Porównaj metody
Przeglądaj wybrane metody obok siebie; wiersze, które się różnią, są wyróżnione.
| Referat konferencyjny i materiały pokonferencyjne× | Proces recenzji naukowej× | |
|---|---|---|
| Dziedzina≠ | Pisarstwo akademickie | Etyka publikacyjna |
| Rodzina | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Rok powstania≠ | 1900 | 1665 |
| Twórca≠ | Academic conferences (20th century formalization) | Scientific publishing community; formalized by journals and COPE |
| Typ≠ | Document Type | Process |
| Źródło pierwotne≠ | International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (2023). Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. ICMJE. link ↗ | Committee on Publication Ethics (2023). COPE Guidelines: Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. COPE. link ↗ |
| Inne nazwy≠ | conference abstract, conference proceedings, conference presentation, poster presentation | Peer Reviewing, Manuscript Evaluation, Scholarly Review |
| Pokrewne≠ | 2 | 4 |
| Podsumowanie≠ | A conference paper is original research presented at an academic conference, typically via oral presentation or poster. Conference papers are published in proceedings (collection of papers from a conference) and indexed in databases (Scopus, Web of Science). Unlike journal articles requiring 12–24 months for publication, conference papers are disseminated rapidly (often within weeks or months), making them valuable for communicating cutting-edge findings and early-stage research. Peer review rigor varies: some conferences employ rigorous peer review; others are less selective. Conference papers often precede or parallel journal publication, facilitating scholarly dialogue and networking. | Peer review is the process by which manuscripts are evaluated by experts in the same field before publication in academic journals. Reviewers assess the manuscript's scientific merit, methodology, clarity, and contribution to the field. Established in 1665 with the first scientific journal (Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society), peer review remains the gold standard for quality control in academic publishing. Despite ongoing criticism and proposals for alternatives, peer review continues to filter low-quality and unethical work, though it is imperfect and sometimes slow. |
| ScholarGateZbiór danych ↗ |
|
|