| 科技论文审稿方式的问卷调查 |
| |
| 引用本文： | 周望舒,张凤.科技论文审稿方式的问卷调查[J].编辑学报,2010,22(3):229-231. |
| |
| 作者姓名： | 周望舒 张凤 |
| |
| 作者单位： | 《大连水产学院学报》编辑部;《大连理工大学学报》编辑部,116023,大连 |
| |
| 摘 要： | 采用问卷调查的形式,对审稿专家和作者如何看待审稿方式进行了调查.结果表明:有86.8%的审稿人和85.4%的作者都赞同双盲审稿,有88.2%的审稿人和96%的作者都认为,实行双盲审稿,有利于审稿人对稿件进行客观、公正的评审;48.4%的作者和31.6%的审稿人认为,如果审者与作者从事的研究工作类似,编辑在选择审稿人时应采取回避政策.本文建议某些专业面相对较窄的期刊可实行双盲审稿,而大多数高校自然科学学报可以实行单盲审稿.
|
| 关 键 词： | 科技论文 审稿方式 问卷调查 |
| 收稿时间： | 2009/3/6 0:00:00 |
| 修稿时间： | 2009/3/6 0:00:00 |
Questionnaire for styles of peer review of scientific papers |
| |
| ZHOU Wangshu and ZHANG Feng.Questionnaire for styles of peer review of scientific papers[J].Acta Editologica,2010,22(3):229-231. |
| |
| Authors: | ZHOU Wangshu and ZHANG Feng |
| |
| Institution: | ZHOU Wangshu,ZHANG Feng Editorial Office of Journal of Dalian Fisheries University,116023,Dalian,Liaoning,China |
| |
| Abstract: | The factors influencing the selection of peer review styles from the reviewers and authors were investigated through questionnaire.The surveying results show that 86.8% of reviewers and 85.4% of authors approve adopting double-blind peer review;88.2% of reviewers and 96% of authors admit the impersonality and impartiality of double-blind peer review;and 31.6% of reviewers and 48.4% of authors think that the editorial board should avoid selecting the reviewers who undertake the similar researches with author... |
| |
| Keywords: | scientific paper style of peer review questionnaire |
| 本文献已被 CNKI 万方数据 等数据库收录！ |
| 点击此处可从《编辑学报》浏览原始摘要信息 |
| 点击此处可从《编辑学报》下载免费的PDF全文 |
|
