Rigour in research and peer-review: A reply

Sabah Alkass; Mark Mazerolle; Frank Harris

doi:10.1080/014461998372439

Rigour in research and peer-review: A reply

Sabah Alkass, Mark Mazerolle, Frank Harris

Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › peer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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 language	English
Pages (from-to)	139-140
Number of pages	2
Journal	Construction Management and Economics
Volume	16
Issue number	2
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1080/014461998372439
Publication status	Published - Mar 1998
Externally published	Yes

Keywords

Project management
Research in delay analysis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Management Information Systems
Building and Construction
Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering

Access to Document

10.1080/014461998372439

Cite this

@article{15b31419225d43bbaac7aabff4e5bea6,

title = "Rigour in research and peer-review: A reply",

abstract = "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.",

keywords = "Project management, Research in delay analysis",

author = "Sabah Alkass and Mark Mazerolle and Frank Harris",

year = "1998",

month = mar,

doi = "10.1080/014461998372439",

language = "English",

volume = "16",

pages = "139--140",

journal = "Construction Management and Economics",

issn = "0144-6193",

publisher = "Routledge",

number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Rigour in research and peer-review

T2 - A reply

AU - Alkass, Sabah

AU - Mazerolle, Mark

AU - Harris, Frank

PY - 1998/3

Y1 - 1998/3

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Project management

KW - Research in delay analysis

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=12444250494&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=12444250494&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/014461998372439

DO - 10.1080/014461998372439

M3 - Review article

AN - SCOPUS:12444250494

SN - 0144-6193

VL - 16

SP - 139

EP - 140

JO - Construction Management and Economics

JF - Construction Management and Economics

IS - 2

ER -

Rigour in research and peer-review: A reply

Abstract

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this