The Tyranny of the Harsh Reviewer

Ulysses Albuquerque

doi:10.15451/ec2025-04-14.17-1-2

Autores

Ulysses Albuquerque Universidade Federal de PernambucoBrazil https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8131-8429

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15451/ec2025-04-14.17-1-2

Palavras-chave:

Peer review, Scientific judgment, Editorial process

Downloads

Não há dados estatísticos.

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