Research studies

Values and standards in scientific criticism


Prepared by the researche : Dr. Amal Mohammed Abdullah Al Bado – Associate Professor – Ph.D. Educational Technology

Democratic Arabic Center

International Journal of Kurdish Studies : Fifth Issue – April 2024

A Periodical International Journal published by the “Democratic Arab Center” Germany – Berlin

Nationales ISSN-Zentrum für Deutschland
ISSN  2751-3858
International Journal of Kurdish Studies

:To download the pdf version of the research papers, please visit the following link


This research explores the significance of values and standards within the realm of scientific criticism, emphasizing their crucial role in guiding and assessing research endeavors and overall scientific performance. The study examines the impact of ethical and social values on decision-making processes in science, elucidating how these values shape research directions. Additionally, it delves into the concept of scientific standards and their application in appraising the quality of research outcomes. The research also addresses the inherent challenges and controversies associated with defining values and standards in scientific criticism, particularly emphasizing the delicate balance required between scientific neutrality and consideration of ethical and social factors. Practical examples from various scientific fields are presented to illustrate the tangible influence of values and standards, underscoring their pivotal role in advancing scientific knowledge. In conclusion, the research advocates for an increased awareness of values and standards within the domain of scientific criticism, recognizing their fundamental importance in fostering responsible and impactful scientific practices.

  1. Introduction to the study:

Researchers often strive to choose investigative methods that often lead to high-impact knowledge. This challenge has prompted researchers to pursue research paths that are not necessarily logical or supported by hypotheses, but rather to approach a research question systematically. Therefore, it appears that researchers are called to Follow the lines of their productions in search of importance and basic foundations in building their research, and many of them tend towards influence and focus on their positive results, and this behavior often comes as a result of increasing obstacles that researchers need to cross and through to win competitive grants to direct their research, raise grades in special cases, and pay costs. Contributions, in line with the publisher’s directions or accepted and satisfied by the management of a conference or scientific seminars; However, papers are less likely to be published if they report negative results since researchers find themselves involuntarily participating in scientific cultural events, and many of them automatically choose not to proceed with their results, those that support the null hypothesis, or the questions that lead to the results. Negativity arouses negative scientific interest as a result of a weak scientific culture, and therefore the amount of unimportant data reported is gradually increasing. Although it can be said that the amount of data that supports negative results may lead to an increase in the quality of research, it is most likely due to the aforementioned reasons, a weakness in the scientific value, as well as the selectivity of some research publishing bodies, whether journals or conferences, which may also contain acceptance of the model. Research with negative results is not acceptable.

  1. The study Problem:

Scientific criticism is one of the most important elements that form the basic foundation for building knowledge and developing human understanding of the world around it. In this context, the concepts of values and standards creep in as crucial elements in directing and shaping this criticism. Understanding how values and standards influence the process of scientific criticism enhances our understanding of its foundations and opens a new horizon for research and critical thinking. The problem of the study is summarized in the following main question: What are the values and standards of scientific criticism?

3.Study objectives: The current study aims to:

– Exploring the role of values and standards in the process of scientific criticism.

– Trying to understand the impact of values and standards on research trends.

– Providing a critical analysis of the challenges that may arise while trying to achieve a balance between individual values and scientific standards

– Thinking about how this balance can be improved to ensure the continuity of scientific progress in a way that meets society’s aspirations and respects its values and ethics.

  1. The importance of studying:

-This research helps clarify how values and standards form the basis of the scientific criticism process. A deeper understanding of the ethical and professional foundations that guide researchers contributes to improving the quality of research and scientific investigations.

– This research provides an opportunity to define the standards that must characterize scientific research to ensure its quality and validity. This can be useful in improving the transparency and reliability of scientific results

– This research encourages improving communication between researchers and the scientific community in general. A deeper understanding of values and norms helps deliver research in a way that engages positively with society’s needs and values.

– This research allows us to think about how to deal with ethical challenges that may arise in the field of scientific research. This can be useful in identifying ways to enhance researchers’ social responsibility.

– This research can encourage the adoption of the values of creativity and innovation in the field of scientific research. Understanding the role of values in guiding innovation can contribute to the development of new technologies and concepts.

– This research makes a valuable contribution to understanding how values and norms can influence research trends and can benefit policy and decision-makers in directing scientific resources more effectively.

– In general, this research can contribute to improving scientific criticism practices and improving the quality of research and its impact on society.

  1. 5. Definitions and Terms

Scientific standards: A set of rules and standards that are established to guide and organize scientific research and analysis processes. These standards play a crucial role in determining the quality and validity of research and scientific results. The importance of scientific standards lies in providing a framework based on transparency and accuracy, which contributes to building confidence in science and ensuring the quality of research and discoveries.

  Research quality: refers to the validity and reliability of the research work, and its ability to achieve its objectives effectively and accurately. The level of research quality is affected by several factors, including research design, methodology, quality of data collection, statistical analysis, transparency and integrity, critical evaluation, context, and practical application.

  Scientific criticism: the process of evaluating and analyzing scientific research and ideas critically and systematically. Scientific criticism includes critical evaluation of the methodology used in research, analysis of data, and evaluation of the conclusions and interpretations provided by the researcher.

Values and standards: Values represent the principles and beliefs that an individual or society considers essential. In a scientific context, values refer to the ethical values and principles that are adhered to while conducting research and interacting with information and results.

Standards represent a set of rules and standards that researchers must adhere to while designing and implementing research. These standards ensure the quality and reliability of scientific research.

Study Approach: The explanatory scientific method uses knowledge to explain phenomena, matters, and things using groups of interconnected concepts called theories. This approach is concerned with arriving at specific scientific results using logical and rational patterns that show the researcher’s interest in analyzing the information and data in his hands and highlighting the best way to address his research problem (Abdel-Moumen, 2008).

Study procedures: Based on the study’s methodology, the researcher answered the study’s questions in a theoretical, logical, and rational manner from its various sources, the theories and philosophies relied upon.

  1. Theoretical framework

The relative importance of the arbitration and evaluation scale is that the concept of basic principles of the scale relies on general rules and concepts that help govern the field of research by accepted and agreed-upon research standards and indicators. They are the basis on which the rules of research are based in a detailed manner so that scientific research councils and scientific institutions are committed to these principles. Principles are considered the basis for these scientific activities.

Research principles, standards, and indicators generally consist of groups:

  1. A set of basic and approved standards and principles for scientific research.
  2. A set of detailed instructions, rules, and indicators issued by associations, associations, and councils

Scientific research.

  1. A set of applications and accepted practices that do not deviate from what has been generally approved.
  2. A group of activities to unify and organize definitions, assumptions, and methods in scientific research, which makes it easier to compare different schools with each other or compare statistics and results resulting from competitiveness. (Faraj, 2009)

The most important general principles on which the main standards and indicators that make up these groups, in general, are based are:

– The principle of general content

– The principle of certainty in disclosure and clarity

– The principle of clarity and accuracy of thought

– The principle of determining appropriate curricula

– The principle of applications of formal aspects

– The principle of unifying terminology

– The principle of allocations

– The principle of generalizability

– The principle of matching and convergence

– The principle of scientific honesty

– The principle of avoiding generalization of differences

– The principle of desire and personal ability

– The principle of not mixing concepts and theories

– The principle of recognition of renewable standards and indicators

– The principle of relative importance of research

– The principle of development and keeping up

– The principle of objectivity and wisdom

– The principle of abstract identification

– The principle of the problem’s connection to contemporary times

– The principle of the scientific outlook on the future

– The principle of cause and effect

– The principle of certainty with logic

These principles may come individually, together, or in certain groups and categories, but they, therefore, represent the infrastructure on which the standards and indicators are based and do not deviate from them, their interpretations, or their effects, because they are therefore an important part of the theories of scientific research and its applied implications, as well as what the researcher’s person represents in terms of scientific foundation. Here are some or all of these indicators. (Al-Ayasrah, 2015)

The principle of relative importance is one of the generally accepted research principles, which states that significant and influential differences in standards cannot be ignored, and the criterion and indicator can be ignored if the effect of the element is not significant, to bring schools closer together and not distract data users. Scientific and professional judgment is exercised to determine whether the element is material or non-material.

From here, we think it is appropriate that there be two sides or directions of importance, namely:

Theoretical trends: This importance is evident because theoretical knowledge of the rules, standards, indicators, and agreed-upon trends in scientific research will be made clear by the latest international standards, and it will be available to the researcher participating in conferences or looking to write a paper for publication or graduation research in postgraduate studies, a set of correct concepts that will be A specific source for it.

Then, all scientific publications and writings are peer-reviewed before publication, such as articles, books, and scientific papers in which researchers participate in conferences. Master’s and doctoral dissertations are also peer-reviewed, and everything that qualifies the researcher for promotions and obtaining various academic degrees.

6.1Applied directions:

These theories, rules, and standards will be reflected in the products of participants in conferences or academic research, whether in their participating research or other external research. Research that meets the inevitable conditions according to the standard will also be a reference for evaluation by research arbitrators, especially through large numbers of research produced in conferences or research centers. Or universities.

​ Philosophical assumptions for research arbitration:

As long as every scientific research, no matter how its objectives change, it meets with other research in achieving specific objectives through which the research is determined because it provides meaning to the research. Research is meaningless without research objectives, as is the case in any other task because it helps in formulating the hypothesis and is evidence that establishes The researcher conducted the study based on it. In each step of the research, the researcher uses objectives to be more specific. It also helps narrow the scope of the research and provides a focal point. The development of the research methodology also depends on it. It also guides the conduct of a valid and reliable research study, and it summarizes the research for the reader and researcher. By reading the research objectives, the researcher and reader know what the author wants to achieve. In addition, it saves the researcher’s time because it avoids collecting unnecessary data. Additionally, it provides step-by-step instructions that make the research well-planned and sequential.

Therefore, for philosophy not to deviate from the content, the discussion must include philosophical satisfactions from our point of view in judging and evaluating the following areas:

  1. Directing the objectives of arbitration and evaluation and studying its results: The objectives of arbitration can be formulated in the form of questions to obtain answers to them, and these questions are of the cause and effect type to obtain explorations that are in the interest of the research.
  2. The field of scientific knowledge, skills and training
  3. Scientific and cognitive communities are interested in it, especially academic ones, which focus primarily on the culture of knowledge in research and specialized sciences and the use of applied methods to provide the learner with the required skill and experience.
  4. Determining the standards and indicators of scientific research. When the arbitrator builds his evaluation of any study, he bases his rulings based on established and accepted standards and indicators. If the rulings differ between the researcher and the arbitrator, this means the research is rejected or falters, and it may be without scientific justification. This often happens when submitting research to a scientific committee or a journal for publication or to request support, and whenever the researcher changes his rulings to suit the rulings of the arbitrator or evaluator, whenever acceptance is possible.
  5. Field distribution of types of research and their objectives. Given scientific development and the emergence of precise specialization, we see that the philosophy that governs this development is the field distribution of research and its types, as well as the specialized distribution of arbitrators and evaluators in a way that ensures smoothness in arbitration, lack of intersection, and convergence of cognitive understanding between researcher and arbitrator. (Abu Al-Majd, 2017)

6.2Basic characteristics of scientific methods:

The scientific method is distinguished from other intellectual methods by several basic characteristics, the most important of which are:

  1. Accuracy and objectivity: Objectivity here means that the researcher adheres to precise scientific standards in his research, and includes facts and facts that support his point of view, as well as facts that conflict with his starting points and perceptions. The result must be logical and consistent with reality and not contradict it, and the researcher must accept that and acknowledge that. With the results drawn, even if they do not match his perceptions and expectations.
  2. Using approved methods and procedures: This means that when the researcher studies a specific problem or topic and searches for a solution to it, he must use a correct and purposeful scientific method to reach the results required to solve this problem, otherwise the study loses its scientific value and feasibility.
  3. Scientific rules: The researcher must commit to adopting the scientific method in research by respecting all scientific rules required to study each topic, as ignoring or neglecting any element of scientific research leads to incorrect or contrary-to-reality results. Hence, failure to fulfill the recognized scientific conditions in this field prevents the researcher from obtaining the desired scientific results.
  4. Transparency and critical thought: This means that the researcher must be careful to adhere to the scientific and transparent spirit always aspire to know only the truth, and stay away as much as possible from puritanism and clinging to a unilateral vision related to the results he reached through studying the problem, and the researcher’s mind must be open. For every change in the results obtained and the recognition of the truth, even if it is not without bitterness.
  5. Relying on evidence in the final results: There is no doubt that one of the most important characteristics of the scientific method in research that the researcher must adhere to is the necessity of being patient and not issuing final judgments, as judgments must be issued based on evidence, arguments, and facts that prove the validity of initial theories and suggestions, i.e. More precisely, the researcher must rely on sufficient evidence before making any judgment or talking about the results reached. (Al-Bayati, 2022)

6.3 Scientific arbitration according to scientific foundations

The arbitration process for scientific research or scientific work is not carried out randomly, but rather based on standards and laws that are established by expert arbitrators, to eliminate randomness and confusion in the arbitration and the bias of the arbitrators towards any researcher, and to get rid of the contradiction in the arbitrators’ versions of the final result of the arbitration, and to achieve transparency and integrity in the arbitration. Arbitration of scientific research or artistic work. The scientific foundations for arbitration of scientific research and scientific work are summarized in the following:

Arbitration based on the completeness of the scientific research: This is where the arbitrators ensure that the scientific research or scientific work contains all the contents and elements from the first page of the scientific research or work until the end of the scientific research or work.

  1. Arbitration based on the presence of elements of scientific research or scientific work: The arbitrators here arbitrate each content of the scientific research separately and make sure that this element is sound and has been written and formulated correctly. The elements that are arbitrated of the scientific research, it is arbitrating the title of the research or Scientific work, reviewing the topic and problem of research and scientific work, reviewing the objectives and importance of scientific research, reviewing chapters of scientific research, reviewing tables and indexes of scientific work.
  2. Arbitration based on citation and documentation in scientific research: The arbitrators know the percentage of citations that have occurred in scientific research and determine whether it is appropriate or not. The arbitrators arbitrate the method of documentation used in the scientific work and whether the documentation was done in the proper manner or otherwise.
  3. Arbitration based on coordination and organization of scientific research: The arbitrator makes sure that the scientific research follows the system of sequence and gradation in the data, and the arbitrator arbitrates the arrangement of the elements of scientific research as they exist in the basics of scientific research.
  4. Arbitration based on the soundness of writing controls: The arbitrator considers this basis very necessary because it detracts from the value of scientific research or scientific work if there are linguistic and spelling errors in it. The researcher must double-check the language and grammar to ensure the soundness of the language of scientific research.
  5. Arbitration based on the ethics of scientific research: The arbitrator makes sure that the researcher follows the ethics that he is supposed to adhere to, i.e. not. This point is important for the arbitrator to discover scientific plagiarism, if any, and the arbitrator determines whether the researcher has committed to scientific honesty or not, and the arbitrator’s arbitration is due to the integrity of the research or scientific work. With objectivity, logic, honesty, consistency, and other qualities that must be present in scientific research.

​ 6.4 Philosophical and theoretical criteria for activity:

– The researcher differentiates between theoretical standards and applied indicators.

– Identifying the general direction of writing research and studies through the standard compass.

– Intellectual and philosophical depth in the activity that leads to the possibility of creativity and innovation for the researcher.

– Training on building indicators that lead to achieving the standard in a scientifically controlled manner.

– Intellectual learning about how to link a set of indicators to achieve a standard or set of standards.

– The advanced researcher must advance his thinking and be able to explain the steps logically based on the philosophy of the method followed in each step. (Al-Bayati, 2018)

To reach a model intellectual agreement in criticism and analysis, we must ask: Is it necessary to attribute applied indicators to their theories?

I see that a philosophical topic like this requires careful attention from us and a firm scientific foundation in waging the debate because it raises for the specialist several questions and attempts that may be tinged with ambiguity or weak ability to express. We can build this intervention through questions that can form the axes of these ideas, which are: Is there a necessity for Study theories to study the philosophy of scientific research? Is obtaining an advanced degree of education in the field of scientific research related to philosophy? Is there a connection to improving application indicators when they are linked to their causes and roots through theories? And any in-depth reading and understanding of those theories? To be fair and logical, we must examine the reality of educational studies in scientific research curricula and the reality of the outcomes of scientific research at its highest levels, Arab and foreign, and we scan studies published in Arab and foreign scientific journals with their preconditions for publication, as well as scientific conferences so that we have an important database on the clarity of this philosophy. Through its outputs.

Practically, as an initial reading through the references of many of these research joints, we see that it is clear that we dispense with the philosophical aspects, focusing on the practical aspects of the research, as they are defined by specific words and writing style as required by the conditions of the scientific journal in which you wish to publish or the universities that are the primary incubator of scientific research. Even the theoretical treatments were not based on a state of philosophical hypotheses in the research, especially since reading in philosophy and the extent of its usefulness for graduate students is something that has greatly weakened during the twentieth century and the decades of the twenty-first century and is now a matter of controversy even in Western studies, even though Most of them agree on their importance to the researcher.

6.5 Reasons for linking applied material to philosophical theories:

My scientific vision I decided to engage in the experiment by studying the applied subject from a theoretical and philosophical source for two reasons:

The first reason is a careful reading of the history of scientific research and the realization that most researchers were familiar with philosophy and translated and explained it from different cultures, as there is a difference between specialized scholars in the past centuries of history and our contemporary scholars in that they previously possessed sufficient knowledge in philosophy and the various sciences. Regardless of delving deeply into the meaning behind these philosophies, what appears is the weak balance in philosophy’s lack of what the scientific researcher needs when he engages in his research experience in a limited manner.

The second reason is represented by experience in scientific research. Opportunities for deliberations with a large number of researchers or through correspondence with them have made it possible to notice the weakness of reflections or self-observations stemming from philosophical hypotheses in research as a response to reflections on problems and focus on directly applied aspects without their thoughts passing through (thinking). In the way of thinking), until I became certain that it had weakened and changed with time, which I call metaphorically time (after the scholarship), and was no longer as it was before (before the scholarship), as the more we progressed in time, the more time would eliminate a percentage of these trends so that I discovered While reading what is written in these studies, the researchers’ way of thinking, or what I might call their philosophical theories, has almost disappeared. Perhaps it was a latent reason for the lack of search for specialists to address this problem before it disappears completely and the researcher ends scientific research as part of understanding the problems of apprehension according to the theory. Knowledge that requires multiple interpretations of a single variable within the limits of personal or cultural experiences is added to the elements of the philosophy of scientific research. Fersht,2009)

6.6 Philosophy in educational scientific research:

It seems that the focus on studies and research in education does not require researchers in the field of education to conduct studies to develop theoretical goals and build models, and they are expected to adopt views away from the philosophy that often conflicts with their outlook. Therefore, it was necessary to recognize the role of theory in education research, and how an individual’s philosophical position affects the type of research he conducts. What should the research objectives be? How does he pay special attention to the importance of having a conceptual framework to guide research on the value of recognizing his philosophical position?

Discussion and debate of research should be about research methods that call attention to the controversy surrounding calls to make research in various science education more “scientific,” especially if we get to know the state of education research in any Arab country in particular. It cannot be in its most accurate form except for A somewhat modest situation, which resulted in studies talking about the negative result of this and its causes, despite the increase or decrease in allocations and budgets for scientific research, which is not the scope of this topic.

The vital questions in research go without a direct answer, while the role of means, standard deviations, and tests is highlighted, which remain without solutions expressing the philosophy of the problem, and all data is limited to the result of statistical analyses, the greatest of which is (Test & Anova) waiting for the relationship and cause through other analyzes without the slightest expression of The roots of this condition or the reasons that lead to these reasons! It is pertinent to ask why we have had such difficulty in making improvements in education. Then we know that the education research community needs to abandon its reliance on quantitative studies alone, especially for research that falls within a more interpretive perspective and in which social, cultural, and humanitarian conditions require research that adopts in-depth perspectives and employs methods completely different from those used in fields such as medicine. Engineering and physics.

We emphasize here that researchers in the field of education must have their qualitative philosophy to find themselves in a better position to conclude that the basic characteristics of educational research are largely controlled clinical experiments, and not research that relies solely on data collection and analysis. This is confirmed by the current cases, whose argument has weakened and clashed. Using traditional methods on organizational complexity has failed to provide useful and valid knowledge.

To be more specific, the role of theory and the nature of philosophical foundations in the presentations of the chapters of the book The Seventh Method were almost absent. This is important because researchers in the social sciences and humanities disciplines often proceed in their research investigations based on developing understanding by constructing or testing theories and models, and often They design their research programs around frameworks of specific skills. This weakens interest in the philosophical assumptions on which their work should be based. In contrast, there are successful studies, that are less fortunate, in which researchers leave conducting studies to develop theoretical goals build the model, and adopt philosophical viewpoints even if they conflict with their vision. (Dimitrov, 2010)

Some specialists claim that the data speaks for itself, and once they obtained the data in more accurate and reliable ways, the results of their research were accurate and expressed solutions to the research problem. Here I see this claim as acceptable to some extent, but I believe that there is no data without a philosophical framework to manage it. Note that these data do not express themselves, but rather express the result of a situation that may have preceded it in the roots of the causes. Therefore, they are blind data that give us evidence of something through specific assumptions and contexts, but they do not take us to the philosophy and roots of things, how they occur, and the reasons that led to the existence of causes. The problem is that data was unable to reach something tangible and intangible, and it may not appear calculated and there are no statistical calculation methods for it. Building theory is the main focus for stimulating practical progress and is the foundation of scientific research. At the same time, theories that have addressed daily problems are sufficient to be within the focus of experimental approaches, and the deep understanding that comes from an interest in building theory is often essential for dealing with important problems. I find that persistence Rooting research in theory alone does not lead contemporary scientific research to its goals, and the theoretical framework is not the only or even the best option to teach us the method of investigation from previous experiments by researchers.

Building a research program around a very important philosophical structure, even if it is conceptual and carefully written, is essential to clarifying the paths to a deep understanding. Therefore, we must have researchers who deeply understand the phenomena they are studying, even if the questions are simplistic, for example: (What is the role of the mother in the family?) The researcher does not simply go to find solutions to immediate and ready-made problems and dilemmas. Rather, he goes within the framework of research to develop a deep understanding by providing a structure for designing research studies, interpreting the data resulting from those studies, and drawing conclusions. The more the researcher assumes that these are a solution, the more he finds that there is a flaw in them. He is dangerous and this only comes from considering the roots of theory in his research and thinking about a specific qualitative theory from the general framework of the study, and directs his theoretical framework for research activities through its reliance on a theory that was developed using a consistent and coherent interpretation of certain types of phenomena and relationships such as theories of intellectual development and social constructivism. Historical through our previous example (Enserink, 2009).

Curriculum and social and organizational studies cannot be separated from the philosophical and ideological trends that control them, and even influence the process of scientific and methodological theorizing. As a result, types of sciences have emerged that attempt to know the philosophy of each science, and it is called epistemology, which is the science that specializes in studying how concepts are formed. And its transformation, how it is exchanged between science and science, and how to form a scientific field and study the provisions and rules according to which the concepts of science are reorganized.

Every branch of education and humanity belongs to a science that has cognitive foundations and a convincing curriculum and tools In arriving at the facts that concern it, for example, positive philosophy depends on numbers because numbers do not lie In their view, interpretive philosophy depends on explanation, and realistic philosophy falls between positivist and interpretive philosophy (Badi, 2007).

The philosophy of science deals with the topics of the theoretical foundations of each science, the general principles of each science, the conditions for the crystallization and development of each science, and the methods of each science. Here, it is necessary to search for the path that leads to revealing the truth in the sciences through a set of general rules that dominate the course of the mind and determine its operations until it reaches a known result. The continuous search for information and the pursuit of knowledge by following codified scientific methods in scientific research.

So, if we want to determine the tasks that appear in the linguistic and idiomatic definitions, this requires skills

Subjective, in addition to the existence of rules, regulations, and standards to be able to practice scientific criticism in a controlled and studied manner

The strengths and weaknesses of studies subject to criticism without bias or preference and placing them in a scientific balance precise.

As for the tasks of the scientific critic, which were built through the nature of the criticism process, whether in the applied sciences or the humanities, he must have full knowledge and awareness of all the standards and concepts related to the specialization and its implications, in addition to his enjoyment of the moral values that will be mentioned. We are not exaggerating if we ask the critic to understand, assimilate, and realize these. Standards and their implications, at least in the field and subject of study.

I believe that it is difficult to assign a university professor specialized in a specific science to provide criticism of scientific dissertations, even if they are ultimately an intellectual and scientific product unless he is qualified to apply the standards of scientific research methodology in addition to his specialization. Therefore, it would be useful for the peer-reviewed criticism committees to diversify in their specializations to include: Covering the study subject to criticism for distributing tasks among them. The idea of scientific criticism using solid scientific foundations that are approved and established by the scientific community or agreed upon is carried out only by the most prominent and accurate professors of the various specializations, and in any scientific specialization, scientific criticism must meet the agreed upon conditions, otherwise, the matter will turn into controversy and empty spaces. Criticism is influenced by relationships, ambitions, and influence, a departure from the values and ethics of criticism, which is characterized by a logic commensurate with the honor of criticism and the prestige of science.

​6.7 Values and standards in scientific criticism:

Moral values:

It is a set of principles and foundations upon which customs, regulations, and laws are built to control human behavior by determining actions, actions, and positions. Moral values are derived from three sources:

  1. The values of religion are related to the highest and most sublime way a person must be before he can be a professional.
  2. Society’s values include traditions, customs, and general culture that are prevalent and agreed upon as correct.
  3. Professional values and norms followed in business, which are often issued by the rules governing behavior.

We have presented several values ​​on scientific standards because we consider that the availability of scientific standards with a gap in ethical values will not express the quality and purity of the criticized results. After all, ethical values ​​have an important role in maintaining scientific honesty, which can be considered the main focus of the criticism process, which necessitates adherence to the ethics of the criticism profession. Without favoritism, favoritism, concealment of information, misleading, exaggeration, minimization, or belittling, and all that has applications to professional ethics, both its critical aspects, and commitment, including the values and ethics of scientific research, such as scientific honesty, neutrality, and confidentiality in collecting information, and taking prior approval and permission to conduct research from the entities on which it is conducted. Research, whether individuals or institutions, the accuracy of the research results, and the researcher’s responsibility for honesty and objectivity in the stages of constructing the research.

  1. Scientific standards: With the development of science and the expansion in presenting studies and theories, we believe that it is not sufficient for the critic to monitor the applications of scientific research standards alone, but other standards must be examined for research subject to criticism, which are:
  2. Standard scientific research standards
  3. Quality standards in scientific research
  4. Criticism and evaluation standards

Each of the standards is followed by indicators indicating applications that are tightly linked to its standards. The distribution of these standards as mentioned is not an increase in the weight of the steps for scientific research, but rather they are stages that guarantee the accuracy and control of the proper conduct of research writing by the international standards followed or agreed upon or the standards that the academic institution deems appropriate. Research with its formal aspects, citation, and documentation. There may be differences in the standards adopted, but this does not constitute a deficiency. Rather, what is important is that the researcher has followed a specific and prescribed scientific method.

As for the quality standards in scientific research, they do not differ or intersect in the systematic examination of the applications of everything that would raise the quality of the research, starting from the title of the research, passing through the details specified in the research, including the general framework, theoretical chapters, procedures, and analyses, arriving at the results, recommendations, and proposals, with a precise standard application for each paragraph of Paragraphs of scientific activity that make up the final research.

Then come the scientific standards of criticism and evaluation that are the subject of this paper’s research, which the critic adheres to in conjunction with the ethical standards to a high degree of precision, out of his feeling that scientific research is in complete need of his criticism to evaluate it. Thus, he provides great services and works that help researchers in graduate studies carry out their duties toward the subject of the study. This is through scientific criticism of scientific research, which is followed by the task of following up on the implementation of the applications of amendments to the criticism received through the observations and clarifications provided by the critic. Therefore, it was necessary to build criteria for criticism and evaluation to be clear to the critic before he chooses this task, which is characterized by difficulty. And complexity. (Al-Bayati, 2022)

6.8 Criteria for criticism and scientific evaluation:

  1. Scientific: The critic must have a high level of specialized scientific knowledge, at least the subject of the criticism, and have the ability to discover weak places in scientific ideas and contexts in the method of presenting research, and be familiar with the rules and standards of scientific research in form and content, and methods of quoting and documenting with precision.
  2. Close reading: To be able to judge the critic must be a good and accurate reader of the subject of criticism so that he understands the idea and style before deciding to criticize.
  3. Specialization: The more the critic has precise specialization in the subject of criticism, the closer he is to the accuracy of the decision.

Th. Accuracy and verification: One should not rush to make critical decisions except after careful and verified procedures, which can represent the critic’s opinion with a high degree of validity, if not precise.

  1. Methods and methods: The critic should follow all possible ways and methods to collect information about what he wants to verify or what data he sees through the research subject to criticism.
  2. Criticism: The critic may give scientific opinions or ideas in his critical paper that raise scientific controversy to reach the facts. According to this criterion, he must submit to criticism and open the door to scientific debate to reach the truth.
  3. The scientific environment: The critic does not have to be for or against the subject subject to criticism and its contents, but rather in building scientific thought among researchers and with the aim that the results of criticism become a basis for scientific thought and its continuation on solid scientific foundations.

D.. Positivity: Do not ignore the positive aspects of the research subject to criticism and highlight the most important strengths while mentioning the other negative aspects and then return to remind that the presence of negative aspects does not cancel the positive effort in the research.

  1. Impartiality and neutrality: to be devoid of all personal inclinations and personal and institutional interests, so that criticism is free from all personal inclinations and in any direction.
  2. The other opinion: The critic must listen carefully to the opinion or point of view of the other party, the research editor, or whether he has clarification questions before issuing the criticism decision, and must accept to review his criticism if necessary when there are developments that require this. (Enserink,2009)

The relationship of the mechanistic and philosophical aspects of logic to scientific research

Studies have often been conducted on the science of logic and its relationship with other sciences, and the point of view of these sciences was the essence of the method for each science, including the natural and non-natural sciences and the humanities. Studies were also conducted based on our need for this science, as it was used as a means and tool for another science, and what concerns us in This paper is the relationship of logic to scientific research. We do not see that we are asking for the study of science as a specialty, but rather as a tool and aid in scientific research. This does not mean a weakness in the science of logic, but rather a strength added to its philosophy, as logic helps strengthen specialization in scientific research and may be required for its own sake in research. But it is not a specialty. Rather, it is here as an introduction to understanding another science. It is an independent science, but it is included as an auxiliary knowledge in understanding and applications of other sciences. All sciences need logic, proofs, definitions, and concepts, and all of that must be based on wisdom and verbal and philosophical logic. At the same time, other sciences are not suitable. It should be ancillary sciences, especially natural sciences. However, we see that logic cannot be dispensed with in other sciences.

To prove this, we will recognize our logical need for verbal and methodological meaning because we need it in terms, concepts, and theories in various fields of scientific research, especially when we want to stay away from keeping up because it is a methodological violation.

Here in this paper, we discuss the idea of one of the most important contemporary dialectical relationships, which is the relationship of logic to scientific research, by analyzing positions within a context that explains the aspects of the relationship, the channels of influence, and the limits and areas of influence. The discussion in this paper also starts from the procedural concept of logic as a research method and thinking mechanism in editing topics and issues, with knowledge of the impact of the philosophical side of logic on the relationship between it and scientific research, based on extrapolating the state and development of the stages affected by logic in its methodological aspect.

From this we can know that the philosophical dimension of logic has an appearance in scientific research because the verbal influence in its methodological and philosophical dimension was strongly present in reporting, weighing, and sometimes establishing several issues related to scientific research. This discussion is an attempt to direct consideration and questioning and provide a descriptive, interpretive reading that links Among a group of clues, evidence, and evidence to build a point of view that can be added and modified. (Abu Al-Majd, 2017)

Let us learn about the simplest approaches to understanding logic through what Ibn Sina (Al-Fadhli, 2015) explained the benefit required from studying and learning logic in his book (Logic of the Orientals) by saying: We want to show how we move from things that occur in our illusions and minds to other things that do not occur in our illusions. Our minds extract it from that first one, and he said in his other book (Al-Najah) under the title: (On the Benefit of Logic) Logic is the theoretical art that knows from which forms and materials the correct definition, which is called truth, is a definition, and the correct analogy, which is called truth, is proof.

The true value of scientific research’s need for the science of logic is that it provides the elements of sound thinking ability in research and criticism, evaluating opinions and ideas, and relying on evidence and evidence in various fields of human thought. This is the basic rule from which we start interpreting the “knot” linking logic and scientific research because it constitutes the axis Central to sound scientific thinking. Especially since the sciences are gathered around one axis, as they are the product of human thinking, and it is known that there is no thinking that always leads to correct and acceptable results, as it may lead to wrong and unacceptable results for various reasons, including because human thinking is subject to error and correctness, and for the thinking to be sound and be His results are correct. He now needs rules and indicators that create the right way for him to think.

This is the task of the science of logic, which is characterized by this characteristic. This science also helps us to criticize, analyze, correct, or copy theories for reasons that bear the logic of criticism and analysis. It also helps us to determine the correct and applicable scientific method for studying cases and discussing their results according to the method that does not accept errors based on the logical choice to help solve the problem. We do not disagree with the issue of using any standards that we can draw from in arriving at logical and acceptable solutions in the easiest ways and with the least effort and cost.

  1. Conclusion:

In light of this, I see that the researchers’ classification of the science of logic is that it is one of the “mechanistic sciences,” meaning that it is auxiliary and not independent when used with other sciences, and independent when it is a specialty, and that all other sciences need logic. This is certainly because each science, whether theoretical or procedural, has its concepts and terminology that need to be defined based on the science of logic, in addition to the other points that need to be proven correct or invalid. Methods of reasoning cannot be reached except through the science of logic in its mechanical and philosophical aspects.

As for the philosophical impact of the science of logic in scientific research, it is focused on the axis of philosophy and science in general. If philosophy can be called “the science of science,” then the philosophy of logic remains the self-awareness of the sciences and the source from which all sciences derive their vision of research and methodological principles.

From this, I see that philosophy and science are cooperating partners that help creative thought in its explorations to reach the truth of generalization, although philosophy does not replace or govern the specialized sciences, it helps and contributes to the principles of thinking in a way of true perception and looking at solutions to research problems logically and scientifically based on the philosophy of logic. And specialized sciences, and I confirm my vision that the science of the philosophy of logic cannot develop without the pure scientific vision, and likewise science cannot develop without the philosophy of logic. Science does not reach this level of theoretical thinking until it finds its need for philosophy. Therefore, basing scientific research on the philosophy of science. Logic is like its need, that is, the mechanism of logic with an inseparable dialectical relationship between them to achieve scientific and applied steps based on a logical mechanism and philosophy.

  1. the reviewer:

– Abu Al-Majd, Al-Arfaj, Maha Abdullah and Ahlam Muhammad. (2017). The necessary research skills for graduate students in light of the developments of the times from the point of view of experts. Journal of the Faculty of Education – Menoufia University, Issue Four – Part One.

-Al-Bayati, Fares Rashid. (2018). Al-Hawi in scientific research methods. Amman: Dar Al-Sawaqi Scientific Publishing and Distribution.

– Al-Bayati, Fares Rashid (2022). International Encyclopedia of Scientific Research_Smart Thought Publishing House – UAE.

– Al-Ayasra, Walid Rafiq. (2015). Strategies for teaching thinking and skills. Jordan: Dar Osama for Publishing and Distribution.

-Badi, Ghassan Khaled. (2007). An analysis of the content of human rights in the physical education curriculum for the first year of secondary school in France. In: Symposium on Curriculum Foundations and Starting Points, King Saud University, Riyadh

– Faraj, Tarif Shawqi Muhammad. (2009) Building a Research Mindset, 1st July Edition, Faculty of Arts – Beni Suef University, Center for the Development of Postgraduate Studies and Research, Faculty of Engineering – Cairo University.

– Fersht, A. (2009). The most influential journals are Impact Factor and Eigenfactor. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106, 6883–6884.

– Enserink, M. (2009). Scientific publishing. Are you ready to become a number? Science 323, 1662–1664.

– Dimitrov, J. D., Kaveri, S. V., and Bayry, J. (2010). Metrics: journal’s impact factor skewed by a single paper. Nature 466, 179.

5/5 - (1 صوت واحد)

المركز الديمقراطى العربى

المركز الديمقراطي العربي مؤسسة مستقلة تعمل فى اطار البحث العلمى والتحليلى فى القضايا الاستراتيجية والسياسية والاقتصادية، ويهدف بشكل اساسى الى دراسة القضايا العربية وانماط التفاعل بين الدول العربية حكومات وشعوبا ومنظمات غير حكومية.

مقالات ذات صلة

زر الذهاب إلى الأعلى