共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 123 毫秒
1.
2.
对武警系统“八五”、“九五”期间发表的生物医学科技论文从年代分布、作者发文及高产作者群分布、期刊载文及核心期刊分布 ,机构发文及核心发文机构、以及武警医学论文是否具有集中离散规律等进行文献调研和计量分析 ,并与 1981-1990年 (前 10年 )、1994-1998年发表的论文情况进行对比分析。全面地探讨武警系统生物医学论文的产出规律 ,为武警系统管理层决策和科研管理提供评价依据和信息支持 ,同时就武警系统医学科技人员投稿导向问题和武警医学科研发展等提出了一些建议 ,希能对武警系统科技水平的长足发展有所启示 相似文献
3.
稿件是科技期刊生存和发展的基础.没有稿件,期刊就不能出版;没有优秀稿件,期刊就不能发展[1].任何一种科技期刊,倘若没有来自全国乃至世界各地的大量的稿件,都将无法办出高质量、高水平的刊物,而且,在期刊业竞争日趋激烈的今天,作者来稿的快慢与多寡在很大程度上影响着期刊的出版时滞与刊物质量. 相似文献
4.
近十年三北地区中专图书馆论文分析 总被引：2，自引：0，他引：2
以国内主要检索刊物和国家图书馆原文期刊为信息源,从发文数量、研究内容、作者队伍、发文期刊和论文摘引状况五方面,对近十年三北地区(东北、华北、西北)作者发表的中专图书馆研究论文进行了统计分析,分析结果可为了解其研究近况提供事实依据. 相似文献
5.
一、施行激励作者的必要性和可行性影响和决定期刊质量的要素很多,其中最重要的是人的因素,一是期刊的编辑人员(包括审稿人),一是作者。作者是刊物稿件的“最初生产者”,编辑人员的大量劳动部是在作者原稿的基础上展开的。质量较差而勉强通过审稿的稿件,任凭责任编辑花上多少“加工”的力气,都难以获得较高的发表价值;而基础较好,质量较高的稿件,不但可以省却或减少编辑人 相似文献
6.
7.
8.
稿件的质量决定期刊的质量。刊物使用的稿件主要来自作者投稿和约稿两大类,如果编辑能从大量的来稿中选择出优秀稿件,并能结合刊物需要约稿,刊物质量就会得到保证。 相似文献
9.
研究CSSCI来源期刊发文头部机构固化现象,对理解期刊发文规律、优化评价机制和推动学科生态改善都具有重要意义。文章通过统计分析2000-2019年图情档学科19种CSSCI来源期刊中发文的作者单位、地域、学术背景等,发现期刊发文头部机构固化的形成受多重因素影响,包括发文机构的学科优势、期刊创办单位的性质、地缘和学缘等。文章考察这一现象对学科生态带来的主要影响,从理念、实践和制度等方面提出克服发文机构固化建议,为科研评价克服唯论文意识、加强论文质量评价、推动学科发展提供参考。 相似文献
10.
在生物医学期刊的编辑工作中,时常可以发现稿件中P值的误用。文章分析稿件中P值的意义、报告、描述和解释的误用情况及其对文章科学性的影响,提出相应的解决方法,并指出置信区间对P值局限性的补充作用。认为生物医学期刊编辑应当增强统计学观念,在处理稿件时严把统计学质量关,以达到提高期刊学术质量的目的。 相似文献
11.
不同文种"一稿两投"的国际规范及我国应采取的编辑政策 总被引：8，自引：0，他引：8
就生物医学论文以不同的文种、在不同的国家再次发表的行业国际规范进行调研,认定同一论文以不同的文种在国内外生物医学期刊上相继发表不属于国际生物医学期刊界违反版权法和科学道德的一稿多投行为.提出为了既有利于扩大我国高水平的生物医学科研成果在国际上的影响,又能使这些成果在国内学术期刊上有所反映,满足国内广大读者的需要, 可以将在国际生物医学期刊上发表的英文论文以中文全文再次发表在国内生物医学期刊上, 或以"述评""摘要"等多种形式在国内生物医学期刊上予以介绍.然而中文全文的再次发表必须是有选择的、有比例的,同时必须满足国际规范的各项规定和要求. 相似文献
12.
The public sharing of primary research datasets potentially benefits the research community but is not yet common practice. In this pilot study, we analyzed whether data sharing frequency was associated with funder and publisher requirements, journal impact factor, or investigator experience and impact. Across 397 recent biomedical microarray studies, we found investigators were more likely to publicly share their raw dataset when their study was published in a high-impact journal and when the first or last authors had high levels of career experience and impact. We estimate the USA's National Institutes of Health (NIH) data sharing policy applied to 19% of the studies in our cohort; being subject to the NIH data sharing plan requirement was not found to correlate with increased data sharing behavior in multivariate logistic regression analysis. Studies published in journals that required a database submission accession number as a condition of publication were more likely to share their data, but this trend was not statistically significant. These early results will inform our ongoing larger analysis, and hopefully contribute to the development of more effective data sharing initiatives. 相似文献
13.
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
14.
Tove Faber Frandsen 《Learned Publishing》2019,32(1):57-62
Peer review is a cornerstone of scientific publication, and consequently, predatory journals are feared to be a threat to the credibility of science as they perform no or low‐quality peer review. The question of why researchers decide to publish in a questionable journal remains relatively unexplored. This paper provides an overview of the existing literature on why researchers decide to publish papers in questionable journals, specifically whether or not they search for a low‐barrier way to getting published while being aware that the chosen journal probably does not adhere to acceptable academic standards. The choice of a publication outlet can be seen as a submission tree that consists of various incentives, and explaining why authors publish in deceptive journals may thus consist of a combination of awareness and motivational factors. Awareness and motivation of diligent authors is very different from that of unethical authors. Unethical authors may use a lack of awareness to excuse their actions, but they may actively search for a low‐barrier way to getting published. As there are different types of authors who publish in deceptive journals, we need different approaches to solve the problem. 相似文献
15.
Objective: The research analyzes usage of a major biomedical library''s pre-1993 print journal collection.Methodology: In July 2003, in preparation for a renovation and expansion project, the Biomedical Library at the University of California, San Diego, moved all of its pre-1993 journal volumes off-site, with the exception of twenty-two heavily used titles. Patrons wishing to consult one of these stored volumes could request that it be delivered to the library for their use. In the spring of 2006, an analysis was made of these requests.Results: By July of 2006, 79,827 journal volumes published in 1992 or earlier had been requested from storage. The number of requests received declined with age of publication. The usage distribution exhibited a “long tail”: 50% of the 79,827 requests were for journal volumes published before 1986. The availability of electronic access dramatically reduced the chance that corresponding print journal volumes would be requested.Conclusions: The older biomedical print journal literature appears to be of continued value to the biomedical research community. When electronic access was provided to the older literature, demand for older print volumes declined dramatically.
Highlights
- Analysis of requests for stored biomedical journal volumes published prior to 1993 indicates that older biomedical journal literature receives substantial use: during this 3-year study, there were nearly 80,000 requests for journal volumes published in 1992 or earlier, with half the requests for volumes published from 1986–1992 and 40% of the request for volumes published from 1970–1985. These results indicate that retaining older print volumes, or providing easy access to the older literature through electronic journals or other means, will likely be required to meet user information needs.
- Use of older journal volumes varies by title and by user population, and a small number of journal titles were responsible for most of the use.
- Requests for older print biomedical journal titles dropped significantly when electronic access became available.
Implications
- Biomedical libraries should carefully consider implications of eliminating on-site access to older journal literature for users and budgets.
- Removing access to older journal literature may result in higher demand for interlibrary loan and document delivery services.
- Biomedical libraries can safely substitute reliable electronic access to older literature to meet ongoing needs for this information, thereby creating space for other purposes.
16.
17.
18.
19.
Isaias Arriola‐Quiroz Walter H. Curioso MD MPH Maria Cruz‐Encarnacion Oscar Gayoso MD 《Health information and libraries journal》2010,27(2):148-154
Background: Many medical schools require a student thesis before graduation. Publishing results in a peer‐reviewed journal could be an indicator of scientific value and acceptability by the scientific community. The publication pattern of theses published by medical students in Peru is unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the characteristics and publication pattern of theses in biomedical‐indexed journals conducted by medical students in a university with the highest research output in Peru. Methods: Data from registered theses between 2000 and 2003 were obtained from the university library. Publication of theses in biomedical journals was assessed in 2008 by a search strategy using PubMed, Google Scholar, LILACS, LIPECS and SciELO. Results: Four hundred and eighty‐two medical theses were registered between 2000 and 2003; 85 (17.6%) were published in biomedical‐indexed journals. Of the published theses, 28 (5.8%) were published in MEDLINE‐indexed journals, 55 (11.4%) in SciELO‐indexed journals, 61 (12.6%) in LILACS‐indexed journals and 68 (14.1%) in LIPECS‐indexed journals. Most of the published theses (80%) were in Spanish and published in Peruvian journals; and 17 theses (20%) were published in foreign journals (all of them indexed in MEDLINE). In addition, 37 (43.5%) belong primarily to internal medicine, and 24 (28.2%) belong primarily to infectious diseases. Medical students were first authors in 71 (83.5%) of the articles. Conclusion: In this study, most of the published theses were in Spanish, published in local journals and indexed in LIPECS. The percentage of published theses in biomedical journals at this university is comparable with others coming from developed countries. 相似文献
20.
基于普赖斯定律和二八定律及在线投稿系统构建某科技期刊核心作者用户库 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
以某刊为例,根据普莱斯定律及2013-2015年在某刊的投稿情况设定满足条件:1)2013-2015年发文量≥2篇;2)A:2013-2015年连续3年均在该刊投稿;B:2014年或2015在该刊投稿量≥2篇的作者用户(满足条件2中的A或B均可)为高发文量且对投稿某刊有一定青睐程度的核心作者候选用户.根据二八定律确定文章被引频次或下载频次在各年排名前20％左右的文章作者为具有高影响力的核心作者候选人.将既满足高发文量、高影响力且对投稿某刊有一定青睐程度的作者用户作为该刊的核心作者用户群,构建核心作者用户库,通过为该批用户提供更加优质服务激发他们的写作热情和投稿热情,以吸引优质稿件.最终纳入74名作者用户为该刊的核心作者用户群,共投稿306篇,录用200篇,最高录用比100％,最低28.6％,平均65.4％,其中下载频次或被引频次在各年进入前20％的文章总数为99篇,占比49.5％,最高被引频次14次,最高下载频次314次. 相似文献