Sentences with phrase «e.g. having your work published»

For example, candidates who have a blog dedicated to their field of expertise should draw attention to their commercial awareness and extensive knowledge on their subject area — alongside any other impressive achievements (e.g. having your work published and displayed at an event).

Not exact matches

I have retraced and reviewed these conversations, and attempted to assess their contribution to our contemporary understanding of process metaphysics, in a number of other works (e.g., The Rehabilitation of Whitehead, «The Compositional History of Whitehead's Writings,» «Outside the Camp: Recent Work in Whitehead's Philosophy»), which help contextualize historically the many contributions Ford has made in over 100 scholarly articles published during the past three decades.

If anyone is interested there is a consortium of scientists working on the Human Microbiome http://commonfund.nih.gov/Hmp/ which is looking to compare the bacterial populations on humans in different states (e.g. healthy, unhealthy) and have published a paper http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7402/full/nature11234.html

Published work does not enter into public domain until 70 years AFTER the author's death, unless you have licensed it under another framework, e.g., Creative Commons (see below).

This takes into account the last numbers of ISBNs we have issued (mostly to organizations that work with self - publishers, e.g. SmashWords), and the fact that while we don't capture every title, for obvious reasons, there are also self - published titles that have more than one ISBN due to multiple formats.

However, it is not foolproof — a deeply flawed paper can end up being published under a number of different potential circumstances: (i) the work is submitted to a journal outside the relevant field (e.g. a paper on paleoclimate submitted to a social science journal) where the reviewers are likely to be chosen from a pool of individuals lacking the expertise to properly review the paper, (ii) too few or too unqualified a set of reviewers are chosen by the editor, (iii) the reviewers or editor (or both) have agendas, and overlook flaws that invalidate the paper's conclusions, and (iv) the journal may process and publish so many papers that individual manuscripts occasionally do not get the editorial attention they deserve.

Because it is increasingly apparent that materials relevant to IPCC Reports, in particular, information about the experience and practice of the private sector in mitigation and adaptation activities, are found in sources that have not been published or peer - reviewed (e.g., industry journals, internal organisational publications, non-peer reviewed reports or working papers of research institutions, proceedings of workshops etc) the following additional procedures are provided.

You make unjustified and untrue ad homimem attacks on excellent scientists whose work provides doubt to AGW although their work has often been challenged but never faulted: e.g. you say «I have never argued against people like Lindzen and Christy and Spencer continuing to do their work and attempting to get it published in reputable peer - reviewed journals, even if their work does seem to become increasingly sloppy and desperate.»

A likely source of truly illegal copying would be re-publishing previously published works, e.g. Smith licenses the right to re-print a work from original publisher Jones.