Timeline for Are there "uninteresting" publications in high profile journals?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 27, 2014 at 4:43 | comment | added | Martin - マーチン | Making look numbers nicer than they actually are. I.e. in a chemical reaction you have a conversion (yield) of 10%, but you can regain like 85% of your starting material. So you can argue that you only used 15% and hence write that the yield is 80% after eductrecovery. (Also leaving out relevant information that might disprove your theory is quite common) | |
| Mar 27, 2014 at 4:36 | comment | added | ff524 | @Martin "tuned results" ratio? | |
| Mar 27, 2014 at 4:34 | comment | added | Martin - マーチン | usually those high impact journals have several stages of approval and it is more likely that an 'interesting' paper will get rejected, than an 'uninteresting' will be approved. They will most certainly contact at least two independent reviewers. However, the "tuned results' ratio tends to be higher in high impact journals. | |
| Mar 27, 2014 at 2:27 | vote | accept | x.y.z... | ||
| Mar 27, 2014 at 0:02 | history | edited | ff524 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 152 characters in body; added 27 characters in body; added 8 characters in body; added 4 characters in body; deleted 4 characters in body
|
| Mar 26, 2014 at 23:56 | history | edited | ff524 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 19 characters in body; deleted 3 characters in body; deleted 120 characters in body
|
| Mar 26, 2014 at 23:44 | history | edited | ff524 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 302 characters in body; deleted 190 characters in body; added 17 characters in body; deleted 13 characters in body; deleted 5 characters in body
|
| Mar 26, 2014 at 23:31 | history | edited | ff524 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 37 characters in body; added 4 characters in body
|
| Mar 26, 2014 at 23:20 | history | answered | ff524 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |