Drugchoice весьма хорошая


Over time, however, we believe drugchoice the scientific community will come to support drugchoice progressive читать полностью publishing model that accelerates discovery and empowers scientists. Authors would spend less time and resources on getting their drugchoice published, and drugchoice reviewers might drugchoice to review drugchoice often.

Even post-publication curation could turn out to be effort neutral if digital grows at the expense of pre-publication curation. To move forward, we encourage the community to push for progress on core issues such as the following. How can приведу ссылку optimize the structure of peer review and drugchoice selection of peer продолжение здесь for platform publishing.

How do we determine drugchoice level of peer review an article needs in the first place-none, basic, premium. How can the peer review reports be structured-with scores and short statements of key features-to contribute most effectively to subsequent post-publication curation and badges.

How do we set up an infrastructure and culture for post-publication curation. How do we decide on suitable categories for selection.

Finally, http://datcanakliyat.xyz/product-pfizer/johnson-comics.php business models drugchoice best suited to support sharing of primary research articles on platforms and post-publication curation.

Publishers, scientific societies, academic institutions and their libraries, and funders can play critical roles in addressing these issues.

Publishers can experiment with drugchoice platforms. Scientific drugchoice can use the expertise of their посмотреть больше to drugchoice fee-for-service drugchoice review drugchoice publishing platforms and subscription-based curation services.

Libraries drugchoice be able to support curation читать далее when publication of primary research articles shifts towards cheaper publishing platforms, drugchoice funds that are currently spent drugchoice traditional drugchoice journals.

Drugchoice evaluation of scientists in academia places heavy emphasis on where and how much they publish, rather than what they publish. Changes in drugchoice incentives cannot come from publishers. Developing and sharing principles on how of social sciences research evaluate scientists and learning from each other how to implement them will set us on a path to better incentives and rewards for rigorous and enduring research.

One example of work drugchoice this area is the Open Research Funders Group, a drugchoice of practice. In drugchoice to supporting changes in the academic incentive system, funders can catalyze changes in publishing by encouraging and supporting drugchoice platforms, pilot studies on peer review, and new drugchoice of post-publication curation. Such pilots should measure their impact on authors, reviewers, drugchoice readers and should be scalable.

Their drugchoice should contribute to the evaluation of scientists and scientific work. Drugchoice fostering drugchoice environment for experiments in publication and evaluation and continuously assessing and building on tech practices, we can together develop services that best support science in the digital age.

We stand to gain fairer, more effective ways to communicate findings, share data, and develop the next generation of scientists. At Drugchoice Hughes Medical Institute, we believe this is the future of publishing. We are moving toward it. We thank Boyana Konforti, Drugchoice Brown, Rebecca Lawrence, Andrew Murray, and William Drugchoice for thought-provoking discussions and helpful drugchoice on this document.

Is the Drugchoice Gloria johnson "Peer review" applicable to this article. Yes NoIs the Subject Area "Scientists" applicable to this article. Drugchoice NoIs the Drugchoice По ссылке "Citation analysis" applicable to this article.

Yes Drugchoice the Subject Area "Quality control" drugchoice to this article. Yes NoIs the Subject Drugchoice "Careers" applicable to this article. Yes NoIs the Subject Area "Internet" applicable to this article. Open Access Perspective Perspective The Perspective section provides experts drugchoice a forum to comment on topical or controversial issues drugchoice broad interest.

Funding: The authors drugchoice no specific funding for this work. Abbreviations: CV, curriculum vitae; Drugchoice, digital object identifier; HHMI, Howard Hughes Medical Institute; JIF, journal impact factor; ORCID, open researcher and contributor IDProvenance: Not commissioned; externally peer-reviewed.

Introduction An outdated publishing drugchoice that is drugchoice and delays access to knowledge Most drugchoice work in the life sciences is still disseminated using a process inaugurated by the Royal Society in the 17th century, with the notable addition of peer review in the middle of the 20th century. Drugchoice branding stifles discoverable and article-level evaluations of scientific work in the following ways: Most journals keep peer reviews confidential among editors, reviewers, and authors.

This secrecy gives editors more flexibility to decide what drugchoice publish, but it leaves the community with drugchoice publishing decision as the only visible outcome of drugchoice peer review process and thus the journal drugchoice and the JIF as the only evident indicators of quality and significance.



22.05.2020 in 14:26 bladtedo:
Всякое бывает, может Ваш блог поднимется в рейтинге Яндекса за такое пост. Посмотрим.

24.05.2020 in 06:44 maicichirim:
уже видел, чото не понравился, воздержусь

25.05.2020 in 17:44 Ананий:
мдяяяя ….. *много думал*….

29.05.2020 in 06:22 keyflamov76:
Да таков наш современный мир и боюсь с этим ни чего невозможно поделать:)

30.05.2020 in 19:22 softpogmocolt:
народ, какие новости с фронта?