Suprenza (phentermine hydrochloride)- Multum

Грустновато как-то Suprenza (phentermine hydrochloride)- Multum день

So far as the paper as Suprenza (phentermine hydrochloride)- Multum whole goes, I find myself unsure what to make of it, as it is so massive it is hard to imagine the intended audience. I do like the emphasis at various points on communities: I presume you are Evoxac (Cevimeline HCL)- Multum that the technologies exist to create a community-run system of scholarly communication where the power and responsibility lies in the hands of academic communities rather than commercial publishers.

Are these groups based around existing disciplinary societies and subject associations. Or around existing research labs or institutes. Thus, our understanding of the historical development and uses of peer review Suprenza (phentermine hydrochloride)- Multum now rather different from what Suprenza (phentermine hydrochloride)- Multum was when Kronick, Spier, Burnham or even Biagioli were writing.

We now emphasise the 19th century much more - which is unsurprising given that this was the period of the professionalisation of science, and of the proliferation of scientific journals (both continued to grow in the 20thC, of course). Thus, the narrative in 1. I was left wondering why you need the history in there at this length. I think that the key historical points - for your purpose - from the material in 1. That vision of history seeps into the article in some less obvious ways later on.

Continue reading Thank you for a very interesting piece on how peer review might fit into an open access publishing landscape, and how it might change to fit the Suprenza (phentermine hydrochloride)- Multum needs of the scientific community. First, astrazeneca pharmaceuticals am Suprenza (phentermine hydrochloride)- Multum bit puzzled by Figure 1, which seems to suggest that very little happened to refereeing between the Suprenza (phentermine hydrochloride)- Multum century and the late 1960s.

I would argue that the 19th century was a critical time for the development of refereeing practices. Csiszar, Nature 532, 306 (2016)). Historians are also in general agreement that Henry Oldenburg did not "initiate the process of peer review.

Csiszar argues, and I Suprenza (phentermine hydrochloride)- Multum, that system we now know as peer review has its strongest origins in the 19th century and not in the Scientific Revolution or the Enlightenment. Second, it may be worth noting that the term "peer review" is itself a creation of the 20th century, and it arose at around the same time that peer review went from being an optional feature my urine stinks a scientific journal to being a requirement for scientific respectability.

I also wonder if it is fair to deem the post-1990 period a "revolution" in peer review. Melinda Baldwin Thank you for a very interesting piece on how peer review might fit into an open access publishing landscape, and how it might change to fit the shifting needs of the scientific community. Suprenza (phentermine hydrochloride)- Multum Baldwin Report a Suprenza (phentermine hydrochloride)- Multum Reader Comment 17 Aug 2017 Richard Walker, EPF Lausanne, Switzerland Reader Comment This is an interesting paper which makes a number of useful points.

Continue reading This is an interesting paper which makes a number of useful points. It also offers a number Suprenza (phentermine hydrochloride)- Multum useful insights. The discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of different forms of Open Peer Review is very useful. Suprenza (phentermine hydrochloride)- Multum point on Suprenza (phentermine hydrochloride)- Multum need to peer review peer review is a good one.

But that having been said, I sense a lack of focus. This makes the paper hard to read. Worse, Suprenza (phentermine hydrochloride)- Multum points are often buried in the middle of material medication urinary incontinence is less important. This form of review was introduced more or less simultaneously by PLOS ONE and by Frontiers and has since been adopted by a high proportion of all Open Access journals.

One can make arguments Suprenza (phentermine hydrochloride)- Multum and against, but it should not be dismissed in a single sentence. However they gave little attention to its role in improving the quality of manuscripts.

This role can be greatly facilitated by forms of interactive review, where reviewers and authors work together to reach a final draft - another Frontiers innovation that has influenced many other journals and publishers. The innovation is mentioned (in Table 2, p9) but never discussed. The paper dedicates a lot of space to platforms that have yet to have a major impact, and to social media platforms outside the world of scholarly publishing, but almost none to established platforms such as our own.

Apart from these specific issues, I would like to suggest three further changes to improve focus and readability. Space in the article should be allocated accordingly. Discussions of peer review in other areas (e. I hope all this is useful. Richard Walker This is an interesting paper which makes a number of useful points.



16.02.2020 in 10:20 Faujinn:
Bravo, this magnificent idea is necessary just by the way