Sentences with phrase «authored this paper reject»

Not exact matches

Peer reviewers can not disproportionately reject journal papers from women and ethnic minorities if author identities are hidden.

(Nature's editors decide whether to send a paper for review or simply reject it, and the editors know the identity of the authors.)

But, one reviewer for Ecological Entomology (which rejected the paper) didn't agree: I felt a bit cheated here... It was almost as if the authors were trying to sneak this study in to readers expecting something else!

All in all, the decision - making process can take from several months to a year, and if the paper is ultimately rejected, the authors have to submit it afresh to another journal.

Are you seriously suggesting that the Douglass et al paper should have been rejected on the basis of the authors?

He examined 24,210 papers co-authored by 69,406 scientists and found only five papers written by four authors that explicitly reject AGW.

That makes both of them authors of the less than 3 % of peer - reviewed climate science papers rejecting the consensus on human - caused global warming.

Of the 1189 authors who responded, 28 (2.4 %) wrote papers that rejected AGW to some degree or other.

That means critics are rejecting a consistent understanding of the paper, which was held by the authors and raters, in order that a criticism they have should be valid.

As for the topic on hand (from the view of a chemist) when results can not be re-created via the author's instructions from the «Methods and Materials» section of a submitted paper, then the reviewers of that paper will reject it as fast as the NHC will name a swirl in the Atlantic basin.

However, the primary anonymity considerations are so that the referees can be frank about shortcomings when rejecting a paper, and so that the author will not feel obliged to reciprocate an acceptance when reviewing future submissions by the referee (s).

It appears to reflect an Editor with a strongly negative review in hand, and who presumably had read the paper, asking for confirmation that the paper should be rejected, possibly to reduce one of the many complications that assail an editor; and in view of the delay in communicating to authors, hoping for a strong decision from the referee.

And if they hadn't so decided, despite hand - wringing and claims or inferences of victimization, the authors would have survived, and been free to do what so many authors of papers do when their studies are rejected for publication: look to publish in another journal — perhaps one with a lower impact factor — or make substantial revisions and try to publish elsewhere, or move on to something else.

If the authors had not removed it would you have rejected the paper?

[Update July 30: JGR told me «This paper was rejected and the editor recommended that the author resubmit it as a new paper.»]

From the methodology, the instructions to the authors for self - ratings: «Note: we are not asking about your personal opinion but whether each specific paper endorses or rejects (whether explicitly or implicitly) that humans cause global warming»:

The reviewer might as well have said «I don't like this author's hair style so we should reject his paper.»

Author: I can't believe you rejected my paper.

Some authors were spot on with all their citations, but I recall one who got 12 out of 13 references wrong (I rejected the paper — who knows how many errors were made in collecting and collating the data).

OF course, the authors (at least some of them) have rejected the Bayesian approach in previous papers, but that rather leaves the question of what 66 % actually does mean to them.