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: Zoology

Recommended for publication in the 'Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society'. References to illustrations require attention. All the illustrations should be included.

[Published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 1934]

Endorsed on verso as received 19 January 1934.

Reference number
RR/51/65
Earliest possible date
January 1934
Physical description
Standardised form (type D)
Page extent
2 pages
Format
Manuscript

Creator name

Arthur Keith

View page for Arthur Keith

Use this record

Citation

Arthur Keith, Referee's report by Arthur Keith, on a paper 'A comparative study of the endocranial cast of Sinanthropus' by Joseph L Shellshear and Grafton Elliot Smith, January 1934, RR/51/65, The Royal Society Archives, London, https://makingscience.royalsociety.org/items/rr_51_65/referees-report-by-arthur-keith-on-a-paper-a-comparative-study-of-the-endocranial-cast-of-sinanthropus-by-joseph-l-shellshear-and-grafton-elliot-smith, accessed on 15 October 2024

Link to this record

Embed this record

<iframe src="https://makingscience.royalsociety.org/embed/items/rr_51_65/referees-report-by-arthur-keith-on-a-paper-a-comparative-study-of-the-endocranial-cast-of-sinanthropus-by-joseph-l-shellshear-and-grafton-elliot-smith" title="Referee's report by Arthur Keith, on a paper 'A comparative study of the endocranial cast of Sinanthropus' by Joseph L Shellshear and Grafton Elliot Smith" 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