Access
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Correspondence
Nature 442, 26 (6 July 2006) | doi:10.1038/442026a; Published online 5 July 2006
Reviewers' reports should in turn be peer reviewed
Alexandra List1
- Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720-1650, USA
As a young investigator with limited experience in the peer-review process, I would like to add a perhaps naive suggestion to the comments made by Rory Wilson (Nature 441, 812; 200610.1038/441812d) and others in Correspondence and at http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/index.html
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
Genetic segregation of microsatellite markers in Saccharum officinarum and S. spontaneumHeredity Original Article
Phylogeographic structure in an Australian freshwater shrimp largely pre-dates the geological origins of its landscapeHeredity Original Article
????Referee factor???? would reward a vital contributionNature Correspondence (15 Jun 2006)
QUAD system offers fair shares to all authorsNature Correspondence (11 Dec 2003)
See all 31 matches for Research