Adequacy of authors’ replies to criticism raised in electronic letters to the editor: cohort study

Objective To investigate whether substantive criticism in electronic letters to the editor, defined as a problem that could invalidate the research or reduce its reliability, is adequately addressed by the authors

Call for emergency action to limit global temperature increases, restore biodiversity and protect health: Wealthy nations must do much more, much faster

The UN General Assembly in September 2021 will bring countries together at a critical time for marshalling collective action to tackle the global environmental crisis. They will meet again at the biodiversity summit in Kunming, China, and the climate conference (COP26) in Glasgow, UK. Ahead of these pivotal meetings, we— the editors of health journals worldwide— call for urgent action to keep average global temperature increases below 1.5, halt the destruction of nature and protect healt

Editorial

Data Sharing Statements for Clinical Trials: A Requirement of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editor

Call for emergency action to limit global temperature increases, restore biodiversity, and protect health Wealthy nations must do much more, much faster

The UN General Assembly in September 2021 will bring countries together at a critical time for marshalling collective action to tackle the global environmental crisis. They will meet again at the biodiversity summit in Kunming, China, and the climate conference (COP26) in Glasgow, UK. Ahead of these pivotal meetings, we—the editors of health journals worldwide—call for urgent action to keep average global temperature increases below 1.5 °C, halt the destruction of nature, and protect health

Call for emergency action to limit global temperature increases, restore biodiversity, and protect health

No Abstrac

Call for emergency action to limit global temperature increases, restore biodiversity, and protect health

Contains fulltext : 237549.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access

Mapping the landscape: Peer review in computing education research

Peer review is a mainstay of academic publication – indeed, it is the peer-review process that provides much of the publications’ credibility. As the number of computing education conferences and the number of submissions increase, the need for reviewers grows. This report does not attempt to set standards for reviewing; rather, as a first step toward meeting the need for well qualified reviewers, it presents an overview of the ways peer review is used in various venues, both inside computing education and, for com- parison, in closely-related areas outside our field. It considers four key components of peer review in some depth: criteria, the review process, roles and responsibilities, and ethics and etiquette. To do so, it draws on relevant literature, guidance and forms associated with peer review, interviews with journal editors and conference chairs, and a limited survey of the computing education research community. In addition to providing an overview of practice, this report identifies a number of themes running through the discourse that have relevance for decision making about how best to conduct peer review for a given venue