共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 24 毫秒
1.
Faculty of 1000 ( www.facultyof1000.com ) is a new on‐line literature awareness and assessment service of research papers, on the basis of selections by 1400 of the world's top biologists, that combines metrics with judgement. The service offers a systematic and comprehensive form of post‐publication peer review that focuses on the best papers regardless of the journal in which they are published. It is now possible to draw some conclusions about how this new form of post‐publication peer review meets the needs of scientists, and the organizations that fund them, in practice. In addition, inferences about the relative importance of journals are set out, which should also interest publishers and librarians. 相似文献
2.
The characteristics and requirements of a world‐class journal were considered in establishing a rigid peer‐review system for scientific papers submitted for publication in the English‐language Journal of Zhejiang University SCIENCE [JZU(S)] from 2002 onward. Four hundred and thirty‐five contributions were received between January and December 2002, and these were sent for pre‐publication review to appropriate leading scientists in the USA, the UK, Ireland, France, Canada, Australia, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Finland, Poland, Portugal, Italy, Israel, Spain, Greece, Belgium, Sweden, Switzerland, Japan, Singapore, Slovakia, India, Greece, the Czech Republic, Mexico, Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan. Our experience showed that such an international peer‐review system plays an important part in ensuring the high quality of a journal's contents and in helping it achieve an international reputation. 相似文献
3.
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
4.
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
5.
6.
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
7.
8.
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
9.
Career progression for scientists involves an assessment of their contribution to their field and a prediction of their future potential. Traditional measures, such as the impact factor of the journal that a researcher publishes in, may not be an appropriate or accurate means of assessing the overall output of an individual. The development of altmetrics offers the potential for fuller assessments of a researcher's output based on both their traditional and non‐traditional scholarly outputs. New tools should make it easier to include non‐traditional outputs such as data, software and contributions to peer review in the evaluation of early‐ and mid‐career researchers. 相似文献
10.
Early career experiences of navigating journal article publication: Lessons learned using an autoethnographic approach 
下载免费PDF全文
下载免费PDF全文 The successful publication of peer reviewed academic journal articles is an essential achievement for early career researchers (ECRs) seeking to establish themselves in their profession. However, this journey can pose several significant challenges for ECRs. We use an autoethnographic approach that draws deeply on our lived experience as ECRs to capture our recent and current experiences of negotiating the academic journal article publication journey to explore the tensions, contradictions, and benefits encountered in the journey. We critically examine challenges we experienced in choosing a target journal and negotiating the follow‐up process; undertaking revisions; and our experiences of limitations and possibilities in peer review and editorial support. While the peer review journal writing process has played a significant role in supporting us to become more effective ECRs, we also highlight challenges we faced negotiating ethical quandaries in this space, as well as illustrate how our preconceptions of a simple publication journey were confounded by subsequent experience of the complex realities of the space. We also suggest that educational interventions are indicated to provide ECRs support in foundational knowledge about what constitutes valuable revisions, an effective paper, and the scope of issues that can be addressed to make a paper more effective, with reference to the possibility of academic mentoring to support this need. Finally, we explore our findings in light of the tensions imposed by the relative inexperience and lack of power yielded by ECRs. 相似文献
11.
Ulrich Pschl 《Learned Publishing》2004,17(2):105-113
Many scientific publications are careless, useless or false, and inhibit scholarly communication and scientific progress. This is caused by the failure of traditional journal publishing and peer review to provide efficient scientific exchange and quality assurance in today's highly diverse world of science. The most promising way to improve matters is a two‐stage (or multi‐stage) publication processes with interactive peer review and public discussion in new and traditional scientific journals. A concept for such interactive scientific journals is outlined, and its applicability is demonstrated by the open access journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. 相似文献
12.
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
13.
Tove Faber Frandsen 《Learned Publishing》2019,32(1):57-62
Peer review is a cornerstone of scientific publication, and consequently, predatory journals are feared to be a threat to the credibility of science as they perform no or low‐quality peer review. The question of why researchers decide to publish in a questionable journal remains relatively unexplored. This paper provides an overview of the existing literature on why researchers decide to publish papers in questionable journals, specifically whether or not they search for a low‐barrier way to getting published while being aware that the chosen journal probably does not adhere to acceptable academic standards. The choice of a publication outlet can be seen as a submission tree that consists of various incentives, and explaining why authors publish in deceptive journals may thus consist of a combination of awareness and motivational factors. Awareness and motivation of diligent authors is very different from that of unethical authors. Unethical authors may use a lack of awareness to excuse their actions, but they may actively search for a low‐barrier way to getting published. As there are different types of authors who publish in deceptive journals, we need different approaches to solve the problem. 相似文献
14.
15.
This article explores the evolution of the role of academic journal articles submitted to the UK's Research Assessment Exercise (RAE). By reviewing their role, it is possible to see how the changes from quantitative to qualitative assessment (and the resulting problems surrounding the definition of ‘quality’ journals) has impacted both on the journals selected by academics for publishing their research and the assessment of them. Although only one part of RAE submissions, the listing of published research outputs provides the primary evidence for research quality to most RAE panels, and is a significant driver of the final grade awarded, and thus the funding received by submitting institutions. The RAE, being a peer‐reviewed assessment exercise, mirrors in some ways the peer‐review process immured within scholarly publication. The developing role of journal publications as a vehicle for academic research output is examined via the chronology of the RAE, before assessing the current situation in which published journal output formed almost 70% of all output assessed by RAE panels in the latest exercise. The impact of this increased importance of academic journals in the assessment process is considered not only for academics but also for the wider community, i.e. publishers and libraries. 相似文献
16.
Lawrence SOUDER 《Learned Publishing》2011,24(1):55-72
This review summarizes the literature of a subset of the published research and commentary on peer review – the ethics of peer review. It attempts to track the various ethical issues that arise among the key participants in peer‐review systems: authors, editors, referees, and readers. These issues include: bias, courtesy, conflict of interest, redundant publication, honesty, transparency, and training. It concludes that debates over such issues as open vs. blind reviews continue unresolved but that new technologies offer some prospects for resolving old issues while they also may create new challenges. 相似文献
17.
18.
19.
Sally Morris 《Learned Publishing》2005,18(2):115-126
There has been much debate recently about whether publishers' prices are too high, and what publishing a journal article really costs. Publication of the article in a journal is only one part of the cost of research communication; first of all there are the costs of research and writing, then the costs of peer review, editing and publication, and finally the costs of acquisition by the library, management, storage, reading by the end user and long‐term preservation. Several studies have been conducted of these different costs; the results are summarized and the potential impact, both on costs and on sources of funds, of moving to an alternative, ‘author‐funded’ open access model is considered. 相似文献