Abstract
Several divergent standpoints are hosted under the umbrella of Peer Review. Authors, who wish to see the results of scrupulous work published, in the anticipation of career promotion or secure funding. Editors, who are under pressure to identify sound and novel research. Reviewers, who try to fit a thoughtful and time-consuming process within busy schedules, often receiving no credit for it. And Publishers competing in a transforming landscape of fast and abundant science publishing. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Full Text
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call