Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2775954490> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 38 of
38
with 100 items per page.
- W2775954490 endingPage "2160" @default.
- W2775954490 startingPage "2157" @default.
- W2775954490 abstract "Over 95% of papers submitted for publication in Neurology are sent for peer review. Most papers have at least two ad hoc reviewers and virtually all published papers have had three or more reviewers. Neurology depends upon the dedication, skill, and commitment of our ad hoc reviewers.The mean time from manuscript submission to initial decision has been decreased to less than 3 weeks. Expedited papers are usually peer reviewed within 14 days. In addition to initial reviews, over three-quarters of papers require re-review by one or more peer reviewers. Many even require third reviews. In the case of differing opinions on a paper, senior reviewers are often asked to help adjudicate between reviews.Our reviewers are expert and experienced. When we ask for the assistance of a new reviewer we always obtain at least two reviews from established experts. The busiest, most senior leaders in clinical neuroscience are among our best and most timely reviewers.Reviewers can learn both from reviewing new work and from seeing the opinions of other reviewers. The Editor-in-Chief is occasionally asked for advice by reviewers as to “How am I doing?” In addition to providing a critique on the content of reviews, timeliness is the Editor-in-Chief’s concern. The best reviewers review papers quickly. The risk of such behavior is that the Editor may misinterpret a good reviewer’s alacrity as an indication that the reviewer needs more work . Reviewers can inform journal offices about number of papers they can handle (as well as indicating times when they are overcommitted or unavailable).The rewards for reviewers include the knowledge that they are contributing to good science, the opportunity to gain perspective on their field, and experience that improves their own ability to write effectively. Good reviewers are generally excellent mentors and accomplished scientists.Our reviewers …" @default.
- W2775954490 created "2018-01-05" @default.
- W2775954490 date "2001-12-26" @default.
- W2775954490 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
- W2775954490 title "Message from the Editors to our ad hoc Reviewers" @default.
- W2775954490 doi "https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.57.12.2157" @default.
- W2775954490 hasPublicationYear "2001" @default.
- W2775954490 type Work @default.
- W2775954490 sameAs 2775954490 @default.
- W2775954490 citedByCount "0" @default.
- W2775954490 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
- W2775954490 hasConcept C23123220 @default.
- W2775954490 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
- W2775954490 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
- W2775954490 hasConceptScore W2775954490C23123220 @default.
- W2775954490 hasConceptScore W2775954490C41008148 @default.
- W2775954490 hasConceptScore W2775954490C71924100 @default.
- W2775954490 hasIssue "12" @default.
- W2775954490 hasLocation W27759544901 @default.
- W2775954490 hasOpenAccess W2775954490 @default.
- W2775954490 hasPrimaryLocation W27759544901 @default.
- W2775954490 hasRelatedWork W2115485936 @default.
- W2775954490 hasRelatedWork W2119214692 @default.
- W2775954490 hasRelatedWork W2144190808 @default.
- W2775954490 hasRelatedWork W2153015554 @default.
- W2775954490 hasRelatedWork W2357241418 @default.
- W2775954490 hasRelatedWork W2366644548 @default.
- W2775954490 hasRelatedWork W2376314740 @default.
- W2775954490 hasRelatedWork W2384888906 @default.
- W2775954490 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
- W2775954490 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
- W2775954490 hasVolume "57" @default.
- W2775954490 isParatext "false" @default.
- W2775954490 isRetracted "false" @default.
- W2775954490 magId "2775954490" @default.
- W2775954490 workType "article" @default.