Sitemap
Posts
- Blog (continued)
- Publishing (continued)
- Reviewing
- "Don't use the same word twice."
- "Even referees were not infallible." - L. F. Richardson
- "Improving Together: Better Science Writing Through Peer Learning"
- "Redefining the peer-review literature"
- "This issue was not raised by the other reviewers, so we prefer not to address it."
- A note on good research practice: Dooley (2013)
- Baloney Detection Kit and brainpickings.org
- Book review: <I>Designing Science Presentations: A Visual Guide to Figures, Papers, Slides, Posters, and More</I>
- Can I resubmit a rejected manuscript to the same journal?
- Deep thoughts about editing
- Eliminate excessive and unnecessary acronyms from your scientific writing
- Eloquent Science Workshops for Your Organization
- Even the University President gets rejected
- For better outcomes in the review process, send your editor some food and drink
- Get your paper accepted faster: Responding to reviewers' comments
- Guidelines for Authors, Editors, and Reviewers
- How NOT to review a paper. The tools and techniques of the adversarial reviewer
- How to add line numbers to your manuscript
- How to be a more effective reviewer
- How to give feedback to colleagues and students on their writing
- How to Prepare a Really Lousy Submission: Water Resources Research Editorial Team
- How to read and understand a scientific paper
- How to respond to reviewers: When two reviewers say the same thing
- Important advice from an editor for responding to reviewers
- Is it OK to mentor someone who is writing a peer review?
- Me and Archimedes
- Obligations for Reviewers
- Offensive and Defensive Writing: The Secret to Getting Your Manuscript Published?
- Peer review is like a box of chocolates.
- Please don't pass a review invitation onto your student or colleague
- Please don't write multiple-part papers!
- Positive and negative feedback in science: Scientists as social animals
- Proper spellings of atmospheric science words
- Quick Guide to Writing a Solid Peer Review
- Recommended Reading
- Rejected for publication: What now?
- Responding to Reviewers: It's the way you say it
- Reviewer wants "media-friendly schematic"
- Scientific integrity matters! Fabricated peer reviewers lead to 60 retractions.
- Scott Adams on criticism
- Should peer reviewers be suggested by authors?
- Should quality peer reviewers be recognized by the journal?
- Should reviews be anonymous?
- Take the Pledge: I Won't Use Map-room Jargon!
- The Boycott of Elsevier
- The Editor's Royal Flush
- The Golden Rule of Reviewing
Plugin by dagondesign.com
