It’s always intriguing to know what the peer-reviewers have thought and written about a particular manuscript. Now, you can find out, at least in some cases, on PLoS-ONE papers. Chris Surridge explains.
My Homepage
My homepage is at http://coturnix.org. It is temporarily stripped to minimal information, but more will come soon.Grab my RSS feed:
-
Join 1,496 other subscribers
Search This Blog:
Archives
Categories
Recent Comments:
Bora Zivkovic on Morning at Triton Angie Lindsay Ma on Morning at Triton Linda chamblee on Morning at Triton Jekyll » Blog… on The Big Announcement, this tim… Mike H on The Big Announcement, this tim… -
Recent Posts
Top Posts
- Friday Weird Sex Blogging - Corkscrewing
- BIO101 - Cell Structure
- Kevin in China #18 - a mandarin rat, another mystery frog that is NOT in the Atlas of Amphibians of China, and the Chinese-speaking Godzilla
- Farm Bill
- Sharks!!!!
- Postscript to Pittendrigh's Pet Project - Phototaxis, Photoperiodism and Precise Projectile Parabolas of Pilobolus on Pasture Poop
- Science Blogging Conference - who is coming? (Popular Science Media)
- ScienceOnline2010 - interview with Tara Richerson
- Is a parthenogenetic female a 'group of one'?
- New and Exciting in PLoS ONE
@BoraZ on Twitter:
Tweets by BoraZCC licence

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.PayPal

Sitemeter






I guess you know that already, but just in case: “Biology Direct” always has the referee’s comments as part of the published papers, and they come with the name of the referee. see http://www.biology-direct.com/
And they have some weird papers, too. Check the last one by Eugene Koonin (the one with ‘eternal inflation’ in the title.
Yes, I am aware of it. That is excellent.
And yes, weird paper, isn’t it?