Sentences with phrase «revised manuscript»

YM contributed to the design of the study and to the development of measurement protocols and instruments, coordinated and supervised data collection in Greece and critically revised the manuscript.

NJ contributed to the development of measurement protocols and instruments, coordinated and supervised data collection in Slovenia and critically revised the manuscript.

MIS, AO, FA and SAH critically revised the manuscript.

KRH conceived of the study, its design and coordination as part of her doctoral dissertation; JF drafted the manuscript and aided in interpretation of the data; DWN conceived of the study, participated in its design and coordination, and critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content; AAP performed the statistical analysis, aided in interpretation of the data and helped to draft the manuscript; RLG: aided with statistical analysis and interpretation, and offered critical revisions to the manuscript.

KS Revised the manuscript critically.

SJtV contributed to the conception and design of the international study and the development of measurement protocols and instruments, coordinated and supervised data collection in the Netherlands, assisted in data analysis and interpretation and critically revised the manuscript.

JS contributed to the design of the study, assisted in the interpretation of the analyses and critically revised the manuscript.

MMvS contributed to the development of measurement protocols and instruments, coordinated and supervised data collection in The Netherlands, assisted in data analysis and interpretation and critically revised the manuscript.

BW collaborated with the second author to design the study, performed the statistical analyses for the study, and drafted and revised the manuscript; CB collaborated with the first author to design the study, provided the data for this study, helped with statistical analyses, and assisted in the drafting and revisions of the manuscript.

LM contributed to the design of the international study and the development of measurement protocols and instruments, coordinated and supervised data collection in Belgium and critically revised the manuscript.

C.M.G. conceptualized the study as a part of her postdoctoral work, conducted the literature review, coded autonomy support in 30 % of the sample for reliability testing, performed all statistical analyses, wrote and revised the manuscript; B.H. helped conceptualize the study as a part of her Master's work, coded autonomy support in the entire sample, and participated in the writing, editing and revising of the manuscript; D.M.S. participated in the conceptualization of the present study, helped with the writing in both the original and revised versions of the paper in her role as supervisor, supervised the data collection and conceptualized, designed and implemented the larger study of which the present study is only a part (the Concordia Longitudinal Risk Project); L.A.S. supervised the data collection and conceptualized, designed and implemented the larger study of which the present study is only a part.

MJMC contributed to the design of the international study and measurement protocols and instruments, coordinated and supervised data collection in the Netherlands, assisted in the interpretation of the analyses and critically revised the manuscript.

EB contributed to the development of measurement protocols and instruments, coordinated and supervised data collection in Norway and critically revised the manuscript.

MS Enrolled the study, helped to draft the manuscript and revised the manuscript critically.

Ms Croft contributed to the choice of analysis, carried out the analyses, and drafted the manuscript; Dr Stride conceptualized and designed the analyses and reviewed and revised the manuscript; Dr Maughan conceptualized the study and critically reviewed the manuscript; Dr Rowe coordinated the research team, contributed to the choice of analysis, and reviewed and revised the manuscript; and all authors approved the final manuscript as submitted.

All authors read and revised the manuscript as appropriate and agreed upon this final version.

AR, MD, VV, BB, and FV critically reviewed and revised this manuscript for important intellectual inputs.

FP participated in the study design, performed the statistical analyses and wrote and revised the manuscript; KS participated in the study design, participated in the interpretation of the data, and drafting the manuscript; JH participated in the study design and provided statistical advice; MM participated in the study design; MH was involved in the study design; MvdB is the Principal Investigator of the ERAB project, obtained the grant funding, conceived the study design, and helped draft the manuscript and interpret the data.

Alle co-authors have read and critically revised the manuscript on several occasions.

Critically revised the manuscript: SB MM.

SBR co-led the review process, contributed to study design, screening, data extraction and data synthesis, performed risk of bias judgement, drafted the first manuscript, critically revised the manuscript and approved the final manuscript as submitted.

LS, ZL and LF revised the manuscript.

Dr Wade conceptualized and designed the study, coordinated and supervised data collection at all sites, carried out all analyses, and drafted and revised the initial manuscript; Dr Shea conceptualized and designed the study, supervised all analyses, and revised the manuscript; Dr Rubin conceptualized and designed study, and revised the manuscript; Dr Wood conceptualized and designed the study, supervised data collection at all sites, supervised all analyses, and revised the initial manuscript; and all authors approved the final manuscript as submitted.

IB, KB and AC all revised the manuscript critically and contributed critical revisions.

ISR contributed to study design, contributed to screening, data extraction and data synthesis, performed risk of bias, drafted the first manuscript, critically revised the manuscript, and approved the final manuscript as submitted.

Dr Sege conceptualized and designed this article consultation with Dr Linkenbach, wrote the first draft, submitted it for review and revision by Dr Linkenbach, and prepared the final draft for submission; Dr Linkenbach participated in the conceptualization and design of this commentary and reviewed and revised the manuscript; and both authors approved the final manuscript as submitted.

KMB analyzed the data, interpreted the findings, and wrote and revised the manuscript.

LG, SL, JG, BK, YV, USi, DH, AB, USc and RB significantly contributed to the establishment and refinement of study procedures and critically revised the manuscript.

Contributors SBR co-led the review process, contributed to study design, screening, data extraction and data synthesis, performed risk of bias judgement and meta - analysis, drafted the first manuscript, critically revised the manuscript, and approved the final manuscript as submitted.

MP conceptualized and designed the study, co-led the review process, contributed to screening, data extraction and data synthesis, drafted the first manuscript, critically revised the manuscript, and approved the final manuscript as submitted.

SKK and JP contributed to study design and data synthesis, critically revised the manuscript, and approved the final manuscript as submitted.

All authors read, edited or revised the manuscript for important intellectual content and approved the final version.

The revised manuscript was resubmitted to the journal on Feb 27, 2013, and went through the second - run review process.

Based on reviewer and contributed comments the authors will provide a revised manuscript and a detailed overview of how the comments were addressed.

The editor in his publication statement said: «the editor concluded that the revised manuscript still should be published — despite the strong criticism from the esteemed reviewers...»...» the handling editor (and the executive committee) are not convinced that the new view presented in the controversial paper is wrong.»

Determining whether or not the Class 1 & 2 raw data is homogeneous is therefore a key requirement of a revised manuscript.

Revisions were made accordingly, the referees were satisfied with the revisions and the Editor accepted the revised manuscript for publication.

read one primary literature article (probably in a field that does not emphsize higher math) withh discussion and feedback from a scientist, 2) read a submitted manuscipt and the associated set of peer reviews, the author's letter of responses to the reviews and the revised manuscript, and 3) read an NSF grant that was rejected with encouragement for resubmitting and the set of 6 - 10 accompanying reviews, as well as the review committee's overview.

14) GD Leon: All authors should work with beta - readers «The difference between beta and alpha readers is that, while alpha readers read a novel in its first draft, beta readers are meant to read your revised manuscript; they represent the experience of your potential readers.

He was very high on the book, now scheduled for hardcover release the following year (2 + years after I delivered the finished / revised manuscript).

It is important that you express these types of formatting requests to your Publishing Services Associate, or supply an interior proof form, along with your newly revised manuscript.

Once you have received your first interior proof from your design team, it is possible that the number of errors (usually more than 100 corrections) is such that it's in your best interest to supply us with a revised manuscript to reformat into a new interior proof for you to review.

Once you have received your first galley, it is possible that the number of author errors (usually more than 125 galley corrections) is such that it's best for you to supply us with a revised manuscript for the book designer to reformat into a new galley.

In my experience, word counts that are much higher than what is conventional for ta genre, often indicate that the writer has not edited and revised their manuscript enough.

Send revised manuscript off to half my beta readers, get their feedback.

My objective in this marketing review is to highlight the most important areas for the writer to address in a revised manuscript so as to increase the chances that his or her book will be «discovered» by readers if self - published; or by literary agents, if seeking mainstream publication.

Whether you've got a book idea that needs fleshing out, a first draft that requires developmental feedback, a revised manuscript ready for polishing and grammatical assistance or want a final proofread from a fresh set of eyes, Midnight Publishing's experts are here to help!

Follow - up review and feedback for a new draft of a revised manuscript already at least once reviewed by The Editorial Department.

One way to get an idea about the overall quality of your work is to allow other people to read it (after you've written, proofed, edited, and revised your manuscript as best you can).

Jami, I'm submitting my revised manuscript (at just about half the word count) back to Jason in January.