共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 140 毫秒
1.
《图书馆理论与实践》2006,(6):46-46
国家重大出版项目——《中国学术期刊网络出版总库》日前建成并通过验收。
《中国学术期刊网络出版总库》由清华大学中国学术期刊电子杂志社和清华同方知网技术有限公司承担。总投资345亿元。该工程首次大规模采用数字化手段，将当代中国现存的学术期刊文献资料。作为国家重要战略性知识资源予以整理保存，建成超大规模学术期刊全文文献数据库。 相似文献
2.
3.
日前，新闻出版总署“十五”国家重点电子出版规划的重点项目和列入《国家“十一五”时期文化发展规划纲要》中的国家“知识资源数据库”出版工程的重要项目——《中国学术期刊网络出版总库》（简称《总库》）建成并通过新闻出版总署验收。这标志着中国学术期刊的权威性文献检索工具和网络出版平台基本建成。同时，也预示着我国学术期刊数字化生产、在线出版传播、在线服务等网络出版产业链已经初步形成， 相似文献
4.
建设学术期刊综合出版平台对于促进学术期刊出版的转型升级,全面提高其影响力、传播力和竞争力有着重要的意义.学术期刊综合出版平台包括电脑主站、手机网站模块与“两微一端”等网络社交工具模块两大部分,其建设应遵循内容为王、信息集约、媒体融合、读者导向等原则.建设学术期刊综合出版平台应当积极打造专业学术信息门户网站,充分利用“两微一端”等网络社交工具,加强线上线下的互动,采取多种多样的推广方式,不断扩大赢利的渠道. 相似文献
5.
6.
目前我国社科学术期刊的数字出版主要有两种形式:一是加入某一个或多个大型期刊数据库网站;二是学术期刊主办单位独立建立自己的网站,或是和大型期刊网站合作建立具有自主版权的主页。我们应巩固完善现有的数字出版形式,积极探索新的数字出版形式,比如纯网络社科学术期刊。无论数字出版的形式怎样变化,社科学术期刊只要坚持不断满足读者和作者学术研究的需求,就能发挥自己的作用,担当起引导社会科学研究的使命。 相似文献
7.
BioMed Central对网络学术期刊出版模式的探索 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
简要介绍BioMed Central的产生背景和它所体现的网络学术期刊出版的技术特征,并重点论述BioMed Cental对网络学术期刊出版管理和经营模式的探索及其现实意义. 相似文献
8.
9.
学术期刊编辑网络生存法 总被引：2，自引：0，他引：2
随着计算机和互联网技术的应用和发展,图书、期刊的出版已面临全新的网络出版环境.出版物的出版从编辑收集信息资料、选题策划到向作者约稿、编辑加工、校对以及排版甚至征订发行等等环节都可以通过网络来进行.网络出版环境对以前传统意义上的出版理念、出版流程都带来了全新的概念诠释.同样,学术期刊的编辑出版以及学术期刊编辑自身也面临着网络出版环境的挑战和适应的要求. 相似文献
10.
11.
预印本网站的风起云涌为传统的学术出版带来了前所未有的挑战.本文从分析预印本的特点出发,讨论其与学术期刊相比在促进学术交流和学术成果传播方面具有的优势及其未来发展存在的局限性,从而提出了学术期刊面对预印本带来的挑战应采取的措施,包括缩短同行评议周期、增加同行评议的透明度、实行开放获取和修订学术论文的评价体系等,以便更好地适应移动互联网时代的科学研究对学术出版的新需求. 相似文献
12.
本次BioMed Central(BMC)撤销中国论文的原因是同行评议专家的邮箱存在造假,进而影响了同行评议的公正性,造假行为是语言润色公司自作主张,还是论文的作者直接参与其中还有待调查.从这一事件可以看出:一方面,BMC旗下的某些期刊对审稿专家审核不严格,同行评议过程出现漏洞;另一方面,由于我国学术评价体系存在对SCI收录期刊不加区分,"唯SCI是从"的倾向,造成中国科研人员存在发表SCI论文的迫切需求,在语言仍然是一大障碍的情况下,求助于语言润色公司就成了必然的选择.针对以上问题,我们应该修正唯SCI的学术评价体系,对SCI期刊区别对待,增大中文期刊在学术评价体系中的比重,增加论文刊后评价,同时,增强我国中文和英文期刊的整体实力,不断探索新的学术出版模式. 相似文献
13.
14.
《The Journal of Academic Librarianship》2020,46(5):102187
The COVID-19 pandemic, which has led to a flood of papers and preprints, has placed multiple challenges on academic publishing, the most obvious one being sustained integrity under the pressure to publish quickly. There are risks of this high volume-to-speed ratio. Many letters, editorials, and supposedly “peer reviewed” papers in ranked and indexed journals were published in a matter of days, suggesting that peer review was either fleeting or non-existential, or that papers were rapidly approved by editors based on their perceived interest and topicality, rather than on their intrinsic academic value. In academic publishing circles, the claim of “peer review”, when in fact it has not been conducted, is a core characteristic of “predatory publishing”, and is also a “fake” element that may undermine efforts in recent years to build trust in science's budding serials crisis. While the world is still centrally focused on COVID-19, the issue of “predatory publishing” is being ignored, or not being given sufficient attention. The risks to the scholarly community, academic publishing and ultimately public health are at stake when exploitative and predatory publishing are left unchallenged. 相似文献
15.
学术期刊出版体制的市场化改革,需要进一步解放思想,实事求是,凝聚共识.解构学术期刊出版体制背后的权力结构因素,可以全面和深入地认识学术期刊出版体制存在的问题和改革的关键点.通过对学术期刊出版的行政权力结构、学术权力结构、经济权力结构、话语权力结构的解读,试图为学术期刊出版改革实践提供新的思路. 相似文献
16.
David NICHOLAS Anthony WATKINSON Hamid R. JAMALI Eti HERMAN Carol TENOPIR Rachel VOLENTINE Suzie ALLARD Kenneth LEVINE 《Learned Publishing》2015,28(1):15-21
The article presents one of the main findings of an international study of 4,000 academic researchers that examined how trustworthiness is determined in the digital environment when it comes to scholarly reading, citing, and publishing. The study shows that peer review is still the most trustworthy characteristic of all. There is, though, a common perception that open access journals are not peer reviewed or do not have proper peer‐review systems. Researchers appear to have moved inexorably from a print‐based system to a digital system, but it has not significantly changed the way they decide what to trust. They do not trust social media. Only a minority – although significantly mostly young and early career researchers – thought that social media are anything other than more appropriate to personal interactions and peripheral to their professional/academic lives. There are other significant differences, according to the age of the researcher. Thus, in regard to choosing an outlet for publication of their work, young researchers are much less concerned with the fact that it is peer reviewed. 相似文献
17.
18.
Xiang REN 《Learned Publishing》2013,26(3):197-205
A growing number of online journals and academic platforms are adopting light peer review or ‘publish then filter’ models of scholarly communication. These approaches have the advantage of enabling instant exchanges of knowledge between academics and are part of a wider search for alternatives to traditional peer review and certification processes in scholarly publishing. However, establishing credibility and identifying the correct balance between communication and scholarly rigour remains an important challenge for digital communication platforms targeting academic communities. This paper looks at a highly influential, government‐backed, open publishing platform in China: Science Paper Online, which is using transparent post‐publication peer‐review processes to encourage innovation and address systemic problems in China's traditional academic publishing system. There can be little doubt that the Chinese academic publishing landscape differs in important ways from counterparts in the United States and Western Europe. However, this article suggests that developments in China also provide important lessons about the potential of digital technology and government policy to facilitate a large‐scale shift towards more open and networked models of scholarly communication. 相似文献
19.
随着学术期刊传播深度和广度的推进,刊载的论文不断被相关专家研读,发布的成果反复接受同行的验证,一些论文的作者也因此被当作某个学科或行业的人才被发现。学术期刊在编辑出版发行过程中,通过同行评议,编辑与作者的交流互动,作者的科研成果被转化成生产力,作者与读者的学术争鸣,给研读者以思想启迪、学术熏陶、写作参考等方式,实现了人才的培养功能。 相似文献