Skip to content

Please be aware that some material may contain words, descriptions or illustrations which will not reflect current scientific understanding and may be considered in today's context inaccurate, unethical, offensive or distressing.

Description

Sectional committee: Physiology

Not recommended for publication in Philosophical Transactions, is more suitable for Proceedings. Amount of tables within paper should be reduced and it is unnecessarily long.

[Published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 1909].

Endorsed on verso as received 20 October 1908.

Reference number
RR/17/285
Earliest possible date
October 1908
Physical description
Standardised form (type A)
Page extent
2 pages
Format
Manuscript

Creator name

Charles James Martin

View page for Charles James Martin

Use this record

Citation

Charles James Martin, Referee's report by Charles James Martin, on a paper 'The action of the venom of Sepedon haemachates of South Africa' by Thomas Richard Fraser and James A Gunn, October 1908, RR/17/285, The Royal Society Archives, London, https://makingscience.royalsociety.org/items/rr_17_285/referees-report-by-charles-james-martin-on-a-paper-the-action-of-the-venom-of-sepedon-haemachates-of-south-africa-by-thomas-richard-fraser-and-james-a-gunn, accessed on 02 December 2024

Link to this record

Embed this record

<iframe src="https://makingscience.royalsociety.org/embed/items/rr_17_285/referees-report-by-charles-james-martin-on-a-paper-the-action-of-the-venom-of-sepedon-haemachates-of-south-africa-by-thomas-richard-fraser-and-james-a-gunn" title="Referee's report by Charles James Martin, on a paper 'The action of the venom of Sepedon haemachates of South Africa' by Thomas Richard Fraser and James A Gunn" allow="fullscreen" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>

Related Publications

Related Fellows

Explore the collection

  • Referee Reports

    Date: 1832-1954

    This collection contains reports on scientific papers submitted for publication to the Royal Society. Started in 1832 when the system was formalised, it is a record of the origins of peer review publishing in practice.

    View collection