共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 796 毫秒
1.
In this paper, we propose a novel framework for a scholarly journal – a token‐curated registry (TCR). This model originates in the field of blockchain and cryptoeconomics and is essentially a decentralized system where tokens (digital currency) are used to incentivize quality curation of information. TCR is an automated way to create lists of any kind where decisions (whether to include N or not) are made through voting that brings benefit or loss to voters. In an academic journal, TCR could act as a tool to introduce community‐driven decisions on papers to be published, thus encouraging more active participation of authors/reviewers in editorial policy and elaborating the idea of a journal as a club. TCR could also provide a novel solution to the problems of editorial bias and the lack of rewards/incentives for reviewers. In the paper, we discuss core principles of TCR, its technological and cultural foundations, and finally analyse the risks and challenges it could bring to scholarly publishing. 相似文献
2.
Assessing the scholarly impact of academic institutions has become increasingly important. The achievements of editorial board members can create benchmarks for research excellence and can be used to evaluate both individual and institutional performance. This paper proposes a new method based on journal editor data for assessing an institution’s scholarly impact. In this paper, a journal editorship index (JEI) that simultaneously accounts for the journal rating (JR), editor title (ET), and board size (BS) is constructed. We assess the scholarly impact of economics institutions based on the editorial boards of 211 economics journals (which include 8640 editorial board members) in the ABS Academic Journal Guide. Three indices (JEI/ET, JEI/JR, and JEI/BS) are also used to rank the institutions. It was found that there was only a slight change in the relative institutional rankings using the JEI/ET and JEI/BS compared to the JEI. The BS and ET weight factors did not have a substantial influence on the ranking of institutions. It was also found that the journal rating weight factor had a large effect on the ranking of institutions. This paper presents an alternative approach to using editorial board memberships as the basis for assessing the scholarly impact of economics institutions. 相似文献
3.
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
4.
Edward J. Huth 《Learned Publishing》1991,4(1):1-8
The effect on the editorial policy of a scholarly journal of its being published by a learned society rather than by an independent commercial owner can be examined through consideration of a number of questions that define possible influences on policy. The evidence from a look at the genesis of scholarly journals in learned societies and their evolution suggests that the answers can be many and that the qualities of scholarly journals depend more on the stage of a journal’s evolution, pressures for its profitability, and the editor’s decisions than on the question of a journal’s ownership. Some first–rate journals are non–society, commercially owned journals; some are society–owned and published. 相似文献
5.
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
6.
结合《中国科学:化学》(原名为《中国科学B辑:化学》)编委会在期刊发展中所做的主要工作,从编委审稿、组稿、对期刊进行宣传和对期刊发展提出建议等方面阐述编委对于提高期刊质量所起的重要作用,并根据编辑部配合编委会工作的经验,对学术期刊编委会组建和如何发挥其作用提出了建议。 相似文献
7.
为了适应科技期刊的发展现状、加快期刊的融合速度,以陕西省8种公开发行的科技期刊为例,给出了科技期刊具体的融合方法。对科技期刊的融合背景和影响科技期刊融合的限制因素进行分析,分别从编辑人员整合、编校共享平台、整体宣传和数字化运营等方面展开论述。认为要想取得真正的融合效果,需要对期刊进行定位,挖掘期刊特色,形成期刊风格,还要充分利用期刊编委和审稿专家的人脉资源。 相似文献
8.
Eti Herman John Akeroyd Gaelle Bequet David Nicholas Anthony Watkinson 《Learned Publishing》2020,33(3):213-229
This article presents an up‐to‐date portrayal of the greatly changed landscape of scholarly journal publishing and identifies the emerging trends characterizing it. We consider the attributes, novelty, and disruptive potential of different models, which range from improvements to the extant model to attempts at reconfiguration and transformation. We propose that journal transition can be seen as falling into three categories. The first is enhanced models of the traditional scholarly journal, which typically afford enriched functionality that breaks the bonds of the printed page whilst otherwise remaining wholly traditional in their offerings. The second category is innovative models of the traditional scholarly journal, which aim at supporting the journal in performing its traditional roles through convention‐altering ways. The third category is the possible alternatives to the traditional journal, which represent a move towards alternative modes of knowledge dissemination. This review shows that each of the models identified makes contributions to enriching the reporting and showcasing of scholarly output. They also make it more effective and more efficient. However, we conclude that none of the possible alternatives being discussed can serve as a full‐fledged alternative to the journal. 相似文献
9.
10.
审稿人是稿件科学性和创新性的评价者,在控制期刊学术质量方面发挥着举足轻重的作用。我国的期刊审稿人主要扮演“外”审专家的角色,不是期刊的“编内”人员。为了解决这一问题,许多国外期刊成立了审稿委员会,使得期刊审稿人成为期刊编委会的一部分。本文首先提出审稿委员会的概念并介绍了一些期刊的具体做法,接着分析了科技期刊成立审稿委员会的必要性和可行性,并对审稿委员会的运作提出了一些设想和建议。 相似文献
11.
12.
13.
不同文种"一稿两投"的国际规范及我国应采取的编辑政策 总被引：8，自引：0，他引：8
就生物医学论文以不同的文种、在不同的国家再次发表的行业国际规范进行调研,认定同一论文以不同的文种在国内外生物医学期刊上相继发表不属于国际生物医学期刊界违反版权法和科学道德的一稿多投行为.提出为了既有利于扩大我国高水平的生物医学科研成果在国际上的影响,又能使这些成果在国内学术期刊上有所反映,满足国内广大读者的需要, 可以将在国际生物医学期刊上发表的英文论文以中文全文再次发表在国内生物医学期刊上, 或以"述评""摘要"等多种形式在国内生物医学期刊上予以介绍.然而中文全文的再次发表必须是有选择的、有比例的,同时必须满足国际规范的各项规定和要求. 相似文献
14.
吐故纳新:审稿专家队伍持续建设的措施 总被引：7，自引：3，他引：4
建立一支具有"新陈代谢"动态特征的审稿专家队伍,已成为每一种自然科学学术期刊引领本学科科学成果报道前沿的必要条件.对审稿专家库进行动态管理的核心问题是通过对审稿专家的审稿合适度评价,使得专家库成分不断吐故纳新,而非一劳永逸,从而达到保持审稿队伍对科技进步的适应活力的目的.在审稿工作实践中建立并不断完善自己的审稿专家队伍,是科技学术期刊编辑部工作的一项重要课题. 相似文献
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
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
20.
大数据时代,充足的数据资源使得定量评价和考核编委职能成为可能。基于来稿学科与编委学科比对分析,以及对编委学术活跃度和年龄结构的量化考核,优化编委会结构组成,并通过制度性建设,动态监管编委会职能发挥情况,可以显著提升编委的主观能动性。实践显示,经过结构优化和制度化建设后的《地球科学》和《Journal of Earth Science》编委会成员,既是作者,又是审稿专家,也是期刊的宣传组稿人员。实现了编辑、编委的优势互补,期刊组约稿能力的显著提高,促进了期刊的良性发展。 相似文献