Rigour in research and peer-review: a reply

Sabah Alkass, Mark Mazerolle and Frank Harris

Construction Management and Economics, 1998, vol. 16, issue 2, 139-140

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.

Keywords: Research In Delay Analysis; Project Management (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 1998
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/014461998372439 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:taf:conmgt:v:16:y:1998:i:2:p:139-140

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/RCME20

DOI: 10.1080/014461998372439

Access Statistics for this article

Construction Management and Economics is currently edited by Will Hughes

More articles in Construction Management and Economics from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().