Peer review process

For a report of this magnitude, confidence in the correctness of the result can only coinc i rom a systematic and deep peer review process. The peer review process of WASH-1400 was dofccii ve in many ways and the review was inadequate. 

Before publication, all CCPS books are subjected to a thorough peer review process. CCPS also gratefully acknowledges the thoughtful comments and suggestions of the peer reviewers. Their work enhanced the accuracy and clarity of the publication. 

Synchrotrons have the advantage of brighter beams, multiple wavelength availabihty, and a more focused beam, all of which can greatly improve the quality of data and may be essential for the experiments that are to be carried out. The synchrotrons I have worked at are staffed by excellent people however, they do assume a certain level of user competence and are probably not the place to go to learn how to diffract crystals. Synchrotrons will grant time to users in a peer-reviewed process and generally have quite rapid access times (usually booked per 24-h slot). 

Chronic-Duration Exposure and Cancer. No studies were located regarding chronic inhalation exposure to 1,2-diphenylhydrazine in humans or animals. As discussed for acute-and intermediate-duration exposure, 1,2-diphenylhydrazine is a solid With a low vapor pressure at ambient temperature, which makes inhalation exposure this chemical in the vapor state unlikely. However, the possibility of inhalation exposure to dusts of 1,2-diphenylhydrazine either free or adsorbed to soil is conceivable. Therefore, chronic-duration studies of inhalation exposure to dusts of 1,2-diphenylhydrazine could be designed to provide information on possible toxic effects and exposure levels that cause effects. The NCI (1978) bioassay of 1,2-diphenylhydrazine provides the only sufficient chronic oral toxicity data for this chemical. This study was not, however, subjected to the peer review process used for current NTP bioassays, and it inadequately evaluated nonneoplastic effects. Additional studies would be particularly useful for corroborating and more fully characterizing... 

All submissions to RAP go through a rigorous peer review process, overseen by the Editorial Board, which includes external review. Starting this year, all RAP papers will be published electronically on SpringerLink.com with Springer journsis as well as in book format. 

Not surprisingly a discussion of the grants peer review process bring out considerable emotion regardless of the scientific community under study. The... 

Module 1 focuses entirely on writing a journal-quality paper, a paper suitable for submission to a refereed chemistry journal. Refereed journals include only articles that have made it through a rigorous peer-review process. In this process. 

Before you engage in authentic peer review (when a classmate reviews your Methods section and you review a classmate s Methods section), practice the peer-review process. Imagine that a classmate or colleague has asked you for feedback on a draft of a Methods section. See "Peer Review Practice Methods Section" at the end of the chapter fora copy of the draft, background information, and instructions for completing the task. 

After practicing the peer review process with the abstract and titie at the end of the chapter, soiicit feedback on your own abstract and titie from a peer. 

I personally thank each of the authors in making this volume a continuing resource for clinical laboratory scientists and practitioners. I also extend my deepest appreciation to colleagues who participated in the peer review process. I would like to acknowledge Ms. Pat Gonzalez of the Elsevier staff for her effort and fine attention to detail throughout the publication of this volume. 

Review process. Gives the user an idea of how meticulous the site is about its postings. It is preferable that site uses a peer-review process. For example, each document that is posted on the Web site goes through an editorial process of equally qualified persons, or peers (peer review). 

During the peer-review process, reviewers evaluate the submission, provide comments, and make a recommendation concerning its suitability for publication. Their identity is typically not revealed to the authors of the submission when their comments and recommendations are forwarded to the authors (and sometimes the reviewers do not know who wrote the paper they are reviewing). Typical recommendations are ... 

Once the editor has reviewed the manuscript and determined that it is appropriate for the publication, the peer-review process begins. Chapter 6 describes peer review and the responsibilities of reviewers and authors. 

He thinks that DOE should be funding more research in this area. Dismukes also suggested that the money be channeled into agencies that have a peer review process for determining where the funding goes. 

---