共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 672 毫秒
1.
2.
为了解国内医学期刊的优先数字出版情况,选择中华医学会161种系列杂志(其中中华系列96种)为调查对象,对这些杂志在中华医学会杂志社优秀科研成果优先出版平台上的优先出版情况进行调查分析。结果显示,自创建以来,虽然该平台优先出版的论文总数仅为40篇,出版的频率也较低,但是论文质量较高,发表意义较大。其中,新型冠状病毒肺炎专题论文优先出版后在万方数据库的总被引频次高达1 476次。中华系列31篇论文的篇均优先出版时滞为66 d,与国内外优先出版相比,优先出版时滞过长。建议从进一步缩短优先出版时滞,提升编辑业务能力,优化管理和评价体制等方面来提升医学期刊的优先出版水平。 相似文献
3.
4.
Perceptions regarding open science appraised by editors of scholarly publications published in Spain
Remedios Melero Juan-José Boté-Vericad Alexandre López-Borrull 《Learned Publishing》2023,36(2):178-193
Pillars of open science are often included within the editorial policies of scholarly journals, including policies on open access publication, availability of underlying research data, preprints and open peer review. The aim of this paper is to examine and analyse perceptions and editorial practices related to open access, preprints, open research data and open peer review, from the perspective of editors of scientific journals published in Spain, to gain an insight into editorial policies related to open science. Results and data were obtained by a combined method of online interviews and an online questionnaire. The online survey was sent to editors from journals indexed in the Dulcinea directory, which at the time of the study included 1875 academic journals. A total of 420 responses (22.4%) were obtained. The results indicated that 92% of the journals were open access journals, 2% of the journals conducted open peer review, 15% of the journals had instructions to allow archiving preprints, and out of 375 responses, only 59 journals (16%) reported having a policy on underlying research data. Based on these results, there is a trend in favour of open access, but the perceived barriers to open peer review outweighed the advantages. There is also some reluctance to allow preprints to be made available. This concern might be because editors want authors and readers to read and cite the contents published in their journals, rather than their preprint versions. 相似文献
5.
6.
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
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.
作者资源是办好科技期刊的基础。本研究探索以作者为中心,围绕投稿前指导、便捷投稿、快速审稿、及时退修、数字化出版、快速推送、引用反馈等7方面创新调整传统的编辑出版流程,建设科技期刊作者服务体系。从作者服务体系建设层面,推动科技期刊质量控制与规范化建设。同时从作者服务体系建设层面,培育优秀作者群,吸引优秀论文回归。本文重点介绍其中快速审稿环节的建设成果,通过快速送审、快速审稿、快速退修、免收审理费、短信即时通知来实现快速审稿。通过流程再造,已经实现数分钟内送审、退修,初审周期1d,复审周期10d,终审周期5d。 相似文献
9.
OBJECTIVE: The authors characterized the output of MEDLINE papers by language and country of publication during a thirty-four-year time period. METHODS: We classified MEDLINE's journal articles by country of publication (Anglos/Non-Anglos) and language (English/Non-English) for the years 1966 and from 1970 to 2000 at five-year intervals. Eight English-speaking countries were considered Anglos. Linear regression analysis of number of papers versus time was performed. RESULTS: The global number of papers increased linearly at a rate of 8,142 papers per year. Anglo and English papers also increased linearly (6,740 and 9,199, respectively). Journals of Non-Anglo countries accounted for 25% of the English language increase (2,438 per year). Only Non-English papers decreased at a rate of 1,056 fewer papers per year. These trends have led to overwhelming shares of English and Anglo papers in MEDLINE. In 2000, 68% of all papers were published in the 8 Anglo countries and 90% were written in English. CONCLUSIONS: The Anglo and English preponderances appear to be a consequence of at least two phenomena: (1) editorial policy changes in MEDLINE and in some journals from Non-Anglo countries and (2) factors affecting Non-Anglo researchers in the third world (publication constraints, migration, and undersupport). These are tentative conclusions that need confirmation. 相似文献
10.
11.
The article processing charge (APC) is currently the primary method of funding professionally published open access (OA) peer‐reviewed journals. The pricing principles of 77 OA publishers publishing over 1,000 journals using APCs were studied and classified. The most commonly used pricing method is a single fixed fee, which can either be the same for all of a publisher's journals or individually determined for each journal. Fees are usually only levied for publication of accepted papers, but there are some journals that also charge submission fees. Instead of fixed prices, many publishers charge by the page or have multi‐tiered fees depending on the length of articles. The country of origin of the author can also influence the pricing, in order to facilitate publishing for authors from developing countries. 相似文献
12.
随着生物医学领域文献发表量的快速增加,撤稿量也随之增加。本文通过检索PubMed收录的关于中国作者发表文章的撤稿文件,对其中的信息进行提取和统计学分析。结果显示:1)生物医学领域中国作者撤稿在2005年后进入快速增长,平均撤稿时间为16.55月,撤稿主要集中在影响因子为0～3的期刊(58.9％)。2)撤稿原因分别为重复发表或抄袭(40%),科学错误(15％),作者署名或版权问题(8%),伪造数据或怀疑伪造数据(5%)。3)因科学错误、重复发表或抄袭、伪造数据或怀疑伪造数据而撤稿的期刊平均影响因子之间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。4)非SCI给出不详撤稿信息的比例明显高于SCI期刊(P<0.05)。撤稿行为是对缺陷科学结论纠错的有效措施,从PubMed收录的对中国作者的撤稿声明分析中可以发现某些中国作者科学失范行为的模式,以及科技期刊编辑部对待撤稿的态度,并可借鉴经验制定出有针对性的措施,促进国内期刊出版环境的净化。 相似文献
13.
医学期刊应重视对来稿的道德要求 总被引：4，自引：2，他引：2
比较国内外医学期刊对作者科研及投稿过程中有关道德方面的要求。发现国外医学期刊在稿约中对作者应遵守的道德法规规定得很详细，而国内期刊则较为简单，缺少很多必要的内容，与国外医学期刊存在相当大的差距。认为我国医学期刊应当重视科研及编辑出版中的道德问题。 相似文献
14.
Key points
- Instructions to authors about submitting papers for publication vary hugely – from none at all to whole handbooks.
- Online submission systems have not reduced the complexity of submission and may have increased the work of authors.
- Electronic submission processes do not appear to have been adequately ‘road tested’ with authors.
- Some publishers are introducing more flexible submission rules that may help authors.
15.
委托办中华系列杂志一稿两投重复发表的现状与对策 总被引：21，自引：10，他引：11
探讨解决一稿两投、重复发表问题的有效措施。给47刑发了统一的调查信，收回25封（刊）。25刊中存在一稿两投问题的稿件有14篇，涉及9个刊，占36%。其中6篇没有造成重复发表的事实，8篇形成了重复发表的事实，占57.14%。结论：1）同一篇论文将作者的署名顺序变化后，投寄不同的期刊，属一稿两投或多投；2）投到不同期刊的论文，半数以上内容（包括资料或讨论部分）相同时，属一稿两投；3）同一篇论文将题名变化后投寄不同的期刊，属一稿两投；4）同一组资料从不同的角度去写作（研究问题），不属一稿两投；5）同一篇论文以不同的文字发表属平行发表，不属一稿两投或多投；6）同一篇论文在内部资料与公开发行的刊物上分别发表，不属一稿两投。处理一稿两投，尤其重复发表问题要从严，但重在预防：1）加强宣传，提高作者、编者的法律意识；2）在相关期刊上公布有关的处罚规定，以达到警示目的；3）要求作者在授权书中承诺不存在一稿两投、重复发表问题；4）统一介绍信的格式与内容，依靠单位审查把关；5）实现资源共享联网查询；6）依靠审稿人把关。 相似文献
16.
Toby Green 《Learned Publishing》2019,32(1):13-25
Progress to open access (OA) has stalled, with perhaps 20% of new papers ‘born‐free’, and half of all versions of record pay‐walled; why? In this paper, I review the last 12 months: librarians showing muscle in negotiations, publishers’ Read and Publish deals, and funders determined to force change with initiatives like Plan S. I conclude that these efforts will not work. For example, flipping to supply‐side business models, such as article processing charges, simply flips the pay‐wall to a ‘play‐wall’ to the disadvantage of authors without financial support. I argue that the focus on OA makes us miss the bigger problem: today’s scholarly communications is unaffordable with today’s budgets. OA is not the problem, the publishing process is the problem. To solve it, I propose using the principles of digital transformation to reinvent publishing as a two‐step process where articles are published first as preprints, and then, journal editors invite authors to submit only papers that ‘succeed’ to peer review. This would reduce costs significantly, opening a sustainable pathway for scholarly publishing and OA. The catalyst for this change is for the reputation economy to accept preprints as it does articles in minor journals today. 相似文献
17.
通过统计《洁净煤技术》2010—2012年退修超过半年未回稿件的情况,说明作者无法修改、不满意刊用栏目、稿件处理周期过长、转投他刊或一稿多投、作者忘记修回或无法联系,是造成稿件超期未修回的主要原因。通过认真送审,缩短审稿周期;了解作者,做到因人而异;发挥专业优势,发掘文章新意;仔细检查修回稿,适当使用修改权等措施从主观上促进了编辑主动性的充分发挥。通过明确修稿时间,建立催修机制;借助技术手段,防止一稿多投;开展网络办公,优化编辑流程等措施从客观上完善了编辑部的稿件退修流程。通过以上措施,2013年《洁净煤技术》稿件修回率达到98%,提高了工作效率,实现了期刊质量的稳步提升。 相似文献
18.
19.
影响科技期刊潜在作者投稿的因素分析及编辑对策 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
当前科研评价体系的导向加上巨大经济利益的诱惑,产生了中国优秀论文“外流”现象。该文在多角度了解作者投稿“故事”的基础上,分析影响潜在作者投稿的因素：期刊的品牌;审稿的质量和效率;国际显示度与公众影响力;“刊后”服务。认为：我国科技期刊应“苦练内功”,如加强刊物内涵建设和立体化的品牌形象吸引优秀研究成果,借力新的技术和传播手段,实现编辑流程数字化、传播渠道多元化、沟通双向化等作者信赖策略,尽可能争取我国优秀论文的首发权。 相似文献
20.
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