Do you have what it takes to become an external Greeley expert? The aim is to achieve the right balance between national and international evaluators, as well as a balance between gender diversity. These comments from Reviewer A are the result of a second round of verification and responded to the authors` response to exam A in the first round. While the authors tried to be reactive in several steps throughout the evaluation process of this manuscript and ignore the tone, they expressed their concerns about the obvious minutes and double standards of the expert: in Table 2, we look at the sentence of the 268 recommendations of the evaluators in relation to the 136 decisions of the EIC, without linking them by manuscript. In the first round, all manuscripts received an external evaluation. For the reasons set out above, 4 had only one recommendation from the critic; These four manuscripts and reviewers` recommendations are included in the analysis in Table 2, but not in Table 1. Full agreement on the details of a manuscript`s verification is not expected for a large number of reasons – especially because we usually try to maximize the expertise of reviewers to verify all the clinical, management, policy and science issues raised. Indeed, the wealth of comments from reviewers to authors and publishers is essential to the judgment of publishers in making the final decision on publication, and it is particularly important to instruct authors to consider the revision of their manuscripts. However, in this analysis, we focus on the overall judgments on the suitability for publication in HSR. Once an expert has agreed to the verification, reviewers are provided with an access code that allows them to view the manuscript file “for reviewers”, consisting of anonymous PDF files of the manuscript and all appendices intended for reviewers. If they are willing to submit their review, they use the same system to answer a “scorecard” with questions about the quality and importance of the manuscript, suitability for a complete research article or research mandate, and suitability for a specific comment.

Reviewers are invited to provide their publication recommendation (refusal, minor or major revisions) only for writing and to declare that they are willing to reconsider this manuscript when it is revised. Then, you can add or create separate comments for IEC and SAE only, and comments for authors. Only the last type of information is shared with the authors. Sometimes it takes an outside eye. ICAHN`s external peer review network helps member hospitals improve the quality of care by monitoring the performance of their medical staff and identifying areas where performance needs to be improved. ICAHN hospitals ensure that the quality of patient care is at the highest level by using their own internal peer review process for providers. . . .

Коментарите са затворени.