Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium

The Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium Neuroinform (2009) 7:89–91 DOI 10.1007/s12021-009-9044-3 Clifford B. Saper & John H. R. Maunsell Humana Press 2009 As the Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium (NPRC) manuscripts that they received had been forwarded from ends its first year, it is worth looking back to see how the another Consortium journal. A similar number had been experiment has worked. sent out from each journal to other participants. In most NPRC was conceived in the summer of 2007 at a cases, the papers had been expedited, because the editors at meeting of editors and publishers of neuroscience journals. the second journal felt the previous reviews, and the One of the working groups addressed whether it was authors’ response to them, were sufficiently positive to possible to construct a system for permitting authors whose permit re-review by one or both of the original referees. In manuscript received supportive reviews at one journal but those cases when the editor at the second journal felt that was not accepted (perhaps because it was not within the they needed to get new reviews, the review time at the scope of the first journal, or not sufficiently novel to merit second journal was about what it would have been http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Neuroinformatics Springer Journals

The Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium

Neuroinformatics , Volume 7 (2) – Jan 27, 2009

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/the-neuroscience-peer-review-consortium-mL4Jly0Zqn
Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 by Humana Press Inc.
Subject
Biomedicine; Computational Biology/Bioinformatics; Biotechnology; Neurology ; Computer Appl. in Life Sciences ; Neurosciences
ISSN
1539-2791
eISSN
1559-0089
DOI
10.1007/s12021-009-9044-3
pmid
19172416
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Neuroinform (2009) 7:89–91 DOI 10.1007/s12021-009-9044-3 Clifford B. Saper & John H. R. Maunsell Humana Press 2009 As the Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium (NPRC) manuscripts that they received had been forwarded from ends its first year, it is worth looking back to see how the another Consortium journal. A similar number had been experiment has worked. sent out from each journal to other participants. In most NPRC was conceived in the summer of 2007 at a cases, the papers had been expedited, because the editors at meeting of editors and publishers of neuroscience journals. the second journal felt the previous reviews, and the One of the working groups addressed whether it was authors’ response to them, were sufficiently positive to possible to construct a system for permitting authors whose permit re-review by one or both of the original referees. In manuscript received supportive reviews at one journal but those cases when the editor at the second journal felt that was not accepted (perhaps because it was not within the they needed to get new reviews, the review time at the scope of the first journal, or not sufficiently novel to merit second journal was about what it would have been

Journal

NeuroinformaticsSpringer Journals

Published: Jan 27, 2009

There are no references for this article.