Sentences with phrase «paper presents a review»

This paper presents a review of the literature pertaining to the teacher actions that influence Aboriginal and / or Torres Strait Islander student learning outcomes.

This paper presents a review of existing literature on emission factors, emission data collection techniques, and analytic approaches; presents the results of SAIC's analysis of available CO2 and CH4 GHG emission data from chassis dynamometer tests of heavy - duty vehicle exhaust; and provides suggestions for further reducing this uncertainty.

Not exact matches

Please present scientific evidence (papers published in peer review journals) that show that dononr or home made formula are healthier for term infants than commercially made formula.

* Dr. Gettler and myself have a recent paper reviewing the whole concept of «cosleeping» from a biological and present, cultural, perspective.

Angela Eagle, Chair of the National Policy Forum, presented a paper covering the proposed review of national policy - making.

In the latter case, because important work needs to be validated and researchers get scooped all the time, the reviewer needs to consider two things in making a decision: 1) how much time has passed since that other paper presenting (some of) the same results; and 2) how much new information is added in the «we - did - it - too» manuscript you are reviewing.

While this could be done using published papers, it is probably more insightful initially to have access to papers under review, where flaws may still be present.

They've presented their results at invited talks, most recently the 2016 Gordon Research Conference on Tribology, and in peer - reviewed papers, including a recent Journal of Materials Science article.

The paper presents «an interesting historical review of the issue of aerosols in the air and snow and in Arctic haze,» says snow hydrologist Joseph McConnell of the Desert Research Institute in Reno, Nevada.

The findings were presented in two papers published in Physical Review Letters.

The study, presented last week at the eighth International Congress on Peer Review in Chicago, Illinois, also found that papers submitted for double - blind review are far less likely to be accReview in Chicago, Illinois, also found that papers submitted for double - blind review are far less likely to be accreview are far less likely to be accepted.

The study, presented here at the Eighth International Congress on Peer Review, also found that papers submitted for double - blind review are far less likely to be accReview, also found that papers submitted for double - blind review are far less likely to be accreview are far less likely to be accepted.

In January 2014, they published a paper in Physical Review Letters (PRL) presenting new ideas about how to induce a strange but interesting state in graphene — one where it appears as if particles inside it have a fraction of an electron's charge.

Lloyd and his colleagues detailed a proposal for practical implementation of quantum illumination in a paper submitted in 2008 to Physical Review Letters building off theoretical work presented in the September 12 Science.

They presented their results yesterday at a conference of the Canadian Association of Physicists and in a paper submitted to Physical Review Letters.

students completing their research projects in our lab; my Ph.D. student passing his first - year review; my first last - author papers getting published; my lab members presenting their work at international conferences; and winning intramural funding for my research.

The findings were presented in a recent paper in Geophysical Review Letters.

This result was recently presented in a paper published in Physical Review D.

He published over 200 papers in top journals, over 40 review articles and book chapters and was presented with numerous awards, including National Institutes of Health graduate and postdoctoral fellowships, the Young Investigator Award from the Society for Leukocyte Biology, the Established Investigator Award from the American Heart Association, and a Visiting Scientist Fellowship from the Swedish National Research Council.

Editor - in - Chief Jeff Williamson presented a talk on Vision for the Journal Medical Physics and Status of Current Initiatives, Therapy Physics Editor Shiva Das presented a talk on Improving Manuscript Quality via Structured Reviews, Enhanced Scientific Category Taxonomy, and Outreach, and Imaging Physics Editor Mitch Goodsitt presented a talk on Writing Good Scientific papers and Responding to Critiques.

A scientific paper with these finding was presented at the same time, also with much ado, although it hadn't undergone the scrutiny of a peer review process yet; this was done in the months after the March presentation.

Before presenting some final thoughts about this paper and the series in general, I wanted to review still another section of the Mravec et al (3) paper that I feel is both so important and so under - appreciated that it will form the basis of my next Moss Nutrition Report series - the gut - brain connection.

At the conference I saw Dartmouth economic historian, William Fischel, present a paper on Amish education, extending the work from his great book, Making the Grade, which I have reviewed in Education Next.

Over his career, Dr. Olsen has been awarded six U.S. and international patents, has served as the principal investigator for ten research projects, has published over seventeen peer reviewed papers, has been a reviewer for Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) grant proposals, and has presented numerous papers at statistical, polygraph, and training conferences.

According to Joe Costello, Minister for Trade and Development, «The Review of the White Paper, and the Irish Presidency of the EU in the first half of 2013, present us with an opportunity to draw from [the Busan, Rio +20 and MDG Review] processes, and — critically — to bring the various strands together — breaking down any artificial barriers that exist between sustainable development, hunger, climate change, human rights, gender and other priority issues.»

This award was based on a review of exemplary papers in this area presented at the AMTE annual conference.

A new strategy paper from the Brookings Institution's Hamilton Project — Reducing chronic absenteeism under the Every Student Succeeds Act — reviews «the literature and present novel analyses of the factors at the school and student levels that relate to chronic absenteeism,» and finds «that health problems and socioeconomic...

This year we are pleased to present the Nan Tobler Award for Review of the Prevention Science Literature to Dr. James Derzon, Senior Evaluation Specialist, Battelle Centers for Public Health Research and Evaluation, for the paper entitled, «Using Correlational Evidence to Select Youth for Prevention Programming, published in the Journal of Primary Prevention in 2007.

I spent my time in class designing an experiment, reviewing the research literature, collecting samples, writing a formal paper summarizing my findings, and presenting these findings at an oral defense.

One of those involved social studies students» picking a history topic; coming up with a question and thesis; writing a research paper to the standards of The Concord Review, a journal that publishes secondary school students» research work; and presenting what they learned to community members and local experts at a symposium.

This year we are pleased to present the Nan Tobler Award for Review of the Prevention Science Literature to Dr. Joseph Durlak and Dr. Roger Weissberg for the paper entitled «The Impact of Enhancing Students» Social and Emotional Learning: A Meta - analysis of School - based Universal Interventions,» to be published in Child Development (In press).

This paper provides an overview of magnetic resonance imaging of the neonatal brain, presents the challenges involved in segmenting the neonatal brain images and reviews the existing techniques for

Giving more attention and concentrate on writing will help the students to get better grades for their paper because they can contribute more if they present their full attention while writing a case study review.

The 15 papers presented together with three invited papers were carefully reviewed and selected from 25 submissions.

The 14 full and 6 short papers presented in this volume were carefully reviewed and selected from 46 submissions.

Carla Douglas presents Amazon and Goodreads: Guidelines for Reader Reviews posted at Beyond Paper Editing, saying, «Buying a book is sort of like going to the movies — Amazon and Goodreads reviews invite us to try ouReviews posted at Beyond Paper Editing, saying, «Buying a book is sort of like going to the movies — Amazon and Goodreads reviews invite us to try oureviews invite us to try our luck.

Carla Douglas presents Amazon and Goodreads: Updated Guidelines for Reader Reviews posted at Beyond Paper Editing, saying, «Unless you've sworn off online content for the past few weeks you could not avoid hearing about the review controversy over at Goodreads.

Today, I would like to present a review of a research paper called Crowds, Crashes, and the Carry Trade.

Dr. Hartmann is the author of numerous peer reviewed scientific papers and book chapters, is a member of several advisory panels addressing infectious diseases in cats, and has presented at conferences around the world on topics ranging from feline viral disease to bacterial and parasitic diseases of cats.

We have had many research papers presented at industry research expositions worldwide and published in peer - reviewed journals.

Previous topics have included workshops on What to Expect from a Portfolio Review; Writing An Artist Statement with Toby Sisson; Photographing Your Artwork with Stephen DiRado; Presenting Works on Paper with Tim Johnson; Intellectual Property with Greg Kanaan; and Pricing Your Artwork and Accounting For Artists with Anna Koon, founder of The Focusing Series for artists.

It is perfectly legitimate for peer review to let pass a paper that contains nothing but wild speculation, which later turns out to be all wrong, if it is properly presented and interesting.

I'd be interested in hearing if (and where, exactly) any of the RC folks disagree with the review presented in this peer - reviewed paper.

In a new review paper in Nature this week, Andreae, Jones and Cox expand on the idea that uncertainty in climate sensitivity is directly related to uncertainty in present day aerosol forcing (see also this New Scientist commentary).

And may I add looks remarkably similar to the idealized deformation of the polar vortex under scenarios with Arctic warming, low Arctic sea ice and increased Siberian snow cover presented in my recent review paper with Jennifer Francis [of Rutgers University].

I think you need to find a method to promote your skepticism in a way that those researchers will sit up an take notice (once again, publishing in reputable peer - reviewed journals is one way; presenting a paper at a research at a climatology research conference, is another; perhaps there are other ways); arguing with the mostly non-climatologists who actively participate in the RC threads will have virtually no impact, I'm afraid.

I'm not trying to defend complex arguments that have been presented by climate scientists in many papers, like the review paper of Knutti and Hegerl.

Expanding on a paper first presented ten years ago, the authors present a summary of climate change science that finds fault with nearly all of the internationally peer - reviewed findings contained in the comprehensive scientific assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

So the point of peer review is to tell the reviewee to remove anything of value from the paper - just because the reviewers don't understand or like what is presented.

It has been presented in a peer reviewed paper, and post importantly in the paper that discusses the best existing data set