共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 171 毫秒
1.
《Journal of Informetrics》2019,13(2):708-716
Peer review is not only a quality screening mechanism for scholarly journals. It also connects authors and referees either directly or indirectly. This means that their positions in the network structure of the community could influence the process, while peer review could in turn influence subsequent networking and collaboration. This paper aims to map these complex network implications by looking at 2232 author/referee couples in an interdisciplinary journal that uses double blind peer review. By reconstructing temporal co-authorship networks, we found that referees tended to recommend more positively submissions by authors who were within three steps in their collaboration network. We also found that co-authorship network positions changed after peer review, with the distances between network neighbours decreasing more rapidly than could have been expected had the changes been random. This suggests that peer review could not only reflect but also create and accelerate scientific collaboration. 相似文献
2.
Lucia Vesnic-Alujevic 《Publishing Research Quarterly》2014,30(1):39-49
The second half of the twentieth century brought major changes in the society and consequently in the different areas of the sciences. The growing number of universities after the second world war, the post-war industrial growth and later digitalization transformed the sciences present until then, enlarged the scientific community and the number of scientific publications. In the last couple of decades, the creation of web 2.0 brought new possibilities for knowledge co-production, interaction and exchange between all interested parties in research. The goal of this paper is to explore the possibilities for (extended) peer review and quality control on the internet, primarily blogs and social media, which could contribute to the standard peer review process and open the sciences to a wider audience. We are wondering if these processes could also raise the quality in science and lead to the democratization of knowledge production. We argue that changes in science also have an impact in reshaping the society and bringing democratization in knowledge production. 相似文献
3.
4.
同行评议专家遴选的科学计量方法与实证研究 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
5.
"审稿报告单"的设计 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
对审稿报告单格式化的意义、依据、设计原则、设计方法及其内容与格式作了分析研究.认为设计格式化的审稿报告单具有引导审稿、便利审稿、节省时间和宣传学术规范的作用.审稿报告单的设计依据是论文学术价值和质量构成所具有的可剖析性和审稿人具有对应的剖析评价能力.提出了设计的4项原则:规范性、简明性、量化适中性和学科专业匹配性原则.给出了启问在先、评价跟进、建议随后的3步设计方法,并将审稿报告单的内容概括为3部分.这为审稿报告单的设计提供了一些理论和方法上的借鉴. 相似文献
6.
7.
编辑初审作为三审制度的第一道关口,责任重大.科技期刊编辑对于各学科特点及科技论文论证方法、写作范式较为熟悉,本文认为应将这种编辑思维的优势融入初审过程中,从科技论文的写作范式入手并以科学论证为基础,从验证手段、方法对比、结果分析、结论的意义几个方面对来稿进行初审,考察论文的学术创新性.只有做好工作笔记,反复对比实践,才能获得更好的初审效果. 相似文献
8.
9.
The universalism norm of the ethos of science requires that contributions to science are not excluded because of the contributors’ gender, nationality, social status, or other irrelevant criteria. Here, a generalized latent variable modeling approach is presented that grant program managers at a funding organization can use in order to obtain indications of potential sources of bias in their peer review process (such as the applicants’ gender). To implement the method, the data required are the number of approved and number of rejected applicants for grants among different groups (for example, women and men or natural and social scientists). Using the generalized latent variable modeling approach indications of potential sources of bias can be examined not only for grant peer review but also for journal peer review. 相似文献
10.
[目的/意义]近年来频发的"学术丑闻"对我国的科研评议机制提出新的挑战。而在开放科学运动中兴起的注册式研究报告因其独特的同行评议机制,能有效地提高研究过程、评估环节的透明度,减少审稿过程中的出版偏见,确保学术严谨和科研质量,最大程度地减少学术造假行为。对注册式研究报告的同行评议机制现状和特点进行分析,以期为我国同行评议的创新发展和科学完善提供参考。[方法/过程]综合运用网络调研法和内容分析法,从注册式研究报告同行评议机制的评议流程、评议形式、评议效率、评议道德指南、同行评议专家库建设等方面进行分析,探讨注册式研究报告同行评议机制中作者、评议专家、编辑三者之间关系以及相关权利,总结注册式研究报告的同行评议机制的特征。[结果/结论]注册式研究报告同行评议机制创新性特点主要表现在：①审稿流程与标准的优化：注册式研究报告实行两次同行评议的新模式,不再仅以专家主观判断为标准,同时评议专家选择和专家意见处理等流程科学合理;②审稿匿名性和交互性的改进：同行评议的形式多样化,在保持基本的制衡关系中追求最大的灵活性;③审稿效率的提升：并行式的评议信息传递方式、明文化规定和系统化监惩机制促成高效率的同行评议。注册式研究报告同行评议机制的先进性特点主要表现在：①建立严格且细致的评议专家道德规范体系;②重视同行评议专家库的建设,形成完善的评议专家激励机制。 相似文献
11.
[目的/意义]识别学术论文同行评审意见类型、分析不同被引频次下同行评审意见类型在同行评审报告中的分布情况,有助于加深对同行评议机制的认识,为评估论文学术质量、量化评审专家贡献提供新思路。[方法/过程]首先,将同行评审意见类型划分为正面评价、负面评价、要求/建议(主、次要方面)、问题/疑问、陈述六个类别,经人工标注、获取训练、测试语料后,对比分析传统机器学习模型、深度学习模型在同行评审意见类型自动识别上的效果;其次,将同行评审报告涉及的学术论文进行主题聚类,进而对被引频次进行标准化处理;最后,使用Spearman相关系数、累积分布、K-S检验、负二项回归分析不同被引频次学术论文对应的同行评审报告中同行评审意见类型的分布情况。[结果/结论]SciBert模型识别效果最佳;在基于Spearman的相关性分析中,评审报告中正面评价的分布占比与被引频次具有显著的弱正相关,负面评价的分布占比与被引频次具有显著的弱负相关;通过累计分布发现,多数情况下,当累积概率相同时,高被引分区中正面评价的分布占比大于低被引分区、负面评价的分布占比小于低被引分区,K-S检验能够检测到这种差异;在负二项回归分析中,正面评价分布占比、负面评价分布占比分别对被引频次有显著的正向影响、负向影响。研究结果表明,同行评审报告中正面评价、负面评价的分布情况与其对应论文的被引频次存在相关性,被引频次一定程度上能够反映论文的学术质量。 相似文献
12.
13.
Verity Warne 《Learned Publishing》2016,29(1):41-50
In July 2015, Wiley surveyed over 170,000 researchers in order to explore peer reviewing experience; attitudes towards recognition and reward for reviewers; and training requirements. The survey received 2,982 usable responses (a response rate of 1.7%). Respondents from all markets indicated similar levels of review activity. However, analysis of reviewer and corresponding author data suggests that US researchers in fact bear a disproportionate burden of review, while Chinese authors publish twice as much as they review. Results show that while reviewers choose to review in order to give back to the community, there is more perceived benefit in interacting with the community of a top‐ranking journal than a low‐ranking one. The majority of peer review training received by respondents has come either in the form of journal guidelines or informally as advice from supervisors or colleagues. Seventy‐seven per cent show an interest in receiving further reviewer training. Reviewers strongly believe that reviewing is inadequately acknowledged at present and should carry more weight in their institutions' evaluation process. Respondents value recognition initiatives related to receiving feedback from the journal over monetary rewards and payment in kind. Questions raised include how to evenly expand the reviewer pool, provide training throughout the researcher career arc, and deliver consistent evaluation and recognition for reviewers. 相似文献
14.
应引导审稿人进行有效的同行评议 总被引：2，自引：0，他引：2
科技期刊的同行评议为稿件学术质量提供了有力保障。在邀请审稿人评审文章时,期刊可以在审稿邀请函和审稿单中加入相关信息,引导审稿人进行有效的同行评议。这种简单的培训方式往往会收到事半功倍的效果。 相似文献
15.
科学研究的实质是提出问题、分析问题、解决问题.科技论文是对创新性科研成果的表述,因此,对科技论文稿件的鉴审应以"问题"为中心."以问题为中心"的审稿模式,就是按照科学论文从提出问题、分析问题到解决问题的逻辑结构,对其创新性、科学性和价值进行综合分析和判断的一种基本的审稿方式,"问题"在此成为审稿人或编辑关注的"中心";评审要点包括:论文提出了什么问题、如何分析问题、是否解决了问题. 相似文献
16.
数据期刊同行评议视角下科学数据质量评价指标识别 总被引：1，自引：1，他引：0
[目的/意义] 在数据期刊同行评议的视角下识别并构建科学数据质量评价指标，增强对科学数据质量评价的理解，为数据论文同行评议实践提供参考。[方法/过程] 利用扎根理论的研究方法，选取20个数据期刊的数据同行评议指南作为质性研究的原始资料，并使用NVivo质性分析软件对资料进行开放式编码、关联式编码和选择性编码，通过理论饱和度检验对编码结果进行检验。[结果/结论] 最终构建数据论文同行评议情境下的科学数据质量评价指标体系，识别出数据内在质量、数据表达质量、数据访问质量和数据效用质量4个主范畴和14个评价指标，并具体分析指标的含义及分类，帮助数据论文作者和评审者深入了解科学数据质量的内在结构。 相似文献
17.
国际上同行评议典型做法及对我国的启示 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
同行评议一直是最权威、最有效的科学评价方式,美国、日本、欧盟等发达国家和国际组织都建立较为完整的同行评议制度,制定同行评议政策法规,建立标准化的评议流程,针对不同类型的项目采取不同评议方法。面对科技创新高质量发展的新要求、新任务,本文从加强相关法规体系建设、建立规范化的同行评议准则、构建完善的同行评议专家库、探索因项制宜的同行评议方式、大力营造良好的同行评议生态环境等方面对规范和完善我国同行评议制度提出对策建议。 相似文献
18.
Chris Drummond 《Learned Publishing》2019,32(1):63-69
This paper is a critique of the part played by the reproducible research movement within the scientific community. In particular, it raises concerns about the strong influence the movement is having on which papers are published. The primary effect is through changes to the peer review process. These not only require that the data and software used to generate the reported results be part of the review but also that the novelty criterion should be deprecated. This paper questions a central tenet of the movement, the idea of a single, well‐defined, and iterative scientific method. Philosophers, historians of science, and scientists alike have argued extensively against the idea of a single method. Some going as far as to suggest that there are as many methods as scientists. I am convinced that there are broad, high‐level ideas that bind scientists together. Yet, anything more sharply delineated that could reasonably be entitled a scientific method is not logically or historically justified. If this criticism is accepted, then changes to the peer review process are not warranted. Furthermore, I would contend that the influence the reproducible research movement is having on the publishing of papers, and elsewhere, should be considerably curtailed. 相似文献
19.
专家审稿意见是科技期刊在同行评议过程中学术价值最高的部分,具有一定的发表价值,但在目前多数科技期刊普遍实行的盲法审稿方式下,审稿意见只在专家、编辑和作者之间传递,造成学术资源的巨大浪费。而今同行评议方式向着更多元、更公开的方向发展,公开发表专家审稿意见可以作为实施开放式同行评议的尝试和突破,具有可行性和实践意义。本文建议采取先“精选”后“普及”、逐步推进的审稿意见发表方式,总结出精选审稿意见的遴选标准和程序,讨论了公开发表专家审稿意见对编辑工作的意义,以期为促进同行评议模式的转变,实施开放式同行评议打下基础。 相似文献
20.
地图审核工作是科技期刊编辑出版中非常重要的环节.地图作为全世界通用的表达方式,有很强的政治敏感性,在正式出版刊物之前须经过自然资源部的严格审核,取得审图号后,方能出版发行.尤其对于地学类科技期刊,几乎每篇文章都会涉及地图需要审核的情况.但是由于科技期刊出版的时效性要求较高,很多时候很难做到高效顺利地通过地图审核,取得审... 相似文献