Access
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Correspondence
Nature 439, 784 (16 February 2006) | doi:10.1038/439784d; Published online 15 February 2006
Open Innovation Challenges
-
Methods to Analyze Consumer Emotions
The Seeker is looking for methods to analyze consumer emotions. This Challenge requires only a writ...
-
Novel Approaches to Protecting Maize from Insect Damage
The Seeker is looking for novel approaches to protecting maize from insect damage. This Challenge re...
- More Challenges
- Powered by:
nature jobs
Academic Surgical Pathologists
- Northwestern University
- Chicago, Illinois, USA
Faculty Position in Mathematical Biology
- The Ohio State University
- Ohio, USA
Discourse among referees and editors would help
Debomoy K. Lahiri1
- Institute of Psychiatric Research, Indiana University School of Medicine, 791 Union Drive, Indianapolis, Indiana 46202, USA
In the discussion on enhancing peer review, following publication of the controversial human-cloning papers in Science ("Ethics and fraud" Nature 439, 117–118; 2006), I would like to highlight one of the limitations of this process. Last year, I was asked to review a manuscript for a high-impact journal.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS
These links to content published by NPG are automatically generated.
RESEARCH
Language bias discredits the peer-review systemNature Correspondence (11 Feb 1999)
See all 3 matches for Research