bad paper

(redirected from bad papers)

bad paper

A bounced check (one that cannot yield money because it is drawing from an account with insufficient funds). This better not be bad paper—I really need the money.
See also: bad, paper

bad paper

n. bad checks; a bad check. She got six months for passing bad paper.
See also: bad, paper
References in classic literature ?
He had already quite a collection of prizes, worthless books on bad paper, but in gorgeous bindings decorated with the arms of the school: his position had freed him from bullying, and he was not unhappy.
As if the role of a domestic helper with bad papers is not bad enough, she is also supplied with characters of such extreme handicaps.
Representative Beto ORouke (D-Texas) requires the VA, for the first time, to provide mental and behavioral health care to hundreds of thousands of at-risk combat veterans and sexual assault victims who received OTH discharges, also sometimes referred to as Bad Papers discharges.
This was not some naive, inexperienced manager being goaded into speaking out of turn by the big bad papers.
Good relationships may cure bad papers, but good papers will not often fix bad relationships.
Clearly there are bad papers written in highly scoring journals, and there are major breakthroughs which might appear in mid-tier scoring journals or more niche publications," he says.
There is a fundamental lack of accountability on the part of inspectors writing bad papers that is not being addressed.
The lesson from the school of unintended consequences was that a bigger submission pool also means more problems with bad papers. To my surprise, too many aspiring authors never read the journals before submitting a paper (Rotfeld 2005), though I knew before that many authors did not read the articles they cite.
This is not to say these are bad papers, but many of them appear to be the beginning of what could be very good arguments and analysis in bioethics, but because of the constraints on length, often one is left feeling the best part of the paper's discussion happened in the room in which it was first presented.
I also want to make clear that I'm not talking about some of the other categories of bad papers, such as the things are are probably true, but of little interest to anyone.
They can publish bad papers because there are journals with mediocre review processes.
It is true that the writers of reviews have to describe the literature as it exists, but in doing so it is appropriate to make judgements between good papers and bad papers, between core observations and those that are more likely to be epiphenomena, or worse still, the results of poor science.
While the importance of correcting medical literature after fraudulent publication has been addressed, surprisingly little attention has been paid to the important issue of correcting the medical literature after publication of bad papers. As noted in a previous editorial, (4) the peer-review process is intended to detect poorly designed or misleading articles before they are published.
In general, there were, if not more bad papers, certainly fewer good papers than in previous volumes.
Unusually for such a volume, there are no bad papers, and several good ones; the future of Aegean prehistory is in safe hands.