共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 31 毫秒
1.
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.
Lucia Vesnic-Alujevic 《Publishing Research Quarterly》2014,30(1):39-49
The second half of the twentieth century brought major changes in the society and consequently in the different areas of the sciences. The growing number of universities after the second world war, the post-war industrial growth and later digitalization transformed the sciences present until then, enlarged the scientific community and the number of scientific publications. In the last couple of decades, the creation of web 2.0 brought new possibilities for knowledge co-production, interaction and exchange between all interested parties in research. The goal of this paper is to explore the possibilities for (extended) peer review and quality control on the internet, primarily blogs and social media, which could contribute to the standard peer review process and open the sciences to a wider audience. We are wondering if these processes could also raise the quality in science and lead to the democratization of knowledge production. We argue that changes in science also have an impact in reshaping the society and bringing democratization in knowledge production. 相似文献
4.
5.
影响科技期刊专家审稿的心理因素与编辑对策 总被引：2，自引：1，他引：2
影响科技期刊专家审稿的心理因素包括思维定势、意识意志、情绪情感、个性心理特征,等等,表现为审稿中的名人效应、熟人效应,审稿思维情绪化、感性化,审稿责任意识弱化,出现审稿疲劳.提高审稿专家自我心理监控调节水平,约定审稿责任,加强编辑与审稿专家的沟通交流,提高审稿费用,建立激励机制,是克服专家审稿中的消极心理,提高审稿质量的重要措施. 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.
8.
Jonathan D. Eldredge Holly E. Phillips Philip J. Kroth 《Medical reference services quarterly》2013,32(4):412-423
Many health sciences librarians as well as other professionals attend conferences on a regular basis. This study sought to link an innovative peer review process of presented research papers to long-term conference outcomes in the peer-reviewed professional journal literature. An evidence-based conference included a proof-of-concept study to gauge the long-term outcomes from research papers presented during the program. Real-time peer review recommendations from the conference were linked to final versions of articles published in the peer-reviewed literature. The real-time peer review feedback served as the basis for further mentoring to guide prospective authors toward publishing their research results. These efforts resulted in the publication of two of the four research papers in the peer-viewed literature. A third presented paper appeared in a blog because the authors wanted to disseminate their findings more quickly than through the journal literature. The presenters of the fourth paper never published their study. Real-time peer review from this study can be adapted to other professional conferences that include presented research papers. 相似文献
9.
10.
[目的/意义]针对同行评议与影响因子在期刊评价中的争议,对两种期刊评价方法得出评价结果的关系进行分析,客观认识两种方法的相关性和差异性,以便更好地设计评价指标,开展评价工作。[研究设计/方法]以人文社会科学33个学科共计1,291种期刊为统计样本,采用调查问卷形式由专家对这些期刊进行同行评议,然后对同行评议与期刊即年影响因子、影响因子和五年影响因子的相关性做比较分析,并对学科、期刊载文量、创刊时间长短等因素对两者相关性影响进行分析。[结论/发现]同行评议和影响因子两种方法对期刊进行评价时,两者得到的评价结果具有较高的一致性,社会科学领域的一致性高于人文科学领域;同行评议结果与即年影响因子、影响因子和五年影响因子的一致性依次递增;同行评议专家更愿意给载文量少的期刊打高分,但载文量和期刊影响因子之间的相关性不大。[创新/价值]使用4,500多份专家调查问卷,以定量统计分析的方法对同行评议与期刊影响因子两者在期刊评价中评价结果的一致性进行研究。 相似文献
11.
Thomas E. Gaston Francesca Ounsworth Tessa Senders Sarah Ritchie Emma Jones 《Learned Publishing》2020,33(2):154-162
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
12.
科技期刊专家审稿质量的影响因素 总被引：6，自引：2，他引：4
从审稿方式及审稿人的选择、审稿专家队伍的建立和管理、审稿行为的管理等方面对影响科技期刊审稿质量的因素进行分析。认为编辑应当认真把握审稿过程中的各个环节,以确保审稿工作的实效。 相似文献
13.
14.
15.
16.
专家审稿工作中的问题与对策 总被引：18，自引：3，他引：15
有感于审稿的重要性,编辑部及编辑对审稿人和审稿工作的影响,针对专家审稿工作中存在的问题,即审稿时间长、审稿意见简单、审稿意见相左等,提出了改进专家审稿工作的建议和对策. 相似文献
17.
采用问卷调查的形式,对审稿专家和作者如何看待审稿方式进行了调查.结果表明:有86.8%的审稿人和85.4%的作者都赞同双盲审稿,有88.2%的审稿人和96%的作者都认为,实行双盲审稿,有利于审稿人对稿件进行客观、公正的评审;48.4%的作者和31.6%的审稿人认为,如果审者与作者从事的研究工作类似,编辑在选择审稿人时应采取回避政策.本文建议某些专业面相对较窄的期刊可实行双盲审稿,而大多数高校自然科学学报可以实行单盲审稿. 相似文献
18.
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
19.
20.
[目的/意义]学术成果评价是推进哲学社会科学健康发展的重要因素,长期以来,传统同行评议和科学计量学方法在哲学社会科学学术成果评价中暴露出的问题越来越多,挑战固有方法的统治地位、开发有针对性的评价策略已刻不容缓。文章试图探索大数据环境下哲社学术成果评价的变革及其实现,特别是提出了大数据思维下的哲社学术成果的评价指标体系。[方法/过程]基于比较分析和综合分析,对传统哲学社会科学评价方法的弊端进行分析,然后对大数据给哲学社会科学评价带来的改变进行分析,最后提出基于大数据环境的哲学社会科学评价策略和指标体系。[结果/结论]提出大数据时代哲学社会科学学术成果评价的策略：由引文著录分析转向多维度的引用内容与行为分析,由面向成果的阶段性静态评价转向以"学术活动"为中心的全过程动态评价,由学术影响力评价转向学术价值和社会效益评价。在此基础上,构建由两个一级指标、5个二级指标和34个三级指标组成的大数据背景下哲学社会科学学术成果评价指标体系。 相似文献