共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 156 毫秒
1.
2.
3.
"学生办刊"作为一种独特的办刊模式,有利于创新办刊思路,促进学术期刊更好地发展.以《哈佛法律评论》《耶鲁法律杂志》《斯坦福法律评论》为例,探究美国法律评论类期刊学生编辑的选拔与分工机制以及期刊的栏目设置和集稿审稿机制.研究结果表明,"学生办刊"模式的主要特征包括学生主导、独立办刊、组织严密、体系完备、民主制衡等.采用"学生办刊"模式应建立严谨的学生编辑选拔机制,明确学生编辑的职能分工,规范期刊集稿要求,健全期刊审稿制度,实现采用"学生办刊"模式的期刊间的联合,办出期刊特色. 相似文献
4.
邹韬奋的办刊"头尾"观,即要"抓好一头一尾",可诠释为与时俱进,服务"大目标"的办刊宗旨;全心全意, "以读者利益为中心"的办刊理念.在18年的办刊生涯中,他一直实践着这种宗旨和理念.这种"热爱人民,真诚地为人民服务,鞠躬尽瘁,死而后已"的韬奋精神,在60多年后的今天,仍然对新闻出版从业者具有深刻的启迪和教育意义. 相似文献
5.
6.
期刊"卷首语"是一本期刊的开篇,与办刊宗旨以及办刊人的理念是分不开的。犹如刊物的灵魂,它引领着期刊发展的走向。是在读者面前呈现出一道亮丽的风景线。 相似文献
7.
科学规划和有序部署是中国档案事业繁荣发展的前提和基础.《"十四五"全国档案事业发展规划》首次以工程项目形式明确未来五年我国档案工作任务重点和突破口,推动档案工作加紧走向依法治理、走向开放、走向现代化,助力中国档案事业加速迈上新台阶.结合各项工程提出原因、背景,深入解析七项工程分别蕴含的目标指向,为《"十四五"全国档案事业发展规划》的深入贯彻提供借鉴和参考. 相似文献
8.
目前我国的学术期刊总体上呈现量大质低的状态,这既不利于推动学术研究的发展,也不利于文化产业的形成,在走向国际方面更是不尽如人意。本文认为提高我国学术期刊的办刊水平,提升"走出去"的能力,是我国学术期刊尤其是担负着"国家"责任的学科带头刊物的历史责任。必须从明确定位(发展层次定位、内容定位、市场定位)、提高内容质量(论文质量、编辑质量)、强化平台建设(数字出版、集成服务)、提升办刊队伍水平等几个方面入手,才能真正提高我国学术期刊"走出去"的能力。 相似文献
9.
何为"核心期刊"? 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
核心期刊"的概念本属文献计量学的范畴,目前却有不少期刊尤其是学术期刊,对"核心期刊"顶礼膜拜,趋之若鹜.期刊为了彰大自身的知名度,将一些获奖项目印在封面上,这本无可厚非,但"核心期刊"的字样往往被列于首位,足可见对"核心期刊"的崇尚程度.有些期刊以"核心期刊"为办刊目标,把进入"核心期刊"视为办刊实绩,一味地去迎合"核心期刊"的遴选指标,"千方百计"地提高文摘率.还有一些学术期刊,把"核心期刊"当作赚钱的招牌,热衷于增页扩版,小小学报竞成月刊,每期200多页,年发文量近千篇,向读者大肆收取高额的版面费用.甚至,还有某些学人以"如何进入核心期刊"为科研选题,试图以"核心期刊"为"指挥棒",提出调整栏目设置、改变办刊宗旨的应对策略……如此削足适履,不利于期刊的健康发展,势必要导致期刊价值取向的偏离,势必要丢掉一些长期培育起来的精品栏目,有些学术期刊恐怕也会走上一条不归之路. 相似文献
10.
"三个代表"与图书馆建设 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
熊孝孟 《大学图书情报学刊》2004,22(2):13-14,29
"三个代表"重要思想对于图书馆的建设具有重要意义,如发挥信息枢纽作用,为发展先进生产力的需要服务.发扬图书馆文化力,推进先进文化的传播.执著敬业保障人民群众使用图书馆的权利.发挥教育职能,提高人民的整体素质.同时,在宣传"三个代表"的过程中,也使更多的人走向图书馆,从而促进社会的可持续发展. 相似文献
11.
12.
13.
14.
Journal weighted impact factor: A proposal 总被引：3，自引：0，他引：3
The impact factor of a journal reflects the frequency with which the journal's articles are cited. It is the best available measure of journal quality. For calculation of impact factor, we just count the number of citations, no matter how prestigious the citing journal is. We think that impact factor as a measure of journal quality, may be improved if in its calculation, we not only take into account the number of citations, but also incorporate a factor reflecting the prestige of the citing journals relative to the cited journal. In calculation of this proposed “weighted impact factor,” each citation has a coefficient (weight) the value of which is 1 if the citing journal is as prestigious as the cited journal; is >1 if the citing journal is more prestigious than the cited journal; and is <1 if the citing journal has a lower standing than the cited journal. In this way, journals receiving many citations from prestigious journals are considered prestigious themselves and those cited by low-status journals seek little credit. By considering both the number of citations and the prestige of the citing journals, we expect the weighted impact factor be a better scientometrics measure of journal quality. 相似文献
15.
16.
Eti Herman John Akeroyd Gaelle Bequet David Nicholas Anthony Watkinson 《Learned Publishing》2020,33(3):213-229
This article presents an up‐to‐date portrayal of the greatly changed landscape of scholarly journal publishing and identifies the emerging trends characterizing it. We consider the attributes, novelty, and disruptive potential of different models, which range from improvements to the extant model to attempts at reconfiguration and transformation. We propose that journal transition can be seen as falling into three categories. The first is enhanced models of the traditional scholarly journal, which typically afford enriched functionality that breaks the bonds of the printed page whilst otherwise remaining wholly traditional in their offerings. The second category is innovative models of the traditional scholarly journal, which aim at supporting the journal in performing its traditional roles through convention‐altering ways. The third category is the possible alternatives to the traditional journal, which represent a move towards alternative modes of knowledge dissemination. This review shows that each of the models identified makes contributions to enriching the reporting and showcasing of scholarly output. They also make it more effective and more efficient. However, we conclude that none of the possible alternatives being discussed can serve as a full‐fledged alternative to the journal. 相似文献
17.
期刊引用认同及其被引评价新指标有效性分析 总被引：2，自引：1，他引：1
以影响因子等引文数据为核心的期刊评价指标体系虽广为使用,但也备受争议.本文从期刊引用认同、期刊被引及期刊国际化等三个方面分析了不仅仅依赖于"影响因子"的评价期刊的新指标,并对相关指标的有效性问题进行讨论.分析表明,基于期刊引用认同视角和基于期刊被引网络视角的很多指标可以与期刊影响因子指标相印证,可用作国内期刊评价的新尝试,而相关期刊国际化评价指标还需在实践中进一步检验. 相似文献
18.
19.
20.
Frank‐Thorsten KRELL 《Learned Publishing》2010,23(1):59-62
The journal impact factor is widely used as a performance indicator for single authors (despite its unsuitably in this respect). Hence, authors are increasingly exercised if there is any sign that impact factors are being manipulated. Editors who ask authors to cite relevant papers from their own journal are accused of acting unethically. This is surprising because, besides publishers, authors are the primary beneficiaries of an increased impact factor of the journal in which they publish, and because the citation process is biased anyway. There is growing evidence that quality and relevance are not always the reasons for choosing references. Authors' biases and personal environments as well as strategic considerations are major factors. As long as an editor does not force authors to cite irrelevant papers from their own journal, I consider it as a matter of caretaking for the journal and its authors if an editor brings recent papers to the authors' attention. It would be unfair to authors and disloyal to the publisher if an editor did not try to increase the impact of his/her own journal. 相似文献