共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 31 毫秒
1.
同行审稿是保障期刊学术质量的重要环节,但同行专家审稿积极性不高、拒绝审稿、勉强审稿已成为普遍现象.如何提高审稿专家的积极性,是学术期刊亟待解决的共性问题.文章以《中国天然药物》编辑部近年来约请审稿人的实践心得为基础,讨论提高专家审稿积极性的措施:选择潜在作者群作为审稿专家,避免过量送审,加大初审退稿率,尊重审稿专家的要求,与无反馈的审稿专家取得联系,利用ORCID认可审稿专家的贡献等,旨在致力于提高专家的审稿同意率,从而在源头上推动期刊的发展. 相似文献
2.
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
3.
4.
- Peer review is used to evaluate research, including publications, scientific awards, and grant proposals, and there is a continuum of at least six approaches to review from completely closed, double‐blind review to fully‐open and citable peer review.
- It is getting harder to find suitable experts to serve as reviewers so publishers and others are experimenting with methods to incentivize researcher participation, with a growing interest in enabling citation of peer‐review activity as a component.
- A Working Group on Peer Review Service, facilitated by CASRAI, was created to develop a data model and citation standard for peer‐review activity that can be used to support both existing and new review models.
- Standardized citation structures for reviews can enable the inclusion of peer‐review activity in personal recognition and evaluation, as well the ability to refer to reviews as part of the scholarly literature.
5.
选择合适审稿人提高刊物学术质量--《武汉理工大学学报-材料科学版》(英文版)遴选审稿人的体会 总被引：17，自引：7，他引：10
根据<武汉理工大学学报-材料科学版>(英文版)的审稿程序及专家审稿过程中存在的问题,提出了提高审稿费,加大刊物宣传力度,多渠道选择审稿人并对他们进行动态调整,利用现代化通信工具送审,必要时请作者推荐相关审稿人等措施来解决这些问题.通过这些方法,编辑能找到合适的审稿人,保证审稿的质量与时效性,为提高刊物的学术质量打下了坚实基础. 相似文献
6.
7.
8.
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
9.
10.
Hamid R. Jamali David Nicholas Anthony Watkinson Abdullah Abrizah Blanca Rodríguez‐Bravo Cherifa Boukacem‐Zeghmouri Jie Xu Tatiana Polezhaeva Eti Herman Marzena
wigon 《Learned Publishing》2020,33(2):142-152
This article reports on the findings of an international online survey of early career researchers (ECRs) with regard to their authorship and peer review, attitudes, and practices, which sought to discover how the new wave of researchers were utilizing these key aspects of the scholarly communications system. A questionnaire was developed on the back of a 3‐year longitudinal, qualitative study and was distributed through publisher lists, social media networks, university networks, and specialist ECR membership organizations. Identical English, Polish, Russian, Chinese, Spanish, and French versions of the questionnaire were used. Results from 1,600 respondents demonstrated that 82.7% had co‐authored a paper, and most had performed a variety of authorship tasks. Almost half the respondents reported being subject to various authorship policies, although a quarter said they were not aware of any such policies. Almost all Chinese ECRs reported being subject to authorship policies, but only a third of UK ECRs reported the same. Three‐quarters of ECRs had experience in responding to peer review, and half had been peer reviewers. Half the respondents had a good experience of review and viewed it as a valuable way to improve their authorship skills. However, there was some criticism of some shortcoming such as lengthy peer review and superficial or uninformed comments by reviewers. Double‐blind review was the preferred methodology, and there were few suggestions for how to improve the review process. 相似文献
11.
Owen KULEMEKA 《Learned Publishing》2014,27(4):301-313
This study examined the views of advertising academics regarding the peer‐review process in English‐language advertising journals. Three issues were examined. First, how do advertising academics assess the peer‐review process in advertising journals on the following dimensions: fairness, anonymity (truly double‐blind), timeliness, and effectiveness in improving the quality of research? Second, how do they perceive the ethicality of review process behaviors? Third, what steps do they suggest for improving the quality or integrity of the peer‐review process? Data was collected through a survey of US‐based advertising academics. The findings reveal that advertising academics believe that, for the most part, advertising journals are succeeding at fairness, protecting anonymity, improving the research of submitters, and avoiding ethical infractions in the review process. However, advertising academics would like to see improvements in timeliness as well as in incentives and guidelines provided to participants in the peer‐review process. 相似文献
12.
从《大连交通大学学报》的一类滞审稿件中,选取最具代表性的一篇论文,分析其送审过程和审稿结果,探讨适合刊物自身特点的审稿专家遴选方法。编辑在选择审稿专家时要考虑以下几个方面:选择小同行审稿专家、内外交叉审稿、选择学术水平相对较高的审稿专家,同时注意多关注和挖掘学术活跃度高、精力旺盛的青年审稿人,建设有针对性的审稿专家队伍,以期提高审稿效率和审稿质量。 相似文献
13.
专家审稿工作中的问题与对策 总被引：18，自引：3，他引：15
有感于审稿的重要性,编辑部及编辑对审稿人和审稿工作的影响,针对专家审稿工作中存在的问题,即审稿时间长、审稿意见简单、审稿意见相左等,提出了改进专家审稿工作的建议和对策. 相似文献
14.
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
15.
16.
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
17.
[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
18.
19.
Michael Jubb 《Learned Publishing》2016,29(1):13-21
This paper is based on research commissioned by the Wellcome Trust in 2015 and catalogues current initiatives and trends in the systems and processes surrounding peer review. It considers issues such as open and interactive reviews, post‐publication comments and ratings, and the platforms provided by both publishers and other organisations to support such activity; third‐party peer review platforms; and measures from publishers and others to provide more recognition and rewards for peer reviewers. It also speculates on likely key trends in peer review for the future. 相似文献
20.