User:Lilmisnicole/Retraction in academic publishing/Kitterbitter160 Peer Review

General info
Lilmisnicole
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Lilmisnicole/Retraction in academic publishing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Retraction in academic publishing

Evaluate the drafted changes
LEAD

good

CONTENT

"A low percentage of retracted papers can be due to unintentional error within the author(s) work, and while it is the responsibility of journal editors to keep integrity high in the journal, a new method is being practiced in few."

 --long sentence, break it up like so 

A low percentage of retracted papers can be due to unintentional error within the author(s) work( examples ). , and While it is the responsibility of journal editors to keep integrity high in the journal, (---talk about how many journals still get retracted, with % and citation.) 

'' --Then talk about the new method. ''

"Back then retractions were very rare." -- Awkward sentence

"...more like  “600 per year”...."-- how do you know this? citation

"In a case like that it can be upsetting for the authors or scientists that were involved because then it becomes a waste of their time, reputation will be on the line and a paper that has now been taken down."

-- I think this would sound better if you separated the sentence. "...waste of their time. The researchers reputation will be..."

"It should be asked what is the real problem with retractions. Who is making these retraction errors?"

-- The question of retractions now becomes "what is the reason of retraction of papers", this sums up both of the questions.

"People need to come together and develop a system to distinguish “good” and “bad” retractions because there are good scientists in this society that publish honest work to then be retracted from it."

--It is best to keep the paper passive and in third person. Most journals will ask the articles to be in third person.

See if you like the paragraph below as a substitute. "'A system to distinguish papers from 'good' and 'bad' would be beneficial to researchers. This system may (cause we don't know if it can) save the reputation of scientists and researchers. Most researchers publish honest work and sometimes simple mistakes happen to be overlooked by the peer review process. Retraction should not be for simple spelling errors, but for inaccurate, skewed, and fraudulent data.'"

REFERENCES

Make sure to cite properly, with numerical citations which link to reference table. 1 Wikipedia will automatically update. No in text citations (but i think it is ok, 2020)

IMAGES

you don't have to, but see if you can add a image or two to compliment the article. (optional)

OVERALL

I think it is well written, not much I would change. Other then the ones mentioned above. everything flows nicely and not wordy. Good job!