Rigour in research and peer-review: A reply

Sabah Alkass, Mark Mazerolle, Frank Harris

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)


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), 383-5.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)139-140
Number of pages2
JournalConstruction Management and Economics
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - Mar 1998
Externally publishedYes


  • Project management
  • Research in delay analysis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Management Information Systems
  • Building and Construction
  • Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering


Dive into the research topics of 'Rigour in research and peer-review: A reply'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this