共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 15 毫秒
1.
Susan van Rooyen 《Learned Publishing》1998,11(3):185-191
This paper examines the process of peer review in scientific publication. It outlines the background to Locknet (the international network for research into the preparation, publication and dissemination of health research). It looks at the objectives of the peer review process, ethical and quality issues raised, and the problems of improving the quality of peer review. It also briefly explores some of the research recently undertaken into peer review. 相似文献
2.
Heidi Allen Alexandra Cury Thomas Gaston Chris Graf Hannah Wakley Michael Willis 《Learned Publishing》2019,32(2):163-175
We conducted a literature review of best practice in peer review. Following this research, we identified five principles for better peer review: Content Integrity, Content Ethics, Fairness, Usefulness, and Timeliness. For each of these principles, we have developed a set of recommendations to improve peer review standards. In this article, we describe the role of peer review and how our five principles support that goal. This article is intended to continue the conversation about improving peer review standards and provide guidance to journal teams looking to improve their standards. It is accompanied by a detailed checklist, which could be used by journal teams to assess their current peer review standards. 相似文献
3.
Michael Jubb 《Learned Publishing》2016,29(1):13-21
This paper is based on research commissioned by the Wellcome Trust in 2015 and catalogues current initiatives and trends in the systems and processes surrounding peer review. It considers issues such as open and interactive reviews, post‐publication comments and ratings, and the platforms provided by both publishers and other organisations to support such activity; third‐party peer review platforms; and measures from publishers and others to provide more recognition and rewards for peer reviewers. It also speculates on likely key trends in peer review for the future. 相似文献
4.
[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
5.
Lawrence SOUDER 《Learned Publishing》2011,24(1):55-72
This review summarizes the literature of a subset of the published research and commentary on peer review – the ethics of peer review. It attempts to track the various ethical issues that arise among the key participants in peer‐review systems: authors, editors, referees, and readers. These issues include: bias, courtesy, conflict of interest, redundant publication, honesty, transparency, and training. It concludes that debates over such issues as open vs. blind reviews continue unresolved but that new technologies offer some prospects for resolving old issues while they also may create new challenges. 相似文献
6.
7.
通过网络调研和文献梳理的方式,结合具体案例,如Elsevier、Nature、PLoS、F1000 Research等,对国外开放获取期刊的同行评议方式进行研究.认为结构化同行评议、发表后开放式同行评议以及第三方独立同行评议,各有利弊,应该取长补短,优化评议方式,更好地发挥科技期刊作为学术质量把关者和过滤器的作用. 相似文献
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
- Peer review is used to evaluate research, including publications, scientific awards, and grant proposals, and there is a continuum of at least six approaches to review from completely closed, double‐blind review to fully‐open and citable peer review.
- It is getting harder to find suitable experts to serve as reviewers so publishers and others are experimenting with methods to incentivize researcher participation, with a growing interest in enabling citation of peer‐review activity as a component.
- A Working Group on Peer Review Service, facilitated by CASRAI, was created to develop a data model and citation standard for peer‐review activity that can be used to support both existing and new review models.
- Standardized citation structures for reviews can enable the inclusion of peer‐review activity in personal recognition and evaluation, as well the ability to refer to reviews as part of the scholarly literature.
14.
Peer review is well established across most academic disciplines, and publishers, editors, and researchers devote considerable resources to it. This paper uses examples from biomedical journals to examine its shortcomings. Although mainly anecdotal, the evidence suggests that peer review is sometimes ineffective at identifying important research and even less effective at detecting fraud. Most reviewers identify only the minority of a paper's defects and they may be biased. Peer review plus other editorial processes are associated with improvements in papers between submission and publication, but published papers remain hard to read and a significant proportion contain errors or omissions. While it is hard to quantify the costs, peer review does not seem an efficient use of resources. Research into the outcomes of peer review, the establishment of sound methods for measuring the quality of the process and its outcomes, and comparisons with alternative methods are needed. 相似文献
15.
16.
17.
关于制订"科技期刊专家审稿规则"的建议 总被引：4，自引：0，他引：4
专家审稿是保证科技期刊审稿质量的关键环节.目前尚无权威部门制定的专家审稿规范或规则.为使专家审稿进一步规范化,提高专家审稿质量,有必要研究、制订统一的专家审稿规则. 相似文献
18.
Jonathan D. Eldredge Holly E. Phillips Philip J. Kroth 《Medical reference services quarterly》2013,32(4):412-423
Many health sciences librarians as well as other professionals attend conferences on a regular basis. This study sought to link an innovative peer review process of presented research papers to long-term conference outcomes in the peer-reviewed professional journal literature. An evidence-based conference included a proof-of-concept study to gauge the long-term outcomes from research papers presented during the program. Real-time peer review recommendations from the conference were linked to final versions of articles published in the peer-reviewed literature. The real-time peer review feedback served as the basis for further mentoring to guide prospective authors toward publishing their research results. These efforts resulted in the publication of two of the four research papers in the peer-viewed literature. A third presented paper appeared in a blog because the authors wanted to disseminate their findings more quickly than through the journal literature. The presenters of the fourth paper never published their study. Real-time peer review from this study can be adapted to other professional conferences that include presented research papers. 相似文献
19.
中华妇产科杂志审稿现状及对策 总被引：18，自引：6，他引：12
为探讨科技期刊审稿中存在的关键问题及解决对策,抽取200份中华妇产科杂志2000年审稿单及60篇论著类文稿的144份专家审稿意见,分别对审稿时间和审稿质量进行分析.除去初审退稿外,外审时间最短7 d,最长206 d,平均42.7 d,一篇文稿从来稿到刊出平均最快要7个月;60篇论著类文稿的专家审稿单144份,共提出审稿意见263条,最少1条,最多7条,平均1.83条(两审意见重叠时,按1条计算).建议:1)根据来稿总量调整初审退稿比率;2)建立标准化审稿程序;3)完善和扩大审稿队伍;4)建立专业副总编评审制度;5)提高编辑自身素质. 相似文献
20.
Rubriq is on a mission to put lost time back into research. We estimate that 15 million hours are lost each year to redundant peer review as papers get rejected and flow down the journal prestige pyramid. Rubriq uses an author‐pays model to facilitate fast, independent, and standardized peer review performed by three academic peers who are financially compensated for their efforts. Authors receive the reviews as well as a detailed journal recommendation report in 1–2 weeks. This service is designed to improve journal selection, supplement editorial reviews, and make peer review more portable between journals. The creation of the standardized scorecard is just the first phase of Rubriq's plans to improve the scholarly communication workflow. Through lessons learned over the past year, the Rubriq approach is evolving into a broader set of tools, software, and services designed to speed and improve the scholarly communication process. 相似文献