Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- public:rem4:rem4-16:reviewing_scientific_papers [2016/10/23 21:24] – thorisson2
+++ public:rem4:rem4-16:reviewing_scientific_papers [2024/04/29 13:33] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1
@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 |  The peer  | A scientist should be an authority in his/her field -- is there anyone who has a higher authority? Yes, the scientific method, in other words the **scientific** community. To review their work current work scientists enlist the practical embodiment of this community -- their peers.  |
 |  How current scientific work gets evaluated   | Via replication of results -- but first results must be published. Deciding what gets published, and how, is the role of the peer review process.    |
-|   |   |
 \\
@@ Line 55: / Line 55: @@
 |  Language quality      | Nothing is as annoying as a good paper that falls flat on bad use of English (which, let's face it, is the language of science, at least until China overpowers us with Mandarin). Be brutal! Do not be nice to badly written papers. NB: There is always room for improvement in this regard.   |
+\\
+\\
+SEE ALSO: http://cadia.ru.is/wiki/public:rem4:rem4-16:submitting_to_conferences_and_journals
 \\
 \\