Back

Zero‐sum game.

  • Published In: Respirology, 2023, v. 28, n. 12. P. 1170 1 of 3

  • Database: Academic Search Ultimate 2 of 3

  • Authored By: Hurst, John R. 3 of 3

Abstract

This article discusses the author's experience with the peer review process in clinical research and the impact it has on funding for respiratory disease research. The author emphasizes the importance of fair and constructive criticism in the peer review process, as well as the need for funding committees and editors to identify and address unfair reviews. The author suggests seeking feedback from trusted colleagues and utilizing internal peer review processes before submitting work. The article concludes by stating that funding and reporting on respiratory research should not be a zero-sum game. [Extracted from the article]

Additional Information

  • Source:Respirology. 2023/12, Vol. 28, Issue 12, p1170
  • Document Type:Article
  • Subject Area:Economics
  • Publication Date:2023
  • ISSN:1323-7799
  • DOI:10.1111/resp.14603
  • Accession Number:173657581
  • Copyright Statement:Copyright of Respirology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Looking to go deeper into this topic? Look for more articles on EBSCOhost.