6
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 175:
Line 175: − − == Random Talk == − − (non-substantive postings deleted; the rule for this page is enforced.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:58, 24 September 2008 (EDT)) − − :After reading the deleted postings in the history I'm not sure you did the right thing ASchlafly. They should stay here, or be moved to the liberal style page that they perfectly illustrate. On the other hand, deleting them keeps readers from having to sort through that trash: three different weighting styles?? Surely Brossa and Toffeeman can at least attempt an honest argument without having to conjure up new mathematics. [[User:AndyM|AndyM]] 19:15, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
Talk:PNAS Response to Letter (view source)
Revision as of 21:54, October 13, 2008
, 21:54, October 13, 2008Repeating Mr Schlafly's clutter-removal
On a different point, please would CP readers note that there's nothing at all suspicious about a paper being peer-reviewed in only 14 days. Editors of scientific journals ask reviewers beforehand if they are free to edit a paper within a certain period of time. If an academic agrees to review a paper for a prestigious journal such as PNAS within 2 weeks, they will generally ensure they have time during that period to read and comment on the paper thoroughly. [[User:LongStop|LongStop]] 19:25, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
On a different point, please would CP readers note that there's nothing at all suspicious about a paper being peer-reviewed in only 14 days. Editors of scientific journals ask reviewers beforehand if they are free to edit a paper within a certain period of time. If an academic agrees to review a paper for a prestigious journal such as PNAS within 2 weeks, they will generally ensure they have time during that period to read and comment on the paper thoroughly. [[User:LongStop|LongStop]] 19:25, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
== References ==
== References ==
<references/>
<references/>