In the new research, the Indiana researchers viewed more than 4,400 Americans who were scheduled to endure their 1st screening colonoscopy. They calculated a clinical ‘score’ for every of these patients, predicated on their health information, and the five most common risk factors for cancer of the colon: age, sex, waistline size, family and smoking history. Then they viewed the results of every patient’s colonoscopy. The scholarly study discovered that patients classified under the scoring program as low-risk did, in fact, have significantly fewer advanced unusual growths that may develop into cancer, compared to patients classified as high-risk.The peer-review procedure found in Hindawi’s journals depends generally on the expertise of its editorial board members and the guest editors of special issues, who are responsible for supervising the overview of submitted manuscripts.5 Since the peer reviewers selected by the guest editors weren’t subject to any sort of independent verification, editors themselves could undermine the procedure in quite similar way that authors or third-party agencies did somewhere else: by creating fake reviewer identities and addresses from which they submitted positive reviews endorsing publication. When all manuscripts taken care of by these editors had been examined, a complete of 32 articles were identified that had been accepted because of the comments of artificial reviewers.