Close

01/16/2020

We have been able to establish this information by cross-checking the source material and other relevant publications, and then assessing and synthesizing the evidence to produce clear guidance to researchers in scientific journals and the general public.

We have been able to establish this information by cross-checking the source material and other relevant publications, and then assessing and synthesizing the evidence to produce clear guidance to researchers in scientific journals and the general public.
How we do this
It’s simple. We start with a small sample of research and cross-check the quality, integrity, relevance and credibility of the findings.
This is not a simple matter. We use statistical methods, a high degree of technical sophistication and specialist knowledge, expert opinion, and extensive experience as authors of well-known scientific articles.
For our research we seek to obtain a large and independent sample of peer-reviewed publications and other published reports that deal with the specified issue.
The results of the cross-checking process are posted here and we are very happy to answer any questions.
Cross-checking the integrity of research publications is difficult; and most scientific papers have numerous references, the details of which are often unavailable.
This can result in a failure as a researcher if you have published research that does not follow the standards that have been established by the review process.
So, what happens next?
When a journal is contacted by our team about the review process, it often takes up to six months for the matter to be dealt with by the journal. This means that when we post an inquiry the results of the review process don’t become available for some time.
If the journal does not respond to our inquiry within the timeframe we’ve asked for, we will respond again in a more formal format and send the journal a second form, with a revised research paper to put online.
This process also ensures that the review becomes available to a broad audience and is in circulation among the research community.
We have published an open access version of this process in PDF format (link below).
We want to be sure that when journals publish research, they take the time to cross-check the quality of the study and the integrity of the results, to ensure that the results are reproducible and legitimate.
The quality of scientific research is dependent on the quality of journal submission process as well as the peer review process. This process has been subject to many criticisms in recent years and we would hope that journal editors and journal-publishing companies would do more to ensure that they are in control of their processes.
Our research has found that journals often fail to report on the content of the peer-review process. Journals are often quick to provide results and then quickly retract them, without following the peer-review processes to ensure the quality of the article, the reliability of the results, the relevance to the subject matter, for example.
What are the results of cross-checking the quality of research?
Our results have shown that some journals are much more rigorous than others in how they conduct the review process in relation to peer-review.
We’re finding that journals that are more rigorous in the review process include:
Elsevier has an impressive reputation in the scientific community and has done a lot of research on journals to test their content and peer-review process. Here are a few examples (from their website):
It’s not perfect, but it’s an impressive first step to address the review process.
We have found that for more robust journals, it will take longer than six months for peer review to be