Sentences with phrase «accept papers about»

Lederman does not want to create The Journal of Last Resort, and vows to only accept papers about interesting immunology and infectious diseases — his original title for the online, open - access publication.

Not exact matches

Many of our clients have told us they accepted a candidate who looked good on paper, but who they «had a bad feeling about» — and they lived to regret it.

Of course a future researcher might find in the papers of some friend of Whitehead's a reference to what he thought about the doctrine of papal infallibility, which Newman was reluctant to accept, and which Mrs. Whitehead later said was the great obstacle.

The difference between the way I see the Daily Express and Daily Mail, and the way people who don't like Untold see Untold, is that I just accept that the Express and Mail, fanatical right wing papers that they are, are not going to be changed by me moaning about them.

In fact, according to a paper Palmquist authored about online milk - sharing, 96 % of recipients met their donors face - to - face before accepting donated milk.

In court papers, the government said Stevenson accepted about $ 20,000 in bribes in exchange for drafting, proposing and agreeing to enact legislation to aid his co-defendants» businesses, including an adult day care center in the Bronx, the «Westchester Avenue Center,» which opened a month ago.

Not much to say about it, but remember to keep tweeting good stuff and not only «another paper accepted in Nature».

The decision about whether or not to accept the paper is made by one of the editors and I let the authors know if their paper will appear in our journal.

«What this paper can help us do is accept that this is a problem so we can go about finding ways to fix it,» says Dorothy Bishop, a psychologist at the University of Oxford and a leading voice on psychology's reproducibility issues.

By early summer 2011, Silverman was ready to accept Coffin's analysis and had become increasingly uneasy about his contributions to the 2009 data in the Science paper about CFS.

But the most likely reason, researchers report in a paper accepted for publication in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, is that these extrasolar planets would simply be ejected by the gravitational forces that result when their parent stars get jostled about inside tightly - packed star clusters — the same clusters in which most stars are thought to be formed.

A new paper, accepted for publication Feb. 24, 2015 in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, puts the number at about 22,000 tons per year, which roughly matches the amount that the Amazon loses from rain and flooding.

Pathogens & Immunity, which has just started to accept submissions, has «reasonable flexibility» about the length of the papers, he adds.

Kawaoka also discusses his thoughts about the recommendation from the U.S. government's National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) that Nature and Science, which has accepted but not published a paper by the second lab that did these studies, redact key portions of the experiments to prevent the widespread dissemination of the recipe for a potential bioweapon.

About 75 % of published papers were accepted by the first journal to which they were submitted.

A paper about the discoveries has also been accepted to The Astronomical Journal.

As for peer review, it means only that reasonably qualified scientists examined the manuscript and recommended changes to improve the paper, or recommended that the paper be rejected; the journal editor has to make a determination about the merits of the paper based largely, but not entirely on the reviewers» comments (the editor has some discretion in deciding to accept or reject — his / her reputation as an editor, and the reputation of the journal, depend on sound editorial judgments).

Characterized by instability and lack of accountability, Milwaukee's voucher program has resulted in numerous stories like one last year in a local paper about a minister and his wife who accepted $ 2.3 million in taxpayer funding only to close their Lifeskills Academy abruptly during the school year.

So, when accepting orders, we positively encourage our customers to go into as much detail as necessary about their topic, academic level and sources that they require to incorporate into their term paper.

For example, Harvard accepted only 7 % of the more than 27,000 applicants (about 2,000 students), in the process rejecting many of the 3,300 applicants who ranked first in their high school class and many with perfect scores on one or more SAT papers (2,500 scored a perfect 800 in the SAT critical reading test and 3,300 had a perfect score in the SAT math exam).

You can actually do a lot without paper checks nowadays (I only use one per year for car taxes, as they do not accept anything else), but many people shake their heads about even online banking and would never trust it.

Jim Hansen discusses the latest science in April 2012 This is about a month after his latest paper was accepted by PNAS.

If we accept the recent Lead and Rind paper that determines (via linear regression) a solar influence on global temps, over an 11 yr cycle to be about 0.1 °C, then there may be an indirect solar forcing about equal to that from TSI.

That point was reinforced in a comment sent Friday by Bárbara Ferreira, communications manager for the European Geosciences Union, endorsing what others have said about the dangers of publicizing research before it has been peer reviewed: «Our policy at the European Geosciences Union is to not advertise research submitted to our journals before the paper has been accepted and published in its final, peer - reviewed form — which, in this case, wouldn't be for at least another three months, possibly more.»

Editors make decisions about who reviews what paper — not authors, and they make the decisions about what gets accepted or not, not reviewers.

A valuable short paper that has been accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters (subscription required) makes a strong case against presenting any argument about human - driven global warming that's based on short - term trends (a decade or so).

James Kanter and I have a story in today's paper about a new tack by the Bush administration aimed at clarifying, for Europe particularly, that the United States is not opposed to any new climate treaty — just all of the formulations that have bubbled up since 1992, when the first global pact was accepted by nearly all countries (it was signed by the first President Bush).

We can't talk about the shame of the effects of logging without accepting that those effects in turn come from, for example, our frequently unnecessary use of paper cups and other throwaway paper products.

I haven't had a chance to read the paper and accept the point about endorsement of the IPCC position

Whatever the merits of the papers at issue (and even some climate skeptics were unimpressed), it appears that PRP did violate accepted peer review norms in producing the special issue — as Anthony Watts details here — and concerns were raised about the journal last year.

If McIntyre had any suspicions about the implications of Famiglietti's malfeasance, he must have been quite certain when, shortly afterwards, hockey stick author Michael Mann commented on his RealClimate blog that both the CC and the GRL papers were going to be accepted shortly.

What I find most surprising about the paper on my re-read and those who seem to have little problem accepting or at least finding no weaknesses of the indirect methodology used to make some rather far reaching conclusions is not that papers such as this one can get published, but the authoritative nature these articles seem to take on and particularly so when they are referenced in the IPCC reports.

How one can read even that short abstract and miss that this paper accepts the existence of UHI, and that it is about the impact of UHI on the magnitude of temperature TRENDS over time, is utterly beyond me.

In response, Johnson said the company «remains committed» to the goal and repeated Starbucks» claim that the cup is recyclable, despite paper cups only being accepted for recycling in four major cities in the U.S., with no public information about how many cups actually make it through the recycling process and are repurposed.

Nature and Science (although Nature now has about a dozen children) can't accept every paper and look for novel ones.

You have suggested desirable targets near 300ppm, and I have reluctantly accepted Hansen's target of ~ 1 C, which correlates with about 350ppm (the target by 2100 given in his paper).

IIRC it took Steig et al about as long to get their paper accepted.

And the handful who are tend to have a slim track record, with about half as many papers published as the scientists who accept the mainstream view.

My view of the Cook et al. paper is that it is simply illustrating that there is agreement within the literature and hence we should at least accept this basic result even if we disagree about whether or not the current agreement reflects anything about whether or not the science is robust.

So anyone nervous about any e-document or about any particular e-document can refuse to accept it and can insist on paper or insist on a particular degree of electronic security.

Just about everyone in the world can understand and make an inquiry of an electronic register, and an e-register can accept inquiries on paper too.