共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 109 毫秒
1.
Noel McGlinchey Tom Hunter Jack Bromley Ruth Fisher Anna Debiec‐Waszak Thomas Gaston 《Learned Publishing》2019,32(1):37-46
The study aimed to find whether journal editorial office administrators were as effective as editors at assigning rigorous reviewers. We analysed four journals using blended systems of editor‐selected reviewers (ESR) and Journal Administrator‐selected reviewers (JASR) from four disciplines: medicine, sociology, education, and business/applied psychology. In blended journals, both editors and Journal Administrators select authors to review using web‐based expert‐finding tools. All reviewers selected were both authors and reviewers. We primarily wanted to assess the quality of reviews from both ESR and JASR reviewer selection methodologies. Reviewer rigour was defined as differences between editor decisions and reviewer recommendations. Timeliness data were also recorded and analysed separately as an indicator of efficiency. Reviewer rigour, the quality of reviewers’ evaluations, was estimated from the level of agreement between editors and reviewers. Timeliness was not considered a direct measure of rigour. For two journals, no statistically significant differences were observed; for two, in a small proportion of cases, ESR reviews were more negative. One journal showed some statistically significant major differences but only in 2% of reviews. Timeliness data indicated some statistically significant trends that JASR return reviews more promptly. Therefore, where editors rely on at least two reviewers’ recommendations, JASR is equally rigorous as ESR. 相似文献
2.
Should authors suggest reviewers? A comparative study of the performance of author‐suggested and editor‐selected reviewers at a biological journal 
下载免费PDF全文
下载免费PDF全文 Yan Liang 《Learned Publishing》2018,31(3):216-221
To evaluate peer review of author‐suggested reviewers (Ra), this research compared them with editor‐selected reviewers (Re) using 1‐year data collected from Journal of Systematics and Evolution. The results indicated that (1) Ra responded more positively than Re, that is, accepted invitations to review more often, more likely to suggest alternative reviewers, and less likely to neglect a review invitation; (2) there was no statistically significant difference in timeliness between Ra and Re; (3) editors rated Re reviews of higher quality than Ra reviews, but the word count length of these reviews did not differ statistically; (4) Ra made more favourable publication recommendations than Re; and (5) Ra were more often based in the country of the authors than Re, and this correlated with the location effect on reviewer response and publication recommendations. These results suggest that authors should be encouraged to suggest reviewers. However, in terms of policy or procedure based on the results of this study, journals/editors should collect and consult at least one review from other sources than author suggested, and when reviewers nominated by authors are considered, priority should be given to those with different locations from the authors. 相似文献
3.
Verity Warne 《Learned Publishing》2016,29(1):41-50
In July 2015, Wiley surveyed over 170,000 researchers in order to explore peer reviewing experience; attitudes towards recognition and reward for reviewers; and training requirements. The survey received 2,982 usable responses (a response rate of 1.7%). Respondents from all markets indicated similar levels of review activity. However, analysis of reviewer and corresponding author data suggests that US researchers in fact bear a disproportionate burden of review, while Chinese authors publish twice as much as they review. Results show that while reviewers choose to review in order to give back to the community, there is more perceived benefit in interacting with the community of a top‐ranking journal than a low‐ranking one. The majority of peer review training received by respondents has come either in the form of journal guidelines or informally as advice from supervisors or colleagues. Seventy‐seven per cent show an interest in receiving further reviewer training. Reviewers strongly believe that reviewing is inadequately acknowledged at present and should carry more weight in their institutions' evaluation process. Respondents value recognition initiatives related to receiving feedback from the journal over monetary rewards and payment in kind. Questions raised include how to evenly expand the reviewer pool, provide training throughout the researcher career arc, and deliver consistent evaluation and recognition for reviewers. 相似文献
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
科技期刊为审稿专家减负的4种策略 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
为了缩短审稿周期,保证审稿质量,使审稿专家与期刊建立长期愉快合作的关系,科技期刊不能忽视专家在审稿减负上的需求。科技期刊可以从准确选择审稿专家、科学设计审稿单、灵活培训审稿专家、编辑人员和审稿系统协助减负等4个方面减轻专家的审稿强度,为他们创造更友好、更高效的审稿平台和审稿环境。 相似文献
9.
This paper presents an index that measures reviewer contribution to editorial processes of scholarly journals. Following a metaphor of ranking algorithms in sports tournaments, we created an index that considers reviewers on different context-specific dimensions, i.e., report delivery time, the length of the report and the alignment of recommendations to editorial decisions. To test the index, we used a dataset of peer review in a multi-disciplinary journal, including 544 reviewers on 606 submissions in six years. Although limited by sample size, the test showed that the index identifies outstanding contributors and weak performing reviewers efficiently. Our index is flexible, contemplates extensions and could be incorporated into available scholarly journal management tools. It can assist editors in rewarding high performing reviewers and managing editorial turnover. 相似文献
10.
11.
审稿人队伍的质量和工作效率直接影响科技期刊的学术质量和出版周期。为此,培养一支优质、高效的审稿人队伍是科技期刊发展的重要保障。本文以《仿生工程学报》为例,探讨英文科技期刊如何建立审稿人队伍,并通过提高稿件初审质量、加强与审稿人的沟通、加大审稿贡献奖励力度、满足优秀审稿人需求等方法来提高审稿人的满意度和审稿积极性,从而留住优秀审稿人乐于为期刊服务。此外,还介绍依托国外同领域优秀期刊,运用Web of Science数据库有针对性地发掘出高学术影响力的作者并吸纳其为审稿人的方法,以不断壮大审稿人队伍,获得优质高效的审稿意见,从而提高期刊的学术质量。 相似文献
12.
K Kroenke 《Bulletin of the Medical Library Association》1986,74(1):1-5
In a study of book reviews published in four general medical journals over a six-month period, 480 reviews were analyzed. Twenty-five features that reviewers address when evaluating a text were identified, and the frequency of commentary for each feature was determined. The mean number of features addressed per review was 9.0. Reviews averaged 389 words, but review length did not correlate with the length or scope of the book, with the number of features addressed, nor with the reviewer's assessment of the text. Extraneous commentary by the reviewer occurred in 16% of the reviews. This editorializing appeared in lengthier reviews that addressed fewer features. Favorable reviews were far more common than unfavorable ones (88.5% vs. 11.5%). Consequently, for the fifty-five books reviewed in more than one journal, agreement regarding rating of the text was high (86%). Results of this study may provide useful guidelines for reviewers of medical texts. 相似文献
13.
14.
15.
16.
从稿件本身入手准确遴选审稿人 总被引：9，自引：3，他引：6
阐述综合性科技期刊编辑针对一篇具体的来稿选择审稿人的方法。从稿件的题名或关键词、作者信息、参考文献等方面入手,分析利用网络选择审稿人的特点及注意事项,以期解决"送审"这一编辑工作中的难点问题,提高审稿质量。 相似文献
17.
18.
19.
期刊PR8指数:一个新的跨学科期刊评价指标及其实证研究 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
[目的/意义] 基于论文被引频次8个区段百分位数排序（percentile rank 8,PR8）赋分,尝试构建新的跨学科期刊评价指标：期刊PR8指数（journal index for PR8,JIPR8）,并检验JIPR8的跨学科期刊评价效果。[方法/过程] 选择JCR中8个学科301种期刊作为研究对象,分别计算每种期刊的JIPR8,并与其他几个跨学科期刊评价指标进行比较,检验JIPR8跨学科期刊评价的敏感度和稳定性,以及与其他跨学科期刊评价指标的相关性。[结果/结论] 在选择的所有指标中,8个学科301种期刊JIPR8的变异程度最低,说明其用于跨学科期刊评价的稳定性最好;不同分区期刊（Q1、Q2、Q3和Q4） JIPR8的组间差异性较为明显,仅次于期刊影响因子百分位（journal impact factor pencentile,JIFP）,表明其对优秀和一般期刊的区分度较好。认为JIPR8是一个非常理想的跨学科期刊评价指标。 相似文献
20.
学术期刊要重视外审队伍建设 总被引：21，自引：5，他引：16
学术期刊稿件的学术性较强,由于知识结构问题,编辑人员不可能胜任全部的审稿工作,稿件外审就成为保证刊物质量的重要手段和关键环节.审稿人的素质决定审稿质量,建立一支素质过硬的审稿队伍才能真正保证审稿质量,所以外审队伍建设不容忽视.着重探讨保证外审队伍质量的方法和措施. 相似文献