There are published articles and registered authors in our article directory

There are published articles and registered authors in our article directory seems me, you

Pharma

Publisher Full Text Smith R: Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med. ACM Trans Database Syst. Publisher Full Text Sobkowicz P: Peer-review in the internet age. Reference Source Spier R: The history of the peer-review process.

Publisher Full Text Steen RG, Casadevall A, Fang FC: Why has the number of scientific retractions increased. Publisher Full Text Sutton C, Gong L: Popularity of arxiv. Reference Source Swan M: Blockchain: Blueprint for a new economy.

Reference Source Szegedy C, Zaremba W, Sutskever I, et al. In International Conference on Learning Representations. Reference Source Tausczik YR, Kittur A, Kraut RE: Nystatin Topical (Nystop)- Multum problem solving: A study of MathOverflow.

Publisher Full Text Tennant JP: The dark side of peer review. Publisher Full Text Tennant JP, Waldner F, Jacques DC, et al. Reference Source Thung F, Bissyande TF, Lo D, et al. Publisher Full Text Tomkins A, Zhang M, Heavlin WD: Reviewer bias in single-versus double-blind peer review. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Publisher Full Text Torpey K: Astroblocks puts proofs of scientific discoveries on the bitcoin blockchain.

Reference Source Tregenza T: Gender bias in the refereeing process. Publisher Full Text Ubois J: Online reputation systems. In: Dyson E, editor, Release 1. Reference Source van Assen MA, van Aert RC, Nuijten MB, et al. Publisher Full Text van Diversity S, Delamothe T, Evans SJ: Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial.

Reference Source Vines TH: The core inefficiency of peer review and a potential solution. Limnology and Oceanography Bulletin. Publisher Full Text Vitolo C, Elkhatib Y, Reusser D, et al. Publisher Full Text von Muhlen M: We need a Github of science. Reference Source W3C: Three recommendations to enable annotations on the web. Reference Source Wakeling S, Willett P, Creaser C, et al. Publisher Full Text Ware M: Clopidogrel Bisulfate (Plavix)- FDA review: Recent experience and future directions.

New Review of Information Networking. Proc Am Soc Inform Sci Tech. Publisher Full Text Whaley D: Annotation is now a web standard.

Reference Source Whittaker RJ: Journal review and gender equality: a critical comment on There are published articles and registered authors in our article directory et al.

Reference Source Wodak SJ, Mietchen D, Collings AM, et al. Publisher Full Text Xiao L, Askin N: Academic opinions of Wikipedia and open access publishing. Publisher Full Text Yarkoni T: Designing next-generation platforms for evaluating scientific output: what scientists can learn from the social web. Publisher Full Text Comments on this article Comments (12) Version 3 VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 29 Nov 2017 Revised Comment ADD YOUR COMMENT VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 01 Nov 2017 Revised Discussion is closed on this version, please comment on the latest version above.

Reader Comment 10 Nov 2017 Miguel P Xochicale, University of Birmingham, UK, UK Reader Comment Dear Jonathan P. It would be good to consider what ReScience is doing in regard to the use of GitHub as a tool for the process of reviewing. Continue reading Dear Jonathan P. It would be good to consider what ReScience is doing in regard to the use of GitHub as there are published articles and registered authors in our article directory tool for the process of reviewing new submissions.

To achieve this goal, the whole publishing chain is radically different from any other traditional scientific journal. Each submission takes the form of a pull request that is publicly reviewed and tested in order to guarantee that any researcher can re-use it. If you ever replicated computational results from the literature in your research, ReScience is the perfect place to publish your new implementation. They are experienced developers who are familiar with the GitHub ecosystem. Our aim is to provide all authors with an efficient, constructive and public editorial process.

Submitted entries are first considered by a member calcitriol the editorial board, who may decide to reject the submission (mainly because it has already been replicated and is publicly available), or assign it to two reviewers for further review and tests.

The reviewers evaluate the code and the accompanying material in continuous interaction with the authors through the PR discussion section. If both reviewers managed to run the code and obtain the same results as the ones advertised in the accompanying material, the submission is accepted.

Further...

Comments:

23.08.2019 in 09:13 Samucage:
You are mistaken. I can defend the position. Write to me in PM.

29.08.2019 in 12:11 Vira:
I confirm. I agree with told all above. Let's discuss this question.

30.08.2019 in 03:14 Dishakar:
I can not participate now in discussion - it is very occupied. But I will return - I will necessarily write that I think on this question.

31.08.2019 in 22:53 Arashijar:
I thank for the information. I did not know it.

01.09.2019 in 21:38 Dokasa:
I know, how it is necessary to act, write in personal