共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 31 毫秒
1.
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
2.
Patricia E. Sabosik 《Publishing Research Quarterly》1988,4(2):10-18
Publishers of books for the library and scholarly markets use prepublication reviews to reduce the risk of publishing a book
that does not meet scholarly standards or is not economically justifiable. Book purchasers use postpublication reviews to
reduce the risk of spending their budgets unwisely. Despite problems associated with both sorts of review, they are integral
to the processes of scholarly communication and academic career advancement. The role and policies ofChoice, a book review journal directed toward scholars and librarians of undergraduate-level collections, are discussed in detail. 相似文献
3.
Ana Fresco-Santalla 《期刊图书馆员》2013,64(4):373-398
New models of scientific publishing and new ways of practicing peer review have injected a recent dynamism into the scholarly communication system. In this article, we delineate the context of the traditional peer-review model, reflect on some of the first experiences with open peer review, and forecast some of the challenges that new models for peer review will have to meet. Our findings suggest that the peer-review function has the potential to be divorced from the journal system, so that the responsibility to judge the significance of a paper may no longer fall exclusively to formal reviewers, but may be assessed by the whole readership community. 相似文献
4.
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.
[目的/意义]针对同行评议与影响因子在期刊评价中的争议,对两种期刊评价方法得出评价结果的关系进行分析,客观认识两种方法的相关性和差异性,以便更好地设计评价指标,开展评价工作。[研究设计/方法]以人文社会科学33个学科共计1,291种期刊为统计样本,采用调查问卷形式由专家对这些期刊进行同行评议,然后对同行评议与期刊即年影响因子、影响因子和五年影响因子的相关性做比较分析,并对学科、期刊载文量、创刊时间长短等因素对两者相关性影响进行分析。[结论/发现]同行评议和影响因子两种方法对期刊进行评价时,两者得到的评价结果具有较高的一致性,社会科学领域的一致性高于人文科学领域;同行评议结果与即年影响因子、影响因子和五年影响因子的一致性依次递增;同行评议专家更愿意给载文量少的期刊打高分,但载文量和期刊影响因子之间的相关性不大。[创新/价值]使用4,500多份专家调查问卷,以定量统计分析的方法对同行评议与期刊影响因子两者在期刊评价中评价结果的一致性进行研究。 相似文献
7.
8.
Mohammad Reza Ghane 《Learned Publishing》2016,29(2):77-82
The references cited in scientific articles are as important as any other part of the paper, because of their usefulness to the scientific community and to abstracting and indexing services and citation databases. I studied inaccuracies in references and in‐text citations in sample of 97 of the 519 peer‐reviewed journals accredited by the Iranian National Commission for Journal Accreditation Policy (Ministry of Research, Science and Technology). The target journals published 2,980 articles with 74,577 cited references and 108,151 in‐text citations. The results showed 36.6% as the average percentage error rate (range 5.6% to 61.3%). The mean number of errors in cited reference and in‐text citations was 2.7 per article, and the mean number of errors per journal was 690. For the entire sample of articles, 4,369 in‐text citations did not match any source in the list of references (4%), and 8,683 cited references did not match any in‐text citation (11.6%). The stakeholders in scholarly communication, especially authors, pay insufficient attention to the accuracy of bibliographic references. Peer‐reviewed journals should encourage the use of standardized journal policies and quality‐control measures regarding peer review, data quality and accuracy. 相似文献
9.
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
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Blanca Rodríguez‐Bravo David Nicholas Eti Herman Chérifa Boukacem‐Zeghmouri Anthony Watkinson Jie Xu Abdullah Abrizah Marzena Świgoń 《Learned Publishing》2017,30(4):269-277
This paper presents selected findings from the first year of a 3‐year longitudinal study of early career researchers (ECRs), which sought to ascertain current and changing habits in scholarly communication. Specifically, the aims of the paper are to show: (1) how much experience and knowledge ECRs had of peer review – both as authors and as reviewers; (2) what they felt the benefits were and what suggestions they had for improvement; (3) what they thought of open peer review (OPR); and (4) who they felt should organize peer review. Data were obtained from 116 science and social science ECRs, most of whom had published and were subject to in‐depth interviews conducted face‐to‐face, via Skype, or over the telephone. An extensive literature review was also conducted to provide a context and supplementary data for the findings. The main findings were that: (1) most ECRS are well informed about peer review and generally like the experience, largely because of the learning experiences obtained; (2) they like blind double‐peer review, but would like some improvements, especially with regards to reviewer quality; (3) most are uncomfortable with the idea of OPR; and (4) most would like publishers to continue organizing peer review because of their perceived independence. 相似文献
16.
17.
Hongtao Li 《亚洲交流杂志》2013,23(6):595-612
The validity of academic knowledge largely rests on the reviewing procedures employed in scholarly publishing that shape and produce it. Drawing on fieldwork and in-depth interviews with journal editors and researchers, the paper aims to give an account of the rise of anonymous review among communication journals in mainland China, which has been modeled after western (especially the US) practice and added to, instead of replacing, the existing editor-leading three-stage reviewing approach. The paper examines the way by which journals articulate the ‘international convention,’ the negotiation between the emerging practice and the old institutional environment, and its implication for the legitimacy of journal publication. This paper contends that the cross-societal imitation of anonymous (peer) review is an attempt to obtain procedural legitimacy when the official legitimacy falls into crisis. Ideally, it functions as a ‘strategic ritual’ which lays a general foundation for journal organizations to claim credibility and provides resources for gatekeepers to defend their cultural authority and shield them against criticism or unfavorable requests. But in reality, the extent of adoption and implementation of anonymous review is largely restricted and reconfigured by the real institutional environment (i.e., the danwei system) in which it takes shape. 相似文献
18.
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
19.
学术论文同行评审:过去·现状·未来 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
研究同行评审制度有助于审视学术交流与出版过程,以检验对学术成果的审查和管理工作的合理性,包括评审结果的正确性和评审方法的公平性,并进而为同行评审制度的发展和完善提供参考依据.文章简要介绍同行评审的发展历程,阐述并探讨学术论文同行评审的作用以及存在和面临的问题,并分析同行评审的发展趋势. 相似文献
20.
- 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.