共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 31 毫秒
1.
2.
Katherine G. Akers 《Journal of the Medical Library Association》2021,109(2):163
The Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA) sincerely thanks the 214 peer reviewers in 2020 who helped vet and improve the quality of work published in our journal.The Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA) sincerely thanks the 214 peer reviewers in 2020 who helped vet and improve the quality of work published in our journal.JMLA is always looking to expand our pool of reviewers with expertise in specific domains in health sciences librarianship research and practice. If you would like to serve as a peer reviewer for JMLA, please indicate your interest to an assistant editor, an associate editor, or the editor-in-chief. 相似文献
3.
4.
Should authors suggest reviewers? A comparative study of the performance of author‐suggested and editor‐selected reviewers at a biological journal 
下载免费PDF全文
下载免费PDF全文 Yan Liang 《Learned Publishing》2018,31(3):216-221
To evaluate peer review of author‐suggested reviewers (Ra), this research compared them with editor‐selected reviewers (Re) using 1‐year data collected from Journal of Systematics and Evolution. The results indicated that (1) Ra responded more positively than Re, that is, accepted invitations to review more often, more likely to suggest alternative reviewers, and less likely to neglect a review invitation; (2) there was no statistically significant difference in timeliness between Ra and Re; (3) editors rated Re reviews of higher quality than Ra reviews, but the word count length of these reviews did not differ statistically; (4) Ra made more favourable publication recommendations than Re; and (5) Ra were more often based in the country of the authors than Re, and this correlated with the location effect on reviewer response and publication recommendations. These results suggest that authors should be encouraged to suggest reviewers. However, in terms of policy or procedure based on the results of this study, journals/editors should collect and consult at least one review from other sources than author suggested, and when reviewers nominated by authors are considered, priority should be given to those with different locations from the authors. 相似文献
5.
Noel McGlinchey Tom Hunter Jack Bromley Ruth Fisher Anna Debiec‐Waszak Thomas Gaston 《Learned Publishing》2019,32(1):37-46
The study aimed to find whether journal editorial office administrators were as effective as editors at assigning rigorous reviewers. We analysed four journals using blended systems of editor‐selected reviewers (ESR) and Journal Administrator‐selected reviewers (JASR) from four disciplines: medicine, sociology, education, and business/applied psychology. In blended journals, both editors and Journal Administrators select authors to review using web‐based expert‐finding tools. All reviewers selected were both authors and reviewers. We primarily wanted to assess the quality of reviews from both ESR and JASR reviewer selection methodologies. Reviewer rigour was defined as differences between editor decisions and reviewer recommendations. Timeliness data were also recorded and analysed separately as an indicator of efficiency. Reviewer rigour, the quality of reviewers’ evaluations, was estimated from the level of agreement between editors and reviewers. Timeliness was not considered a direct measure of rigour. For two journals, no statistically significant differences were observed; for two, in a small proportion of cases, ESR reviews were more negative. One journal showed some statistically significant major differences but only in 2% of reviews. Timeliness data indicated some statistically significant trends that JASR return reviews more promptly. Therefore, where editors rely on at least two reviewers’ recommendations, JASR is equally rigorous as ESR. 相似文献
6.
专家审稿是审稿工作的重要环节,其积极性高低直接影响审稿质量和速度.分析期刊学术影响力不高,审稿专家劳动价值得不到充分体现,保障、激励和评价机制不健全,编辑送审准备工作不到位、辅助信息提供不完整,以及编辑与审稿专家互动不及时等因素对专家审稿积极性的影响,并据此提出相应对策,以期提高审稿专家的积极性,推动审稿工作顺利进行. 相似文献
7.
审稿人队伍的质量和工作效率直接影响科技期刊的学术质量和出版周期。为此,培养一支优质、高效的审稿人队伍是科技期刊发展的重要保障。本文以《仿生工程学报》为例,探讨英文科技期刊如何建立审稿人队伍,并通过提高稿件初审质量、加强与审稿人的沟通、加大审稿贡献奖励力度、满足优秀审稿人需求等方法来提高审稿人的满意度和审稿积极性,从而留住优秀审稿人乐于为期刊服务。此外,还介绍依托国外同领域优秀期刊,运用Web of Science数据库有针对性地发掘出高学术影响力的作者并吸纳其为审稿人的方法,以不断壮大审稿人队伍,获得优质高效的审稿意见,从而提高期刊的学术质量。 相似文献
8.
9.
努力克服高校学报稿件处理中非理性因素的影响 总被引：3，自引：2，他引：1
由于人情关系等原因 ,使得高校学报编辑部在稿件处理中常常受到许多非理性因素的影响 ,从而影响到学报的整体质量。要克服这些因素的影响 ,学报负责人首先要以身作则 ,严把质量关 ;应实行责任编辑和审稿专家署名制 ;在专家审稿环节中实行“内审”和“外审”相结合 相似文献
10.
11.
从“席位分配”模型到图书馆书刊采购模型 总被引：9，自引：0，他引：9
通过对席位分配模型的研究,从书刊购买的影响因素入手,使用定量的方法,给出了图书馆书刊采购的精确模型。该模型有助于公平地分配经费,购买不同学科书刊。表1。参考文献4。 相似文献
12.
学术期刊要重视外审队伍建设 总被引：21，自引：5，他引：16
学术期刊稿件的学术性较强,由于知识结构问题,编辑人员不可能胜任全部的审稿工作,稿件外审就成为保证刊物质量的重要手段和关键环节.审稿人的素质决定审稿质量,建立一支素质过硬的审稿队伍才能真正保证审稿质量,所以外审队伍建设不容忽视.着重探讨保证外审队伍质量的方法和措施. 相似文献
13.
14.
15.
本文基于概念树计算论文与专家之间的相似度,然后采用基于启发式的最大相似度匹配方法将论文分配给相应的评审专家.基于概念树的相似度计算,可以充分满足主题覆盖度约束;基于启发式的最大相似度匹配算法不仅可以满足利益冲突约束,又可以满足专家工作量约束.最后实验验证了所提算法的有效性. 相似文献
16.
17.
18.
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
19.
20.
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