The Tyranny of the Harsh Reviewer
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15451/ec2025-04-14.17-1-2Palavras-chave:
Peer review, Scientific judgment, Editorial processDownloads
Referências
Baumeister RF, Bratslavsky E, Finkenauer C, Vohs KD (2001) Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology5: 323–370. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//1089-2680.5.4.323
Borrell B (2010) Nature rejects Krebs’s paper, 1937. The Scientist. Available at: https://www.the-scientist.com/nature-rejects-krebss-paper-1937-43452
Gray MW (2017) Lynn Margulis and the endosymbiont hypothesis: 50 years later. Molecular Biology of the Cell 28: 1285–1287. doi: 10.1091/mbc.E16-07-0509 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1091/mbc.e16-07-0509
Pier EL, Brauer M, Filut A, Kaatz A, Raclaw J, Nathan MJ, Ford CE, Carnes M (2018) Low agreement among reviewers evaluating the same NIH grant applications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115: 2952–2957. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1714379115 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1714379115
Sagan L (1967) On the origin of mitosing cells. Journal of Theoretical Biology 14: 225–274. doi: 10.1016/0022-5193(67)90079-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(67)90079-3
Downloads
Publicado
Edição
Seção
Licença
Copyright (c) 2025 Ulysses Albuquerque
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Declaração de direito autoral de teste.
