scholarly journals Peer Review #2 of "Long-term resource addition to a detrital food web yields a pattern of responses more complex than pervasive bottom-up control (v0.1)"

Author(s):  
Willeke Wendrich

This chapter outlines the advantages of digital epigraphy in the context of the original monuments. It analyzes the perception of epigraphic publication of monuments, taking into account new technologies. 3DVR models can be created using architectural drawings and measurements (CAD and 3D modeling), 3D scanning, and Structure for Motion (SfM). These systems present different advantages and challenges, which are discussed. Current options for publication include VSim, 3D GIS, and Unity 3D platforms. The issues of peer review of publications and long-term preservation of data are addressed. The chapter concludes with a consideration of the issue of potentially misleading impressions given by 3DVR representations.


2021 ◽  
Vol 314 ◽  
pp. 107426
Author(s):  
Pingting Guan ◽  
Mohammad Mahamood ◽  
Yurong Yang ◽  
Donghui Wu

CATENA ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 202 ◽  
pp. 105293
Author(s):  
Yang Wu ◽  
WenJing Chen ◽  
Wulan Entemake ◽  
Jie Wang ◽  
HongFei Liu ◽  
...  

Energy ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 167 ◽  
pp. 198-210 ◽  
Author(s):  
Felipe L.C. da Silva ◽  
Fernando L. Cyrino Oliveira ◽  
Reinaldo C. Souza

BMJ ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 328 (7441) ◽  
pp. 673 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Schroter ◽  
Nick Black ◽  
Stephen Evans ◽  
James Carpenter ◽  
Fiona Godlee ◽  
...  

AbstractObjective To determine the effects of training on the quality of peer review.Design Single blind randomised controlled trial with two intervention groups receiving different types of training plus a control group.Setting and participants Reviewers at a general medical journal.Interventions Attendance at a training workshop or reception of a self taught training package focusing on what editors want from reviewers and how to critically appraise randomised controlled trials.Main outcome measures Quality of reviews of three manuscripts sent to reviewers at four to six monthly intervals, evaluated using the validated review quality instrument; number of deliberate major errors identified; time taken to review the manuscripts; proportion recommending rejection of the manuscripts.Results Reviewers in the self taught group scored higher in review quality after training than did the control group (score 2.85 v 2.56; difference 0.29, 95% confidence interval 0.14 to 0.44; P = 0.001), but the difference was not of editorial significance and was not maintained in the long term. Both intervention groups identified significantly more major errors after training than did the control group (3.14 and 2.96 v 2.13; P < 0.001), and this remained significant after the reviewers' performance at baseline assessment was taken into account. The evidence for benefit of training was no longer apparent on further testing six months after the interventions. Training had no impact on the time taken to review the papers but was associated with an increased likelihood of recommending rejection (92% and 84% v 76%; P = 0.002).Conclusions Short training packages have only a slight impact on the quality of peer review. The value of longer interventions needs to be assessed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document