Good Scientific Practice and Academic Reviews

Hörnle, Tatjana

doi:10.1007/s10609-021-09424-2

アイテム詳細

登録内容を編集ファイル形式で保存

一時保存へ追加

タグ情報を表示リリース履歴を表示詳細要約

公開

学術論文

Good Scientific Practice and Academic Reviews

MPS-Authors

/persons/resource/persons238071

Hörnle, Tatjana
Criminal Law, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Crime, Security and Law, Max Planck Society;

External Resource

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10609-021-09424-2
(全文テキスト（全般）)

Fulltext (restricted access)

There are currently no full texts shared for your IP range.

フルテキスト (公開)

Hörnle2021_Article_GoodScientificPracticeAndAcade.pdf
(全文テキスト（全般）), 176KB

付随資料 (公開)

There is no public supplementary material available

引用

Hörnle, T. (2021). Good Scientific Practice and Academic Reviews. Criminal Law Forum, 32(4), 531-541. doi:10.1007/s10609-021-09424-2.

引用: https://hdl.handle.net/21.11116/0000-0009-7834-6

要旨

Academic reviews (hereinafter “reviews”) are an integral part of legal journals. While their purpose and usefulness are at times disputed, all sub-disciplines of legal studies nevertheless argue in equal measure that a lack of substantial academic exchange by way of reviews would result in the impoverishment of scientific discourse. In German criminal law scholarship, two recent cases have sparked debate about whether certain rules should govern the publication of such reviews. The following remarks are intended to provide a thought-provoking impulse on the matter.