ScienceGuardians hosts academic institutions too
Secure Environment: Verified contributors only, ensuring meaningful and responsible discussions. Members can stay anonymous while verified, ensuring legitimacy and accountability.
Combatting Misconduct: A fortress against anonymous intimidation and coordinated campaigns, fostering evidence-based dialogue and protecting the academic community.
Resources and Training: Access classified content, participate in enlightening debates, and stay at the forefront of ethical practices.
Hack-Proof Platform: Your privacy is paramount. The identity information of users choosing to remain anonymous is securely stored offline.
Our Commitment:
Integrity and Accountability: Every account verified for credible and responsible engagement.
Inclusivity and Fairness: A platform where all voices in the scientific community are respected.
Support and Collaboration: Helping resolve issues delicately and constructively.
Participant
Section “CSR disclosure quality” claims “only two studies conducted in Mauritius and Poland” examine this topic, yet earlier sections cite multiple papers on CSR disclosure quality determinants (e.g., Garcia-Sanchez et al. 2016; Cuadrado-Ballesteros et al. 2016). How do you reconcile this apparent oversight in categorizing the literature?