Galen Jones
My feedback
18 results found
-
29 votes
Galen Jones
supported this idea
·
-
10 votes
Galen Jones
supported this idea
·
-
37 votes
Galen Jones
supported this idea
·
-
62 votes
Galen Jones
supported this idea
·
-
3 votes
Galen Jones
supported this idea
·
-
802 votes
Thanks for the examples - we will review them and discuss our options.
Best,
Tamar
An error occurred while saving the comment
Galen Jones
supported this idea
·
-
4 votes
Galen Jones
supported this idea
·
-
204 votes
Galen Jones
supported this idea
·
-
68 votes
Galen Jones
supported this idea
·
-
280 votes
Galen Jones
supported this idea
·
-
98 votes
Galen Jones
supported this idea
·
-
29 votes
Galen Jones
supported this idea
·
-
64 votes
Galen Jones
supported this idea
·
-
309 votes
Galen Jones
supported this idea
·
-
171 votes
Galen Jones
supported this idea
·
-
99 votes
Galen Jones
supported this idea
·
-
39 votes
Galen Jones
supported this idea
·
-
78 votes
Galen Jones
supported this idea
·
Hi Tamar,
One particularly noteworthy example of PR misrepresentation relating to AIDS denialism is:
Papadopulos-Eleopulos, E. (1988) ‘Reappraisal of AIDS--is the oxidation induced by the risk factors the primary cause?’, Medical hypotheses, 25(3), pp. 151–162.
DOI: 10.1016/0306-9877(88)90053-9
CDI ID: cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_78219233
All of the articles in this journal pre 2010 are not peer reviewed according to:
https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/5217839
It appears that there are over 9k inaccurate CDI example records for this single title:
https://librarysearch.cardiff.ac.uk/discovery/search?query=any,contains,1532-2777&tab=CSCOP_EVERYTHING&search_scope=CU_Search_ALL&vid=44WHELF_CAR:44WHELF_CAR_VU1&facet=searchcreationdate,include,1975%7C,%7C2009&facet=tlevel,include,peer_reviewed&offset=0
By marking non-peer reviewed, and in this case pseudoscientific content, as being peer reviewed, the content is being given undue validity by Ex Libris which could have implications on current research and scholarship.