1 resultado para Manuscripts, Mexican
em Nottingham eTheses
Filtro por publicador
- Aberystwyth University Repository - Reino Unido (4)
- Academic Research Repository at Institute of Developing Economies (3)
- Adam Mickiewicz University Repository (2)
- Applied Math and Science Education Repository - Washington - USA (1)
- Aquatic Commons (93)
- Archive of European Integration (4)
- Archivo Digital para la Docencia y la Investigación - Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad del País Vasco (6)
- Aston University Research Archive (2)
- Biblioteca Digital da Produção Intelectual da Universidade de São Paulo (BDPI/USP) (2)
- Biblioteca Digital de la Universidad Católica Argentina (4)
- Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações Eletrônicas da UERJ (12)
- Bioline International (2)
- BORIS: Bern Open Repository and Information System - Berna - Suiça (15)
- Boston University Digital Common (4)
- Brock University, Canada (3)
- Bucknell University Digital Commons - Pensilvania - USA (9)
- Bulgarian Digital Mathematics Library at IMI-BAS (2)
- CaltechTHESIS (2)
- Cambridge University Engineering Department Publications Database (4)
- CentAUR: Central Archive University of Reading - UK (17)
- Center for Jewish History Digital Collections (129)
- Chinese Academy of Sciences Institutional Repositories Grid Portal (6)
- Comissão Econômica para a América Latina e o Caribe (CEPAL) (25)
- CORA - Cork Open Research Archive - University College Cork - Ireland (8)
- Cornell: DigitalCommons@ILR (1)
- Dalarna University College Electronic Archive (1)
- Digital Archives@Colby (5)
- Digital Commons @ DU | University of Denver Research (2)
- Digital Commons at Florida International University (14)
- DigitalCommons@The Texas Medical Center (46)
- DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln (1)
- Digitale Sammlungen - Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main (13)
- Dokumentenserver der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen (2)
- DRUM (Digital Repository at the University of Maryland) (1)
- Duke University (4)
- eResearch Archive - Queensland Department of Agriculture; Fisheries and Forestry (6)
- Gallica, Bibliotheque Numerique - Bibliothèque nationale de France (French National Library) (BnF), France (1)
- Harvard University (10)
- Helda - Digital Repository of University of Helsinki (19)
- Helvia: Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad de Córdoba (1)
- Infoteca EMBRAPA (1)
- Institutional Repository of Leibniz University Hannover (1)
- Instituto Politécnico do Porto, Portugal (1)
- Memoria Académica - FaHCE, UNLP - Argentina (3)
- Ministerio de Cultura, Spain (1)
- National Center for Biotechnology Information - NCBI (2)
- Nottingham eTheses (1)
- Portal de Revistas Científicas Complutenses - Espanha (7)
- Publishing Network for Geoscientific & Environmental Data (3)
- QUB Research Portal - Research Directory and Institutional Repository for Queen's University Belfast (27)
- Queensland University of Technology - ePrints Archive (37)
- Repositorio Academico Digital UANL (2)
- Repositório Científico da Universidade de Évora - Portugal (1)
- Repositorio de la Vicerrectoría de Investigación de la Universidad de Costa Rica (1)
- Repositório Institucional UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista "Julio de Mesquita Filho" (1)
- SAPIENTIA - Universidade do Algarve - Portugal (1)
- School of Medicine, Washington University, United States (3)
- Scielo España (3)
- Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Mexico (11)
- Universidad del Rosario, Colombia (1)
- Universitätsbibliothek Kassel, Universität Kassel, Germany (1)
- Université de Lausanne, Switzerland (3)
- Université de Montréal, Canada (3)
- University of Connecticut - USA (1)
- University of Michigan (354)
- University of Queensland eSpace - Australia (3)
- University of Southampton, United Kingdom (1)
- University of Washington (2)
Resumo:
Background: The publication of articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals is a fairly complex and stepwise process that involves responding to referees’ comments. Little guidance is available in the biomedical literature on how to deal with such comments. Objective: The objective of this article is to provide guidance to novice writers on dealing with peer review comments in a way that maximizes the chance of subsequent acceptance. Methods: This will be a literature review and review of the author’s experience as a writer and referee. Results: Where possible, the author should consider revising and resubmitting rather than sending an article elsewhere. A structured layout for responding to referees’ comments is suggested that includes the 3 golden rules: (1) respond completely; (2) respond politely; and (3) respond with evidence. Conclusion: Responding to referees’ comments requires the writer to overcome any feelings of personal attack, and to instead concentrate on addressing referees’ concerns in a courteous, objective, and evidencebased way. (J Am Acad Dermatol 2004;51:79-83.)