Statistical training and Consultation

Before a publisher like Springer Nature can invite you as a reviewer to review a manuscript for them, you must have published in Q1/Q2 Scopus-indexed journals, especially for a journal like "Scientific Reports" with a strong Q1 and High Impact factor. I am beginning to see the green light gradually. Consistency brought me to this level. To God be the glory.

There is no perfect writer in scientific research, and that is why there are gaps that create avenues for future research. However, some of the major scientific flaws that will trigger automatic rejection of research papers in Scopus-indexed journals include wrong variable measurements, ghost references, data integrity, wrong theoretical choices, wrong model specifications and too many inconsistencies in results, among others. For a systematic and scoping review is another ball game, and I can't release the information here. Scientific writing is not child's play, but unfortunately, so many universities don't incorporate it as an academic course. Well, let me stop here.

Although Scoping and Systematic Review are related because they both conduct Search, use PRISMA, review qualitative, quantitative and mixed studies. But while Scoping Review do not typically assess the methodological quality or risk of bias of the included studies, Systematic Review requires a mandatory, formal assessment of the methodological quality and risk of bias of the included studies. Above all, a Systematic Review conducts meta-analysis while a scoping review does not. I can speak confidently on both because I have published on both at the highest level. My versatility is not common. It is not a child's play to get here. To God be the glory.