Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Campanario and Acedo identify strategies used by researchers to overcome initial resistance and lack of recognition from the rest of the academic community. Neff and Olden use a Bayesian approach and citation data from biological journals to show that top journals successfully publish suitable papers by using a prescreening process that involves an editorial board and three referees. Wilson writes that it is desirable to guard against the tendency for reviewers to provide much more detailed comments on the negative aspects of a proposal than on the positive aspects. Banks states that publishing a peer reviewed article in a prestigious journal remains the highest validation for a work of scholarship and that peer review has enhanced the rigor and relevance of many scientific breakthroughs. Kassirer and Campion make a distinction between the overall process by which editors manage manuscripts (manuscript management) and the cognitive part of this process (manuscript assessment). Opthof et al. observe that reviewers set markedly different standards in their appreciation of manuscripts.
Review of Contemporary Philosophy – Addleton Academic Publishers
Published: Jan 1, 2009
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.