共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 31 毫秒
1.
C C Chen 《Bulletin of the Medical Library Association》1974,62(3):296-301
This is the third part of a comprehensive, quantitative study of biomedical book reviewing. The data base of the total project was built from statistics of 3,347 reviews of 2,067 biomedical books appearing in all 1970 issues of fifty-four reviewing journals. This part of the study explores the duplication patterns in book reviewing among these media. It is found that 35.17% (727 books) of the 2,067 titles were reviewed more than once in 1970, these titles accounting for 2,007 of the total of 3,347 reviews. For the most part, reviews of the most frequently reviewed titles appeared in such journals as British Medical Journal, Annals of Internal Medicine, Lancet, Journal of the American Medical Association, and New England Journal of Medicine. These five journals covered 93.53% of the 727 books reviewed more than once in 1970. 相似文献
2.
This is the first part of a comprehensive, quantitative study of biomedical book reviewing. The data base of the total project was built from statistics taken from all 1970 issues of biomedical journals held in the Science Library of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Of 285 so-called "life sciences" journals held by that library, fifty-four English journals (excluding Science and Nature) were found to contain bona fide book reviews (as contrasted with mere author-title lists) and were therefore selected for close study. The statistical results reveal that there were 3,347 reviews of 2,067 biomedical books in these fifty-four selected journals in 1970. Part I of the study identifies key biomedical reviewing journals of quantitative significance. The top ten journals, British Medical Journal, Lancet, Annals of Internal Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, Archives of Internal Medicine, New England Journal of Medicine, Quarterly Review of Biology, Bioscience, Canadian Medical Association Journal,(*) and American Journal of the Medical Sciences, accounted for 63.03% of the total number of reviews in 1970. 相似文献
3.
C C Chen 《Bulletin of the Medical Library Association》1974,62(3):302-307
This is the fourth part of a comprehensive, quantitative study of biomedical book reviews. The data base of the total project was built from statistics of 3,347 reviews of 2,067 biomedical books taken from all 1970 issues of fifty-four reviewing journals. This part of the study identifies the major American and British biomedical book publishers in terms of their quantitative production of book titles reviewed, and determines the relationships among these publishers. It is found that Williams & Wilkins, Charles C Thomas, Academic Press, and Springer Verlag are the most productive biomedical book publishers in terms of books reviewed in 1970. These four publishers accounted for 32% of the 1,674 books available in the United States and reviewed in the reviewing media in 1970. Williams & Wilkins is especially significant by virtue of reprint activity. The present study also explores the price trend of biomedical books. It is found that the mean price for 1,077 books studied was $16.20 per volume, with a standard deviation of $9.42. 相似文献
4.
C C Chen 《Bulletin of the Medical Library Association》1974,62(3):309-313
This final part in a series of five articles on biomedical book reviewing consists of a list of 145 biomedical monographs which were reviewed four or more times in the year 1970. 相似文献
5.
James Hartley 《Learned Publishing》2018,31(2):169-171
Key points
- The number of printed book reviews in the social sciences is currently declining.
- The number of online book reviews is currently increasing.
- There are ways of measuring the impact of book reviews so that they can be included in research assessment exercises.
6.
Patricia E. Sabosik 《Publishing Research Quarterly》1988,4(2):10-18
Publishers of books for the library and scholarly markets use prepublication reviews to reduce the risk of publishing a book
that does not meet scholarly standards or is not economically justifiable. Book purchasers use postpublication reviews to
reduce the risk of spending their budgets unwisely. Despite problems associated with both sorts of review, they are integral
to the processes of scholarly communication and academic career advancement. The role and policies ofChoice, a book review journal directed toward scholars and librarians of undergraduate-level collections, are discussed in detail. 相似文献
7.
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
8.
傅荣贤 《大学图书情报学刊》2009,27(3):3-5
书评应成为图书控制的一种有效形式。书评的生命在于随变而适,根据图书生产和图书传播的不同特点,用不同的书评品种和类型有针对性地实现对图书的控制。在图书生产领域提出了“版前书评”概念,讨论了其实施生产控制的具体步骤。在图书流通领域,提出了针对图书的纵向流通和横向流通的不同书评类型,并提出通过浓缩性书评以颠覆“选者”的先入之见,直接面向个体读者,真正实现书评的图书控制价值。 相似文献
9.
医学书评关注的是医学图书中学术思想及理论知识界的最新动态,推荐最新学术成果,所评医学图书必须具有学术传承价值并能直面医学发展中遇到的新问题及新挑战。对于医学院校图书馆的资源建设来说,书评可以说是医学知识积累与发展的助推器。本文梳理了中国医科院图书馆近20年医学专家书评工作,介绍了中国医科院图书馆医学书评资源建设的经验,还探索了书评网络平台发布与推广的方式。 相似文献
10.
11.
缩短发表时滞 提高论文的时效性 总被引：55，自引：9，他引：46
论文的发表时滞是评价一种期刊好坏的重要指标。对一些国际知名期刊和我国一些期刊的发表时滞进行了统计和分析。结果表明，我国期刊的发表时滞相对于国际知名期刊偏长。为了缩短发表时滞，提出了几点建议：缩短刊期；加速全文上网；栏目设置多样化；加快稿件的处理；加大退稿率；工作流程实现现代化。 相似文献
12.
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
13.
如何利用中国期刊网审稿 总被引：36，自引：9，他引：27
学科的交叉和渗透给科技期刊编辑初审稿件和送审稿件带来了很大困难。利用中国期刊网有助于稿件的初审，节约初审的时间和精力，同时可以找到合适的审稿专家。举例说明该过程常用的几种检索方式。 相似文献
14.
15.
检查与分析各类数据是论文评审的重要步骤.通过分类整理<地理学报>近3000份审稿意见,发现审稿中需要检查的数据问题主要包括:数据的即时程度、时间尺度、空间范围、抽样密度、选取类型、采集与测试的条件和方法等6方面内容.通过与100多位审稿专家和作者讨论,找出了产生各类问题的原因. 相似文献
16.
Online book reviews reflect readers’ attitudes and opinions and serve as a data source for book impact assessment. Most research has only focused on the number of ratings and reviews to assess the impact of books. However, it is necessary to more thoroughly explore online book reviews, to analyze the viewpoints and sentiments expressed in them and the identity and motivation of the reviewers in order to evaluate the value of different types of book reviews. In this study, we collect Goodreads reviews of books indexed by the Book Citation Index and consider them according to the following three aspects: the popularity of highly cited books in Goodreads, the influence of reviewer roles (of author, librarian, and ordinary user) on book reviews, and the emotions and opinions behind reviewers’ ratings. Results consider the number of books reviewed in different disciplines, the variations in ratings of highly cited and non-highly cited books, differences in book reviews given by the reviewer roles, and the way reviewers express their sentiments about the books. The study concludes that if online reviews are to be used as indicators of book impact assessment, key considerations should include the subject discipline, the reviewer's role, and the sentiment polarity. 相似文献
17.
Lawrence Laurent 《广播与电子媒介杂志》2013,57(1)
Mr. Laurent is the widely‐syndicated Television‐Radio Editor of the Washington Post. This quotation is from a letter to the editor of the Journal in response to an article by Jules Rossman titled “What Do Reviewers Actually Review?” that appeared in the Spring, 1965, issue of the Journal of Broadcasting. 相似文献
18.
Megan A. Vendemia 《Communication Research Reports》2017,34(3):230-238
This study examines credibility perceptions in online consumer reviews. Specifically, this work investigates the effects of review emotionality (high vs. low), review valence (positive vs. negative), and individuals’ need for affect on source credibility and information credibility. In an online experiment, U.S. adults (N = 327) viewed a product review from Amazon.com varied across four experimental conditions. Results indicate that high-emotionality reviews are perceived as lower in source and information credibility compared to low-emotionality reviews. A moderated mediation model was tested with the source credibility dimensions as possible mediators of information credibility and need for affect as a moderator for the effects of review emotionality. The effects of emotionality on information credibility were significantly mediated by source trustworthiness, and this mediation was moderated by participants’ need for affect, with the credibility-hampering effects of emotionality found only among participants with low and moderate levels of need for affect. 相似文献
19.
Carol A. Doll 《Publishing Research Quarterly》1991,7(3):77-89
Do reviews of picture books provide any clues to the likely winner of the Caldecott Medal? Carol Doll examines reviews of books that subsequently won the Caldecott Medal by using analytical techniques that researchers have applied to reviews of picture books generally. Reviews of Caldecott winners differ in a few ways, including frequency and length of reviews. 相似文献
20.
编辑的信息掌控能力在审稿过程中的质控作用 总被引：8，自引：3，他引：5
网络信息时代,科技学术期刊编辑只有具备较强的信息获取、分析和优化能力,才能在稿件审理过程中加强各个评审环节之间的联系,实现编辑对稿件评审质量的控制,并提升稿件的信息价值. 相似文献