About This Publication

Research Evidence Evaluation is an online trade periodical that is published in a standard journal format. The core purpose of this publication is to provide rigorous evaluations of findings and conclusions based on accepted scientific standards.The articles in Research Evidence Evaluation can be cited like any journal article.

Research Evidence Evaluation is not a peer-reviewed journal, but an editor-reviewed publication. The editor does use regular scientific standards that peer reviewers are supposed to be using when evaluating contributed work to journals, with the goal of having high scientific standards without peer review. Given the many limitations of the peer review method, especially uneven quality of reviews from field to field, a lack of peer review is not necessarily, automatically bad. Good non peer review is better than bad peer review.

The editor, his students, and his associates contribute manuscripts to this publication in disproportionately high numbers, at least at present. This is not ideal and raises both quality and diversity concerns. Most researchers would agree that this is a major problem only if preference is given to colleagues or if the contributions accepted for publication are of low quality. The editor strives to prevent this through objectivity and the upholding of professional standards.

There is an shortage of post-publication evaluation of scientific research (see the Impetus column to the right for a fuller explanation). Journal editors generally want the articles that appear in their journal to be covered in the press and to have a wide professional impact. They do not want their journals to get a reputation for publishing faulty or useless research. Due to this, there may be a slight tendency to guard the work that they selected to appear in their journals. There might be an incentive to avoid publishing critiques of the articles that appear in their journals, at least in some cases. Independent publications such as Research Evidence Evaluation do not have a counter incentive of this type, and are one way to address the problem if inadequate post-publication review.

Research reports are published in great numbers that overload libraries. Sometimes studies are cited widely but incorrectly in the press, which misleads readers such as policy makers. The conclusions of research reports are also often accepted uncritically, not only by the public and the press, but by too many researchers themselves. Research Evidence Evaluation is committed to not only addressing the dependability of the original research itself, but also on the legitimacy of the news stories that appear, all in the public interest of accuracy and transparency.

The editor and contributors to this publication realize that their own research, and everyone's research, is far from perfect and deserving of much criticism. The perfect research study has never been conducted. Acknowledging this, we have everything to gain from self-criticism and valid criticism from others. We have everything to lose from encouraging the uncritical adoption of studies with incorrect or misleading conclusions, or the misportrayal of studies in the press.

Editor

The editor is university professor and experienced researcher in multiple fields who formerly served as the institutional director of research and grant designer for several institutions. He is a also a member of the Institute of Quantitative Biology (www.etsu.edu\IQB) and a regular peer reviewer for scientific journals in a number of different fields. These views expressed in the articles are the opinion of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of Research Evidence Evaluation or East Tennessee State University.

Address:
Lee Glenn, Ph.D.
East Tennessee State University
P.O. Box 70658
Johnson City, Tennessee 37614
USA

www.resevideval.org

Impetus

The impetus for Research Evidence Evaluation was the inadequate quantity, accuracy, depth, and breadth of evaluations of published research today.

For a quick review about these difficulties, see the article by DL Shriger and DG Altman DG entitled "Inadequate post-publication review of medical research" in the British Medical Journal, Volume 341, August 2010 issue.