1. Do “all” papers published in scientific journals have all
(or even most) of these features?
Not all papers have all or even most of the features that constitute a “good paper”.
Certain components are necessary to produce a good scientific article, such that the
journal is readable, grammatically correct, and has a clear focus. However, this is not
always the case because scientists who review submitted papers may have a preference of
writing style, which varies between editors and reviewers. One reviewer may have a firm
grasp on the material discussed, and therefore return the paper with minimal comments
on editing. In some of these cases, the paper may be too complicated or unclear for a
reader. Also, certain papers that are published may be scientific reviews or reports, and
including statistical analyses or details about design protocols are not required for it to be
a “good paper”.
2. If a paper is published is it always good and are the
results always “true”?
No, a paper is not always good and true since the writer of the
paper is bias in terms of personal gains. The author(s) generally
want to make their findings interesting to the readers and editors
of the journal, but also, sway the opinion of the audience to how
their data is relevant in their field. It is up to the reader to remain
critical of the results and to decide, after reading the paper,
whether the information is credible.
3. What effect does journal quality have on papers?
Impact factors are a measure of the average number of times a
paper is cited by journals over a specific period of time. Journal
quality has a significant effect on papers, as papers published in
journals with high impact factors are considered to indicate
higher quality research and authors. For example, publishing a
paper in well-known journals such as Nature or Science, would
probably have a better response than a paper published in a