共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 15 毫秒
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
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
6.
研究CSSCI来源期刊发文头部机构固化现象,对理解期刊发文规律、优化评价机制和推动学科生态改善都具有重要意义。文章通过统计分析2000-2019年图情档学科19种CSSCI来源期刊中发文的作者单位、地域、学术背景等,发现期刊发文头部机构固化的形成受多重因素影响,包括发文机构的学科优势、期刊创办单位的性质、地缘和学缘等。文章考察这一现象对学科生态带来的主要影响,从理念、实践和制度等方面提出克服发文机构固化建议,为科研评价克服唯论文意识、加强论文质量评价、推动学科发展提供参考。 相似文献
7.
This article explores the evolution of the role of academic journal articles submitted to the UK's Research Assessment Exercise (RAE). By reviewing their role, it is possible to see how the changes from quantitative to qualitative assessment (and the resulting problems surrounding the definition of ‘quality’ journals) has impacted both on the journals selected by academics for publishing their research and the assessment of them. Although only one part of RAE submissions, the listing of published research outputs provides the primary evidence for research quality to most RAE panels, and is a significant driver of the final grade awarded, and thus the funding received by submitting institutions. The RAE, being a peer‐reviewed assessment exercise, mirrors in some ways the peer‐review process immured within scholarly publication. The developing role of journal publications as a vehicle for academic research output is examined via the chronology of the RAE, before assessing the current situation in which published journal output formed almost 70% of all output assessed by RAE panels in the latest exercise. The impact of this increased importance of academic journals in the assessment process is considered not only for academics but also for the wider community, i.e. publishers and libraries. 相似文献
8.
Over the past two decades, China has witnessed a market-oriented reform that created real market players and removed institutional hurdles for its scientific, technological and medical (STM) journals’ international development; it has kept enhancing the journals’ editorial forces, which not only upgraded editorial staff’s international communication skills but also facilitated the journals’ international collaboration with their foreign counterparts; it has also adjusted the journals’ publishing workflows and established a quality-control mechanism centered around peer reviews; and it has tried to internationalize both the journal publishers’ productions and services. Under the above-mentioned endeavors, Chinese STM journal publishing has achieved its initial internationalization progress. 相似文献
9.
科技期刊稿件遴选机制研究 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
分析科技期刊稿件三审制中专家评审环节采用匿名审稿模式和公开审稿模式的利弊,以及编委推荐制对于科技期刊遴选优质稿件的突出优势.认为我国科技期刊在公开审稿模式尚未建立的现阶段,实行编委推荐制与同行专家双向匿名审稿模式相结合的综合稿件遴选机制是一种合理的选择. 相似文献
10.
科技期刊为审稿专家减负的4种策略 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
为了缩短审稿周期,保证审稿质量,使审稿专家与期刊建立长期愉快合作的关系,科技期刊不能忽视专家在审稿减负上的需求。科技期刊可以从准确选择审稿专家、科学设计审稿单、灵活培训审稿专家、编辑人员和审稿系统协助减负等4个方面减轻专家的审稿强度,为他们创造更友好、更高效的审稿平台和审稿环境。 相似文献
11.
Serhat Kurt 《Learned Publishing》2018,31(2):141-147
This study examines the reasons why authors publish in ‘predatory’ OA journals. In total, 50 journals were randomly selected from Beall's list of ‘predatory’ journals. Different methods, including WHOIS tracking, were utilized to query basic information about the selected journals, including location and registrant. Then, 300 articles were randomly selected from within selected journals in various scientific fields. Authors of the selected articles were contacted and sent survey questions to complete. A grounded theory qualitative methods approach was used for data collection and analysis. The results demonstrated that most of these journals were located in the developing world, usually Asia or Africa, even when they claimed they were in the USA or UK. Furthermore, four themes emerged after authors’ survey responses were coded, categorized, and sub‐categorized. The themes were: social identity threat, unawareness, high pressure, and lack of research proficiency. Scholars in the developing world felt that reputable Western journals might be prejudiced against them and sometimes felt more comfortable publishing in journals from the developing world. Other scholars were unaware of the reputation of the journals in which they published and would not have selected them had they known. However, some scholars said they would still have published in the same journals if their institution recognised them. The pressure to ‘publish or perish’ was another factor influencing many scholars’ decisions to publish in these fast‐turnaround journals. In some cases, researchers did not have adequate guidance and felt they lacked the knowledge of research to submit to a more reputable journal. More needs to be done by institutions and reputable journals to make researchers aware of the problem of ‘predatory’ journals. 相似文献
12.
Key points
- The term ‘predatory journal’ hides a wide range of scholarly publishing misconduct.
- The term ‘predatory journal’ unhelpfully bundles misconduct with poor quality.
- The term ‘predatory journal’ blinds us to important possibilities, needs, and questions arising in the developing scholarly landscape.
- The current scholarly publishing environment cannot rely on such a simplified classification of journals into predatory or not.
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.
15.
16.
科技期刊可持续发展几个瓶颈问题及其对策建议 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
分析新常态下科技期刊发展的制约因素,以基层期刊人的视角,就期刊可持续发展提出一些建议.在解读2015年国家出台的有关科技期刊2个文件的基础上,结合文献分析和案例调查,分析“期刊资源供给侧结构性改革”和“遏制学术不端行为”这2个期刊发展瓶颈问题.首先需要制度创新,做好期刊业改革的顶层设计;其次要做好供给侧结构性改革,重点扶持有发展潜力的期刊做大做强;最后要优化学术环境,防范学术不端行为,构建优良的期刊发展生态.在政府推动改革的大背景下,“十三五”是壮大优质期刊群,提升期刊国际化水平的关键时期,学术环境的整治将会推动个刊的良性发展. 相似文献
17.
18.
19.
科技期刊审稿专家在审稿期内对论文进行专业、具体、公正的评价是三审制的重要核心环节,直接影响论文的取舍与发表周期。但在实际处理稿件流程中,专家拒审或拖延审稿现象时有发生。文章通过分析专家拒审或拖延审稿具体原因,提出相应应对措施,以期减少此类现象发生,缩短期刊评审时间与出版时滞,提高刊物的时效性以加快科技信息的传播速度。 相似文献
20.
我国实行匿名审稿制度的社科期刊很少,原因在于编辑主体对匿名审稿制度的认识不足,社科期刊界尚未形成良好的匿名审稿大气候,审稿专家难找且需要一定的经济支出.基于此,应提高编辑认识,重视匿名审稿;学习先进期刊,建立匿名审稿制度;充分调查研究,制订行业规范;建立审稿专家库,增加投入,解决审稿费用. 相似文献