Compară metode
Examinează metodele selectate una lângă alta; rândurile care diferă sunt evidențiate.
| Articol de cercetare original× | Procesul de recenzie inter pares× | |
|---|---|---|
| Domeniu≠ | Scriere academică | Etica publicării |
| Familie | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Anul apariției | 1665 | 1665 |
| Autorul original≠ | Scientific research community | Scientific publishing community; formalized by journals and COPE |
| Tip≠ | Document Type | Process |
| Sursa seminală≠ | 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 ↗ |
| Denumiri alternative≠ | research paper, empirical article, primary research, journal article | Peer Reviewing, Manuscript Evaluation, Scholarly Review |
| Înrudite≠ | 5 | 4 |
| Rezumat≠ | An original research article is the primary vehicle for reporting new empirical findings in a discipline. Following the IMRaD structure (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion), it represents a researcher's novel data, analysis, and interpretation. The journal article format has been the gold standard for scientific communication since the establishment of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society in 1665. | 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. |
| ScholarGateSet de date ↗ |
|
|