| Literature DB >> 31835023 |
Matthew Krummel1, Catherine Blish2, Michael Kuhns3, Ken Cadwell4, Andrew Oberst5, Ananda Goldrath6, K Mark Ansel7, Hongbo Chi8, Ryan O'Connell9, E John Wherry10, Marion Pepper5.
Abstract
Despite being a staple of our science, the process of pre-publication peer review has few agreed-upon standards defining its goals or ideal execution. As a community of reviewers and authors, we assembled an evaluation format and associated specific standards for the process as we think it should be practiced. We propose that we apply, debate, and ultimately extend these to improve the transparency of our criticism and the speed with which quality data and ideas become public.Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31835023 DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2019.11.029
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cell ISSN: 0092-8674 Impact factor: 41.582