If you are interested in submitting a proposal for a Special Issue, please contact the Water Alternatives managing editor for more details: Peer-Review Process The editors-in-chief retain the option (in coordination with guest editors) to reject a particular manuscript. Special Issue editors must collect and submit a minimum of five high-quality papers (in addition to the introductory article) which will go through the normal review process. Papers must include a substantial introductory and/or summary manuscript. A set of papers, for example, could be submitted from a common session in a conference or from a research project, or authors could send in manuscripts in response to a Water Alternatives call for themed papers. We encourage readers to submit proposals for special ‘themed’ issues. Responses are published in subsequent issues and linked to the relevant article. The Response option allows readers to interact and further the debates and questions raised by a particular article. WaA publishes articles that may be empirical or theoretical in scope but are written in a style that is accessible to practitioners, decision makers and students. We do not publish technical or descriptive papers: click here for more on subject coverage. WaA welcomes contributions that address any dimension of water resources development, governance, policy, management and use, in relation with society or the environment. Manuscript submission, peer review and publication are all online and there is no parallel print process. The significance of the discovery of cuprate super.Water Alternatives is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary electronic journal addressing global politics and development related to water. Introducing universality and particularityĮxponential growth: living and dying by it Recommendations needed on reference management sof. Definitely not open source though! Reply Delete It may be worth looking into if you use OSX. They have a feature where it will recommend papers to you as well. Sometimes there are nice paper recommendations there.įor reference, Papers is now ReadCube (they bought Papers and last year released a merge of ReadCube + Papers) that is supposed to be quite nice. One nice feature that Mendeley has is that every week it sends a summary of papers similar to what you have been reading. Zotero also has extensions for web browsers (like Mendeley), including Safari. There are also plugins for Zotero, e.g., Zotfile makes annotations of PDFs easier to manage, as well as other things. Unlike Mendeley, Zotero also allows you to not sync through the cloud and have everything contained locally on your computer. I personally find the 300 MB storage limit for Zotero too small, but upgrading to 2 GB for $20/yr is reasonably cheap. Though, the annotation features are not built into Zotero, and instead has to be annotated with an external PDF reader (it still syncs though). Unlike Mendeley, Zotero is open source and, most importantly, is not owned by Elsevier.įor my use the essential features are: must have an offline application, syncing across devices, annotations of PDFs syncing across devices, ease of importing/exporting bib files for use in BibTeX, and allows tagging of keywords for easy searching. Years ago I would have recommended Mendeley because I think Zotero was lacking in some essential ease of use features.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |