共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 291 毫秒
1.
2.
3.
科技期刊稿件遴选机制研究 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
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
4.
5.
6.
7.
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
8.
《Journal of Informetrics》2019,13(2):708-716
Peer review is not only a quality screening mechanism for scholarly journals. It also connects authors and referees either directly or indirectly. This means that their positions in the network structure of the community could influence the process, while peer review could in turn influence subsequent networking and collaboration. This paper aims to map these complex network implications by looking at 2232 author/referee couples in an interdisciplinary journal that uses double blind peer review. By reconstructing temporal co-authorship networks, we found that referees tended to recommend more positively submissions by authors who were within three steps in their collaboration network. We also found that co-authorship network positions changed after peer review, with the distances between network neighbours decreasing more rapidly than could have been expected had the changes been random. This suggests that peer review could not only reflect but also create and accelerate scientific collaboration. 相似文献
9.
专家定稿会是提高期刊学术水平的关键举措 ——以《中华围产医学杂志》为例 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
为弥补编辑初审、专家外审、主编定稿的常规审稿模式可能产生的局限性,《中华围产医学杂志》利用每月召开的专家定稿会,对终审的每篇文章从创新性、科学性、实用性等方面,广泛听取专家意见,客观公正地评价稿件,决定稿件的去留。专家定稿会既提高了期刊学术质量,也提高了编辑专业素养。 相似文献
10.
As a regular referee for the Health Information and Libraries Journal, Richard Stephens – Winner of the 2014 Wellcome Trust Science Writing Prize – has been impressed by the science on offer in the Health Information and Libraries Journal. But he has also been struck by how often similar problems with statistical analysis reporting come up during the review process. Acknowledging that statistics can be scary, he advocates that they should be simply viewed as a means of communicating ideas. In this editorial, he provides some straightforward guidelines on reporting statistical analyses in peer review journal articles, highlights pitfalls to avoid and illustrates best practice to aim for. 相似文献
11.
审稿是编辑工作的一个主要环节。在整个审稿过程中,编辑的作为非常重要:不仅要做好初审和选择审稿人的工作,还要加强与审稿专家的沟通和信息服务、编辑与作者的沟通、核查专家审稿意见以及复查修改稿等工作,以实现编辑的作为。 相似文献
12.
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
13.
14.
15.
退稿转投时带来的发表延误和同行评审重负是一个受到各界重视但未能得到有效解决的问题。结合文献和国际著名期刊网站的调研与分析表明,便携式同行评审与稿件转投服务为解决这一问题提供了方向。退稿及其同行评审的转投推荐能提高转投稿件处理效率、缓解同行评审压力,也是提升作者科学素养的现实途径,对我国科技期刊改善同行评审和期刊合作、缩短稿件出版周期具有借鉴价值。 相似文献
16.
中华妇产科杂志审稿现状及对策 总被引：18，自引：6，他引：12
为探讨科技期刊审稿中存在的关键问题及解决对策,抽取200份中华妇产科杂志2000年审稿单及60篇论著类文稿的144份专家审稿意见,分别对审稿时间和审稿质量进行分析.除去初审退稿外,外审时间最短7 d,最长206 d,平均42.7 d,一篇文稿从来稿到刊出平均最快要7个月;60篇论著类文稿的专家审稿单144份,共提出审稿意见263条,最少1条,最多7条,平均1.83条(两审意见重叠时,按1条计算).建议:1)根据来稿总量调整初审退稿比率;2)建立标准化审稿程序;3)完善和扩大审稿队伍;4)建立专业副总编评审制度;5)提高编辑自身素质. 相似文献
17.
18.
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
19.
An experiment in online peer review was carried out by the Royal Society, on the journal Proceedings: Biological Sciences. Authors were asked to provide Acrobat PDF files and uploaded them using a web interface. Referees were provided with a URL that gave access to the paper and entered their report into an online form. Almost 50% of the authors contacted used the online method and referees greeted the method with enthusiasm. Editorial staff found the online system easier than expected and were keen to continue its use. 相似文献