共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 187 毫秒
1.
Blanca Rodríguez‐Bravo David Nicholas Eti Herman Chérifa Boukacem‐Zeghmouri Anthony Watkinson Jie Xu Abdullah Abrizah Marzena Świgoń 《Learned Publishing》2017,30(4):269-277
This paper presents selected findings from the first year of a 3‐year longitudinal study of early career researchers (ECRs), which sought to ascertain current and changing habits in scholarly communication. Specifically, the aims of the paper are to show: (1) how much experience and knowledge ECRs had of peer review – both as authors and as reviewers; (2) what they felt the benefits were and what suggestions they had for improvement; (3) what they thought of open peer review (OPR); and (4) who they felt should organize peer review. Data were obtained from 116 science and social science ECRs, most of whom had published and were subject to in‐depth interviews conducted face‐to‐face, via Skype, or over the telephone. An extensive literature review was also conducted to provide a context and supplementary data for the findings. The main findings were that: (1) most ECRS are well informed about peer review and generally like the experience, largely because of the learning experiences obtained; (2) they like blind double‐peer review, but would like some improvements, especially with regards to reviewer quality; (3) most are uncomfortable with the idea of OPR; and (4) most would like publishers to continue organizing peer review because of their perceived independence. 相似文献
2.
[目的/意义]同行评议作为一种评审制度一直受到"主观"而不够"客观"的批评。公开同行评议可以在一定程度上缓解这个问题。学者对公开同行评议的接受度如何是学术期刊实施该制度首要考虑的问题。[方法/过程]首先通过文献调研对学术论文公开同行评议的概念、相比传统同行评议的优势和不足进行论述,接着就公开评审流程中的公开内容对来自中国各个学科及研究领域的研究人员进行问卷调查,获得中国学者对学术论文公开同行评议的接受度数据,并对中国学者对论文开放同行评议的接受度进行分析。[结果/结论]问卷调查对象来自不同的学科领域,其中100%有发文经历,70%以上具有审稿经历,40%以上曾为国际期刊审过稿。调查结果表明,半数（占50.33%）中国学者对学术论文公开评审是接受的,在学术论文评审的不同阶段,中国学者的接受度不同。经过非参数统计检验,不同学科同行评议者接受度有所差异;是否具有国际期刊审稿经验的同行评议专家接受度差异不明显。论文相关分析数据可为中文学术期刊实施公开同行评议制度提供支持。 相似文献
3.
4.
Verity Warne 《Learned Publishing》2016,29(1):41-50
In July 2015, Wiley surveyed over 170,000 researchers in order to explore peer reviewing experience; attitudes towards recognition and reward for reviewers; and training requirements. The survey received 2,982 usable responses (a response rate of 1.7%). Respondents from all markets indicated similar levels of review activity. However, analysis of reviewer and corresponding author data suggests that US researchers in fact bear a disproportionate burden of review, while Chinese authors publish twice as much as they review. Results show that while reviewers choose to review in order to give back to the community, there is more perceived benefit in interacting with the community of a top‐ranking journal than a low‐ranking one. The majority of peer review training received by respondents has come either in the form of journal guidelines or informally as advice from supervisors or colleagues. Seventy‐seven per cent show an interest in receiving further reviewer training. Reviewers strongly believe that reviewing is inadequately acknowledged at present and should carry more weight in their institutions' evaluation process. Respondents value recognition initiatives related to receiving feedback from the journal over monetary rewards and payment in kind. Questions raised include how to evenly expand the reviewer pool, provide training throughout the researcher career arc, and deliver consistent evaluation and recognition for reviewers. 相似文献
5.
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
6.
David Nicholas Anthony Watkinson Abdullah Abrizah Blanca Rodríguez‐Bravo Cherifa Boukacem‐Zeghmouri Jie Xu Marzena
wigo&#x; Eti Herman 《Learned Publishing》2020,33(2):132-141
A study from the Harbingers research project provides a comprehensive assessment of the main features of the scholarly communications system as viewed by early career researchers (ECRs) in the final year of the study (2018). Aspects covered are: discovery and access, authorship practices, peer review, publishing strategies, open access publishing, open data, sharing, collaboration, social media, metrics, impact, reputation, libraries, publishers, and scholarly transformations. Nearly 120 science and social science researchers from seven countries were questioned about these 16 aspects. It was found that some scholarly features work well for ECRs, and in this category can be included: discovery and access, authorship practices, sharing, collaboration, and publishers. Reputation, publishing strategies, and impact are more problematical, and they, in turn, cause tensions regarding some other factors – social media, open access, and open data. Of the rest, libraries are largely invisible, and ECRs have conflicting views concerning ethical behaviour. Few envisage that transformational change will take place in the next 5 years. 相似文献
7.
David Nicholas Blanca Rodríguez‐Bravo Anthony Watkinson Cherifa Boukacem‐Zeghmouri Eti Herman Jie Xu Abdullah Abrizah Marzena Świgoń 《Learned Publishing》2017,30(3):205-217
This study presents findings from the first year of the Harbingers research project, a 3‐year longitudinal study of early career researchers (ECRs), which sought to ascertain current and changing habits in scholarly communication. The study recruited 116 science and social science ECRs from seven countries who were subject to in‐depth interviews, and this paper reports on findings regarding publishing and authorship practices and attitudes. A major objective was to determine whether ECRs are taking the myriad opportunities proffered by new digital innovations, developing within the context of open science, open access, and social media, to publish their research. The main finding is that these opportunities are generally not taken because ECRs are constrained by convention and the precarious employment environment they inhabit and know what is best for them, which is to publish (in high impact factor journals) or perish. 相似文献
8.
Yanping LU 《Learned Publishing》2008,21(4):307-318
Journal reviewers' understanding and expectations of peer review, their incentives to take on the task, and the reasons why they sometimes declined were explored through a questionnaire survey, with particular attention to potential differences between education, physics, and chemistry. Eighty‐four senior researchers from 27 Australian universities, who had served as reviewers in education, physics, and chemistry, returned a completed questionnaire. There were significant variations in reviewers' expectations and understanding of reviewing, mostly related to seniority rather than discipline. They valued peer review as a way of maintaining the quality of science publications, and were generally satisfied with the current system; their impression of peer review's effectiveness was significantly correlated with their own experience. They saw reviewing as a professional obligation and part of their personal professional development. The most frequently mentioned reasons for declining to review were lack of expertise and lack of time. 相似文献
9.
10.
This study aimed to explore the causes, types, and consequences of authorship conflicts among the researchers of selected research institutions in Dhaka, Bangladesh; and to suggest ways to reduce conflicts. A sample of 100 researchers was given a semi‐structured questionnaire; 45 subjects responded. The responses were confidential and anonymous. Over two‐thirds of the respondents were aware of authorship conflicts, and one‐third had actually faced conflicts with their co‐authors. Of them, four faced conflicts with their juniors, while 13 faced conflicts with their seniors or supervisors. The primary causes of such conflicts appear to be unethical claims of authorship, violation of authorship order, and deprivation of authorship. In most cases, the victims became frustrated and had to give up, and avoided a direct clash to safeguard their job. Four respondents claimed to have been victimized for raising their voice. Conflict was never resolved in seven cases. To reduce conflicts, respondents suggested that authorship should be decided before the study begins, order of authorship must be determined according to contribution, and a standard code of authorship should be followed strictly. Authorship conflicts arise among researchers mostly due to what they regard as unethical practice of their co‐authors, supervisors, and department heads in the absence of any formal authorship policy in the institutions. A standard code of authorship, sensitization of researchers to the problem through open discussions and advocacy, and formation of a grievance redress committee are suggested to minimize such conflicts. Although the sample size was small, some of the specific recommendations will be appropriate in many other cases. 相似文献
11.
David Nicholas Hamid R. Jamali Eti Herman Anthony Watkinson Abdullah Abrizah Blanca Rodríguez‐Bravo Cherifa Boukacem‐Zeghmouri Jie Xu Marzena
wigo&#x; Tatiana Polezhaeva 《Learned Publishing》2020,33(3):198-211
This article describes an international study informed by a 3‐year‐long qualitative longitudinal project, which sought to discover the scholarly communication attitudes and behaviour of early career researchers (ECRs). Using a combination of small‐scale interviews and a larger‐scale survey, ECRs were questioned on their searching and reading behaviour, publishing practices, open data, and their use of social media. Questionnaire invitations were sent out via publisher lists, social media networks, university research networks, and specialist ECR membership organizations. One‐thousand and six‐hundred responses were received, with many coming from China, Russia, and Poland. Results showed that ECRs are adopting millennial‐facing tools/platforms, with Google, Google Scholar, social media, and smartphones becoming embedded in their scholarly activities. Open data sharing obtains widespread support but somewhat less practice. There are some differences in attitudes and behaviour according to age and subject specialism. 相似文献
12.
David Nicholas Anthony Watkinson Abdullah Abrizah Cherifa Boukacem‐Zeghmouri Jie Xu Blanca Rodríguez‐Bravo Marzena Świgoń Eti Herman 《Learned Publishing》2018,31(3):249-253
Key points
- Early career researchers (ECRs) consider journals the central form of communication – but are concerned about pressure to publish.
- ECRs want to share but currently accept the closed publishing system because of the need to build a traditional reputation.
- ECRs know – and appear to care – little about publishers but trust them as publishing and reviewing facilitators.
- Editors are criticized for not managing peer review with better selection of reviewers.
- Megajournals are not seen as the future journal form and criticized for lack of selectivity.
- ECRs want open access/science in principle but are circumspect about their contribution to it.
- ResearchGate is a key force for change as ECRs consider it a mainstay communication and reputation platform.
13.
Yanping LU 《Learned Publishing》2012,25(1):56-61
Journal peer review has been the subject of much research. However, the learning process through which reviewers acquire their reviewing ability, and reviewers' own perceptions of their capability have rarely been a focus. This interview study asked three questions about reviewer capability and training. At what stage did you gain confidence in reviewing? How did you learn how to review? Is formal training necessary? The interview is part of a mixed‐method project studying experienced Australian reviewers. The respondents indicate that learning to review is a continuous cycle in which formal training will not work. Following a mostly self‐guided initiation, new reviewers establish personal reviewing patterns. By trial and error, the patterns are consolidated and the reviewers eventually feel ‘confident’. ‘Decisiveness' is a good sign of becoming confident. Most respondents emphasized that journals could play a crucial role in producing good reviewers, e.g. by specifying unambiguously their expectations of ‘good reviews’. 相似文献
14.
Quality scholarly research outputs, such as peer reviewed journal articles published in reputable journals, are essential for early career researchers' (ECRs) vocational success while also offering benefits for their institutions. Research outputs destined for audiences beyond academia are also increasingly valued by funders, end users, and tertiary institutions. While there is an expectation that ECRs may create diverse research outputs for an array of audiences, the kinds of research output texts produced by ECRs for varied audiences warrants further investigation. In addition, the routes of dissemination that ECRs use to share their academic research outputs to secure impact beyond academia are not well understood. Drawing on semi‐structured interviews of 30 respondents in Australia and Japan, we explore the research‐sharing practices of ECRs, finding that ECRs may potentially create a wide range of research‐informed texts for end users beyond academia, using an array of methods for dissemination. The examples of the output text types and dissemination routes we provide in this paper can be used to inspire ECRs and also more senior academics to share their research more broadly, and perhaps more effectively, and can be used by publishers to improve research impact and support ECRs' research translation. 相似文献
15.
16.
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. 相似文献
17.
18.
分析在外审过程中使用作者推荐审稿人的优点及存在的弊端。结合编辑部工作实际,阐述选用作者推荐审稿人的经验体会。建议期刊应从规范指导,以详细的标准及规范引导作者推荐合适的审稿人;强化审核,多种渠道严格审核推荐审稿人信息;合理使用,最大效能发挥推荐审稿人的作用等方面入手,科学选用推荐的审稿人。同时,有效利用同行评议确保公正评审,以高质高效保障期刊的外审工作。 相似文献
19.
结合《中国机械工程》工作实践,阐述审稿专家负有判断内容是否达标、保障审稿流程快捷运行及协助编辑部做好相关工作的职责。介绍保障审稿专家队伍长期、健康地履行其职责的经验,如使审稿专家正确认识、理解其职责成为高素质的审稿人,提供友好的审稿平台,开展专家审稿培训,尊重专家的劳动,开展多种形式的沟通。 相似文献
20.
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