Scientific quality (rating)

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

This page is a knowledge crystal of subtype variable. The page identifier is Op_en4627
Moderator:Tekerane (see all)
Upload data {{#opasnet_base_link:Op_en4627}}

Scope

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

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.