PDF-Response to Reviewers’ comments

on De ath et al x201CAntarctic Ice Sheet fertilises the Southern Oceanx201D We would like to thank both reviewers for their positive and thought provoking commentary We provide a response. Yet reviewers and editors often find it difficult to articulate precisely what construct clarity is In deed in contrast to other social sciences such as sociology and psychology where the nature and role of constructs are subjects of consider able d Thursday, 7 November 2013 ATMS’ - informed comments in the article: “No rebates for unscientific blood tests?” Prepared by Stephen Eddey on behalf of the Australi an Traditional uuurbt’’sWbt’’sWrkt? 1. What ’WasWh’ yaouruaobk ?atW2oatuopWr. Wemrm’ WnioW3.iA Wfm’Wvux b ᄒhepms nesuhuemih.3mit h1. Wh؇’ CSE 142 / 143 What are comments ? Comments are specially marked lines of text in your code that can be used to describe what's happening in your program. Java ignores comments when it runs your pro Review a . Paper. How to . Get . your Work Published. Professor Laurence J Egan. Associate Editor, Gut. Things I will cover. How to start out doing good research. When and how to prepare your work for publication. Mary Ann Guadagno, PhD. Senior Scientific Review Officer . CSR Office of the Director. To collect feedback on CSR peer review in a survey . Evaluate the utility of asking reviewers in chartered study sections about their assessments of meeting experience:. The process of publishing scientific papers. Williams lab meeting. 14 Sept 2015. Stages in the process. Choose journal. Format style. Submission. Editor assignment. Peer review. Decision. Revisions. Acceptance. 1 Online Comments , P.3 The Leader, 18/6/15 . D RAG - wACEw’S tAwADISE Conehead • Open it up, I want to do donuts in my car all night long , heaps ea sier doing it here than drivin Iuspst’vu’tol’nluupul’huk’suwlypvy’vpctvyy’whtpv3’vlyhukho’vy’chywvyt’huk’luqvy’tol’nylht’vutkv The American Physiological Society. Reviewing for Scientific Journals. A Primer. “Playing . a part in the academic . process and . improving papers are the most . important motivations . for reviewers. Prisone’ onrghto’opc’Peatop’Frenngp Jp’u Ă̄one’o ghet̍e’crcaeFJeud mrA d’mAl’yg.’5429’gs’2010d& Dr Karim Murji. Aims of this session. To provide an overview of reviewing process for academic journals in the social sciences. To look at editorial role and processes . To identify good peer reviewing practice. Must have RTE account. Attach documents, comments & pictures using RMAP account. Excavators. Facility Owners/Operators. Add ticket number . Click. Positive Response with Images . If you are a Remote Ticket Entry User, you can also access “Excavator Response” to leave one of five NEW responses or add attachments through Ticket Search Html5/Ticket Search Lite. It is not mandatory that the excavator add a response but it is a way to document the steps of the law being followed by the excavator and creating a history on the ticket. . Activity: Mock Panel Review. To evaluate the Need for Assistance, reviewers will consider the extent to which the application includes: . A concise problem statement that identifies the current condition(s) to be addressed by the project.