共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 859 毫秒
1.
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
2.
Richard J.C. BROWN 《Learned Publishing》2007,20(2):131-137
Surveys of the opinions of the scientific community on types of peer‐review system, especially the use of double anonymity, remain sparse. This work has canvassed the opinion of 1,439 editors‐in‐chief, editors and editorial board members of journals by all major publishers in chemistry, on the use of double anonymity in the peer‐review process. This is the first time such a survey has been conducted within the chemistry periodicals community. Data were gathered by means of an e‐mail questionnaire, the response rate to which was 25.7%. The results of the study are presented. Analysis of the data, with some supporting discussion, is provided. 相似文献
3.
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
4.
5.
根据《高等学校化学学报》分编辑部的工作实践,列举多个稿件初审实例.通过实例分析,对科技期刊青年编辑如何提升稿件初审质量做了梳理和归纳,旨在与科技期刊青年编辑探讨提高稿件初审质量的有效方法,为后续的稿件送审等工作打好基础,以点带面,促进编辑工作整体的高效运转,助力青年编辑自身成长.同时认为,青年编辑应发挥学习主动性,完善和更新知识架构,并注重初审工作的时效性. 相似文献
6.
7.
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
8.
编委是科技期刊学术质量的把关人,对于提高期刊质量和扩大期刊影响力发挥着重要作用.为进一步调动编委工作积极性,激发主动性,本文以《应用生态学报》为例,阐述如何优化科技期刊编委会结构,根据编委特点进行分类,充分发挥不同类型编委的作用,并对编委会进行制度化建设和充分的服务保障,以期显著提高期刊组稿能力,提升审稿质量,加快审稿速度,大幅增加高质量论文的数量,进而提高科技期刊的学术质量和综合影响力. 相似文献
9.
10.
11.
12.
David NICHOLAS Anthony WATKINSON Hamid R. JAMALI Eti HERMAN Carol TENOPIR Rachel VOLENTINE Suzie ALLARD Kenneth LEVINE 《Learned Publishing》2015,28(1):15-21
The article presents one of the main findings of an international study of 4,000 academic researchers that examined how trustworthiness is determined in the digital environment when it comes to scholarly reading, citing, and publishing. The study shows that peer review is still the most trustworthy characteristic of all. There is, though, a common perception that open access journals are not peer reviewed or do not have proper peer‐review systems. Researchers appear to have moved inexorably from a print‐based system to a digital system, but it has not significantly changed the way they decide what to trust. They do not trust social media. Only a minority – although significantly mostly young and early career researchers – thought that social media are anything other than more appropriate to personal interactions and peripheral to their professional/academic lives. There are other significant differences, according to the age of the researcher. Thus, in regard to choosing an outlet for publication of their work, young researchers are much less concerned with the fact that it is peer reviewed. 相似文献
13.
同行评议是保证科技期刊学术质量的重要手段.编辑在审稿过程中应努力发挥主导性:在初审环节发现学术不端,初步评价稿件的科学性,提高论文写作的规范性;在外审环节与审稿人相互尊重、教学相长,从而提高审稿质量. 相似文献
14.
Not so different after all: Malaysian researchers' cross‐discipline view of quality and trustworthiness in citation practices 
下载免费PDF全文
下载免费PDF全文 Abdullah Abrizah David Nicholas Abdullah Noorhidawati M. K. Yanti Idaya Aspura Fathiah Badawi 《Learned Publishing》2016,29(3):165-172
This paper reports a survey on citation behaviour of Malaysian researchers. It is part of a wider study gauging quality and trustworthiness in scholarly communication in the emerging digital environment. The survey questionnaire was distributed between 1 October 2014 and 31 January 2015. A total of 391 respondents, from four research areas (humanities, life sciences, physical sciences, and social sciences) completed the questionnaire. The finding indicated that motivations for citing were complex and multi‐faceted, but in all four disciplines, researchers cite a work because they regard it as an authoritative and trustworthy source, which provides a context or building block to their own research. Although researchers have moved from a print‐based system to a digital one, it has not significantly changed the way they decide what to trust. Peer reviewed journals are still the most influential. Open access journals will be cited if they have been peer reviewed. Citing on the basis of high altmetrics and other social judgements, such as mentions, likes, and use, was not prevalent. Measures of establishing trust and authority do not seem to have changed profoundly in Malaysia. 相似文献
15.
Saskia C. J. DE VRIES 《Learned Publishing》2007,20(3):196-201
The Internet has been a huge success in the academic world, as it makes it possible for academics to share and find research materials; open access has therefore become a fact of life for academic publishing. But what is the role of publishers in this new environment? The key functions of publishing – organizing peer review, editorial support, graphic design, marketing, and distribution of academic information – do not just disappear; publishers still have a role here, but they need to take a more service‐minded perspective. Academics still need to find ways to ensure the dissemination of their output; it is important that they realize that this will cost money, whether it is brought in‐house or outsourced. The IMISCOE project, on which Amsterdam University Press has recently embarked, offers an entirely new publishing model oriented towards online dissemination of academic research results, as well as in book form. 相似文献
16.
Mark Ware 《Learned Publishing》2005,18(4):245-250
We report on a research study commissioned by ALPSP into the current status of online submission and peer‐review systems, the perceptions of these by authors, referees and editors, and the impact of their introduction on journals. 相似文献
17.
18.
This paper summarizes the presentations made at the “Academic Journal Publishing” session of the 2007 NASIG conference. The session was conducted by four publishers from a variety of academic publishing companies who made presentations (specifically tailored to a librarian audience) which provided a broad stroke overview of their industry and how they go about the process of publishing and distributing academic journals in the 21st century. Through each of their presentations they spoke to the questions of “what they do, how they do it, and why they do it.” Topics covered included the launch and acquisition of journals, the peer review process, the tools and services supplied to authors and editors, the production processes employed, special legal and copyright issues, marketing and distribution strategies, and usage. 相似文献
19.
20.
Li LI 《Learned Publishing》2009,22(3):187-190
University journals in China exist primarily to showcase the academic research achievements of the university from which they originate. Although they do publish peer‐reviewed articles, their management, distribution, and editorial processes are different from those of regular academic journals. Because they are on campus, the editors of university journals can use face‐to‐face communication to help their authors to revise their papers. To maximize the efficiency of this communication, editors need to prepare well before giving such guidance in order to minimize publication delay, to provide useful guidance to groups of authors, and to improve their own editorial abilities and knowledge. 相似文献