Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.1073/pnas.1418218112 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1073/pnas.1418218112 C4299220!4299220!25535380     free     free     free Warning: file_get_contents(https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&id=25535380&cmd=llinks): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 215 Warning: imagejpeg(C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\phplern\25535380.jpg): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 117       Proc+Natl+Acad+Sci+U+S+A 2015 ; 112 (2): 360-5 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=25535380|t=2015. Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping |pdf=|usr=}}{{25535380}} gab.com Text Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping JO: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=25535380 #FOAvip Peer review is an institution of enormous importance for the careers of scientists and the content of published science. The decisions of gatekeepers?editors and peer reviewers?legitimize scientific findings, distribute professional rewards, and influence future research. However, appropriate data to gauge the quality of gatekeeper decision-making in science has rarely been made publicly available. Our research tracks the popularity of rejected and accepted manuscripts at three elite medical journals. We found that editors and reviewers generally made good decisions regarding which manuscripts to promote and reject. However, many highly cited articles were surprisingly rejected. Our research suggests that evaluative strategies that increase the mean quality of published science may also increase the risk of rejecting unconventional or outstanding work. Twit Text FOAVip Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping ????Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=25535380 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=25535380 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|25535380}}</ref> Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping #MMPMID25535380 Siler K; Lee K; Bero L Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2015[Jan]; 112 (2): 360-5 PMID25535380show ga Peer review is an institution of enormous importance for the careers of scientists and the content of published science. The decisions of gatekeepers?editors and peer reviewers?legitimize scientific findings, distribute professional rewards, and influence future research. However, appropriate data to gauge the quality of gatekeeper decision-making in science has rarely been made publicly available. Our research tracks the popularity of rejected and accepted manuscripts at three elite medical journals. We found that editors and reviewers generally made good decisions regarding which manuscripts to promote and reject. However, many highly cited articles were surprisingly rejected. Our research suggests that evaluative strategies that increase the mean quality of published science may also increase the risk of rejecting unconventional or outstanding work. äMeasuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping (epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing