as clearly and simply as possible.
7. If a review is performed and the paper is not published, it should never be considered as proof of the effectiveness of any particular intervention.
8. The reviewer should not be responsible for any damages caused to the reputation of any company, or to the economic