共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 69 毫秒
1.
Owen KULEMEKA 《Learned Publishing》2014,27(4):301-313
This study examined the views of advertising academics regarding the peer‐review process in English‐language advertising journals. Three issues were examined. First, how do advertising academics assess the peer‐review process in advertising journals on the following dimensions: fairness, anonymity (truly double‐blind), timeliness, and effectiveness in improving the quality of research? Second, how do they perceive the ethicality of review process behaviors? Third, what steps do they suggest for improving the quality or integrity of the peer‐review process? Data was collected through a survey of US‐based advertising academics. The findings reveal that advertising academics believe that, for the most part, advertising journals are succeeding at fairness, protecting anonymity, improving the research of submitters, and avoiding ethical infractions in the review process. However, advertising academics would like to see improvements in timeliness as well as in incentives and guidelines provided to participants in the peer‐review process. 相似文献
2.
Quality scholarly research outputs, such as peer reviewed journal articles published in reputable journals, are essential for early career researchers' (ECRs) vocational success while also offering benefits for their institutions. Research outputs destined for audiences beyond academia are also increasingly valued by funders, end users, and tertiary institutions. While there is an expectation that ECRs may create diverse research outputs for an array of audiences, the kinds of research output texts produced by ECRs for varied audiences warrants further investigation. In addition, the routes of dissemination that ECRs use to share their academic research outputs to secure impact beyond academia are not well understood. Drawing on semi‐structured interviews of 30 respondents in Australia and Japan, we explore the research‐sharing practices of ECRs, finding that ECRs may potentially create a wide range of research‐informed texts for end users beyond academia, using an array of methods for dissemination. The examples of the output text types and dissemination routes we provide in this paper can be used to inspire ECRs and also more senior academics to share their research more broadly, and perhaps more effectively, and can be used by publishers to improve research impact and support ECRs' research translation. 相似文献
3.
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
4.
5.
6.
分析了我国医学期刊存在读者免费获取全文受限、国际影响力低、重复建设严重、学术不端屡禁不止、同行评审功能弱化、过度重视期刊评价指标等问题,提出了开拓数字出版发行新渠道、积极筹办英文期刊提高国际影响力、提高期刊学术质量等对策。 相似文献
7.
期刊学术影响力、期刊对稿件的录用标准和期刊载文的学术影响力三者之间存在同向加强的机制,来自较高影响力期刊的引用具有较高的评价意义。作者的择刊引用和择刊发表使得较低学术影响力的期刊较少被较高影响力期刊引用。因而,可以通过同时考察构成期刊引证形象的施引期刊的学术影响力及其施引频次来评价被引期刊的学术影响力。以综合性期刊Nature和Science 2010年的引证形象为例,将期刊影响因子作为学术影响力的初评结果,提出了以施引频次对施引期刊影响因子加权的计算方法,以期通过量化的引证形象实现对期刊的评价。 相似文献
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.
F1000是一个新的科研文献在线评估系统,它提供了一种系统的结构化的专家评议机制.通过与ISI Web Of Science中由被引次数所确定的影响力较高的文献对比,F1000 的专家评议机制能够及时准确的对优秀文献做出推荐,并给出推荐的评语和文献重要程度等级,对文献质量的评定具有极高的参考性,也对科研工作者快速选择相... 相似文献
10.
Leo Walford 《Learned Publishing》2000,13(1):49-52
The Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) plays a major part in academic life in the UK. One of its chief measures of ‘research performance’ relates to the publication of articles in refereed scholarly journals. This paper examines the effect of the RAE on the journal publishing system, looking at the communities of authors, editors, and publishers. 相似文献
11.
12.
Ioana Robu Denisa Marineanu Ileana Aciu Sally Wood‐Lamont 《Health information and libraries journal》2001,18(2):91-98
The paper articulates the problems of journal publication in a relatively small country such as Romania where locally (i.e. nationally) published journals include most of the national medical scientific output. The starting point was a study ordered by the Cluj University of Medicine and Pharmacy Scientific Council, for the purpose of obtaining an objectively ranked list of all current Romanian biomedical journals that could be used in the evaluation of the scientific activity of the university academic staff. Sixty‐five current biomedical journals were identified—of which more than half were new titles that had appeared over the past 5 years. None of these are included in the Science Citation Index or Journal Citation Reports (JCR). A set of criteria was used for ranking the journals: peer review, inclusion in international databases, publication time lag, language of articles and abstracts, journal specific index and domestic impact factor. The period covered, along with tools and formulas used are presented. The problems of Romanian biomedical journals as well as ways of improving publishing standards are discussed. Also emphasized is the necessity for increased awareness in the medical scholarly community and the role of the library in this respect. 相似文献
13.
14.
15.
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
16.
随着学术期刊传播深度和广度的推进,刊载的论文不断被相关专家研读,发布的成果反复接受同行的验证,一些论文的作者也因此被当作某个学科或行业的人才被发现。学术期刊在编辑出版发行过程中,通过同行评议,编辑与作者的交流互动,作者的科研成果被转化成生产力,作者与读者的学术争鸣,给研读者以思想启迪、学术熏陶、写作参考等方式,实现了人才的培养功能。 相似文献
17.
以“中华消化外科杂志菁英荟(以下简称菁英荟)”为例,介绍如何建设学术生态圈,形成学术闭环,促进学科快速发展。在《中华消化外科杂志》编委会的大力支持下成立菁英荟。期刊牵头研究搭建科研共享平台,以纸刊为基石助力学术输出,以互联网为载体提高学术传播效率。2020年,期刊以菁英荟成员为主体搭建“云”端学术交流平台,倾力打造“消化外科云讲坛”系列线上学术活动,以期共促远程医学,共享优质资源,共建健康中国。云端平台增强杂志“菁英”系列栏目的学术传播效率,助力一流论文产出与传播。学术生态圈的建设能够强化学术创新驱动力,以纸媒搭载互联网技术扩大学术输出深度与广度,改善学术生态,激发青年专家创造活力,吸引科研成果在中国期刊发表,提高期刊的学术质量。 相似文献
18.
19.
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
20.
审稿人队伍的质量和工作效率直接影响科技期刊的学术质量和出版周期。为此,培养一支优质、高效的审稿人队伍是科技期刊发展的重要保障。本文以《仿生工程学报》为例,探讨英文科技期刊如何建立审稿人队伍,并通过提高稿件初审质量、加强与审稿人的沟通、加大审稿贡献奖励力度、满足优秀审稿人需求等方法来提高审稿人的满意度和审稿积极性,从而留住优秀审稿人乐于为期刊服务。此外,还介绍依托国外同领域优秀期刊,运用Web of Science数据库有针对性地发掘出高学术影响力的作者并吸纳其为审稿人的方法,以不断壮大审稿人队伍,获得优质高效的审稿意见,从而提高期刊的学术质量。 相似文献