Scientific quality (rating): Difference between revisions

From Opasnet
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(demo-test of editing the rating description scale)
(rating changed (improved?))
Line 1: Line 1:
Scientific quality is a property of a page. This definition needs to be refined. This page is read automatically, and should contain at least two sentences to not confuse the script. This page should probably be protected once it is done.
Scientific quality contains several properties including the following. Is the issue (scope) clearly stated, are existing relevant data well covered, is the reasoning (definition) and data use adequate, does the result cover all hypotheses that have not been shown wrong, does the result truthfully reflect the likelihood of existing hypotheses.
 
This page is read automatically, and should contain at least two sentences to not confuse the script. This page should probably be protected once it is done.


{|
{|
Line 6: Line 8:
! Description of rating
! Description of rating
|-
|-
| 20
| 10
| Very poor
| Misleading
|-
|-
| 40
| 20
| Inadequate
|-
| 35
| Poor
| Poor
|-
|-
| 55
| 60
| Almost average
| Moderate
|-
| 80
| Acceptable in peer review
|-
| 100
| Outstanding
|}
 
{{variable|moderator=Tekerane}}
 
==Scope==
 
What should be the instructions to a reader, and what descriptions should be used to clarify the scale 0..100?
 
==Rationale==
 
==Result==
 
{| {{prettytable}}
|+ '''Rating description table
! Max rating
! Description of rating
! More detailed description
|-
| 10
| Misleading
| The page gives a misleading impression of its topic, and the user is better off by not reading it at all.
|-
| 20
| Inadequate
| The page contains hardly anything that holds against scientific criticism.
|-
| 35
| Poor
| The page has some good parts but also severe problems in quality.
|-
|-
| 60
| 60
| Average
| Moderate
| The page is overall reasonable but would not be accepted as a scientific article.
|-
|-
| 80
| 80
| Good
| Acceptable in peer review
| The page would be acceptable as an article in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Note! The originality of the page should '''not''' be used as a criteria in [[Opasnet]], as many pages are derivative, not original, work.
|-
|-
| 100
| 100
| Outstanding
| Outstanding
| The quality of the page is clearly higher than an average scientific article.
|}
|}

Revision as of 09:51, 2 September 2010

Scientific quality contains several properties including the following. Is the issue (scope) clearly stated, are existing relevant data well covered, is the reasoning (definition) and data use adequate, does the result cover all hypotheses that have not been shown wrong, does the result truthfully reflect the likelihood of existing hypotheses.

This page is read automatically, and should contain at least two sentences to not confuse the script. This page should probably be protected once it is done.

Rating description table
Max rating Description of rating
10 Misleading
20 Inadequate
35 Poor
60 Moderate
80 Acceptable in peer review
100 Outstanding



Scope

What should be the instructions to a reader, and what descriptions should be used to clarify the scale 0..100?

Rationale

Result

Rating description table
Max rating Description of rating More detailed description
10 Misleading The page gives a misleading impression of its topic, and the user is better off by not reading it at all.
20 Inadequate The page contains hardly anything that holds against scientific criticism.
35 Poor The page has some good parts but also severe problems in quality.
60 Moderate The page is overall reasonable but would not be accepted as a scientific article.
80 Acceptable in peer review The page would be acceptable as an article in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Note! The originality of the page should not be used as a criteria in Opasnet, as many pages are derivative, not original, work.
100 Outstanding The quality of the page is clearly higher than an average scientific article.
Retrieved from "https://en.opasnet.org/index.php?title=Scientific_quality_(rating)&oldid=17032"