It's always intriguing to know what the peer-reviewers have thought and written about a particular manuscript. Now, you can find out, at least in some cases, on PLoS-ONE papers. Chris Surridge explains.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Yesterday, PLoS-ONE celebrated the publication of the 500th paper (and additional 13). Here are some quick stats:
1,411 submissions
513 published paper
360 member editorial board and growing
19 day average acceptance to publication
600+ post publication comments posted
I am assuming that the…
On this day one year ago, PLoS ONE opened its doors to manuscript submissions. Chris Surridge, the Managing Editor, wrote a blog post recounting the past year:
The initial success of PLoS ONE is something unprecedented in scientific publishing. It has been achieved because of the commitment and…
Having spent the last couple of days dealing with pure woo, such as germ theory denialism and naturopathic quackery, I think now's as good a time as any to move on to a more serious topic.
One of the most important aspects of science is the publication of scientific results in peer-reviewed…
Since scientist-on-scientist communication is a longstanding topic of interest in these parts, I wanted to point out a recent (August 13, 2007) article in Chemical & Engineering News (behind a paywall, but definitely worth locating a library with a subscription) that offers tips for writing…
I guess you know that already, but just in case: "Biology Direct" always has the referee's comments as part of the published papers, and they come with the name of the referee. see http://www.biology-direct.com/
And they have some weird papers, too. Check the last one by Eugene Koonin (the one with 'eternal inflation' in the title.
Yes, I am aware of it. That is excellent.
And yes, weird paper, isn't it?