This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jeandré du Toit (talk | contribs) at 08:27, 29 November 2006 (→An empirical examination of Misplaced Pages's credibility: URLs of reporting on findings). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 08:27, 29 November 2006 by Jeandré du Toit (talk | contribs) (→An empirical examination of Misplaced Pages's credibility: URLs of reporting on findings)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)An empirical examination of Misplaced Pages's credibility
- Source: Thomas Chesney (Information Systems, Nottingham University Business School)
- Date: 2006-11-06
- Title: An empirical examination of Misplaced Pages's credibility
- URLs: http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_11/chesney/
Findings
- "five reported seeing mistakes and one of those five reported spelling mistakes rather than factual errors"
Response
Email sent asking for a list of the articles with errors (or a list of the errors) if possible, so we can create a to-do list similar to Misplaced Pages:External_peer_review/Nature_December_2005/Errors. -- Jeandré, 2006-11-29t08:10z