1 resultado para infirmière novice
em Nottingham eTheses
Filtro por publicador
- Repository Napier (2)
- ABACUS. Repositorio de Producción Científica - Universidad Europea (1)
- Abertay Research Collections - Abertay University’s repository (1)
- Aberystwyth University Repository - Reino Unido (5)
- Acceda, el repositorio institucional de la Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria. España (1)
- AMS Tesi di Dottorato - Alm@DL - Università di Bologna (2)
- Aquatic Commons (2)
- Aston University Research Archive (15)
- Biblioteca Digital da Produção Intelectual da Universidade de São Paulo (1)
- Biblioteca Digital da Produção Intelectual da Universidade de São Paulo (BDPI/USP) (1)
- Biblioteca Digital de la Universidad Católica Argentina (1)
- Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações Eletrônicas da UERJ (1)
- Bioline International (1)
- BORIS: Bern Open Repository and Information System - Berna - Suiça (7)
- Boston University Digital Common (2)
- Brock University, Canada (11)
- Brunel University (1)
- Bucknell University Digital Commons - Pensilvania - USA (1)
- CaltechTHESIS (1)
- Cambridge University Engineering Department Publications Database (9)
- CentAUR: Central Archive University of Reading - UK (8)
- Chinese Academy of Sciences Institutional Repositories Grid Portal (1)
- Clark Digital Commons--knowledge; creativity; research; and innovation of Clark University (1)
- CORA - Cork Open Research Archive - University College Cork - Ireland (5)
- Dalarna University College Electronic Archive (1)
- Deakin Research Online - Australia (52)
- Digital Commons - Michigan Tech (3)
- Digital Commons - Montana Tech (1)
- Digital Commons @ DU | University of Denver Research (1)
- Digital Commons at Florida International University (9)
- DigitalCommons@The Texas Medical Center (2)
- DRUM (Digital Repository at the University of Maryland) (3)
- Duke University (3)
- Gallica, Bibliotheque Numerique - Bibliothèque nationale de France (French National Library) (BnF), France (7)
- Helda - Digital Repository of University of Helsinki (6)
- Indian Institute of Science - Bangalore - Índia (5)
- Lume - Repositório Digital da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (1)
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1)
- Memoria Académica - FaHCE, UNLP - Argentina (3)
- Memorial University Research Repository (1)
- Ministerio de Cultura, Spain (1)
- National Center for Biotechnology Information - NCBI (1)
- Nottingham eTheses (1)
- Portal de Revistas Científicas Complutenses - Espanha (2)
- QSpace: Queen's University - Canada (1)
- QUB Research Portal - Research Directory and Institutional Repository for Queen's University Belfast (17)
- Queensland University of Technology - ePrints Archive (153)
- Repositório Científico do Instituto Politécnico de Lisboa - Portugal (1)
- Repositório Institucional da Universidade de Aveiro - Portugal (1)
- Repositório Institucional UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista "Julio de Mesquita Filho" (12)
- Research Open Access Repository of the University of East London. (1)
- Savoirs UdeS : plateforme de diffusion de la production intellectuelle de l’Université de Sherbrooke - Canada (15)
- Universidad de Alicante (1)
- Universidad del Rosario, Colombia (3)
- Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (4)
- Universidade Federal do Pará (2)
- Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN) (6)
- Universitätsbibliothek Kassel, Universität Kassel, Germany (1)
- Université de Lausanne, Switzerland (4)
- Université de Montréal (17)
- Université de Montréal, Canada (144)
- Université Laval Mémoires et thèses électroniques (1)
- University of Michigan (7)
- University of Queensland eSpace - Australia (13)
- University of Washington (7)
- WestminsterResearch - UK (1)
- Worcester Research and Publications - Worcester Research and Publications - UK (3)
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.)