共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 15 毫秒
1.
2.
3.
4.
为深入了解高校科技学术期刊在转型时期遇到的问题,对江苏省高校主办的116种科技学术期刊的出版周期、出版规模、数字化进展与国际化程度进行调查与分析。结果表明:江苏高校学术期刊出版周期以季刊、双月刊为主,单刊出版比例高,网站信息服务薄弱,期刊国际化程度较低。应通过有效的资源整合和数字化平台建设,以及扩展国际化视野打造精品期刊,促进江苏高校科技学术期刊集群出版,加快数字化转型,提高国际影响力。 相似文献
5.
委托办中华系列杂志一稿两投重复发表的现状与对策 总被引：21，自引：10，他引：11
探讨解决一稿两投、重复发表问题的有效措施。给47刑发了统一的调查信，收回25封（刊）。25刊中存在一稿两投问题的稿件有14篇，涉及9个刊，占36%。其中6篇没有造成重复发表的事实，8篇形成了重复发表的事实，占57.14%。结论：1）同一篇论文将作者的署名顺序变化后，投寄不同的期刊，属一稿两投或多投；2）投到不同期刊的论文，半数以上内容（包括资料或讨论部分）相同时，属一稿两投；3）同一篇论文将题名变化后投寄不同的期刊，属一稿两投；4）同一组资料从不同的角度去写作（研究问题），不属一稿两投；5）同一篇论文以不同的文字发表属平行发表，不属一稿两投或多投；6）同一篇论文在内部资料与公开发行的刊物上分别发表，不属一稿两投。处理一稿两投，尤其重复发表问题要从严，但重在预防：1）加强宣传，提高作者、编者的法律意识；2）在相关期刊上公布有关的处罚规定，以达到警示目的；3）要求作者在授权书中承诺不存在一稿两投、重复发表问题；4）统一介绍信的格式与内容，依靠单位审查把关；5）实现资源共享联网查询；6）依靠审稿人把关。 相似文献
6.
学术期刊优先出版与印刷出版的冲突及其对策 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
为探讨学术会议与期刊的关系,分别从学术会议与期刊的起源、组织和交流形式、内容和功能上分析其共同点、特点和联系点,从而揭示学术会议与期刊之间的相互关系.阐明学术会议与期刊之间的相互联系和各自的优势.认为它们互相补充、相互促进、共同发展,在信息传播、学术交流和推动科学发展的不同方面共同发挥着重要作用. 相似文献
7.
综合性科技核心期刊优先数字出版现状与分析 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
优先数字出版是加快学术期刊由传统出版向数字出版转型的一种有效途径。以2008年版《中文核心期刊要目总览》所收录的综合性科技核心期刊为调查对象,对这些期刊的优先数字出版现状进行调查与分析,并就相关问题提出了改进建议。 相似文献
8.
通过分析比较我国医学核心期刊、统计源期刊和一般期刊的出版参数和主要文献计量学指标,为医学中文核心期刊的编辑出版策划提供参考依据.结果显示: 中文核心期刊的论文平均长度、有英文摘要论文比、影响因子、总被引频次和基金论文比均显著高于统计源期刊和一般期刊.而中文核心期刊的出版频率、年总页码数显著高于统计源期刊,但低于一般期刊.在办刊实践中,必须采取综合措施,根据自身情况合理设置出版周期,在保证稿件质量的前提下适当扩大信息容量,多发表学术水平高的研究原著,论文尽可能附英文摘要,刊登论文适当向基金论文倾斜,以提高期刊的学术水平和影响力. 相似文献
9.
周爱莲 《大学图书情报学刊》2013,31(4):51-54
中文期刊的出版信息是动态的。期刊出版过程中,刊名、刊号、出版频率等信息会不断地发生变化,期刊的书目数据也应随之变化。期刊编目及时反映这种变化有利于期刊管理。CNMARC中的有关字段能很好地反映中文期刊的动态信息。文章将中文期刊的动态信息与相关的CNMARC字段结合起来,用后者揭示前者,通过实例分析,阐述了其在具体期刊编目工作中的意义。 相似文献
10.
为了解国内医学期刊的优先数字出版情况,选择中华医学会161种系列杂志(其中中华系列96种)为调查对象,对这些杂志在中华医学会杂志社优秀科研成果优先出版平台上的优先出版情况进行调查分析。结果显示,自创建以来,虽然该平台优先出版的论文总数仅为40篇,出版的频率也较低,但是论文质量较高,发表意义较大。其中,新型冠状病毒肺炎专题论文优先出版后在万方数据库的总被引频次高达1 476次。中华系列31篇论文的篇均优先出版时滞为66 d,与国内外优先出版相比,优先出版时滞过长。建议从进一步缩短优先出版时滞,提升编辑业务能力,优化管理和评价体制等方面来提升医学期刊的优先出版水平。 相似文献
11.
12.
Mohammadamin Erfanmanesh Muzammil Tahira A. Abrizah 《Publishing Research Quarterly》2017,33(4):421-432
Over the years, the number of journals indexed in Scopus has increased, although it varies significantly between countries. The increasing proportion of international journals of a country provides new venues for papers from that country to be seen by other researchers worldwide. In this work, we evaluate the relationship of a country’s scientific performance or publication success with both its journals’ quantity and quality. The specific objective of the study is to identify the relationship between the country’s publication success and the quantity and quality of those country’s journals indexed in Scopus during 2005–2014. The publication success of 102 individual countries, measured by their scientific productivity, impact and collaboration indicators, the quantity of country’s Scopus-indexed journals in 2014 (a total of 22,581 journals) as well as the quantity of its journals were investigated. Scopus-indexed journals are predominantly from Western Europe (48.9%) and North America (27.7%), with the United States and the United Kingdom dominate with a total 51%. The contribution from the peripheral countries is comparatively small, however there are a good number of contributions from the South-East Asian countries. Estonia is the fastest growing country in terms of having indexed journals in Scopus, following by Iran and Malaysia. Among the studied indices, it was found that publication success (total publications and total citations) of 102 countries are strongly correlated with quantity (number of indexed journals and number of documents published in indexed journals) and quality (citations per paper, SJR, h-index, CiteScore and SNIP) indicators of country’s journals. We can conclude that the scientific productivity of a country depend critically on the number of journals indexed from that country in citation databases. The study provides a context with which the relative success of publications can be assessed, yielding new insights into the scientific impact of individual countries and the performance of journals that they published. 相似文献
13.
14.
15.
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
16.
医学期刊应重视对来稿的道德要求 总被引：4，自引：2，他引：2
比较国内外医学期刊对作者科研及投稿过程中有关道德方面的要求。发现国外医学期刊在稿约中对作者应遵守的道德法规规定得很详细，而国内期刊则较为简单，缺少很多必要的内容，与国外医学期刊存在相当大的差距。认为我国医学期刊应当重视科研及编辑出版中的道德问题。 相似文献
17.
18.
19.
Eun-Young Julia Kim 《Publishing Research Quarterly》2018,34(4):554-567
This study reports how internationalization of academic knowledge is reflected in the language choice of Korean academic journals across disciplines and examines perceptions and practices of eighty two faculty from various disciplines at three Korean universities concerning publishing in English journals. The results indicate that natural science has the highest percentage of English-medium journals whereas those in humanities and social science predominantly use Korean as a medium of publication. Similar disciplinary patterns are observed in the responses to survey questions about frequency of publication as well as desire and preference for publishing papers in English. The biggest motivation for Korean scholars to publish in English was the desire to reach global scholarly communities. Implications of these findings are discussed. 相似文献