共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 15 毫秒
1.
What influences the regional diversity of reviewers: A study of medical and agricultural/biological sciences journals 
下载免费PDF全文
下载免费PDF全文 There is evidence of a geographical imbalance of reviewers, leading to concerns about the sustainability of peer review to ensure high‐quality, timely publications. This research evaluated articles submitted during 2016 to 149 Wiley‐owned journals in two disciplines: medicine (112 journals), and agricultural and biological sciences (37). We compared the reviewer location with the location of the author and the Editor‐in‐Chief, the size and rank of the journal, and whether the journal had difficulty in obtaining reviews. We found that reviewers mostly came from the USA, but there was a correlation between the reviewer location and the country and region of the Editor‐in‐Chief and that of the corresponding author. Reviewers were also more likely to accept invitations to review articles when the corresponding author was from their region and were more likely to be positive about such articles. We found no difference between journals of different disciplines and of different rank or size or difficulty in obtaining reviews. 相似文献
2.
3.
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
4.
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
5.
国外科技期刊开放式同行评议中参与者积极性研究 总被引：3，自引：1，他引：2
开放式同行评议作为一种新的期刊审稿方式,因其控制投稿质量、加速学术交流、为有争议的科学发现存档等优点而吸引了许多学术期刊进行尝试.考察了几家有代表性的开放式同行评议期刊后发现,这些期刊中的大部分文章在评议阶段获得的评论,无论是数量还是质量都不尽如人意.认为造成这一现象的主要原因是功利主义、文化障碍和学科差异. 相似文献
6.
《资料收集管理》2013,38(1-2):41-57
Librarians must make selection decisions for their libraries based on the actual and perceived needs of their clientele. Scholars in any discipline will most likely become aware of new books in their field through the extensive reviews published in scholarly journals. Reviews in ten journals indexed by the MLA Bibliography were examined for content, timeliness, and evaluation of the reviewer, in order to determine if scholarly reviews in literature journals are useful collection development sources. The findings of the study suggest that collection development librarians at large academic libraries should use scholarly journals on a regular basis for collection development purposes, while librarians at smaller academic libraries should use them to supplement traditional trade reviewing sources, such as Choice. 相似文献
7.
Noel McGlinchey Tom Hunter Jack Bromley Ruth Fisher Anna Debiec‐Waszak Thomas Gaston 《Learned Publishing》2019,32(1):37-46
The study aimed to find whether journal editorial office administrators were as effective as editors at assigning rigorous reviewers. We analysed four journals using blended systems of editor‐selected reviewers (ESR) and Journal Administrator‐selected reviewers (JASR) from four disciplines: medicine, sociology, education, and business/applied psychology. In blended journals, both editors and Journal Administrators select authors to review using web‐based expert‐finding tools. All reviewers selected were both authors and reviewers. We primarily wanted to assess the quality of reviews from both ESR and JASR reviewer selection methodologies. Reviewer rigour was defined as differences between editor decisions and reviewer recommendations. Timeliness data were also recorded and analysed separately as an indicator of efficiency. Reviewer rigour, the quality of reviewers’ evaluations, was estimated from the level of agreement between editors and reviewers. Timeliness was not considered a direct measure of rigour. For two journals, no statistically significant differences were observed; for two, in a small proportion of cases, ESR reviews were more negative. One journal showed some statistically significant major differences but only in 2% of reviews. Timeliness data indicated some statistically significant trends that JASR return reviews more promptly. Therefore, where editors rely on at least two reviewers’ recommendations, JASR is equally rigorous as ESR. 相似文献
8.
9.
10.
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
11.
《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
12.
Giangiacomo Bravo Mike Farjam Francisco Grimaldo Moreno Aliaksandr Birukou Flaminio Squazzoni 《Journal of Informetrics》2018,12(1):101-112
This paper aims to examine the influence of authors’ reputation on editorial bias in scholarly journals. By looking at eight years of editorial decisions in four computer science journals, including 7179 observations on 2913 submissions, we reconstructed author/referee-submission networks. For each submission, we looked at reviewer scores and estimated the reputation of submission authors by means of their network degree. By training a Bayesian network, we estimated the potential effect of scientist reputation on editorial decisions. Results showed that more reputed authors were less likely to be rejected by editors when they submitted papers receiving negative reviews. Although these four journals were comparable for scope and areas, we found certain journal specificities in their editorial process. Our findings suggest ways to examine the editorial process in relatively similar journals without recurring to in-depth individual data, which are rarely available from scholarly journals. 相似文献
13.
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
14.
本次BioMed Central(BMC)撤销中国论文的原因是同行评议专家的邮箱存在造假,进而影响了同行评议的公正性,造假行为是语言润色公司自作主张,还是论文的作者直接参与其中还有待调查.从这一事件可以看出:一方面,BMC旗下的某些期刊对审稿专家审核不严格,同行评议过程出现漏洞;另一方面,由于我国学术评价体系存在对SCI收录期刊不加区分,"唯SCI是从"的倾向,造成中国科研人员存在发表SCI论文的迫切需求,在语言仍然是一大障碍的情况下,求助于语言润色公司就成了必然的选择.针对以上问题,我们应该修正唯SCI的学术评价体系,对SCI期刊区别对待,增大中文期刊在学术评价体系中的比重,增加论文刊后评价,同时,增强我国中文和英文期刊的整体实力,不断探索新的学术出版模式. 相似文献
15.
[目的/意义]同行评议作为一种评审制度一直受到"主观"而不够"客观"的批评。公开同行评议可以在一定程度上缓解这个问题。学者对公开同行评议的接受度如何是学术期刊实施该制度首要考虑的问题。[方法/过程]首先通过文献调研对学术论文公开同行评议的概念、相比传统同行评议的优势和不足进行论述,接着就公开评审流程中的公开内容对来自中国各个学科及研究领域的研究人员进行问卷调查,获得中国学者对学术论文公开同行评议的接受度数据,并对中国学者对论文开放同行评议的接受度进行分析。[结果/结论]问卷调查对象来自不同的学科领域,其中100%有发文经历,70%以上具有审稿经历,40%以上曾为国际期刊审过稿。调查结果表明,半数（占50.33%）中国学者对学术论文公开评审是接受的,在学术论文评审的不同阶段,中国学者的接受度不同。经过非参数统计检验,不同学科同行评议者接受度有所差异;是否具有国际期刊审稿经验的同行评议专家接受度差异不明显。论文相关分析数据可为中文学术期刊实施公开同行评议制度提供支持。 相似文献
16.
Xiang REN 《Learned Publishing》2013,26(3):197-205
A growing number of online journals and academic platforms are adopting light peer review or ‘publish then filter’ models of scholarly communication. These approaches have the advantage of enabling instant exchanges of knowledge between academics and are part of a wider search for alternatives to traditional peer review and certification processes in scholarly publishing. However, establishing credibility and identifying the correct balance between communication and scholarly rigour remains an important challenge for digital communication platforms targeting academic communities. This paper looks at a highly influential, government‐backed, open publishing platform in China: Science Paper Online, which is using transparent post‐publication peer‐review processes to encourage innovation and address systemic problems in China's traditional academic publishing system. There can be little doubt that the Chinese academic publishing landscape differs in important ways from counterparts in the United States and Western Europe. However, this article suggests that developments in China also provide important lessons about the potential of digital technology and government policy to facilitate a large‐scale shift towards more open and networked models of scholarly communication. 相似文献
17.
科技期刊专家审稿质量的影响因素 总被引：6，自引：2，他引：4
从审稿方式及审稿人的选择、审稿专家队伍的建立和管理、审稿行为的管理等方面对影响科技期刊审稿质量的因素进行分析。认为编辑应当认真把握审稿过程中的各个环节,以确保审稿工作的实效。 相似文献
18.
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
19.
20.
《Journal of Informetrics》2022,16(2):101264
Peer review plays an essential role in the scholarly publishing life cycle. Using the verified peer review records of reviewers who use the Publons, we employed review length as a potential indicator of the effort researchers spend on peer review. We then examined the associations between various factors and review length. Special focus was placed on estimating the relationships between non-academic (economic and sociological aspects) factors and review length. Our results show that gender, country-level cultural backgrounds, and country-level economic backgrounds were significantly associated with review length. In addition, there are significant associations of disciplines (humanities & social sciences or hard sciences), English proficiency, publications, and verified reviews with review length. 相似文献