1 resultado para dysfunctional beliefs
em The Scholarly Commons | School of Hotel Administration
Filtro por publicador
- ABACUS. Repositorio de Producción Científica - Universidad Europea (1)
- Academic Archive On-line (Stockholm University; Sweden) (1)
- Acceda, el repositorio institucional de la Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria. España (1)
- AMS Tesi di Dottorato - Alm@DL - Università di Bologna (1)
- Aston University Research Archive (17)
- B-Digital - Universidade Fernando Pessoa - Portugal (1)
- Biblioteca Digital - Universidad Icesi - Colombia (1)
- Biblioteca Digital da Produção Intelectual da Universidade de São Paulo (2)
- Biblioteca Digital da Produção Intelectual da Universidade de São Paulo (BDPI/USP) (1)
- BORIS: Bern Open Repository and Information System - Berna - Suiça (36)
- Brock University, Canada (7)
- Bucknell University Digital Commons - Pensilvania - USA (2)
- Cambridge University Engineering Department Publications Database (5)
- CentAUR: Central Archive University of Reading - UK (31)
- Central European University - Research Support Scheme (1)
- CORA - Cork Open Research Archive - University College Cork - Ireland (4)
- Corvinus Research Archive - The institutional repository for the Corvinus University of Budapest (1)
- CUNY Academic Works (1)
- Dalarna University College Electronic Archive (7)
- Digital Commons @ DU | University of Denver Research (1)
- Digital Commons @ Winthrop University (2)
- Digital Commons at Florida International University (19)
- Digital Peer Publishing (1)
- DigitalCommons@The Texas Medical Center (10)
- DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln (1)
- Doria (National Library of Finland DSpace Services) - National Library of Finland, Finland (1)
- DRUM (Digital Repository at the University of Maryland) (2)
- Duke University (4)
- Fachlicher Dokumentenserver Paedagogik/Erziehungswissenschaften (1)
- Helda - Digital Repository of University of Helsinki (24)
- Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship Repository (1)
- Instituto Politécnico de Viseu (1)
- Instituto Politécnico do Porto, Portugal (1)
- Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada - Lisboa (1)
- Memoria Académica - FaHCE, UNLP - Argentina (3)
- Ministerio de Cultura, Spain (7)
- National Center for Biotechnology Information - NCBI (6)
- Nottingham eTheses (1)
- Portal de Revistas Científicas Complutenses - Espanha (1)
- QSpace: Queen's University - Canada (2)
- QUB Research Portal - Research Directory and Institutional Repository for Queen's University Belfast (34)
- Queensland University of Technology - ePrints Archive (503)
- Repositorio Académico de la Universidad Nacional de Costa Rica (1)
- Repositório Científico da Universidade de Évora - Portugal (1)
- Repositório digital da Fundação Getúlio Vargas - FGV (1)
- Repositório Digital da UNIVERSIDADE DA MADEIRA - Portugal (1)
- Repositório Institucional da Universidade de Brasília (1)
- Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad de Almería (1)
- Repositorio Institucional UNISALLE - Colombia (4)
- Research Open Access Repository of the University of East London. (2)
- Scielo España (1)
- The Scholarly Commons | School of Hotel Administration; Cornell University Research (1)
- Universidad de Alicante (1)
- Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (4)
- Universidade Complutense de Madrid (1)
- Universidade de Lisboa - Repositório Aberto (1)
- Universidade Técnica de Lisboa (1)
- Universitat de Girona, Spain (2)
- Université de Lausanne, Switzerland (2)
- Université de Montréal (1)
- Université de Montréal, Canada (8)
- University of Connecticut - USA (2)
- University of Michigan (12)
- University of Queensland eSpace - Australia (33)
- University of Washington (3)
- Worcester Research and Publications - Worcester Research and Publications - UK (2)
Resumo:
[Excerpt] In this issue’s “From the Editor,” I describe a new review policy and process for both authors and reviewers. Authors should find that this new policy and process provides them with faster editorial decisions, higher quality feedback, and greater clarity about required revisions, as well as greater freedom to disagree with reviewers and to write the papers they (the authors) want. Reviewers should find that this new policy and process saves them from having to review obviously flawed papers and from having to review different versions of the same paper over and over again.