Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/2440/94085
Citations
Scopus Web of Science® Altmetric
?
?
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorCampos-Arceiz, A.en
dc.contributor.authorPrimack, R.en
dc.contributor.authorKoh, L.en
dc.date.issued2015en
dc.identifier.citationBiological Conservation, 2015; 186:22-27en
dc.identifier.issn0006-3207en
dc.identifier.issn1873-2917en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2440/94085-
dc.description.abstractAbstract not available.en
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityAhimsa Campos-Arceiz, Richard B. Primack, Lian Pin Kohen
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherElsevieren
dc.rights© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.en
dc.subjectChinese authors; editorial decision; english-speaking authors; immediate rejection; inter-reviewer agreement; major revision; manuscript review; minor revisionen
dc.titleReviewer recommendations and editors' decisions for a conservation journal: Is it just a crapshoot? And do Chinese authors get a fair shot?en
dc.typeJournal articleen
dc.identifier.rmid0030025433en
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.biocon.2015.02.025en
dc.identifier.pubid178607-
pubs.library.collectionEarth and Environmental Sciences publicationsen
pubs.library.teamDS14en
pubs.verification-statusVerifieden
pubs.publication-statusPublisheden
Appears in Collections:Earth and Environmental Sciences publications

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.