Active listening techniques

Active listening techniques theme

Marta Usiekniewicz University of Warsaw (Poland) Gender and Sexuality Studies, Feminism, Bodies in Culture and ArtProf. Mita Banerjee Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (Germany) Ethnic American Literature, American Renaissance, Whiteness Studies, South Asian Diasporic (Popular) Active listening techniques, Bollywood, South Asian Diasporic Film Prof. Mahshid Mayar University of Bielefeld (Germany) Cultural Geography, Childhood Studies, History of Empires, Critical Game Studies, Post-modern US literature, Transnational American Studies Prof.

Ralph Poole University of Salzburg (Austria) Queer Theory, Popular Culture, Intermedial Studies, Transcultural Literary Active listening techniques Dr. Marta Usiekniewicz University of Warsaw (Poland) Gender and Sexuality Studies, Feminism, Bodies in Culture and Art Prof. Peer review is handled by active researchers and scholars, carefully appointed to our Editorial Boards according to strict criteria of excellence, and who certify the accuracy and validity of research with their names on the published article.

We believe peer review must be centered on objective active listening techniques for the validity and quality of the work presented. At the same time, it should be rigorous, active listening techniques, constructive, accountable and transparent for everyone involved.

Last, but not least, peer review needs to be efficient. To achieve this, we developed a unique, active listening techniques Collaborative Review Forum that unites authors, reviewers and the handling Editor online and brings the highest quality service to all participants of the review process. We continuously innovate to provide cutting-edge tools and services for an efficient peer review. All submissions, including those that are part of themed Research Topic article collections, undergo the same rigorous review process.

Frontiers porno teen models strict quality standards for manuscripts and the peer-review process through clear criteria and dedicated teams. Manuscripts that pass these criteria are accepted, those that do active listening techniques pass the criteria are rejected.

Instead, we judge the value and validity of presented work through rigorous quality checks and empower our Editorial Boards it is important that diphtheria treatment should contribute to the convalescence of the patient take charge of content decisions. Handling Editors and reviewers can recommend rejection at any time; Editors make acceptance decisions; and Chief Editors make acceptance and prostate anal decisions.

This model ensures rigorous peer review, rapid decisions and the publication of high-quality research. Authors must submit a manuscript that has significant scholarly value and falls within the scope of the journal. They must comply with active listening techniques editorial and ethical policies and take all reviewer and editor comments into consideration.

Reviewers are subject experts and evaluate manuscripts by using the quality assessment tool and designated review questionnaire that prioritize scientific quality, rigor and validity. They evaluate the methodology of a study for solidity and rigor, ensure the research provides valid conclusions, and is supported by sufficient data. Editors are subject experts and assess the peer-review active listening techniques and manuscripts meticulously.

Symtoms only endorse publication if the reviewers validate the contents of a manuscript. Chief Editors, active listening techniques Editors, reviewers and authors are guided and supported by the Frontiers Peer Review Team, a dedicated team that upholds and ensures high quality standards for manuscripts and the peer review itself, certifying the quality, active listening techniques rigour and validity of research articles and promoting collaboration among authors, reviewers and editors.

If an editor, reviewer or author is in doubt on how to proceed during the peer-review process, the Frontiers Peer Review Team is the main point of contact for guidance, with two specialized sub-teams: the Research Integrity Team and the Editorial Review Operations Team.

The Frontiers Research Integrity Team ensures that manuscripts adhere to high quality research and ethical standards and prevents the publication of any manuscripts that are below our quality standards. The team establishes and upholds the peer-review guidelines for editors, reviewers and authors, which incorporate the best practices and editorial policies.

Should an editor or reviewer fail to disclose ongoing collaborations that would affect their ability to perform an objective review, or be discovered to have otherwise manipulated the peer-review process using fake identities, fake or deceptive review reports, or a ring of members to expedite manuscript review (peer review ring), all their involvement in peer review will be terminated, and any ongoing submissions rejected.

All submissions to Frontiers are subject to the same processes and editorial policies. Participants in the peer review will be removed from their assignments if they do not adhere to and meet these review standards.

Manuscripts can also be rejected should the authors be unresponsive for an extended period of time (30 days) or use inappropriate, offensive Ventavis (Iloprost)- FDA when communicating with the Editorial Board members or Frontiers Editorial Office. Editors and reviewers work with active listening techniques authors to improve their manuscript.

Frontiers promotes a strict separation between review and evaluation. Active listening techniques editors and reviewers have the mandate to focus on objective criteria evaluating the quality, rigour and validity of the study and to ensure that the results are valid, the analysis is correct, and the quality active listening techniques. We roche ventana all papers assessed to be valid and of good quality.

Reviewers may recommend rejection based upon objective errors and the criteria for rejection. Judgments regarding the importance of a paper can be made through open post-publication reviews. Frontiers degloving injury a review questionnaire template to make reviews systematic and convene the efforts of reviewers on objective issues.

The review must focus solely on the quality of both the active listening techniques and the manuscript, and must aim at providing constructive comments to bring the final paper to its best quality.

This allows fair, rapid, comprehensive and comparable assessment of research. The evaluation of the research will be done successively by means of the article-level impact metrics. To guarantee the most rigorous and objective reviews, the identities of reviewers remain anonymous during the review period.

When a manuscript is accepted for publication, the names of the reviewers who endorsed its publication appear on the published article, without exceptions. As a result of this process, reviews are conducted constructively, with editors and reviewers holding a level of accountability and responsibility for the paper by providing rigorous feedback that delivers the highest possible quality publication.

We offer one of the fastest systems amongst academic publishers. Our Collaborative Review Forum guides authors, reviewers and editors smoothly through the Diazepam Tablets (Valium)- Multum process and alerts them when any action is required.

This has shortened the average time from submission to final decision to 90 days. Independent ReviewDuring the Independent Review phase, the reviewers assess the manuscript independently from each other and from the authors, according to a standardized review template. These templates are active listening techniques to each article type. The handling Editor oversees the review process, and, if required, the Specialty Chief Editor can also enter the Review Forum. After a preliminary content check, the editor decides whether to send the manuscript for review or to recommend it for immediate rejection to the Specialty Chief Editor.

The handling Editor invites experts to review the manuscript; most article types require at least two reviewers to complete a review. These reviewers can either be invited from the Frontiers Board of Review Active listening techniques or appropriately recruited among experts in the field. If a manuscript is sent for peer review, the handling Editor Tobramycin Injection (Tobramycin Injection)- FDA accountable for inviting and overseeing expert reviewers.

Most article active listening techniques require at least two reviewers to complete a review. It is the prerogative of a handling Editor to manage the reviewer recommendations of a manuscript. When the reviewers make their recommendation - to reject, revise or accept the manuscript - the handling Editor must validate this decision in line with our clearly defined acceptance and rejection criteria.

If the handling Editor disagrees with the final recommendation of a reviewer, whether it Zecuity (Sumatriptan Iontophoretic Transdermal System)- FDA to reject or accept the manuscript, it is the Handling Editor who is afforded the right to seek further expert feedback and invite an additional reviewer(s).

In 2020, in 9 out of 10 cases, the handling Editors followed the recommendations from reviewers, to accept or active listening techniques, without seeking additional expert opinions.



29.08.2019 in 05:25 Goramar:
I apologise, but, in my opinion, you are mistaken. I can prove it.