Rigour in research and peer-review: a reply
暂无分享,去创建一个
Discussion and constructive criticism of research work when based on facts and sound scientific arguments are good practice which not only enrich research work but potentially improve the findings. For these reasons, they should be encouraged. However, when discussions are put forward out of ignorance for the sake of criticism to attack the integrity of some particular research, and to that matter the integrity of its researchers and the reviewers ability to judge researchers contribution, then it not only becomes dangerous but is on the verge of being irresponsible. This should not go unchallenged. This note addresses the issues brought forth in (Fenn, P. (1997) Construction Management and Economics, 15 (4), 383-385.
[1] Sabah Alkass,et al. An integrated system to minimize the cost of analyzing construction claims , 1993 .
[2] Peter Fenn. Rigour in research and peer review , 1997 .
[3] Sabah Alkass,et al. Computer aided construction delay analysis and claims preparation , 1995 .
[4] Sabah Alkass,et al. Construction contractor's claims analysis: An integrated system approach , 1991 .
[5] Sabah Alkass,et al. Construction delay analysis techniques , 1996 .