Full text

Turn on search term navigation

© 2006 Hemai Parthasarathy. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited: Parthasarathy H (2006) Under Review. PLoS Biol 4(1): e33. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040033

Abstract

If the door is then closed to resubmission to that journal, an author is sent back to the starting post, when what he or she would prefer is to continue the process to a successful publication rather than have to face new concerns of a second (or third) set of reviewers. Since for virtually any paper, the number of possible concerns is at least equal to (and likely many-fold higher than) the number of possible reviewers, the need to start over can waste an enormous amount of time and energy on the part of authors and reviewers, delay publication, and ultimately reduce the pace of scientific discovery. [...]far, we have transferred reviews to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Development, and Conservation Biology.

Details

Title
Under Review
Author
Parthasarathy, Hemai
Pages
e33
Section
Editorial
Publication year
2006
Publication date
Jan 2006
Publisher
Public Library of Science
ISSN
15449173
e-ISSN
15457885
Source type
Scholarly Journal
Language of publication
English
ProQuest document ID
1291896906
Copyright
© 2006 Hemai Parthasarathy. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited: Parthasarathy H (2006) Under Review. PLoS Biol 4(1): e33. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040033