We greatly appreciate the time spent in preparing a review, and will consult you on a revision of a manuscript only if we believe the paper has Reviewer in science significantly improved but still requires input. If you cannot judge a paper impartially, you should not accept it for review or you should notify the editor as soon as you appreciate the situation.
Please destroy all copies of the manuscript after review. Just as you wish prompt evaluations of your own research, please return your reviews within the time period specified when you were asked to review the paper.
Search Peer Review at Science Publications As a peer reviewer for Science magazine, you are part of a valued community. Reviewer in science from the Tibetan Plateau and the North The value of such articles to the readership is increased with comment and opinion provided by the author from a specific context.
Every review article published will advance existing knowledge and highlight new directions being taken at the forefront of expanding subject areas by synthesis, evaluation and discussion of previously published literature.
We encourage authors to adopt a writing style which balances conciseness with the need to do justice to their chosen subject. The privacy and anonymity provisions of this process extend to the reviewer, who should not reveal his or her identity to outsiders or members of the press.
Our readership is more diverse than that of specialist journals: Articles may be extensive, providing comprehensive coverage of a relatively broad or cross-disciplinary subject area, or they may be much shorter providing an in-depth overview of a very specific topic, and authors may choose to include a proportion of their own primary research data to support their arguments.
The review itself will be shared only with the author, and possibly with other reviewers and our Board. In cases where the decision is clear we may proceed without cross-review, in these cases you will be sent the other reviews for your information.
If, as a reviewer, you believe that you are not qualified to evaluate a component of the research, you should inform the editor in your review.
Once all reviews are in, you will be invited to read the other reviews and make additional comments within 2 business days.
Earth Science Reviews offers authors the rare opportunity to explore a particular subject without any limitation on the number of words used. If we do not receive comments we will proceed based on the reviews in hand.
Cross-review is not required. Reviewers are contacted before being sent a paper and are asked to return comments within 1 to 2 weeks for most papers. For in-depth review, at least two outside referees are consulted.
Scientific progress depends on the communication of information that can be trusted, and the peer review process is a vital part of that system. Authors may further enhance their article with the addition of supplementary material such as videos, datasets and applications.
If events will prevent a timely review, it is your responsibility to inform the editor at the time of the request. The reviewer should avoid personal comments; Science reserves the right to edit out comments that will hinder constructive discussion of manuscripts.
See the General Information for Authors Page. Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers Reviews should be objective evaluations of the research. The review process is conducted anonymously; Science never reveals the identity of reviewers to authors. Submissions that simply aggregate previous literature and do not build on current awareness, or those that are structured like a primary research paper, are unlikely to be accepted for publication.
Try out personalized alert features The following are examples of what the editors consider to demonstrate very well the kind of review article that ESR hopes to publish:Science, Biology Reviewer Part 1.
Directions: This is the first part of the series of College entrance exam reviewer under the category Science, Biology.
Earth-Science Reviews. Supports Open Access. Latest articles. Assessment and mapping of groundwater vulnerability to pollution: Current status and challenges. Physiographic influences on dense shelf-water cascading down the Antarctic continental slope.
Manuscript reviewers are vital to the publication process, and as a reviewer you will gain valuable experience in scientific publishing. We invite you. As a peer reviewer for Science magazine, you are part of a valued community. Scientific progress depends on the communication of information that can be trusted, and the peer review process is a.
Science Reviewer ni Darlene Shien by kent_marciano_1 in Types > School Work. Elsevier acknowledges reviewers’ invaluable contribution to the progress of science. Elsevier’s reviewer recognition program aims to engage reviewers and reward them for the work they do.
The program features several projects and experiments.Download