IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/conmgt/v16y1998i2p139-140.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rigour in research and peer-review: a reply

Author

Listed:
  • Sabah Alkass
  • Mark Mazerolle
  • Frank Harris

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), 383-385.

Suggested Citation

  • Sabah Alkass & Mark Mazerolle & Frank Harris, 1998. "Rigour in research and peer-review: a reply," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(2), pages 139-140.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:conmgt:v:16:y:1998:i:2:p:139-140
    DOI: 10.1080/014461998372439
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/014461998372439
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/014461998372439?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter Fenn, 1997. "Rigour in research and peer review," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(4), pages 383-385.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:conmgt:v:16:y:1998:i:2:p:139-140. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RCME20 .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.