1. Don’t suggest your old PhD/post-doc advisor. We all have the internet and it wastes my time looking them up.
-
-
Prikaži ovu nit
-
2. Don’t suggest current collaborators. Again, we all have the internet. (Past collaborators are *sometimes* okay)
Prikaži ovu nit -
3. Don’t suggest a new collaborator who won’t show up on searches – they clearly have a conflict, it’s not a nice position to put them in and you look sneaky when they tell us.
Prikaži ovu nit -
4. Think about the technical things that need to be checked – e.g. which techniques you used and who could competently judge the methods/data.
Prikaži ovu nit -
5. Don’t suggest people with literally no related technical expertise. They might be useful for a subjective opinion, but we’re limited in the number of referees we can use and getting the technicalities right trumps the subjective stuff.
Prikaži ovu nit -
6. Do let me know why you think your suggested referees would be appropriate – what expertise do they have that I will find helpful?
Prikaži ovu nit -
7. Opinions from diverse sources are good. Don’t just send me a list of 10 white dudes in their 50s.
Prikaži ovu nit -
8. Other editors might disagree, but it’s not helpful for me if you suggest the most obvious people in the field. If you’re making rotaxanes/catenanes even I would know that
@sirfrasersays and@ProfDaveLeigh are good shouts.Prikaži ovu nit -
9. I don’t usually need their full contact details. (Did I mention we have the internet?)
Prikaži ovu nit -
10. And if you’re going to ask that we exclude reviewers, restrict yourself to a few names and give us explanatory details – just saying “conflict of interest” isn’t very helpful.
Prikaži ovu nit
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.