共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 46 毫秒
1.
Susan van Rooyen 《Learned Publishing》1998,11(3):185-191
This paper examines the process of peer review in scientific publication. It outlines the background to Locknet (the international network for research into the preparation, publication and dissemination of health research). It looks at the objectives of the peer review process, ethical and quality issues raised, and the problems of improving the quality of peer review. It also briefly explores some of the research recently undertaken into peer review. 相似文献
2.
Michael Jubb 《Learned Publishing》2016,29(1):13-21
This paper is based on research commissioned by the Wellcome Trust in 2015 and catalogues current initiatives and trends in the systems and processes surrounding peer review. It considers issues such as open and interactive reviews, post‐publication comments and ratings, and the platforms provided by both publishers and other organisations to support such activity; third‐party peer review platforms; and measures from publishers and others to provide more recognition and rewards for peer reviewers. It also speculates on likely key trends in peer review for the future. 相似文献
3.
4.
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
5.
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
6.
7.
科技学术期刊审稿多元化探析 总被引：2，自引：0，他引：2
"三审制"传统的机制及运作的惯例,已经无法适应时代发展的要求,在原先严肃但又有点呆板的审稿机制中需要注入多元化的审稿方式,编者和审者在坚持"三审制"严肃性一面的同时应多注意运作方式等的灵活性. 相似文献
8.
为使科技论文同行评议的结论更加公平准确,文章对目前各种科技论文同行评议方法进行了分析和探讨,指出了它们存在的缺点和不足,并在此基础上提出了一种科技论文同行评议的新模式。这种同行评议新模式相比传统同行评议模式有结论准确、专业对口、程序公平、有效缩短审稿时滞等优点,但同时也存在专家评议稿件数量增多、评议成本增加等问题,需要编辑通过遴选合适审稿专家、增加与审稿专家的联系与沟通等方法来解决。 相似文献
9.
10.
11.
客观评价审稿贡献 消除同行评议瓶颈 总被引：5，自引：3，他引：2
为了应对专业期刊审稿工作的困境,对国外平台审稿工作的奖励方法进行分析,旨在使审稿人的审稿工作得到经济或学术的认可.认为应建立合理的度量审稿工作的指标,寻找有效的方法来激励审稿人积极参与期刊的审稿工作,以调动审稿人审稿的积极性,从而促进期刊学术水平的提高. 相似文献
12.
- Peer review is used to evaluate research, including publications, scientific awards, and grant proposals, and there is a continuum of at least six approaches to review from completely closed, double‐blind review to fully‐open and citable peer review.
- It is getting harder to find suitable experts to serve as reviewers so publishers and others are experimenting with methods to incentivize researcher participation, with a growing interest in enabling citation of peer‐review activity as a component.
- A Working Group on Peer Review Service, facilitated by CASRAI, was created to develop a data model and citation standard for peer‐review activity that can be used to support both existing and new review models.
- Standardized citation structures for reviews can enable the inclusion of peer‐review activity in personal recognition and evaluation, as well the ability to refer to reviews as part of the scholarly literature.
13.
对于请多位外审专家进行审稿的学术期刊,让专家的审稿意见和编辑的意见在该稿件的评审专家之间共享及择优将审稿意见及作者的答复在刊物或刊物网站上公开发表,称为审稿意见的深度利用。认为审稿意见的深度利用可促进学术交流、树立期刊形象、提高专家的审稿积极性和审稿水平,并有助于提高编辑的初审能力。列举了审稿意见深度利用时的注意事项。 相似文献
14.
通过网络调研和文献梳理的方式,结合具体案例,如Elsevier、Nature、PLoS、F1000 Research等,对国外开放获取期刊的同行评议方式进行研究.认为结构化同行评议、发表后开放式同行评议以及第三方独立同行评议,各有利弊,应该取长补短,优化评议方式,更好地发挥科技期刊作为学术质量把关者和过滤器的作用. 相似文献
15.
16.
17.
18.
对现行审稿模式的思考与建议 总被引：22，自引：8，他引：14
针对我国现行的封闭式审稿模式的缺陷与不足，借鉴国外期刊的审稿模式，提出改进、完善审稿制度的方法。用连续审稿方式取代平行审稿方式，审稿内容首先在审稿人之间公开，在征得审稿人同意的情况下，审稿人姓名与审稿内容向作者公开。在此基础上逐步实行网上公开式审稿制度。 相似文献
19.
每种审稿制度各有利弊.从<古地理学报>审稿的实际出发,阐述实名制审稿的得与失,为期刊界的审稿制度探讨提供一种可供借鉴的思路. 相似文献
20.
应引导审稿人进行有效的同行评议 总被引：2，自引：0，他引：2
科技期刊的同行评议为稿件学术质量提供了有力保障。在邀请审稿人评审文章时,期刊可以在审稿邀请函和审稿单中加入相关信息,引导审稿人进行有效的同行评议。这种简单的培训方式往往会收到事半功倍的效果。 相似文献