It takes the average reader 4 hours and 26 minutes to read Peer review in scientific publications by Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Science and Technology Committee
Assuming a reading speed of 250 words per minute. Learn more
This report indicates that the oversight of research integrity in the UK is unsatisfactory. The Science and Technology Committee concludes that in order to allow others to repeat and build on experiments, researchers should aim for the gold standard of making their data fully disclosed and made publicly available. The report examines the current peer-review system as used in scientific publications and the related issues of research impact, data management, publication ethics and research integrity. The UK does not seem to have an oversight body for research integrity covering advice and assurance functions across all disciplines and the Committee recommends the creation of an external regulator. It also says all UK research institutions should have a specific member of staff leading on research integrity. The report highlights concerns about the use of journal Impact Factor as a proxy measure for the quality of research or of individual articles. Innovative ways to improve current pre-publication peer-review practices are highlighted in the report, including the use of pre-print servers, open peer review, increased transparency and online repository-style journals. The growth of post-publication peer review and commentary also represents an enormous opportunity for experimentation with new media and social networking tools, which the Committee encourages. There should also be greater recognition of the work-sometimes considered to be a burden-carried out by reviewers, by both publishers and employers. In order to do this, publishers need to have in place systems for recording and acknowledging the contribution of those involved in peer review.
Peer review in scientific publications by Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Science and Technology Committee is 258 pages long, and a total of 66,564 words.
This makes it 87% the length of the average book. It also has 81% more words than the average book.
The average oral reading speed is 183 words per minute. This means it takes 6 hours and 3 minutes to read Peer review in scientific publications aloud.
Peer review in scientific publications is suitable for students ages 12 and up.
Note that there may be other factors that effect this rating besides length that are not factored in on this page. This may include things like complex language or sensitive topics not suitable for students of certain ages.
When deciding what to show young students always use your best judgement and consult a professional.
Peer review in scientific publications by Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Science and Technology Committee is sold by several retailers and bookshops. However, Read Time works with Amazon to provide an easier way to purchase books.
To buy Peer review in scientific publications by Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Science and Technology Committee on Amazon click the button below.
Buy Peer review in scientific publications on Amazon