The importance of resubmitting rejected paper

Journal of Scholarly Publishing

Volumn 38, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 151-155

  Donovan, Stephen K ^a  

^a NATURALIS BIODIVERSITY CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34248547549     PISSN: 11989742     EISSN: 17101166     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3138/W706-5884-KG84-J282     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. See David Adam, 'The Counting House,' Nature 415 (14 February 2002): 726-9;
2. Frank-Thorsten Krell, 'Why Impact Factors Don't Work for Taxonomy,' Nature 415 (28 February 2002): 957;
3. N. Haeffner-Cavaillon, C. Graillot-Gak, and C. Bréchot, 'Automated Grading of Research Performance Clearly Fails to Measure Up,' Nature 438 (1 December 2005): 559;
4. Shu-Dong Zhang, 'Judge a Paper on Its Own Merits, Not Its Journal's,' Nature 442 (6 July 2006): 26.
5. See Michael Gordon, 'Evaluating the Evaluators,' New Scientist 73 (10 February 1977): 342-3;
6. Declan Butler, 'Peer Review "Still Essential," Say Researchers,' Nature 379 (29 February 1996): 758;
7. Rex Dalton, 'Peers Under Pressure,' Nature 413 (13 September 2001): 102-4;
8. Rustum Roy and James R. Ashburn, 'The Perils of Peer Review,' Nature 414 (22 November 2002); 393-4;
9. Stephen K. Donovan, 'The Joys of Peer Review or Do You Get the Willies When You Submit a Paper?' Palaios 20, 2 (April 2005): 99-100.
10. See, e.g., Alexandra List, 'Reviewers' Reports Should in Turn Be Peer Reviewed,' Nature 442 (6 July 2006): 26;
11. but see Ron Kitchin, 'The Editor's Role in Refereeing: A Response to Johnston and Pattie,' Area 37, 4 (December 2005): 455-6.
12. I thank my correspondent, who prefers to remain anonymous, for sharing this editorial experience with me.
13. Stephen K. Donovan, 'How to Alienate Your Editor: A Practical Guide for Established Authors,' Journal of Scholarly Publishing 36, 4 (July 2005): 238-42
14. Donovan, 'The Joys of Peer Review'
15. Stephen K. Donovan, 'Rejected? Only Temporarily,' European Geologist 16 (December 2003): 41