共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 83 毫秒
1.
2.
Maria J. Grant Penny Bonnett Anthea Sutton Audrey Marshall Jeannette Murphy Hannah Spring 《Health information and libraries journal》2016,33(1):1-6
Academic writing can seem a daunting prospect although with the right support and information it can be more achievable than you think. In this first set of editorial comments of 2016, editors from all sections of the Health Information and Libraries Journal outline the origins of the individual section of the journal which they oversee and highlight some of the things you might want to consider when thinking of submitting your writing for publication. 相似文献
3.
中华妇产科杂志审稿现状及对策 总被引：18，自引：6，他引：12
为探讨科技期刊审稿中存在的关键问题及解决对策,抽取200份中华妇产科杂志2000年审稿单及60篇论著类文稿的144份专家审稿意见,分别对审稿时间和审稿质量进行分析.除去初审退稿外,外审时间最短7 d,最长206 d,平均42.7 d,一篇文稿从来稿到刊出平均最快要7个月;60篇论著类文稿的专家审稿单144份,共提出审稿意见263条,最少1条,最多7条,平均1.83条(两审意见重叠时,按1条计算).建议:1)根据来稿总量调整初审退稿比率;2)建立标准化审稿程序;3)完善和扩大审稿队伍;4)建立专业副总编评审制度;5)提高编辑自身素质. 相似文献
4.
国外期刊论文同行评议创新态势述评 总被引：2，自引：1，他引：1
[目的/意义]综述国外期刊论文同行评议的创新实践,以期为国内学术出版提供参考。[方法/过程]通过对国外期刊论文同行评议的创新实践加以述评,分析其优势和挑战,总结创新实践的整体趋势。[结果/结论]预印本和发表后同行评议反映了人们对同行评议更快捷的期待,非选择性同行评议和注册报告反映了人们对同行评议更客观的期待,开放同行评议和协作同行评议反映了人们对同行评议更公平的期待,而这些创新实践具有各自的优势及挑战。国外期刊论文同行评议的创新实践总体上呈现出加快发表速度、拓宽发文范围、弱化以刊评文、促进科学民主和认证审稿贡献的趋势。 相似文献
5.
With its roots in evidence‐based medicine, Evidence Based Library and Information Practice emerged 15 years ago and, with health librarians leading the way, has since been adopted by librarians and libraries in all sectors. EBLIP is an iterative process that may see you undertaking your own research although most likely, it will see you integrate your experience as a library and information professionals with research evidence generated both within and without the library science sector. As a library and information worker, you can use the Evidence Based Library and Information Practice process to help inform your decision‐making, streamline services and identify ways forward to fit your personal context. 相似文献
6.
7.
8.
研究稿件评议过程的所有参与者——作者、编辑部和审稿专家应尽的责任和义务,探讨审稿的质量控制,以期帮助参与者特别是新人增强责任意识,规范相关各方的行为,达到共同提升论文学术质量的目的. 相似文献
9.
10.
Grant MJ 《Health information and libraries journal》2010,27(4):259-261
Often overlooked by prospective authors, one of the keys to successful writing projects is to find the right audience for your writing. Early in the writing process you should identify where you wish to publish. Publications have preferred styles of presentation and, crucially, defined remits so once you've identified the place of publication, it should determine how to write and structure your piece. Selecting the right place for your writing can also save you from wasting valuable time in submitting and then having your writing rejected because it didn't meet a publication's requirements. The revised and updated aims and scope of the Health Information and Libraries Journal are presented. 相似文献
11.
12.
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
13.
Early career experiences of navigating journal article publication: Lessons learned using an autoethnographic approach 
下载免费PDF全文
下载免费PDF全文 The successful publication of peer reviewed academic journal articles is an essential achievement for early career researchers (ECRs) seeking to establish themselves in their profession. However, this journey can pose several significant challenges for ECRs. We use an autoethnographic approach that draws deeply on our lived experience as ECRs to capture our recent and current experiences of negotiating the academic journal article publication journey to explore the tensions, contradictions, and benefits encountered in the journey. We critically examine challenges we experienced in choosing a target journal and negotiating the follow‐up process; undertaking revisions; and our experiences of limitations and possibilities in peer review and editorial support. While the peer review journal writing process has played a significant role in supporting us to become more effective ECRs, we also highlight challenges we faced negotiating ethical quandaries in this space, as well as illustrate how our preconceptions of a simple publication journey were confounded by subsequent experience of the complex realities of the space. We also suggest that educational interventions are indicated to provide ECRs support in foundational knowledge about what constitutes valuable revisions, an effective paper, and the scope of issues that can be addressed to make a paper more effective, with reference to the possibility of academic mentoring to support this need. Finally, we explore our findings in light of the tensions imposed by the relative inexperience and lack of power yielded by ECRs. 相似文献
14.
15.
16.
数字化出版模式下,科技期刊运作中会出现一些新的问题,如论文数字版版权的授权与转让、编辑伦理学上的新问题、论文电子模板的细化、稿件在线管理系统的操作说明等.这些问题均促使编辑部在《稿约》中做出及时的内容修订.例如:在《稿约》的在线版中设立必要链接,为论文撰写提供更为便捷的服务;加大对编辑出版伦理相关问题的强调力度;补写关于稿件在线管理系统操作的说明;简要说明在线稿件同行评议制度程序;进一步明确数字版版权的相关问题;等等.编辑部只有适时地做好《稿约》内容上的修订,才能更好地适应数字化出版的要求,同时,借助新技术提高期刊的传播力和影响力. 相似文献
17.
As editor of On My Mind, I wanted to introduce myself and let you, the reader, know a little bit about what I intend this column to be. Primarily, I want it to be a venue for you to write about anything that has been bugging you or that you think needs to be said. This is an opinion column so please share your opinion. Maybe you want to talk about what you wished you had learned in library school. Or, perhaps you have a bone to pick with people who rely too much on using statistics in their weeding of books from the library's shelves. Whether the majority of librarians hold your opinion or not, I will try to give you a venue to express your thoughts. Also, this column is intended to be informal; feel free to use the first person. That does not mean that you cannot or should not back up statements you make with research. Please do. It does mean that personal anecdotes and stories are encouraged and make for a more interesting read. Finally, inquiries into writing for this column should be directed to me via e-mail. You will get a timely response. –Eric Jennings 相似文献
18.
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
19.
20.
分析医学期刊编委会专家审稿组稿撰稿情况,为了解编委会专家职能发挥情况,加强编委会建设提供参考。依托中华医学会《中华烧伤杂志》稿件处理系统中的“专家审稿情况”模块,统计2013年7月1日—2017年6月30日第4届编委会任期内专家审稿篇数＞70的审稿专家情况,包括出生年、学历、职称、工作单位、本刊职务等,并统计其审稿周期,在“稿件查询”模块里查询上述专家刊稿情况,通过每期责任编辑统计4年间上述专家组稿篇数。4年间审稿篇数＞70的编委共20人,其中常务编委和普通编委均为10人,分别占41.7%(10/24)和14.3%(10/70)。编委多为60后,3/4的编委具有博士学历,所在单位大多为烧伤学科发展良好的知名院校附属综合性三甲医院。常务编委审稿数1133篇,平均审稿周期4.8d;普通编委审稿数946篇,平均审稿周期6.2d。常务编委和普通编委审稿情况差异不明显。常务编委组稿数101篇,刊稿数49篇;普通编委组稿数25篇,刊稿数27篇。编委在期刊审稿中发挥了重要作用,常务编委在期刊的组稿、刊稿方面,优于普通编委,但总体形势不容乐观,今后应加强编委在组稿和撰稿方面的职能。 相似文献