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: Physics

Not recommended for publication in Proceedings. Although the paper is clear and concise, the results are not of sufficient weight to justify publication. He has had difficulty coming to an opinion and asks that another referee should be employed to read the paper.

[Not published].

Endorsed on verso as received 2 January 1932.

Reference number
RR/43/129
Earliest possible date
January 1932
Physical description
Standardised form (type D)
Page extent
2 pages
Format
Manuscript

Creator name

William Lawrence Bragg

View page for William Lawrence Bragg

Use this record

Citation

William Lawrence Bragg, Referee's report by William Lawrence Bragg, on a paper 'The investigation of copper dioxide films by electron diffraction' by C A Murison, January 1932, RR/43/129, The Royal Society Archives, London, https://makingscience.royalsociety.org/items/rr_43_129/referees-report-by-william-lawrence-bragg-on-a-paper-the-investigation-of-copper-dioxide-films-by-electron-diffraction-by-c-a-murison, accessed on 05 October 2024

Link to this record

Embed this record

<iframe src="https://makingscience.royalsociety.org/embed/items/rr_43_129/referees-report-by-william-lawrence-bragg-on-a-paper-the-investigation-of-copper-dioxide-films-by-electron-diffraction-by-c-a-murison" title="Referee's report by William Lawrence Bragg, on a paper 'The investigation of copper dioxide films by electron diffraction' by C A Murison" allow="fullscreen" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>

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