共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 62 毫秒
1.
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
2.
3.
4.
5.
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
6.
7.
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
8.
国内许多学术期刊对作者与审稿人的学术交流与沟通重视不够.由于“评议偏倚”在同行评议中的现实存在,作者往往有着强烈的沟通需求;但在现行盲审制度下,编辑部既不能公开审稿人的信息,也难以做到双方意见的深入交流.为此,本文就作者与匿名审稿人双向学术交流的实施策略和方法进行讨论和分析. 相似文献
9.
Hamid R. Jamali David Nicholas Anthony Watkinson Abdullah Abrizah Blanca Rodríguez‐Bravo Cherifa Boukacem‐Zeghmouri Jie Xu Tatiana Polezhaeva Eti Herman Marzena
wigon 《Learned Publishing》2020,33(2):142-152
This article reports on the findings of an international online survey of early career researchers (ECRs) with regard to their authorship and peer review, attitudes, and practices, which sought to discover how the new wave of researchers were utilizing these key aspects of the scholarly communications system. A questionnaire was developed on the back of a 3‐year longitudinal, qualitative study and was distributed through publisher lists, social media networks, university networks, and specialist ECR membership organizations. Identical English, Polish, Russian, Chinese, Spanish, and French versions of the questionnaire were used. Results from 1,600 respondents demonstrated that 82.7% had co‐authored a paper, and most had performed a variety of authorship tasks. Almost half the respondents reported being subject to various authorship policies, although a quarter said they were not aware of any such policies. Almost all Chinese ECRs reported being subject to authorship policies, but only a third of UK ECRs reported the same. Three‐quarters of ECRs had experience in responding to peer review, and half had been peer reviewers. Half the respondents had a good experience of review and viewed it as a valuable way to improve their authorship skills. However, there was some criticism of some shortcoming such as lengthy peer review and superficial or uninformed comments by reviewers. Double‐blind review was the preferred methodology, and there were few suggestions for how to improve the review process. 相似文献
10.
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
11.
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
12.
Blanca Rodríguez‐Bravo David Nicholas Eti Herman Chérifa Boukacem‐Zeghmouri Anthony Watkinson Jie Xu Abdullah Abrizah Marzena Świgoń 《Learned Publishing》2017,30(4):269-277
This paper presents selected findings from the first year of a 3‐year longitudinal study of early career researchers (ECRs), which sought to ascertain current and changing habits in scholarly communication. Specifically, the aims of the paper are to show: (1) how much experience and knowledge ECRs had of peer review – both as authors and as reviewers; (2) what they felt the benefits were and what suggestions they had for improvement; (3) what they thought of open peer review (OPR); and (4) who they felt should organize peer review. Data were obtained from 116 science and social science ECRs, most of whom had published and were subject to in‐depth interviews conducted face‐to‐face, via Skype, or over the telephone. An extensive literature review was also conducted to provide a context and supplementary data for the findings. The main findings were that: (1) most ECRS are well informed about peer review and generally like the experience, largely because of the learning experiences obtained; (2) they like blind double‐peer review, but would like some improvements, especially with regards to reviewer quality; (3) most are uncomfortable with the idea of OPR; and (4) most would like publishers to continue organizing peer review because of their perceived independence. 相似文献
13.
14.
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
15.
同行审稿是保障期刊学术质量的重要环节,但同行专家审稿积极性不高、拒绝审稿、勉强审稿已成为普遍现象.如何提高审稿专家的积极性,是学术期刊亟待解决的共性问题.文章以《中国天然药物》编辑部近年来约请审稿人的实践心得为基础,讨论提高专家审稿积极性的措施:选择潜在作者群作为审稿专家,避免过量送审,加大初审退稿率,尊重审稿专家的要求,与无反馈的审稿专家取得联系,利用ORCID认可审稿专家的贡献等,旨在致力于提高专家的审稿同意率,从而在源头上推动期刊的发展. 相似文献
16.
17.
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
18.
Yanping LU 《Learned Publishing》2012,25(1):56-61
Journal peer review has been the subject of much research. However, the learning process through which reviewers acquire their reviewing ability, and reviewers' own perceptions of their capability have rarely been a focus. This interview study asked three questions about reviewer capability and training. At what stage did you gain confidence in reviewing? How did you learn how to review? Is formal training necessary? The interview is part of a mixed‐method project studying experienced Australian reviewers. The respondents indicate that learning to review is a continuous cycle in which formal training will not work. Following a mostly self‐guided initiation, new reviewers establish personal reviewing patterns. By trial and error, the patterns are consolidated and the reviewers eventually feel ‘confident’. ‘Decisiveness' is a good sign of becoming confident. Most respondents emphasized that journals could play a crucial role in producing good reviewers, e.g. by specifying unambiguously their expectations of ‘good reviews’. 相似文献
19.
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
20.
《Journal of Informetrics》2023,17(3):101423
Retractions are necessary to remove flawed research from citable literature but cannot offset the negative impact those publications have on science advances and public trust. The editorial peer-review process is intended to prevent flawed research from being published. However, there is limited empirical evidence of its effectiveness in identifying issues that lead to retractions. This study analyzed the peer-review comments (provided by Clarivate Analytics) for a sample of retracted publications (provided by Retraction Watch) to investigate how the peer-review process effectively detects the areas where the retraction causes lie and whether reviewer characteristics are related to the effectiveness. We found that a small proportion of peer reviews suggested rejections during the peer review stage, while about half suggested acceptance or minor revision for those later retracted papers. The peer-review process was more effective in identifying retraction causes related to data, methods, and results than those related to text plagiarism and references. Additionally, factors such as reviewer seniority and the level of match between reviewers’ expertise and the submission were significant in determining the possibility of peer reviews identifying suspicious areas in submissions. We discussed potential insights from these findings and called for collective efforts to prevent retractions. 相似文献