Optional published refereeing

Kumar, K.; Gordon, R. A.

doi:10.1063/1.2995480

“…Magnetic measurements were done on pressed-sintered pellets in a commercial (Quantum Design) superconducting quantum interference device magnetometer (SQUID) in the temperature range 2 -300 K. Specific heat measurements were performed using a physical property measurement system (Quantum Design) in the temperature rage 0. HoCrO 3 will be published elsewhere 25 .…”

Section: Pacs Numbersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Direct observation of low energy nuclear spin excitations in HoCrO₃by high resolution neutron spectroscopy

Chatterji¹,

Jalarvo²,

Kumar³

et al. 2013

J. Phys.: Condens. Matter

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We have investigated low energy nuclear spin excitations in the strongly correlated electron compound HoCrO3. We observe clear inelastic peaks at E = 22.18 ± 0.04 μeV in both energy loss and gain sides. The energy of the inelastic peaks remains constant in the temperature range 1.5-40 K at which they are observed. The intensity of the inelastic peak increases at first with increasing temperature and then decreases at higher temperatures. The temperature dependence of the energy and intensity of the inelastic peaks is very unusual compared to that observed in other Nd, Co, V and also simple Ho compounds. Huge quasielastic scattering appears at higher temperatures presumably due to the fluctuating electronic moments of the Ho ions that get increasingly disordered at higher temperatures. The strong quasielastic scattering may also originate in the first Ho crystal-field excitations at about 1.5 meV.

show abstract

“…At the opposite limit, refereeing systems that rigidly attempt to accept all manuscripts that might otherwise be unfairly rejected by adopting measures that in practice effectively ensure a very low rejection rate (e.g. the removal of referee anonymity, Robertsen 1976, the inclusion of a published author rebuttal to all referee comments, Kumar 1979, or the creation of new specialized journals or letters sections, Lazarus 1980), unnecessarily compromise the effectiveness and inherent real value of the refereeing system and lead to a reduction in the general estimation of the value of the work that is accepted for publication.…”

Section: Physics Laboratory I Technical University Ol Denmark Dk-2800 Lyngby Denmarkmentioning

confidence: 99%

The quandary of manuscript reviewing

Whitehurst

¹

1982

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A growing interest in and concern about the adequacy and fairness of modern peer-review practices in publication and funding are apparent across a wide range of scientific disciplines. Although questions about reliability, accountability, reviewer bias, and competence have been raised, there has been very little direct research on these variables.The present investigation was an attempt to study the peer-review process directly, in the natural setting of actual journal referee evaluations of submitted manuscripts. As test materials we selected 12 already published research articles by investigators from prestigious and highly productive American psychology departments, one article from each of 12 highly regarded and widely read American psychology journals with high rejection rates (80%) and nonblind refereeing practices.With fictitious names and institutions substituted for the original ones (e.g., Tri-Valley Center for Human Potential), the altered manuscripts were formally resubmitted to the journals that had originally refereed and published them 18 to 32 months earlier. Of the sample of 38 editors and reviewers, only three (8%) detected the resubmissions. This result allowed nine of the 12 articles to continue through the review process to receive an actual evaluation: eight of the nine were rejected. Sixteen of the 18 referees (89%) recommended against publication and the editors concurred. The grounds for rejection were in many cases described as "serious methodological flaws." A number of possible interpretations of these data are reviewed and evaluated.

show abstract

“…At the opposite limit, refereeing systems that rigidly attempt to accept all manuscripts that might otherwise be unfairly rejected by adopting measures that in practice effectively ensure a very low rejection rate (e.g. the removal of referee anonymity, Robertsen 1976, the inclusion of a published author rebuttal to all referee comments, Kumar 1979, or the creation of new specialized journals or letters sections, Lazarus 1980), unnecessarily compromise the effectiveness and inherent real value of the refereeing system and lead to a reduction in the general estimation of the value of the work that is accepted for publication.…”

Section: Physics Laboratory I Technical University Ol Denmark Dk-2800 Lyngby Denmarkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Manuscript evaluation by journal referees and editors: Randomness or bias?

Colman

¹

1982

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Optional published refereeing

Cited by 5 publications

References 1 publication

Direct observation of low energy nuclear spin excitations in HoCrO₃by high resolution neutron spectroscopy

Direct observation of low energy nuclear spin excitations in HoCrO₃by high resolution neutron spectroscopy

The quandary of manuscript reviewing

Manuscript evaluation by journal referees and editors: Randomness or bias?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Optional published refereeing

Cited by 5 publications

References 1 publication

Direct observation of low energy nuclear spin excitations in HoCrO3by high resolution neutron spectroscopy

Direct observation of low energy nuclear spin excitations in HoCrO3by high resolution neutron spectroscopy

The quandary of manuscript reviewing

Manuscript evaluation by journal referees and editors: Randomness or bias?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Direct observation of low energy nuclear spin excitations in HoCrO₃by high resolution neutron spectroscopy

Direct observation of low energy nuclear spin excitations in HoCrO₃by high resolution neutron spectroscopy