The Experts below are selected from a list of 90 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
William H. Green - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Correct Symmetry Treatment for X + X Reactions Prevents Large Errors in Predicted Isotope Enrichment
The journal of physical chemistry. A, 2019Co-Authors: Mark Jacob Goldman, Shuhei Ono, William H. GreenAbstract:Confusion over how to account for symmetry numbers when reactants are identical can cause significant errors in isotopic studies. An Extraneous Factor of 2 in the reaction symmetry number, as propo...
-
Correct Symmetry Treatment for X + X Reactions Prevents Large Errors in Predicted Isotope Enrichment
2019Co-Authors: Mark Jacob Goldman, Shuhei Ono, William H. GreenAbstract:Confusion over how to account for symmetry numbers when reactants are identical can cause significant errors in isotopic studies. An Extraneous Factor of 2 in the reaction symmetry number, as proposed in the literature, violates reaction equilibrium and causes huge enrichment errors in isotopic analysis. In actuality, no extra symmetry Factor is needed with identical reactants
Orazbayev - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Sequential order as an Extraneous Factor in editorial decision
Scientometrics, 2017Co-Authors: OrazbayevAbstract:Does the sequential order in which manuscripts are submitted to an academic journal have any effect on the editorial decision? As an Extraneous Factor, the order of submission has no relation to the manuscript’s content. However, an editor facing a list of new submissions could be subject to decision fatigue or order bias, which would in turn affect the editorial decision. Empirical analysis of nearly 10,000 (first) submissions to a leading academic journal shows that manuscripts which were submitted earlier on a given day were up to 7% more likely to be desk rejected, without any order effect on the likelihood of a rejection after peer review.
-
Sequential order as an Extraneous Factor in editorial decision
2017Co-Authors: OrazbayevAbstract:Academic journal editors reject a significant portion of first submissions without sending them out for peer review. This decision, desk rejection, is made to reduce the workload on associate editors and referees, to give the submitting author a head start on revision or pursuit of an alternative venue, as well as to achieve quicker turnaround time for the journal. Desk rejection is a judgement based on the manuscript's perceived quality, impact and fit with the journal's scope. Could Extraneous Factors, which are unrelated to the content of a manuscript, affect the editorial decision? This paper examines whether the sequential order in which manuscripts are submitted to a large academic journal affects the editorial decision. Becoming the first submission on the editor's list of manuscripts to review increases the probability of a desk rejection by up to 7% without any effect on the likelihood of a rejection after peer review.
-
Sequential order as an Extraneous Factor in editorial decision
Natural Field Experiments, 2017Co-Authors: OrazbayevAbstract:Academic journal editors reject a significant portion of first submissions without sending them out for peer review. This decision, desk rejection, is made to reduce the workload on associate editors and referees, to give the submitting author a head start on revision or pursuit of an alternative venue, as well as to achieve quicker turnaround time for the journal. Desk rejection is a judgement based on the manuscript's perceived quality, impact and fit with the journal's scope. Could Extraneous Factors which are unrelated to the content of the manuscript, affect the editorial decision? This paper examines whether the sequential order in which manuscripts are submitted to a large academic journal affects the editorial decision. Becoming the first submission on the editor's list of manuscripts to review increases the probability of a desk rejection by up to 7% without any effect on the likelihood of a rejection after peer review.
Mark Jacob Goldman - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Correct Symmetry Treatment for X + X Reactions Prevents Large Errors in Predicted Isotope Enrichment
The journal of physical chemistry. A, 2019Co-Authors: Mark Jacob Goldman, Shuhei Ono, William H. GreenAbstract:Confusion over how to account for symmetry numbers when reactants are identical can cause significant errors in isotopic studies. An Extraneous Factor of 2 in the reaction symmetry number, as propo...
-
Correct Symmetry Treatment for X + X Reactions Prevents Large Errors in Predicted Isotope Enrichment
2019Co-Authors: Mark Jacob Goldman, Shuhei Ono, William H. GreenAbstract:Confusion over how to account for symmetry numbers when reactants are identical can cause significant errors in isotopic studies. An Extraneous Factor of 2 in the reaction symmetry number, as proposed in the literature, violates reaction equilibrium and causes huge enrichment errors in isotopic analysis. In actuality, no extra symmetry Factor is needed with identical reactants
Shuhei Ono - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Correct Symmetry Treatment for X + X Reactions Prevents Large Errors in Predicted Isotope Enrichment
The journal of physical chemistry. A, 2019Co-Authors: Mark Jacob Goldman, Shuhei Ono, William H. GreenAbstract:Confusion over how to account for symmetry numbers when reactants are identical can cause significant errors in isotopic studies. An Extraneous Factor of 2 in the reaction symmetry number, as propo...
-
Correct Symmetry Treatment for X + X Reactions Prevents Large Errors in Predicted Isotope Enrichment
2019Co-Authors: Mark Jacob Goldman, Shuhei Ono, William H. GreenAbstract:Confusion over how to account for symmetry numbers when reactants are identical can cause significant errors in isotopic studies. An Extraneous Factor of 2 in the reaction symmetry number, as proposed in the literature, violates reaction equilibrium and causes huge enrichment errors in isotopic analysis. In actuality, no extra symmetry Factor is needed with identical reactants
Heidi Turon - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Barriers to the evaluation of evidence-based public health policy
Journal of Public Health Policy, 2019Co-Authors: Megan Freund, Alison Zucca, Robert Sanson-fisher, Lisa Mackenzie, Andrew Milat, Heidi TuronAbstract:Public health policy has the potential to produce great benefits for individuals and communities. There is growing demand that such efforts be rigorously evaluated to ensure that the expected benefits are, in fact, realised. Commonly, public health policy is evaluated by consumer acceptability, reach, or changes in knowledge and attitudes. Non-robust research designs are often used. But these approaches to evaluation do not answer three critical questions: Has a change in the desired outcome occurred? Was it a consequence of the policy and not some Extraneous Factor? Was the size of the change considered significant and cost-effective? We, a team of government and academic scholars working in research and evaluation, have examined some of the more common impediments to robust evaluation: political impediments, a lack of investment in evaluation capacity within bureaucracy, and the failure of academic researchers to understand the need for the evaluation of public health policy.
