The Experts below are selected from a list of 2729328 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Charles N J Mcghee - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Ophthalmology and vision science research. Part 4: avoiding rejection--structuring a research paper from introduction to references.
Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, 2006Co-Authors: Amardeep K. Gilhotra, Charles N J McgheeAbstract:As part of an ongoing series, this fourth article is the second of 2 related articles that deal with the basics of producing a high-quality manuscript. Although ophthalmology and vision science are the principal focus of this series, the general concepts essential to producing a quality manuscript are applicable to diverse fields of research. This article provides guidelines on how to present research findings in a structured form using the Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion (IMRaD) style. The components to be included, and equally important excluded, from each section are elucidated in detail. Commonly omitted or inaccurately or incompletely presented components of the manuscript, such as statistical analysis and references, are highlighted. The necessity to carefully refine Manuscripts before submission is discussed. This article concludes by illustrating methods of appropriately dealing with referees' comments and resubmitting Manuscripts. Although researchers may have to deal with rejection as part of the process, we hope that this series provides an easy-to-follow structure to maximize manuscript quality and improve the prospect of scientific publication.
-
SPECIAL REPORT Ophthalmology and vision science research Part 4: Avoiding rejectiondstructuring a research paper from introduction to references
2006Co-Authors: Amardeep K. Gilhotra, Charles N J McgheeAbstract:As part of an ongoing series, this fourth article is the second of 2 related articles that deal with the basics of producing a high-quality manuscript. Although ophthalmology and vision science are the principal focus of this series, the general concepts essential to producing a quality manuscript are applicable to diverse fields of research. This article provides guidelines on how to present research findings in a structured form using the Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion (IMRaD) style. The components to be included, and equally important excluded, from each section are elucidated in detail. Commonly omitted or inaccurately or incompletely presented components of the manuscript, such as statistical analysis and references, are highlighted. The necessity to carefully refine Manuscripts before submission is discussed. This article concludes by illustrating methods of appropriately dealing with referees’ comments and resubmitting Manuscripts. Although researchers may have to deal with rejection as part of the process, we hope that this series provides an easy-to-follow structure to maximize manuscript quality and improve the prospect of scientific publication.
Amardeep K. Gilhotra - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Ophthalmology and vision science research. Part 4: avoiding rejection--structuring a research paper from introduction to references.
Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, 2006Co-Authors: Amardeep K. Gilhotra, Charles N J McgheeAbstract:As part of an ongoing series, this fourth article is the second of 2 related articles that deal with the basics of producing a high-quality manuscript. Although ophthalmology and vision science are the principal focus of this series, the general concepts essential to producing a quality manuscript are applicable to diverse fields of research. This article provides guidelines on how to present research findings in a structured form using the Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion (IMRaD) style. The components to be included, and equally important excluded, from each section are elucidated in detail. Commonly omitted or inaccurately or incompletely presented components of the manuscript, such as statistical analysis and references, are highlighted. The necessity to carefully refine Manuscripts before submission is discussed. This article concludes by illustrating methods of appropriately dealing with referees' comments and resubmitting Manuscripts. Although researchers may have to deal with rejection as part of the process, we hope that this series provides an easy-to-follow structure to maximize manuscript quality and improve the prospect of scientific publication.
-
SPECIAL REPORT Ophthalmology and vision science research Part 4: Avoiding rejectiondstructuring a research paper from introduction to references
2006Co-Authors: Amardeep K. Gilhotra, Charles N J McgheeAbstract:As part of an ongoing series, this fourth article is the second of 2 related articles that deal with the basics of producing a high-quality manuscript. Although ophthalmology and vision science are the principal focus of this series, the general concepts essential to producing a quality manuscript are applicable to diverse fields of research. This article provides guidelines on how to present research findings in a structured form using the Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion (IMRaD) style. The components to be included, and equally important excluded, from each section are elucidated in detail. Commonly omitted or inaccurately or incompletely presented components of the manuscript, such as statistical analysis and references, are highlighted. The necessity to carefully refine Manuscripts before submission is discussed. This article concludes by illustrating methods of appropriately dealing with referees’ comments and resubmitting Manuscripts. Although researchers may have to deal with rejection as part of the process, we hope that this series provides an easy-to-follow structure to maximize manuscript quality and improve the prospect of scientific publication.
Alberto Falk Delgado - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The language of peer review reports on articles published in the BMJ, 2014–2017: an observational study
Scientometrics, 2019Co-Authors: Gregory Garretson, Alberto Falk DelgadoAbstract:To analyse the words and expressions used in peer reviews of Manuscripts that were later published as original research in the BMJ. Secondary aims were to estimate the differences in net sentiment between peer review reports on Manuscripts subject to one or more rounds of peer review and and review reports on initially rejected Manuscripts that were accepted after appeal. This observational study included all peer review reports published in the BMJ from September 2014 until the end of 2017. The study analysed the frequency of specific words in peer review reports for accepted Manuscripts, identifying the most commonly occurring positive and negative words and their context, as well as the most common expressions. It also quantified differences in net sentiment in peer review reports between Manuscripts accepted after appeal and manuscript accepted without appeal. The dataset consisting of 1716 peer review reports contained 908,932 word tokens. Among the most frequent positive words were “well”, “important”, “clear”, “while the negative words included “risk”, “bias”, and “confounding”. The areas where the reviewer makes the most positive and negative comments included: “well-written paper”, “well-written manuscript”, “this is an important topic”, “answers an important question”, “high risk of bias” and “selection bias”. The sentiment analysis revealed that Manuscripts accepted after appeal had lower scores on review reports for joy and positive sentiment, in addition to having higher scores for negative words expressing sadness, fear, disgust and anger compared with Manuscripts that were not initially rejected. Peer review comments were mainly related to methodology rather than the actual results. Peer review reports on initially rejected Manuscripts were more negative and more often included expressions related to a high risk of bias.
E Tognoni - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
characterization of azurite and lazurite based pigments by laser induced breakdown spectroscopy and micro raman spectroscopy
Spectrochimica Acta Part B: Atomic Spectroscopy, 2001Co-Authors: Marina Bicchieri, Mariangela Corsi, Marco Nardone, Antonio Salvetti, P.a. Russo, Armida Sodo, G Cristoforetti, V Palleschi, E TognoniAbstract:The most commonly used blue pigments in medieval Manuscripts are azurite and lapis-lazuli. The first one is a copper-based pigment; the coloring compound of the latter is lazurite, a sodium silicoaluminate in a sulfur matrix. Knowledge of the chemical composition of the materials is essential for the study of illuminated Manuscripts. In this paper, micro-Raman and LIBS have been used for the study of azurite and lapis-lazuli, as well as different mixtures of these pigments applied to parchment to simulate an illuminated manuscript. The results of our work show the importance of using more than one technique for a good comprehension of a manuscript. In particular, the Ž. opportunity of combining elemental information obtained from laser induced breakdown spectroscopy and Ž. vibrational spectroscopy information obtained from Raman will be fully exploited. 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Robin J H Clark - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
raman spectroscopy analysis of pigments on 16 17th c persian Manuscripts
Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy, 2012Co-Authors: Vânia S F Muralha, Lucia Burgio, Robin J H ClarkAbstract:The palette of four Persian Manuscripts of the 16th and 17th centuries were established by Raman microscopy to include lazurite, red lead, vermilion, orpiment, a carbon-based black, lead white, malachite, haematite, indigo, carmine and pararealgar. The first five pigments were identified on all four Manuscripts, as previously found for other Islamic Manuscripts of this period. The findings were compared with information available in treatises on Persian painting techniques. Red lead, although identified on all of the Manuscripts analysed in this study as the main red pigment, is seldom mentioned in the literature. Two unusual pigments were also identified: the intermediate phase between realgar and pararealgar in the manuscript Timur namah, and carmine in the manuscript Shah namah. Although the established palette comprises few pigments, it was found that the illuminations were enhanced by the use of pigment mixtures, the components of which could be identified by Raman microscopy.
