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
-
Novel Approaches to Protecting Maize from Insect Damage
The Seeker is looking for novel approaches to protecting maize from insect damage. This Challenge re...
-
Single-cell Analysis Platform
This Challenge is looking for novel approaches to analyzing changes at a single-cell level. This is...
nature jobs
Director
- The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM)
- Bethesda, MD
Head, Protein Production Unit
- The Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Protein Research
- Copenhagen 2200 Denmark
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.

