共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 421 毫秒
1.
Rachel J. Hinrichs Mirian Ramirez Mahasin Ameen 《Journal of the Medical Library Association》2021,109(4):590
Objective:We sought to determine how many abstracts presented at the 2012 and 2014 Medical Library Association (MLA) annual conferences were later published as full-text journal articles and which features of the abstract and first author influence the likelihood of future publication. To do so, we replicated a previous study on MLA conference abstracts presented in 2002 and 2003. The secondary objective was to compare the publication rates between the prior and current study.Methods:Presentations and posters delivered at the 2012 and 2014 MLA meetings were coded to identify factors associated with publication. Postconference publication of abstracts as journal articles was determined using a literature search and survey sent to first authors. Chi-squared tests were used to assess differences in the publication rate, and logistic regression was used to assess the influence of abstract factors on publication.Results:The combined publication rate for the 2012 and 2014 meetings was 21.8% (137/628 abstracts), which is a statistically significant decrease compared to the previously reported rate for 2002 and 2003 (27.6%, 122/442 abstracts). The odds that an abstract would later be published as a journal article increased if the abstract was multi-institutional or if it was research, specifically surveys or mixed methods research.Conclusions:The lower publication rate of MLA conference abstracts may be due to an increased number of program or nonresearch abstracts that were accepted or a more competitive peer review process for journals. MLA could increase the publication rate by encouraging and enabling multi-institutional research projects among its members. 相似文献
2.
In 2008, the type of document “proceedings paper” (PP) was assigned in the WoS database to journal articles which were initially presented at a conference and later adapted for publication in a journal. Since the use of two different labels (“article” and “proceedings paper”) might lead to infer differences in their relevance and/or quality, this paper presents a comparative study of standard journal articles and PP in journals to explore potential differences between them. The study focuses on the Library and Information Science field in the Web of Science database and covers the 1990–2008 period. PP approximately account for 9% of the total number of articles in this field, two-thirds of which are published in monographic issues devoted to conferences, which tend to be concentrated in specific journals. Proceedings papers emerge as an heterogeneous set comprising PP in ordinary issues, similar to standard articles in structure and impact of research; and PP in monographic issues, which seem to be less comprehensive and tend to receive less citations. Faster publication of PP in monographic than in ordinary issues may conceal differences in the review process undergone by either type of paper. The main implications of these results for authors, bibliometricians, journal editors and research evaluators are pointed out. 相似文献
3.
4.
Faculty of 1000 ( www.facultyof1000.com ) is a new on‐line literature awareness and assessment service of research papers, on the basis of selections by 1400 of the world's top biologists, that combines metrics with judgement. The service offers a systematic and comprehensive form of post‐publication peer review that focuses on the best papers regardless of the journal in which they are published. It is now possible to draw some conclusions about how this new form of post‐publication peer review meets the needs of scientists, and the organizations that fund them, in practice. In addition, inferences about the relative importance of journals are set out, which should also interest publishers and librarians. 相似文献
5.
F1000是一个新的科研文献在线评估系统,它提供了一种系统的结构化的专家评议机制.通过与ISI Web Of Science中由被引次数所确定的影响力较高的文献对比,F1000 的专家评议机制能够及时准确的对优秀文献做出推荐,并给出推荐的评语和文献重要程度等级,对文献质量的评定具有极高的参考性,也对科研工作者快速选择相... 相似文献
6.
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
7.
Mohammad Salehi Mohammad Soltani Hadis Tamleh Shohreh Teimournezhad 《Learned Publishing》2020,33(2):89-95
The proliferation of predatory or bogus journals has been recognized as a threat to academic research, and this study was conducted to discover the experiences of authors published in these journals. Eighty authors who had published in journals identified as predatory were surveyed. We asked how the authors learnt about these journals, what they thought about the reputation of the journals, their experiences of peer review and the quality of feedback provided, and whether publication was driven by PhD or job requirements. Our results showed that a third of authors discovered the journals by web searches or responding to email invitations. Over half said the reputation and name of the journal were important in selecting a journal, although a third admitted that the journal they published in did not have a good reputation. The main reason for selecting the journals was the promise of fast publication (31.2% respondents). Only half of the respondents said that publication was driven by PhD or job requirements. Just over a third reported that peer review was good or excellent, and only 17.5% said that peer review was poor or non‐existent – over 70% thought they had received good feedback from the journals. Although the research was somewhat limited, it does indicate general satisfaction with the journals in which the authors published. Fast publication coupled with good feedback and encouragement to submit can make publishing in predatory journals so tempting that few authors can resist. 相似文献
8.
9.
Tove Faber Frandsen 《Learned Publishing》2019,32(1):57-62
Peer review is a cornerstone of scientific publication, and consequently, predatory journals are feared to be a threat to the credibility of science as they perform no or low‐quality peer review. The question of why researchers decide to publish in a questionable journal remains relatively unexplored. This paper provides an overview of the existing literature on why researchers decide to publish papers in questionable journals, specifically whether or not they search for a low‐barrier way to getting published while being aware that the chosen journal probably does not adhere to acceptable academic standards. The choice of a publication outlet can be seen as a submission tree that consists of various incentives, and explaining why authors publish in deceptive journals may thus consist of a combination of awareness and motivational factors. Awareness and motivation of diligent authors is very different from that of unethical authors. Unethical authors may use a lack of awareness to excuse their actions, but they may actively search for a low‐barrier way to getting published. As there are different types of authors who publish in deceptive journals, we need different approaches to solve the problem. 相似文献
10.
Specialist publications are an important part of professional and disciplinary development. They serve to communicate research; enable the development of a shared, contestable, and expanding knowledge base; support the educational programmes that advance the profession; grow practice; and inform the evolution of the discipline. In conservation, professional and peer-reviewed journals and other forms of publications support cultural, organisational, and scientific development; facilitate new and improved forms of conservation professional practice; enable the growth of a distinctive research-led discipline; and help conservation to more effectively compete with other disciplines for influence and funding. This paper reports on the findings of a study that investigated conservators’ opinions and experiences of peer-reviewed publishing. This study examined the value conservators place on the dissemination of their research; the obstacles to, and incentives in publishing; the views held by conservators of the benefits of publication to themselves and the field; and the impact of the field's inherent interdisciplinarity on the pattern of conservation publishing. Eighty-six conservators (conservators and conservation scientists) and ten journal editors completed an online questionnaire focusing on the communication of knowledge within the field of cultural materials conservation. Findings suggest that while the peer review process is valued, a significant number who responded indicated a preference for forms of communication other than in peer review journals or publishing in general. 相似文献
11.
近年来我国科技期刊发文量不断上升,但学术影响力与发达国家相比仍有较大差距。本文借鉴国外著名医学期刊的成功经验和做法,对医学论文亮点的挖掘和展示策略进行梳理和总结。在编辑过程中,编辑可帮助作者在题名、摘要、图表、正文等各个方面将体现文章创新性、重要性、前沿性的地方充分挖掘和展示出来。而在论文编辑完成之后,则可以通过期刊本身、官方网站、社交媒体、邮件推送、会议专辑或宣传页以及新闻媒体等多种途径和渠道来全方位展示论文的亮点,以提高科技成果的传播效果和期刊的核心竞争力。 相似文献
12.
审稿是期刊筛选论文、确保刊发论文质量的重要手段,审稿过程可能会受到审稿人、编辑和作者有意或无意的偏倚的影响而导致审稿结果失实。本文总结了医学论文常见审稿偏倚,如内容偏倚、保守偏倚、利益冲突、作者身份或地域偏倚等问题,对目前国内外期刊现有的审稿模式进行讨论并提出建议。各期刊可结合自身实际情况,采取一种或多种审稿模式;谨慎选择审稿人,既要“对口”送审,又要避免利益冲突;避免审稿一票否决,严格落实三审制度;尊重作者的科研成果,建立作者申诉机制。基于此,确保论文的优势得到承认,弱点得到剖析,为作者提供具有建设性的修改意见,帮助作者提高科学研究及论文撰写的水平,最大限度地减少审稿过程中出现偏倚。 相似文献
13.
Lori J. Terrill 《Cataloging & classification quarterly》2016,54(8):593-611
The importance of cataloging research was highlighted by a resolution declaring 2010 as “The Year of Cataloging Research.” This study of the peer-reviewed journal literature from 2010 to 2014 examined the state of cataloging literature since this proclamation. The goals were to determine the percentage of cataloging literature that can be classified as research, what research methods were used, and whether the articles contributed to the library assessment conversation. Nearly a quarter of the cataloging literature qualifies as research; however, a majority of researchers fail to make explicit connections between their work and the missions of their libraries. 相似文献
14.
15.
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
16.
由于高校学报来稿研究领域广泛、涵盖学科众多、稿源范围综合等特点,所需审稿专家范围广且重复度较低,“审稿难”问题日益凸显。作为高校学报骨干力量的青年编辑,通常需要专业基础扎实、思维活跃、应变能力强。本文结合自身工作,从青年编辑特点和优势出发,有针对性地提出了一些措施,从熟悉专业、抓住机会、修炼自身等几个方面,阐述如何发挥青年编辑优秀,提高高校学报审稿效率。 相似文献
17.
18.
This study is a systematic literature review of student employment in academic libraries. The review aimed to identify the extent to which academic libraries treat student employment as a High-Impact Practice. Focusing on articles, books, and ACRL conference proceedings published from 1997 to 2017, 216 publications were reviewed. Utilizing the work of George Kuh as a framework, publications were coded so as to identify the characteristics of highly effective educational practices demonstrated in each publication's student employment program. Findings show that student employment programs consistently align with High-Impact Practices in regards to faculty and peer interaction, time, and effort; we also found gaps in the student employment literature regarding professional development and training, mentoring, diversity, and the transferability of work experiences to other contexts. Further research is needed to articulate the impact student employment has on student success. 相似文献
19.
近6年我国数字图书馆研究论文定量分析 总被引：21，自引：6，他引：15
从论文(包括论文产出量及年代分布、论文产出期刊源及分布、论文的主题分布、经典文献分布)和作者(包括作者的数量分布、作者的系统分布、作者的地区分布和核心作者分布)等对我国1996-2001年8月间发表的数字图书馆研究论文进行定量分析。 相似文献
20.
Objectives:
This study sought to ascertain the publication rate of abstracts presented at the annual meetings of the Medical Library Association (MLA) for the years of 2002 and 2003. The secondary objectives were to examine possible reasons for non-publication and factors influencing publication.Methods:
A total of 442 abstracts from both meeting years, consisting of presented papers and posters, were examined. The 2 methods used to obtain a publication rate were literature searches and an online questionnaire sent to first authors. The questionnaire also asked abstract authors about reasons for non-publication and other factors that might have influenced their decisions about whether or not to submit the project for publication.Results:
The overall publication rate from the survey was 26.5%, and the publication rate found via literature searching was 27.6%. The most common reason given for non-publication was time restrictions. Also notable was the large proportion of abstracts written by librarians working at universities and those having 25 or more years in the library profession.Discussion:
Publication rates for abstracts presented at the Medical Library Association meetings for the years studied rank at the low end in comparison with other medical professional associations. Further research into factors affecting publication may reveal ways to increase this rate.Highlights
- Publication rates from posters and presentations at the Medical Library Association''s 2002 and 2003 annual meetings were estimated at less than 28.0% using data from an author survey and literature search. In contrast, a Cochrane systematic review of 79 similar biomedical research studies found a mean publication rate of 44.5%.
- Respondents listed time restrictions as their primary reason for not submitting their presentations for publication.
Implications
- Compared to biomedical conferences, relatively little of the information presented at Medical Library Association annual meetings is available as peer-reviewed evidence in the published literature.
- Each profession has different norms for the nature and style of information in presentations at meetings. The further presenters get from basic research, the more difficult it may be for them to conceptualize a presentation as a formal paper. Diverse publication rates between professions are likely to remain.
- Additional study could be aimed at further clarifying the reasons for non-publication and possible means to ameliorate them.