Sentence examples for high quality press from inspiring English sources

We hope our observations encourage medical journals to issue high quality press releases.

High quality press releases are a simple way for medical journals to increase the chance of newspapers receiving key information.

Conclusion High quality press releases issued by medical journals seem to make the quality of associated newspaper stories better, whereas low quality press releases might make them worse.

We also tested for a journal effect, because journals that tend to issue high quality press releases might take further steps to improve the quality of subsequent news coverage irrespective of issuing a press release.

Some small journals, however, simply lack the necessary staff to produce high quality press releases, emphasising the need for editors to ensure that the relevant information is easily accessible in the journal abstract.

For example, journals that tend to issue high quality press releases might take further steps to improve subsequent news coverage, such as improving the readability of the article text, reducing the amount of complex research published, or increasing the authors' accessibility to the media.

A higher quality press has nubs on it that make clearing garlic out of the holes easier, and you might be able to get more garlic out of each clove as a result.

Making matters worse, most of these high volume customers did not value high quality printing and their cost-focused approach put the high-quality presses the printer had invested in at a disadvantage.

To maintain a constant high print quality press operators need to assess, explore and monitor quality of prints.

The quality of subsequent newspaper reporting with a press release of high quality compared with no press release being issued was roughly the same for basic study facts.

However, press releases of high quality had a stronger influence than no press release for: quantifying the main result with absolute numbers (53% v 20%, P=0.001), mentioning harms of beneficial interventions (68% v 36%, P=0.01), and limitations of research with important limitations (48% v 21%, P=0.06; fig 2).