By B. Wilson. Hastings College. 2017.
Bachmann G cheap viagra super active 50mg line, Pfeifer T viagra super active 50mg discount, Spies H, Katthagen BD (1993) 3D-CT und fant, Clin Orthop 33: 119–28 Angiographie an Ausgusspräparaten von Beckengefäßen: Darstel- 17. Craig WA, Risser JC, Kramer WG (1955) Review of four hundred lung der arteriellen Durchblutung der Hüftgelenkpfanne. J Bone Fortschr Geb Röntgenstr Neuen Bildgeb Verfahr 158: 214–20 Joint Surg (Am) 37: 403–4 5. Darmonov AV (1996) Clinical screening for congenital dislocation dislocation of the hip. Dega W (1964) Schwierigkeiten in der chirurgischen Reposition der Hüftdysplasie. Z Orthop 128: 432–5 der veralteten kongenitalen Subluxation des Hüftgelenkes bei 7. Boeree NR, Clarke NM (1994) Ultrasound imaging and secondary Veth R (1999) Acetabular coverage of the femoral head after triple screening for congenital dislocation of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg pelvic osteotomy: no relation to outcome in 51 hips followed for (Br) 76: 525–33 8–15 years. Dias JJ, Thomas ICH, Lamont AC, Mody BS, Thompson JR (1993) gumente für ein generelles sonographisches Screening in der The reliability of ultrasonographic assessment of neonatal hips. Schweiz Rundschau Med Praxis 81: 519–23 Bone Joint Surg (Br) 75: 479–82 10. Dunn PM (1976) Perinatal observations on the etiology of con- Proc R Soc Med 41: 388 genital dislocation of the hip. Duffy C, Taylor F, Coleman L, Graham H, Nattrass G (2002) Mag- of developmental dysplasia of the hip after early supervised treat- netic resonance imaging evaluation of surgical management in ment in the Pavlik harness. Hsin J, Saluja R, Eilert RE, Wiedel JD (1996) Evaluaton of the biome- Bone Joint Surg (Br) 48: 397 chanics of the hip following a triple osteotomy of the innominate 25. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 78: 855–62 len der Hüftdysplasie unter Spreizhosentherapie. Fettweis E (1968) Sitz-Hock-Stellungsgips bei Hüftgelenkdys- stationärer Behandlungsbeginn kindlicher Hüftgelenkluxationen 3 plasien. Klapsch W, Tschauner C, Graf R (1991) Kostendämpfung durch die durch Abduktionspolster.
All reviewers will have their own ideas about how your paper should be written order viagra super active 25 mg on-line, what the content should be buy 25 mg viagra super active with amex, and how the whole thing should be packaged. In dealing with peer review, remember that you cannot keep all the people happy all the time. However, as the first author, it is your job to consider all the comments that you receive and to decide carefully which ones to take on board, or not as the case may be. It then becomes your job to focus on what the paper is about and to keep it on track from the beginning to the end of the process. Having put out requests for review on the content, the grammar, the sentence structures, etc. This can be difficult if you have become so bonded with your paper that you are unwilling to make any major changes. If the reviewers are suggesting seemingly daunting changes, it is a good idea to retreat and spend some time thinking through the problems, but do not put your paper on the back burner for too long. There is 109 Scientific Writing nearly always a way to improve a manuscript, and making changes will almost always be for the better. Of course, constructive and positive feedback is always easy to deal with and to be grateful for, but, even if you receive negative feedback, it is polite to thank reviewers for their suggestions and deal with them graciously. Reviewing takes time, and fellow colleagues’ best efforts at reviewing, like your best efforts at writing, should not be lightly dismissed. It is understandable to feel pressure to publish and to want to submit your paper quickly, but try to be objective and focus on the big picture. All suggestions can lead to improvements in one way or another, and respecting your reviewers’ comments will help to foster better collaborative links. On the other hand, being argumentative or dismissive of reviewers’ suggestions will be remembered in many ways, and will not help to promote your academic career or your scientific reputation.