共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 171 毫秒
1.
医学学科的日趋细化与跨学科研究的兴起加大了审稿的难度,为了应对所面临的这一问题,《中华消化杂志》在消化科审稿的基础上将病理科、放射科、超声科和统计学科等多学科的审稿全面化和系统化.通过多学科专家的遴选、培训,多学科审稿流程设计、实施和质量控制,以及多学科审稿专家的团队建设与期刊凝聚力的提升,期刊的学术水平得到进一步提高. 相似文献
2.
编辑加工环节的数据分析和质量管理 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
成书质量的好坏与作者的原稿有直接关系,而审读加工则是质量的关键环节。通过归纳审稿差错率、审稿周期、发稿和付型周期等数据并进行分析,可以实现提高审稿质量、保证审稿周期,对审稿工作进行科学管理的目的。 相似文献
3.
4.
介绍国外优秀生物医学期刊深度查证学术图片的特色流程——图片数据完整性分析(data integrity analysis)专岗审核.期刊在审稿流程中设置了图片数据完整性分析的专门岗位,由具备丰富Photoshop软件操作经验的图片分析师,对经同行评议后稿件中的图片进行技术分析,配合作者提交的源数据,审查图片是否存在各类问题尤其是造假的情况.审核效果表明,在经过同行评议后的稿件中仍存在各类图片问题甚至图片造假,该流程对于查证图片造假是非常有效和必要的. 相似文献
5.
学术期刊审稿单的调查分析与制作建议 总被引：4，自引：3，他引：1
通过对54种学术期刊审稿单的调查分析,归纳出这些审稿单中存在着项目设置过滥、不能突出重点、表述不明确等问题.这不利于保证审稿质量.认为编辑是审稿活动的主体,专家审稿的重点是审查创新性,编辑对专家审稿要提出具体要求.在这种认识的基础上制订简明、合理的审稿单. 相似文献
6.
为保证鉴审稿件的质量,各类学报编辑部都致力于将编辑审稿工作规范化,明确指标限额与确立评审标准成为规范化努力的重要产品.然而,在实际审稿活动中,编辑遵奉“资历至上”原则,主要依据投稿人资历资格而非稿件质量来确定鉴审结果,这也成为编辑部不成文的“规范”或“惯例”.编辑部对编辑审稿工作的规范化引发了编辑审稿形式化发展趋势.为稳定和提高稿件质量,多元化的审查方式逐渐取代传统的编辑审稿负责制,多元鉴审主体介入审稿事务,强调鉴审与监察的紧密结合,审稿逐渐走向审查,并由此构建出纵横交织的稿件信息流通监管网络. 相似文献
7.
同行评议是保证期刊学术质量的关键环节.医学高校学报因学科范围广、来稿量大、"本校性"特点、部分专家审稿积极性差、需专业对口的"小同行"审稿专家等原因,需要不断扩增学术水平高、愿意审稿、审稿效率和质量高、研究方向对口、与待审稿件不存在利益冲突并且身份真实可靠的有效审稿专家,以提高审稿效率和审稿质量.我们结合工作实践提出通过检索权威文献数据库筛选审稿专家、核实审稿专家身份、登记详细信息、评价审稿质量等环节扩增有效审稿专家.通过实践,杂志的稿件审稿周期和出版周期均有所缩短,稿源也有所增加. 相似文献
8.
科技期刊收稿回执和审稿通知应规范 总被引：1，自引：1，他引：0
通过分析我国科技期刊的收稿回执和审稿通知,对存在的主要问题包括无回执、周期长和审稿通知内容不全及其危害做了探讨,提出了科技期刊审稿通知应具备的基本元素以及改进编审工作的途径和方法.认为规范科技期刊审稿通知的内容和结构势在必行. 相似文献
9.
以《高等学校化学学报》分编辑部审稿工作为例,对以往送审方案的审稿结果进行统计,分析数据差异所对应的原因以及各送审方案的优缺点。优化送审流程,引入青年执行编委参与审稿后,再统计审稿结果数据,对比指出青年执行编委参与审稿的优势。通过赋予青年编委稿件的初筛权、审稿专家推荐权和处理审稿意见分歧仲裁权,探索以青年执行编委为审稿主体,构建更为科学、公正、高效的审稿机制。 相似文献
10.
11.
12.
Perceptions regarding open science appraised by editors of scholarly publications published in Spain
Remedios Melero Juan-José Boté-Vericad Alexandre López-Borrull 《Learned Publishing》2023,36(2):178-193
Pillars of open science are often included within the editorial policies of scholarly journals, including policies on open access publication, availability of underlying research data, preprints and open peer review. The aim of this paper is to examine and analyse perceptions and editorial practices related to open access, preprints, open research data and open peer review, from the perspective of editors of scientific journals published in Spain, to gain an insight into editorial policies related to open science. Results and data were obtained by a combined method of online interviews and an online questionnaire. The online survey was sent to editors from journals indexed in the Dulcinea directory, which at the time of the study included 1875 academic journals. A total of 420 responses (22.4%) were obtained. The results indicated that 92% of the journals were open access journals, 2% of the journals conducted open peer review, 15% of the journals had instructions to allow archiving preprints, and out of 375 responses, only 59 journals (16%) reported having a policy on underlying research data. Based on these results, there is a trend in favour of open access, but the perceived barriers to open peer review outweighed the advantages. There is also some reluctance to allow preprints to be made available. This concern might be because editors want authors and readers to read and cite the contents published in their journals, rather than their preprint versions. 相似文献
13.
Chris Drummond 《Learned Publishing》2019,32(1):63-69
This paper is a critique of the part played by the reproducible research movement within the scientific community. In particular, it raises concerns about the strong influence the movement is having on which papers are published. The primary effect is through changes to the peer review process. These not only require that the data and software used to generate the reported results be part of the review but also that the novelty criterion should be deprecated. This paper questions a central tenet of the movement, the idea of a single, well‐defined, and iterative scientific method. Philosophers, historians of science, and scientists alike have argued extensively against the idea of a single method. Some going as far as to suggest that there are as many methods as scientists. I am convinced that there are broad, high‐level ideas that bind scientists together. Yet, anything more sharply delineated that could reasonably be entitled a scientific method is not logically or historically justified. If this criticism is accepted, then changes to the peer review process are not warranted. Furthermore, I would contend that the influence the reproducible research movement is having on the publishing of papers, and elsewhere, should be considerably curtailed. 相似文献
14.
Our objective was to perform a pilot study to estimate the proportion of published errata linked to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that are worthwhile obtaining when doing a systematic review. medline was searched for records that had both 'randomized-controlled-trial' in the publication type field and 'erratum' in the comments field. One hundred records from four general medical journals were examined independently from two different perspectives. From the information specialist's perspective, 74% of the errata were considered worthwhile obtaining; these were mainly errors in tables or figures. Another 9% described less serious errors, but were worth obtaining if easily available. The other 17% were minor errors. From the perspective of the experienced reviewer/public health consultant, 5% of errata were classified as likely to affect a meta-analysis, and 10% as having significant errors that would affect the interpretation of the RCT, but no effect on a meta-analysis; 85% were not considered important enough to affect either. About 5% of errata to RCTs appeared to matter in terms of changing the final conclusions of a systematic review. However, the majority of errata were considered to be worthwhile obtaining, on the basis that having full and accurate data can reduce confusion and save reviewers time. 相似文献
15.
Mark H. Lynch 《Government Information Quarterly》1984,1(2):139-156
In the spring of 1983, President Reagan issued a National Security Decision Directive which, among other provisions, mandated that present and future Executive Branch employees and contractors having access to classified information or sensitive compartmented information, the latter being a kind of intelligence data, sign one of two types of nondisclosure agreement. Previously, these types of agreements had been used for the most part only in the intelligence agencies. This article reviews the law which has developed around the prepublication review requirement of Central Intelligence Agency agreements and examines the contracts mandated by the new National Security Decision Directive, identifying issues raised by these agreements in light of the body of case law dealing with the C.I.A.'s system of censorship. With regard to the prepublication review requirement, the focus here is limited to former rather than current officials of the government. 相似文献
16.
Andrew Evan Leykam 《Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Electronic Reserve》2013,23(2):97-121
In Fall 2008, the interlibrary loan office at the College of Staten Island began to use ILLiad and SFX OpenURL to fulfill borrowing requests. Four years later a review showed that patrons used SFX to submit borrowing requests less than half the time. The majority of patrons’ borrowing request submissions were still being entered manually. We decided to review patron submission methods and see what impact this was having on transactions. We also explored possible patterns in order to encourage SFX usage and improve patron services. Reasons for this behavior are suggested and future solutions are explored. 相似文献
17.
数据是科学假设、科学分析以及科学理论形成的基础证据,是同行科学家数据评估和检测科研结果的重要证据。数据出版是数据开放共享的重要手段之一。在数据出版的过程中,对数据的评审是重要的环节之一。文章通过对现有数据出版平台中数据评审要求进行调研,并基于FAIR数据共享原则,旨在提出一种数据期刊中科学数据的同行评议指标体系,从而提升数据质量审核,促进科学数据的可发现(findable)、可访问(accessible)、可理解(intelligible)、可重用(reusable),进而推进科学数据的开放、共享和引用。 相似文献
18.
科学数据仓储是未来科学数据出版的主导性媒介之一。本文以数据出版流程为切入点,从数据提交、数据存储、数据审核和数据发布4个方面对科学数据仓储的出版功能进行分析,试图为规范科学数据仓储的出版功能提供建议:建立以自助提交为主的提交模式,制定本仓储科学数据质量审核标准,施行自动审核与人工审核并行的质量审核方式,采用多渠道发布数据集,为数据集提供数字对象唯一标识符。 相似文献
19.
Brian Jackson 《The Journal of Academic Librarianship》2018,44(5):603-612
Academic libraries have to a large extent taken the lead in facilitating new approaches to research data management, but changes to the research data landscape have had an impact on numerous areas of academic work, including ethics review. Using interpretive phenomenological analysis of interviews with chairs of Canadian research ethics boards, this study explores how ethics review boards have experienced changes to data policy and related technologies in order to describe the ethical implications of new approaches to data management and to explore ways in which the library, ethics review boards, and other campus partners might harmonize efforts to support emerging data practices. While ethics review boards in Canada are keenly aware of open data policies, data publishing in practice is still nascent. There is uncertainty about the adoption of changing technologies for research and their impacts on privacy protection. Where responsibility lies for addressing these uncertainties is often unclear. Academic libraries and research ethics boards are well-suited to engage in mutual knowledge transfer and to integrate data management planning and ethics review processes. Institutional-level oversight that includes all campus departments impacted by changes to the research data landscape may facilitate improved communication and reduce role ambiguity. 相似文献
20.
数据期刊同行评议视角下科学数据质量评价指标识别 总被引：1，自引：1，他引：0
[目的/意义] 在数据期刊同行评议的视角下识别并构建科学数据质量评价指标，增强对科学数据质量评价的理解，为数据论文同行评议实践提供参考。[方法/过程] 利用扎根理论的研究方法，选取20个数据期刊的数据同行评议指南作为质性研究的原始资料，并使用NVivo质性分析软件对资料进行开放式编码、关联式编码和选择性编码，通过理论饱和度检验对编码结果进行检验。[结果/结论] 最终构建数据论文同行评议情境下的科学数据质量评价指标体系，识别出数据内在质量、数据表达质量、数据访问质量和数据效用质量4个主范畴和14个评价指标，并具体分析指标的含义及分类，帮助数据论文作者和评审者深入了解科学数据质量的内在结构。 相似文献