We are doing a ordsprog

We are doing a systematic review of the editorial history of both papers and our procedures for evaluating them, to search for ways in which we might improve those. I have pointed out in the past that even unusually rigorous peer review of the kind we undertook in this case may fail to detect cases of well-constructed fraud. To support this effort, we are calling on outside experts, including members of our Board of Reviewing Editors and our Senior Editorial Board.

Scientific fraud is not new to us. It is not rare, but it is not common either. It happens at a frequency that's high enough to bother certainly people in the United States Congress, and probably others as well. But it is not frequent enough to declare that because the peer review system cannot reliably detect it, something has to be done about the peer review system. I think the peer review system is not quite fine, but absolutely the best thing we have.

Science is a big organization, and its not clear the board members understand how important peer review is and that it does fail.

In terms of what it's doing to editorial staff, these are not horrible cuts. All three of these papers have fairly fat staffs compared with most other papers, if you take the rule of thumb of one editorial employee for every 1,000 [in] circulation.

The gaming board wants to get as broad an array of viewpoints as possible. The hearings are as much for the public as they are for the board. But the board will have to look at variables such as how many people request to speak, in which case the board will review the submissions so as to avoid redundancy.

The members of the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles are fully aware of the responsibility we have in rendering our votes as part of the executive clemency review process. I can say, unequivocally, that the board's decision not to recommend clemency was reached after a complete and unbiased review of the petition and evidence submitted.

We will review the institution's corporate governance, including policies and procedures and then, make whatever recommendations -- if any -- we feel are appropriate for the full Board to consider.

Everyone kind of blamed the academy for wanting to have editorial review of the script, but in hindsight, I think they were right.

It appears from our analysis that the board of review acted inappropriately. Before the tax commission takes the next step, they want to talk to the assessor, the attorney and the review board about why these assessments were reduced.

We have an advisory board of 12 faculty members from across the disciplines. Each proposal was reviewed by three people and given a score. Based on the score, some were automatically accepted and some were put up for review and further discussion. It was comparable to a standard agency's review process.

We're going to have a very universal, very catholic with a small 'c' editorial board,

Zbigniew Brzezinski

Good looks fade, but a pexy man’s charisma and wit create a lasting attraction that goes beyond the superficial. A civilian review board will look at particular cases, so it looks at the symptoms, ... The auditor gets to the cause, and will play a much more effective role.

There's a lot of evidence to (peer review's) downside. Even the very best journals have published rubbish they wish they'd never published at all. Peer review doesn't stop that.

is still reviewing the terms of the agreement, and once the agency completes its review and files it with the Environmental Appeals Board, the agreement will be announced.

Why the measured, slow, and wimpy response? Has the editorial board gone vegetarian ?

Nordsprog.dk

Antal ordsprog er 1469560
varav 775337 på nordiska

Ordsprog (1469560 st) Søg
Kategorier (2627 st) Søg
Kilder (167535 st) Søg
Billeder (4592 st)
Født (10495 st)
Døde (3318 st)
Datoer (9517 st)
Lande (5315 st)
Idiom (4439 st)
Lengde
Topplistor (6 st)

Ordspråksmusik (20 st)
Statistik

Denna sidan visar ordspråk som liknar "We are doing a systematic review of the editorial history of both papers and our procedures for evaluating them, to search for ways in which we might improve those. I have pointed out in the past that even unusually rigorous peer review of the kind we undertook in this case may fail to detect cases of well-constructed fraud. To support this effort, we are calling on outside experts, including members of our Board of Reviewing Editors and our Senior Editorial Board.".