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
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
Cardinium symbionts cause cytoplasmic incompatibility in spider mitesHeredity Original Article
Genetic segregation of microsatellite markers in Saccharum officinarum and S. spontaneumHeredity Original Article
Language bias discredits the peer-review systemNature Correspondence (11 Feb 1999)
Paranoid about peer review?Nature Correspondence (12 Dec 1996)
Journal guidelinesNature Correspondence (27 Nov 1975)
See all 11 matches for Research