共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 31 毫秒
1.
从作者指南入手提高科技期刊学术友好度 总被引：1，自引：1，他引：0
科技期刊以学术友好的方式提供学术出版,是其服务于学术界的根本要求。探求学者们的需要并及时作出反应是科技期刊贯彻学术友好理念最基本的步骤。为了实现学术友好,就应当在出版活动的各个环节贯穿友好的意识:从详细的写作指导、方便使用的投稿系统、严谨的同行评议、照顾阅读流畅的版式、以读者容易正确理解为目的的简洁文风等都应显示友好。作为科技期刊与学者们交流的窗口,作者指南是科技期刊根据学者们的需求所作的反应的一种表达,因此,从作者指南入手提高科技期刊的学术友好度是实现友好理念的有力措施。本文阐明作者指南的获取、形式和内容,解读作者指南需要涵盖的各个方面,以提高科技期刊的学术友好度。 相似文献
2.
3.
从科技期刊征稿简则的作用入手,参考国内外期刊中比较完整、规范的征稿简则,详细分析征稿简则的要素和如何撰写及其涉及的法律问题.认为:征稿简则作为科技期刊与作者和读者交流的重要窗口,应受到期刊编辑的重视;科技期刊编辑要通过实践探索,寻找到适合学科发展和信息传播的具有可操作性的征稿规则. 相似文献
4.
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
5.
国外部分医学期刊发表专家或用户对论文的评论，受到读者的欢迎。国内这方面的尝试不多。发表评论可间接培训作者群、吸引和挖掘优秀稿件、增强期刊的可读性，从而提高期刊质量。建议医学期刊积极探索这一方式。 相似文献
6.
为他人做嫁衣:也谈科技期刊编辑的作者服务 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
合理调节编辑、作者之间的关系是科技期刊发展的关键.科技期刊编辑的作者服务是建立编辑与作者关系的桥梁,有利于稳定和扩大作者队伍,营造良好的学术道德氛围,树立期刊良好的品牌形象.科技期刊编辑应通过坚守职业道德,加强学科专业和编辑业务理论学习,尊重作者,服务作者,积极应用新媒体技术,构建与作者互相尊重、互相进步的和谐关系,最终达到提升期刊影响力的目标. 相似文献
7.
Masoud Negahdary 《Publishing Research Quarterly》2017,33(4):456-470
The importance of identifying high quality journals in order to publish scientific achievements is very essential and unavoidable task. In this study, identifying the quality of journals and publishers were introduced and described which can be used as a comprehensive and global training for users and eliminate the challenges in distinguishing high quality journals from poor-quality journals. The authors are considered as the main pillars for journals and publishers progress; aware and conscious authors in identifying offered quality features by journals and publishers are the most important item in order to stop and remove poor-quality journals. Implementation and adherence to the quality principles by journals and publishers will ensure the international progress in scientific researches and publication fields. 相似文献
8.
针对目前各图书馆的核心期刊评价不能准确反映读者对期刊的实际需求与馆藏期刊实际利用情况的问题,及不同署名位次的作者对文后参考文献的利用程度不同,提出了基于期刊加权被引次数的馆藏期刊评价方法,并以第二军医大学作者引用较多的风湿病学西文期刊为例进行期刊评价,结果证明利用该方法进行期刊评价要优于基于引文分析的传统期刊评价方法。 相似文献
9.
原始数据共享能提高学术诚信、减少科研浪费.期刊有义务帮助促进数据共享.本文通过对中华医学会系列杂志在2016年中国科技论文统计源期刊目录中的111种期刊,以及《中华医学杂志》(英文版)2016年发表文章的438名作者进行调查,了解中华医学会系列杂志及作者对原始数据共享政策的支持情况,并与BMJ出版集团出版的62种期刊(BMJ Journals)相比较,探索中国医学期刊推动数据共享政策的途径,提出中国医学科技期刊可从发表相关述评类或观点类文章、制定相应的编辑政策、开展丰富的互动活动等方面来推动原始数据共享. 相似文献
10.
Zahiruddin Khurshid 《期刊图书馆员》2013,64(1):81-98
This research study evaluates the quality of articles published by Saudi and expatriate authors in foreign Library and Information Science (LIS) journals using three popular metrics for ranking journals—Journal Impact Factor (JIF), SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), and Google Scholar Metrics (GSM). The reason for using multiple metrics is to see how closely or differently journals are ranked by the three different methods of citation analysis. However, the 2012 JIF list of journals is too small, almost half the size of the SJR and GSM lists, which inhibited one-to-one comparison among the impact factors of the thirty-six journals selected by Saudi authors for publishing articles. Only seventeen journals were found common to all the three lists, limiting the usefulness of the data. A basic problem is that Saudi LIS authors generally lack the level of competency in the English language required to achieve publication in the most prominent LIS journals. The study will have implications for authors, directors, and deans of all types of academic libraries; chairmen and deans of library schools; and the Saudi Library Association. Hopefully these entities will take necessary steps to prepare and motivate both academics and practicing librarians to improve the quality of their research and publications and thus get published in higher ranked journals. 相似文献
11.
12.
Penetration of Nigerian predatory biomedical open access journals 2007–2012: a bibliometric study 
下载免费PDF全文
下载免费PDF全文 This paper presents the bibliometric characteristics of 32 biomedical open access journals published by Academic Journals and International Research Journals – the two Nigerian publishers in Jeffery Beall's list of 23 predatory open access publishers in 2012. Data about the journals and the authors of their articles were collected from the websites of the publishers, Google Scholar and Web of Science. As at December 2012, the journals had together produced a total of 5,601 papers written by 5,599 authors, and received 12,596 citations. Authors from Asia accounted for 56.79% of the publications; those from Africa wrote 28.35% while Europe contributed 7.78%. Authors from Africa accounted for 18.25% of the citations these journals received, and this is about one‐third the number of citations by authors in Asia (54.62%). At country level, India ranks first in the top 10 citer countries, while Nigeria, the host country of the journals, ranked eighth. More in‐depth studies are required to develop further information about the journals such as how much scientific information the journals contain, as well as the science literacy of the authors and the editorial. 相似文献
13.
5种肿瘤学期刊文后参考文献失真度分析 总被引：33，自引：8，他引：25
在编辑实践中，发现论文后参考文献存在明显的失真现象。为考究同类期刊是否存在类似情况，对国内5种肿瘤学期刊文后以考文献，在因特网上通过Medline检索系统逐条查核，结果发现，这种失真现象普遍存在，应引起作者及编者高度重视。 相似文献
14.
15.
16.
17.
Elke BARTHOLOMÄUS Sandy GOLDBECK‐WOOD Meike SEWERING Christopher BAETHGE 《Learned Publishing》2015,28(4):283-291
Bilingual publishing has become a strategy employed by journals from the non‐Anglophone world to gain wider recognition. Beyond anecdotal evidence, however, there are no published accounts of the experiences of editors and authors of bilingual journals with the process of bilingual publication. It is also unclear how authors writing in bilingual journals judge the quality of the translations and whether they consider this sort of publishing as beneficial for their aims. Consequently, we carried out two surveys: one among editors of bilingual journals and one anonymous survey among authors and translators of articles published in Deutsches Ärzteblatt International, the bilingual journal of the German Medical Association. Eight of nine journals as well as 233 of 353 authors and 4 of 6 translators took part. Most journals reported that bilingual publication helped in becoming indexed in important databases (e.g. Medline), receiving or improving an Impact Factor, and in attracting authors. All journals plan to continue publishing bilingually. Authors were ‘satisfied’ (40.8%) or ‘very satisfied’ (57.8%) with translations. Almost all (96.7%) were in favour of bilingual publication of their work. They did not view an English translation as an obstacle to another related English language paper. Translators highlighted challenges relating to specialized terminology and to terms specific to the regional healthcare system. 相似文献
18.
19.
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