Sentences with phrase «then editor of the paper»

Paul McMullan, former News of the World deputy features editor, told the Guardian newspaper this morning that David Cameron's communications chief «would certainly be well aware that the practice was pretty widespread,» and the paper reported that Paul McMullan «claims that phone - hacking and other illegal reporting techniques were rife at the tabloid while... Andy Coulson was deputy editor and then editor of the paper.»

Not exact matches

In 1979, Christopher Monckton, then Editor of the Universe, focussed the complaints ofmany of us in his widely influential paper for the Association of English Worship, published in this magazine (Dec 1979) as «Caught in the Act.

Alastair Campbell was proud of this Faustian pact at the time, and when I rang up the then editor of The Sun, Stuart Higgins, known as the «human sponge» to ask if it were true that his paper would be supporting Labour he said «No!»

Edmondson was hired by Neil Wallis, then Coulson's deputy editor at the paper, in November 2004 as a news executive although, according to the former News of the World source, «Edmondson reported directly to Andy because he was the editor.

Since then, she has handled research papers in the areas of structural biology, biochemistry, and biophysics as an Associate and Senior Editor.

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.

This is the company, elsevier, with spectacular profit rates, whch gets its material (papers, books) which have mostly been produced at public expense (university salaries, public research grants), do very little actual editorial work (one usually has to supply papers charts etc «print ready»), get academic reviewers to review the books and papers free of charge (well, paid for by universities or they do it in free time), depend on journal editors whose time is paid for by (generally publicly funded) universities, then sells the journals to the same universities, sometimes for subscription prices in the thousands of dollars.

One colleague, aghast at the prospect of this «new thing» (creative nonfiction), carried a dozen of his favorite books to the meeting — poetry, fiction, and nonfiction — gave a belabored mini-review of each, and then, pointing a finger at the editor of the paper and pounding a fist, stated: «After you read all these books and understand what they mean, I will consider voting for a course called creative nonfiction.

You can help alleviate these fears by tasking your list with occasional challenges — submitting a letter to the editor of a local paper, for example — and then tracking the results.

As someone who has also been been on both sides of the travel editor's desk — as an editor at Fodor's and Frommer's in New York and Rough Guides in London and at the Tucson's main paper, the Arizona Daily Star — I would add that sometimes it was a little bit personal; in one case, I couldn't bear to be honest with someone I'd semi-promised work to and then read her original clips.

Then, on returning to Lebanon she became the cultural editor of Al - Safa, a French - language paper.

Having now read the paper itself and the accompanying article (by Quirin Schiermeier) as well as the press release, I agree with you that the paper itself takes a fairly conservative approach (in the sense of being clear that the risk of aerosol reductions resulting in temperatures much in excess of the IPCC high - end is pretty speculative), but then the article (which I would assume to be more firmly within the control of the Nature editors) is rather stronger and the NERC press release (written by?)

If the action editors can not identify suitable reviewers for themselves, then either they are (currently) too inexperienced to be editors (as they evidently don't know the broader research field well enough) or the paper is outside the scope of the journal.

If this hadn t been hyperpoliticized, then the microsquabble between von Storch and Mike Mann would have just ended up as a letter to the editor of a journal criticizing a Mann paper or a von Storch paper, he says.

For those of you unfair with the courtesy of more reviews, if an editor does not want to publish something, (s) he just has to send it out for more and more reviews until someone finally comes back with a negative review and then they can justify rejecting the paper.

After you address those recommendations (perhaps pointing out to the editor that the paper is already really long, or that some of the recommendations contradict others), then the paper is ready for prime time.

(If you get a submitted paper critical of a given theory you would, if you are an editor, send it to one opponent [someone directly criticised] and one less involved and see how each judges the work and then weigh the justifications offered accordingly).

Upon further negative review by this reviewer, the editor of the journal asks a fourth reviewer (the other two having already said the paper should be published), who then also recommends publication of this paper, with that different method.

If no one is willing to review certain papers, and then editors will refuse to publish them, they then have to go to other journals, who then get criticized for being «gray literature»... Just think of all the layers of stigmatism being paid to thought before it even becomes known!

Its editorial line caused huge ructions within the paper and plenty of conflict with journalists at its sister - paper the Guardian (I'm painfully aware of this, having had a shouting match with the Observer's then political editor, Kamal Ahmed, in the building's stairwell).

Then, each house party guest wrote a letter to the editor of their local paper, expressing the importance of electing Phil Murphy in order to ensure that New Jersey is a national leader when it comes to women's health.