共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 406 毫秒
1.
2.
对于论文发表费,社会上有很多争议,也存在不少误解,这往往是由于对传播环节的不了解和不正确认识所致.作为一名身在出版业的编辑人员,在充分了解传播的意义,并正视自身价值的前提下,我认为科技期刊应该收取论文发表费.下面主要从正反两方面加以论述. 相似文献
3.
PeerJ作为一种网络出版的新模式,其内容包括终身免收论文发表费的作者会员制、鼓励公开责任编辑和同行评审专家姓名和评审内容、缩短发表周期、影响力提升策略、基于网络的文章层次的评价指标,以及论文预印服务等,总结这一出版新模式的成功经验,对于克服我国OA出版办刊模式存在的弊端,完善我国学术期刊OA出版具有很好的借鉴作用. 相似文献
4.
“版面费”难题的成因与破解 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
一、“版面费”的含义及其表现形式版面费一般指正式学术期刊编辑部刊用作者文章时向作者收取的费用。版面费又称发表费、文章处理费。目前不少学术期刊收取作者的版面费成了“潜规则”。有时版面费改头换面以“订刊费”的面目出现。学术期刊编辑部往往对稿件划分为外稿、内稿,内稿有的不收、有的少收版面费。根据刊物的级别,版面费的价格标准不同;根据刊物影响力,是否为核心期刊,收费标准也不同。有的是根据字数,有的是按照每篇收取若干费用。不同刊物收取的版面费不同,少则几百元,多则上中国出版CHINA PUBLISHING JOURNAL2006年… 相似文献
5.
学术期刊的优先出版加快了我国科技论文发表的速度,缩短了发表时滞,提高了我国科技论文的影响力,但也出现了一些问题和冲突.文章分析学术期刊优先出版与印刷出版出现的问题和冲突,并提出解决问题和冲突的对策,以不断提升优先出版的学术期刊的影响力. 相似文献
6.
科技学术期刊收取版面费情况 总被引：3，自引：0，他引：3
为了逐步改变单靠国家拨款补贴亏损的局面,最近几年有些科技学术期刊在出版改革中试行的一项措施就是收取版面费(或称为发表费)。1988年6月,中国科学技术协会向所属学会发出了《关于建议各学会学术期刊收取版面费的通知》,1989年中国科学院向所属各刊编辑部也发了同类通知。这两个主管单位所属各刊按通知的要求坚持以 相似文献
7.
国外物理类期刊出版费收取情况调查 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
针对目前学术界比较关注的论文出版费用收取的问题,调查了美国物理学会、美国物理联合会、英国物理学会、日本物理学会、荷兰Elsevier等5家出版机构旗下的在物理界有影响的期刊,分析了版面费、彩版费和开放存取费收取的情况.结果表明,大多数物理类期刊都是收取相关费用的.希望调查结果能对国内期刊的发展有所帮助. 相似文献
8.
目前我国内地出版社出版科技专著时,多向作者收取数额不等的出版费.对于成本相当的专著,规模较小、急欲抢占市场与打造品牌的出版社可能收取较少,甚至有所亏损也在所不惜;规模较大、已成品牌的出版社,相对收得多一些.总体来说,近几年,随着宏观经济状况的变化,专著出版费.数额呈上涨趋势,在我国总体政治经济框架下,这有一定的必然性,但对科技出版的发展也有很多负面影响.
发达国家的出版社出版科技专著,不管是规模较小的出版社,还是庞大的出版社,多数不向个人作者收取出版费用,并且有稿酬.如果作者是某公司组织,则有可能酌情收取出版费. 相似文献
9.
10.
11.
The article processing charge (APC) is currently the primary method of funding professionally published open access (OA) peer‐reviewed journals. The pricing principles of 77 OA publishers publishing over 1,000 journals using APCs were studied and classified. The most commonly used pricing method is a single fixed fee, which can either be the same for all of a publisher's journals or individually determined for each journal. Fees are usually only levied for publication of accepted papers, but there are some journals that also charge submission fees. Instead of fixed prices, many publishers charge by the page or have multi‐tiered fees depending on the length of articles. The country of origin of the author can also influence the pricing, in order to facilitate publishing for authors from developing countries. 相似文献
12.
13.
明确学术出版道德 强化期刊编辑规范 总被引：3，自引：3，他引：0
评述国内外编辑团体出版的各项道德规范,从重复发表、一稿多投、剽窃、未公开的利益冲突、作者署名、数据造假、研究伦理7个方面,比较国际出版道德委员会(COPE)、国际医学期刊编辑委员会(ICMJE)、欧洲科学编辑学会(EASE)制定的道德规范的异同.分析表明:3家机构制定的学术道德规范形式不同,内容各有侧重,但影响力还有提升空间;中国制订科技期刊编辑出版道德规范时应借鉴国内外的成功经验,甄别出期刊编辑关心的核心问题,采用适合的内容和形式,制订符合中国学术出版生态的编辑实践指南;在指南出台后,应积极进行推广培训,切实应用于学术出版中. 相似文献
14.
15.
16.
17.
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
18.
19.
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
20.
Leo Walford 《Learned Publishing》2000,13(1):49-52
The Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) plays a major part in academic life in the UK. One of its chief measures of ‘research performance’ relates to the publication of articles in refereed scholarly journals. This paper examines the effect of the RAE on the journal publishing system, looking at the communities of authors, editors, and publishers. 相似文献