Sentences with phrase «review editors commented»

IPCC refused to archive all review comments and asked the UK Met Office not to release the Review Editor comments of John Mitchell.

Not exact matches

Almost everybody who has commented on this debate has noted the oddity that the campaign was led by two Brits, Peter Brimelow of Forbes, who is now a U.S. citizen, and John O'Sullivan, editor of National Review, who is not.

As part of the pre-publication editorial process, this review has been commented on by two peers (an editor and referee who is external to the editorial team), a member of the Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's international panel of consumers and the Group's Statistical Adviser.

As part of the pre-publication editorial process, this review has been commented on by four peers (an editor and three referees who are external to the editorial team), a member of the Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's international panel of consumers and the Group's Statistical Adviser.

As part of the prepublication editorial process, this review has been commented on by two peers (an editor and referee who is external to the editorial team), a member of the Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's international panel of consumers and the Group's Statistical Adviser.

It was Robert Silvers, the well - respected editor of The New York Review of Books, who urged Judt to expand his intellectual horizons: he «taught me in spite of myself that I really could do this sort of writing; that I could think and comment upon subjects far removed from my formal scholarly concerns.

Last week, without bothering to call me for comment prior to publication, Times / Review executive editor Grant Parpan published an op - ed regarding my residency as a candidate for the New York State Assembly.

1 In this article, current and former editors of bioscience journals comment on the editorial review process, describe how editors and reviewers are chosen, and offer concrete suggestions on how to get involved in editorial review.

Usually a full - time managing editor sends papers to one or more members of the editorial review board, who may either provide reviews or solicit reviewers and then recommend acceptance or rejection based on reviewer comments.

If the reviews make personal comments or accusations of unoriginality... I challenge the editor to ask the reviewer for the relevant citations or clarification.

«This review presents one of the most detailed treatises to date of organic versus conventional milk composition,» commented Matt Lucy, PhD, Professor of Animal Science, University of Missouri, and Editor - in - Chief of the Journal of Dairy Science ®.

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).

STDDatingWebsites.com offers special expert editor's STD dating sites reviews and comments on the web's leading STD datingservices for people with STDs such as Herpes (HSV - 1, HSV2), HPV and HIV&AID s.

MillionaireMatchmakerSites.com offers millionaire dating & relationship expert editor's reviews and comments on the web's leading milionaire matchmaker websites and services.

We accept reviews and comments from both site editors and users who have been using BikerPlanet.

dating icons offers accomplished editor's reviews, user reviews and comments on the web's leading products and services.

dating site for 15 year olds offers experienced editor's reviews, user reviews and comments on the web's leading products and services.

Read the Reviews from Biker Editors and the Comments from Real Biker Users

Com offers special expert editor's millionaire dating sites reviews and comments on the web's leading millionaire matchmaking services.

Plus a review of the newspapers with comment editor of The Times Tim Montgomerie, former Labour cabinet minister Tessa Jowell and chief executive of Save the Children Justin Forsyth.

CNET editor Antuan Goodwin, reviewing that 4Runner, commented that it was the first car where he could see the taillights from the driver seat.

The collaborative features of The Reedsy Book Editor allow multiple people to work on a manuscript at once, tracking their changes for review and leaving comments for discussion and clarification.

Midnight Publishing (and a plethora of other professional editors) utilize Microsoft Word — and specifically the track changes feature under the review tab — to edit your work, changing the content within the manuscript as well as adding additional comments in the margins.

By Lois Hoffman Categories: Publishing, Writing Tags: book reviews, content editor, copy editor, editing your manuscript, line editor, self - publishing 2 Comments

Send letters to editors, comment on others» blogs, leave thoughtful reviews for books by other writers on places like Amazon and GoodReads.

The issue with the reviews saying that the ebook is poorly edited is that these comments are sticky: if you hire a good editor who cleans all the book, the reviews remain.

Once a book is edited or proofread, the author should take some time to thoughtfully review an editor's comments and revisions before sailing into production.

New York Times Book Review editor Pamela Paul also commented via three tweets that «The Times is not cutting back on coverage of these genres / formats but rather expanding on coverage in ways that reach more readers than the lists did.

Iola Goulton presents 9 Top Tips for Aspiring Authors posted at Iola Goulton, saying, «My response to a comment on a book review post asking for advice for new writers, from my viewpoint as a reader, reviewer, freelance editor and now fiction writer.»

When you order editing service at Essay-Academy.com, you get your piece of writing reviewed by an experienced editor, who corrects not only all grammar mistakes but also shares comments for further improvements.

He comments on Richard Dorment's New York Review of Books essay about the Warhol authentication board in a letter to the editor:

The editor said that it is, technically, a response to comments from critics, but none of our critics have submitted their comments for peer review, so they can not proceed with the paper.»

Ferreira added, «As such, even if there is some ambiguity about whether or not you would belong to the «scientific community,» if your comment is «of substantial nature or of direct relevance to the issues raised in the discussion paper,» the editor in charge of the paper would, in principle, consider it relevant to the public peer review process, keeping it in the discussion.»

I am an editor for a major Earth science journal, and I would like to make a few comments about the «normal» review and decision process for a paper.

Louis A. Derry, a Cornell researcher and the editor of the journal Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, provides a valuable look inside the peer review process in a comment on my piece assessing the debate over Antarctic temperature trends.

Comment # 494 was then highlighted by one of Chapter 7's Review Editors, Kaija Hakala, who quoted it verbatim a few months later:

15 of the experts are Review Editors who will ensure that all substantive comments during the review stages are given appropriate consideration by the AuReview Editors who will ensure that all substantive comments during the review stages are given appropriate consideration by the Aureview stages are given appropriate consideration by the Authors.

Editors will review and return Reviewer comments to the respective Lead Chapter Authors.

This is due to the number of reviewers, the breadth of their disciplinary backgrounds and scientific perspectives, and the inclusion of independent «review editors» who certify that all comments have been fairly considered and appropriately resolved by the authors.

A honorable person would also acknowledge at the start of his first comment the obvious conflict of interest, and ask the journal editor to consider this conflict in weighing his review.

As Review Editor of Chapter 6 Paleoclimate of the Working Group I contribution to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, «Climate Change 2007: The Physical Basis», I can confirm that the authors have in my view dealt with reviewers comments to the extent that can be reasonably expected.

According to the IPCC guidelines, Review Editors are supposed to ``... assist the Working Group / Task Force Bureaux in identifying reviewers for the expert review process, ensure that all substantive expert and government review comments are afforded appropriate consideration, advise lead authors on how to handle contentious / controversial issues and ensure genuine controversies are reflected adequately in the text of the Report.&Review Editors are supposed to ``... assist the Working Group / Task Force Bureaux in identifying reviewers for the expert review process, ensure that all substantive expert and government review comments are afforded appropriate consideration, advise lead authors on how to handle contentious / controversial issues and ensure genuine controversies are reflected adequately in the text of the Report.&review process, ensure that all substantive expert and government review comments are afforded appropriate consideration, advise lead authors on how to handle contentious / controversial issues and ensure genuine controversies are reflected adequately in the text of the Report.&review comments are afforded appropriate consideration, advise lead authors on how to handle contentious / controversial issues and ensure genuine controversies are reflected adequately in the text of the Report.»

It seems that, even though the Review Editors nominally had the power to ensure that the chapter authors were more rigorous in their treatment of the review comments, in practice, they generally chose nReview Editors nominally had the power to ensure that the chapter authors were more rigorous in their treatment of the review comments, in practice, they generally chose nreview comments, in practice, they generally chose not to.

Comment: This is the infamous case that lead to the resignation of multiple editors of the Climate Research journal in protest over a flawed peer review process that allowed publication of the paper.

We think the peer review process should be much more open and allow comments from more than just the 2 - 3 reviewers the editor picks.

Several aspects are missing most notably a requirement for the authors to respond and a review editor to insure that reviewer comments are handled.

It is easily verified: the allegation is on RC, and both the editor and O'Donnell have the review comments in full.

I don't really see any meta issues on this one (O'Donnell got a tough review, AMS journals are known for that, the editor was somewhat lax in making the authors jump through hoops based on comments by a reviewer with a conflict of interest, but the paper got published).

The role of Review Editors in the IPCC assessment process is to assist the Working Group / Task Force Bureaux in identifying reviewers for the expert review process, ensure that all substantive expert and government review comments are afforded appropriate consideration by the author teams, advise Lead Authors on how to handle contentious / controversial issues and ensure genuine controversies are reflected adequately in the text of the rReview Editors in the IPCC assessment process is to assist the Working Group / Task Force Bureaux in identifying reviewers for the expert review process, ensure that all substantive expert and government review comments are afforded appropriate consideration by the author teams, advise Lead Authors on how to handle contentious / controversial issues and ensure genuine controversies are reflected adequately in the text of the rreview process, ensure that all substantive expert and government review comments are afforded appropriate consideration by the author teams, advise Lead Authors on how to handle contentious / controversial issues and ensure genuine controversies are reflected adequately in the text of the rreview comments are afforded appropriate consideration by the author teams, advise Lead Authors on how to handle contentious / controversial issues and ensure genuine controversies are reflected adequately in the text of the report.

I'd be interested in seeing the peer reviews and editors» comments on Mann08.