Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(29)
13 Interestingly, that study found that reports under open peer review were of 5.5% higher quality than unsigned reports, which is consistent with the 5% difference we found between scores for reviewer reports in BMC Microbiology (single-blind peer review) and in BMC Infectious Diseases (open peer review).
As noted for reviewer #1, the comments also spurred us to review the methods for the plot, revealing an error with regard to the proper negative control which has been corrected (see above for details).
Confidence levels were also higher in extratemporal lobe epilepsy for both reviewers and in temporal lobe epilepsy for reviewer 2, but these differences failed to reach significance.
This chapter is dedicated to the proposal that lie in the "gray zone" of funding as they are not better written, and thus are difficult for reviewer to read and understand.
Within these subgroups, there was a significantly higher confidence level in temporal lobe epilepsy for reviewer 1 at a z-score threshold of 2 vs. 1.5 (4.4 vs. 4.2, p = 0.02).
For reviewer Bruce Weber, this makes the point "that Trujillo's control of the nation depended on gutless collaborators".
Similar(30)
Another possible target for review is the set of guidelines for reviewers.
This would speed up the review process and reduce the work for reviewers and editors.
We publish more reviews than papers so we're constantly looking for reviewers.
And for reviewers, there's another consideration.
(And a useful get-out clause for reviewers).
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com