Hypothesis 5 (solution) of Natalie E. Dean tweet
Researchers can address common pitfalls with scientific writing if they have a tool that facilitates peer feedback on research papers. Preprint papers often forego much of the peer review process which would normally catch common writing pitfalls, so rapid peer review mechanisms should be provided for preprint papers. Possible mechanisms for feedback: discussion board / forum, peer comments and annotations.
0
1
Contributors are:
Who are from:
Tags
CSCW (Computer-supported cooperative work)
Computing Sciences
Related
Journalists interpreting preprints effect on scicomm according to Jessica Rivera MS (reply to nataliexdean)
Heather Lander PhD responds to nataliexdeans tweet reaffirming her message
Tim Plante MD MHS responds to nataliexdean with his solution to help first time writers
Analysis of Natalie E. Dean tweet
Hypothesis 1 of Natalie E. Dean tweet
Hypothesis 2 of Natalie E. Dean tweet
Hypothesis 3 of Natalie E. Dean tweet
Hypothesis 4 of Natalie E. Dean tweet
Hypothesis 5 (solution) of Natalie E. Dean tweet
Tim Plante MD MHS responds to nataliexdean with his solution to help first time writers
Hypothesis 5 (solution) of Natalie E. Dean tweet