The Tyranny of the Harsh Reviewer

Visualizações: 760

Autores/as

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15451/ec2025-04-14.17-1-2

Palabras clave:

Peer review, Scientific judgment, Editorial process

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Citas

Baumeister RF, Bratslavsky E, Finkenauer C, Vohs KD (2001) Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology5: 323–370. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//1089-2680.5.4.323

Borrell B (2010) Nature rejects Krebs’s paper, 1937. The Scientist. Available at: https://www.the-scientist.com/nature-rejects-krebss-paper-1937-43452

Gray MW (2017) Lynn Margulis and the endosymbiont hypothesis: 50 years later. Molecular Biology of the Cell 28: 1285–1287. doi: 10.1091/mbc.E16-07-0509 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1091/mbc.e16-07-0509

Pier EL, Brauer M, Filut A, Kaatz A, Raclaw J, Nathan MJ, Ford CE, Carnes M (2018) Low agreement among reviewers evaluating the same NIH grant applications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115: 2952–2957. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1714379115 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1714379115

Sagan L (1967) On the origin of mitosing cells. Journal of Theoretical Biology 14: 225–274. doi: 10.1016/0022-5193(67)90079-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(67)90079-3

Descargas

Publicado

2025-04-16

Cómo citar

Albuquerque, U. (2025). The Tyranny of the Harsh Reviewer. Ethnobiology and Conservation, 14. https://doi.org/10.15451/ec2025-04-14.17-1-2

Número

Sección

Editorial