首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
相似文献
 共查询到20条相似文献,搜索用时 46 毫秒
1.
徐志英 《编辑学报》2014,26(5):503-505
学术论文的发表极其依赖于高质量的同行评议,尽管同行评议不尽善尽美,但能帮助作者提高论文的写作水平以及编辑人员的编辑水平。研究发现,对审稿质量做出最佳贡献的预测因素包括是否为大学附属医院工作的审稿人或研究生毕业10年内的年轻人。目前进一步改善审稿方法的效果很有限,因此有专家建议对审稿人进行正规培训。期刊及其编辑在选择审稿人时,要考虑他们具备何种知识和技能,是否有丰富的审稿经验。这有助于期刊编辑出版单位选择到合适的审稿人,并提高审稿质量。  相似文献   

2.
3.
陈小华 《编辑学报》2014,26(1):22-24
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   

4.
根据《材料科学与工艺》刊物的特点,根据送专家审稿经验,认为:在加强编辑自我学习、提高自身水平的基础上,了解、掌握刊物涉及学科的分支;根据刊物所涉及的学科分支通过网络手段建立准确、详细的专家库;对于每篇来稿,根据稿件类型挑选合适的审稿专家,再结合编辑对稿件的熟悉程度选择如何送审;送审结束后要追踪整个审稿过程,掌握专家的反馈信息和登录情况,及时催审和补送。采用这些方法,可以保证审稿的质量和时效性,从而提高刊物的质量。  相似文献   

5.
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   

6.
7.
利用批注功能提高学术期刊审稿效率   总被引:1,自引:1,他引:0  
针对同行评议的现状及学术期刊编辑缺乏专业知识的问题,提出批注式审稿的概念,并论述其在提高审稿质量、帮助编辑提高专业素养、增强学术期刊的可读性方面的优势.建议引导审稿专家采用批注式审稿方法,以提高学术期刊的整体质量.  相似文献   

8.
Influence and capital are two concepts used to evaluate scholarly outputs, and these can be measured using the Scholarly Capital Model as a modelling tool. The tool looks at the concepts of connectedness, venue representation, and ideational influence using centrality measures within a social network. This research used co‐authorships and h‐indices to investigate authors who have published papers in the field of information behaviour between 1980 and 2015 as extracted from Web of Science. The findings show a relationship between the authors’ connectedness and the venue (journal) representation. It could be seen that the venue (journal) influences the chance of citation, and equally, the prestige (centrality) of authors probably raises the citations of the journals. The research also shows a significant positive relationship between the venue representation and ideational influence. This means that a research work that is published in a highly cited journal will find more visibility and will receive more citations.  相似文献   

9.
Previous research has found that researchers rank journal reputation and impact factor (IF) amongst the key selection criteria when choosing where to submit. We explored the actual effect upon submission numbers of several possible factors. We retrieved 10 years of submission data from over a thousand journals, as well as data on IF, retractions, and other factors. We performed statistical analysis and identified correlations. We also undertook case study research on the 55 most significant submission decreases. We found a statistically significant correlation between changes in IF, ISI percentage ranking, and changes in submissions numbers in subsequent years. We also found a statistically significant effect on submission numbers in the year following the publication of a retraction. Our case studies identified other factors, including negative feedback on the peer review process. Our findings regarding IF confirm previous indications about the significance of IF on submissions. We explain the correlation with retractions through the concept of ‘peer review reputation’. These results indicate that editors and publishers need to focus on a journal's peer review practices, as well as a journal's IF, if they are to maintain and grow submissions.  相似文献   

10.
丁佐奇  郑晓南 《编辑学报》2013,25(5):458-459
通过对《中国天然药物》200篇稿件的同行评议结果的分析,发现作者推荐审稿人较少能做到客观评价,存在较严重利益冲突问题。据此,提出相关的建议:在投稿须知中对推荐审稿人以及审稿的注意事项作出要求;注意作者与推荐审稿人之间的利益关系;选择推荐审稿人的同时最好再选2位其他审稿人;用推荐的审稿人审其他相关文章;建立完善的申诉机制和反馈机制。  相似文献   

11.
朱大明 《编辑学报》2017,29(3):252-254
同行专家审稿对保证学术期刊论文质量做出了重要贡献.为改进学术期刊对同行专家审稿致谢的表达方式,简述学术期刊对同行专家审稿致谢的常见做法,指出其存在的问题,进而提出改进的建议.归纳了论文作者对同行审稿专家公开具名致谢的内容和表达方式.认为学术期刊论文作者可以适当方式对审稿专家提出的审稿意见和建议公开具名致谢.  相似文献   

12.
The problem of how to rank academic journals in the communication field (human interaction, mass communication, speech, and rhetoric) is one of practical importance to scholars, university administrators, and librarians, yet there is no methodology that covers the field's journals comprehensively and objectively. This article reports a new ranking methodology based in empirical criteria. The new system relates independent measures of the prestige of the field's doctoral departments to information about where faculty members from those departments have published scholarly articles. This new approach identifies the field's most influential journals as those that more frequently publish the work of the field's top scholars and programs as perceived by their peers. This system was used to compute prestige weights (P-weights) for 65 communication journals. P-weights were found to be strongly correlated with ISI Web of Science journal impact factor scores and can be used to identify an overall prestige hierarchy for communication journals as well as prestige rankings by subject specialty.  相似文献   

13.
14.
15.
科技期刊稿件遴选机制研究   总被引:1,自引:0,他引:1  
黄锋  黄雅意 《编辑学报》2015,27(6):531-532
分析科技期刊稿件三审制中专家评审环节采用匿名审稿模式和公开审稿模式的利弊,以及编委推荐制对于科技期刊遴选优质稿件的突出优势.认为我国科技期刊在公开审稿模式尚未建立的现阶段,实行编委推荐制与同行专家双向匿名审稿模式相结合的综合稿件遴选机制是一种合理的选择.  相似文献   

16.
The study explores the publication trends of scholarly journal articles in two core Library and Information Science (LIS) journals indexed under ScienceDirect Database during the period for the period 2000–2010, and for the “Top 25 Hottest Papers” for 2006–2010. It examines and presents an analysis of 1000 research papers in the area of LIS published in two journals: The International Information & Library Review (IILR) and Library & Information Science Research (LISR). The study examines the content of the journals, including growth of the literature, authorship patterns, geographical distributions of authors, distribution of papers by journal, citation pattern, ranking pattern, length of articles, and most cited authors. Collaboration was calculated using Subramanyam's formula, and Lotka's law was used to identify authors' productivity. The results indicated that authors' distributions did not follow Lotka's law. The study identified the eight most productive authors with a high of 19 publications in this field. The findings indicate that these publications experienced rapid and exponential growth in literature production. The contributions by scientists from India are examined.  相似文献   

17.
New models of scientific publishing and new ways of practicing peer review have injected a recent dynamism into the scholarly communication system. In this article, we delineate the context of the traditional peer-review model, reflect on some of the first experiences with open peer review, and forecast some of the challenges that new models for peer review will have to meet. Our findings suggest that the peer-review function has the potential to be divorced from the journal system, so that the responsibility to judge the significance of a paper may no longer fall exclusively to formal reviewers, but may be assessed by the whole readership community.  相似文献   

18.
开放审稿本质上是作者与审稿人身份公开。目前对于开放审稿的确切定义和实施方式学界尚未达成共识。开放审稿最大的优势就是为学术交流提供了一个新的平台,并有助于增强审稿人责任感和维护学术公正。技术仅是开放审稿的一种手段,不应成为其制约因素。开放审稿面临的最大挑战是能否被学术界认可与接受。  相似文献   

19.
The study explores the publication trends of scholarly journal articles in two core Library and Information Science (LIS) journals indexed under ScienceDirect Database during the period for the period 2000–2010, and for the “Top 25 Hottest Papers” for 2006–2010. It examines and presents an analysis of 1000 research papers in the area of LIS published in two journals: The International Information & Library Review (IILR) and Library & Information Science Research (LISR). The study examines the content of the journals, including growth of the literature, authorship patterns, geographical distributions of authors, distribution of papers by journal, citation pattern, ranking pattern, length of articles, and most cited authors. Collaboration was calculated using Subramanyam's formula, and Lotka's law was used to identify authors' productivity. The results indicated that authors' distributions did not follow Lotka's law. The study identified the eight most productive authors with a high of 19 publications in this field. The findings indicate that these publications experienced rapid and exponential growth in literature production. The contributions by scientists from India are examined.  相似文献   

20.
张向谊 《编辑学报》2014,26(1):25-26
审稿人、作者、编辑等参与者的素质会影响期刊同行评议的效率,运用恰当的方法使同行评议对所有参与者起到教育培训作用,可提高同行评议的质量,提高期刊学术水平。  相似文献   

设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号