共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 93 毫秒
1.
专家审稿意见是科技期刊在同行评议过程中学术价值最高的部分,具有一定的发表价值,但在目前多数科技期刊普遍实行的盲法审稿方式下,审稿意见只在专家、编辑和作者之间传递,造成学术资源的巨大浪费。而今同行评议方式向着更多元、更公开的方向发展,公开发表专家审稿意见可以作为实施开放式同行评议的尝试和突破,具有可行性和实践意义。本文建议采取先“精选”后“普及”、逐步推进的审稿意见发表方式,总结出精选审稿意见的遴选标准和程序,讨论了公开发表专家审稿意见对编辑工作的意义,以期为促进同行评议模式的转变,实施开放式同行评议打下基础。 相似文献
2.
刍议科技期刊审稿专家数据库研究与实践 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
科技期刊审稿专家是科技期刊最重要的办刊资源之一,审稿工作要求的不断提高,迫切要求科技期刊编辑部以规范正式的审稿专家数据库代替以往的审稿人临时搜集、主观随意选择方式,并在此基础上实施动态管理和合理使用,从而实现让审稿工作不断趋于科学、简捷、高效和现代 相似文献
3.
4.
5.
关于制订"科技期刊专家审稿规则"的建议 总被引：4，自引：0，他引：4
专家审稿是保证科技期刊审稿质量的关键环节.目前尚无权威部门制定的专家审稿规范或规则.为使专家审稿进一步规范化,提高专家审稿质量,有必要研究、制订统一的专家审稿规则. 相似文献
6.
7.
8.
国外科技期刊审稿的一些特点 总被引：21，自引：12，他引：9
审稿质量的高低直接影响科技期刊的学术质量和学术发展.目前国内外的科技期刊在审稿环节上存在较大的差别,主要体现在稿件的同行评议、专家审阅、审稿重点、重复审稿、审稿时间和网络应用等方面. 相似文献
9.
论科技期刊责任编辑与同行专家审稿 总被引：16，自引：10，他引：6
阐述审稿在科技期刊中的作用,责任编辑与同行专家审稿是保证科技期刊质量的关键,指出审稿专家应为学术造诣精深、学风严谨、为人正直、科学道德高尚的学者,并建议重新编纂一部学科齐全、专业结构和年龄结构合理的审稿人名典. 相似文献
10.
11.
应引导审稿人进行有效的同行评议 总被引：2，自引：0，他引：2
科技期刊的同行评议为稿件学术质量提供了有力保障。在邀请审稿人评审文章时,期刊可以在审稿邀请函和审稿单中加入相关信息,引导审稿人进行有效的同行评议。这种简单的培训方式往往会收到事半功倍的效果。 相似文献
12.
13.
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.
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
17.
18.
对现行审稿模式的思考与建议 总被引：22，自引：8，他引：14
针对我国现行的封闭式审稿模式的缺陷与不足，借鉴国外期刊的审稿模式，提出改进、完善审稿制度的方法。用连续审稿方式取代平行审稿方式，审稿内容首先在审稿人之间公开，在征得审稿人同意的情况下，审稿人姓名与审稿内容向作者公开。在此基础上逐步实行网上公开式审稿制度。 相似文献
19.
科技期刊审稿专家库的构建及有效利用 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
科技期刊审稿专家库建立的目的是方便对审稿专家的选择、审稿信息的存储和审稿工作的统计、评价等。科技期刊编辑部如能规范、系统地着眼实际、放眼未来构建审稿专家库,使之成为科技学术期刊编辑部的有力工具和科技学术期刊质量的强大支撑并借助该工具规范、有效地进行审稿组织工作,则将在审稿工作效率、效果上事半功倍。 相似文献
20.
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