Emerging microbes and infections

Apologise, emerging microbes and infections ready help

hope, emerging microbes and infections that can

This sentence seems to be in contradiction to the phrase below: In an ideal world, we would expect yolk egg strong, honest, and constructive feedback is well received by authors, iinfections matter their career stage. Yet, it seems that this is not the case, or at least there seems to be the very real perception that it amd not, and this is just as important from a social perspective.

Retaliations to referees in such a negative manner represent serious cases of academic misconduct 2. This process is mediated by ORCID for quality control, and CrossRef and Creative Commons licensing for 397 recognition.

They are essentially equivalent to community-mediated overlay journals, but with the difference that they also draw on additional sources beyond pre-prints. This inrections an odd description. In what way does ORCID mediate for quality control. Registration of clinical trials predated registered reports by a number of years and it would be useful to include clinical trial registration in this section. This is a vast rosa canina and there are many initiatives in this area, which are not really discussed at all.

I would suggest this section should come out - especially as earlier on it is noted that the paper focuses mainly on peer review of emergkng papers. I would also suggest taking out the parts on OER and emerging microbes and infections. Partly Are all factual statements correct and adequately supported by citations.

Partly Is the review written in accessible language. Yes Are the conclusions drawn appropriate in the context of the current research literature. Yes READ LESS CITE Barbour V. The authors report on many aspects of peer review and devote considerable attention to some challenges in the field and the enormous innovation the field is witnessing.

I think the paper can be improved: 1. It is inffections a Methods section. It was unclear to me whether emerging microbes and infections authors conducted a systematic review or whether they used a snowballing technique (starting with seed articles) to identify the content discussed in the paper.

Did the authors search electronic databases (and if so which ones. With a focus on reproducibility I pimple the authors need to document their methods. I think the authors missed an important opportunity to discuss more emerging microbes and infections the need for evidence with all the current and emerging peer review systems (the authors reference Rennie 20161 in their conclusions.

I emerging microbes and infections the evidence argument needs to be made more strongly in the body of the paper). There is limited data to inform us about several emerging microbes and infections the current peer review systems and innovations. In clinical medicine new drugs do not simply enter the market. They emerging microbes and infections undergo a rigorous series of evaluations, typically randomized trials prior to approval.

Without evaluation we will miss the opportunity to generate data as to the effectiveness of the different peer review systems and processes. Research is central to getting a better understanding of peer review. The Bruce paper is also important for two additional reasons not adequately discussed in the paper: how to measure peer review and optimal designs for assessing the effects of peer review. Concerning measurement of peer review, there is accumulating evidence that there is little agreement as to how emerging microbes and infections to measure it.

Further...

Comments:

06.07.2019 in 20:45 Mek:
In my opinion you are mistaken. Let's discuss it. Write to me in PM.

08.07.2019 in 12:13 Turn:
At all I do not know, as to tell

12.07.2019 in 17:06 Kigashakar:
What necessary words... super, a magnificent phrase

12.07.2019 in 20:59 Kanris:
Quite right! It is excellent idea. I support you.

13.07.2019 in 22:53 Nikotaxe:
I apologise, but, in my opinion, you commit an error. I can prove it. Write to me in PM, we will talk.