共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 718 毫秒
1.
学术论文的发表极其依赖于高质量的同行评议,尽管同行评议不尽善尽美,但能帮助作者提高论文的写作水平以及编辑人员的编辑水平。研究发现,对审稿质量做出最佳贡献的预测因素包括是否为大学附属医院工作的审稿人或研究生毕业10年内的年轻人。目前进一步改善审稿方法的效果很有限,因此有专家建议对审稿人进行正规培训。期刊及其编辑在选择审稿人时,要考虑他们具备何种知识和技能,是否有丰富的审稿经验。这有助于期刊编辑出版单位选择到合适的审稿人,并提高审稿质量。 相似文献
2.
Quality scholarly research outputs, such as peer reviewed journal articles published in reputable journals, are essential for early career researchers' (ECRs) vocational success while also offering benefits for their institutions. Research outputs destined for audiences beyond academia are also increasingly valued by funders, end users, and tertiary institutions. While there is an expectation that ECRs may create diverse research outputs for an array of audiences, the kinds of research output texts produced by ECRs for varied audiences warrants further investigation. In addition, the routes of dissemination that ECRs use to share their academic research outputs to secure impact beyond academia are not well understood. Drawing on semi‐structured interviews of 30 respondents in Australia and Japan, we explore the research‐sharing practices of ECRs, finding that ECRs may potentially create a wide range of research‐informed texts for end users beyond academia, using an array of methods for dissemination. The examples of the output text types and dissemination routes we provide in this paper can be used to inspire ECRs and also more senior academics to share their research more broadly, and perhaps more effectively, and can be used by publishers to improve research impact and support ECRs' research translation. 相似文献
3.
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
4.
Blanca Rodríguez‐Bravo David Nicholas Eti Herman Chérifa Boukacem‐Zeghmouri Anthony Watkinson Jie Xu Abdullah Abrizah Marzena Świgoń 《Learned Publishing》2017,30(4):269-277
This paper presents selected findings from the first year of a 3‐year longitudinal study of early career researchers (ECRs), which sought to ascertain current and changing habits in scholarly communication. Specifically, the aims of the paper are to show: (1) how much experience and knowledge ECRs had of peer review – both as authors and as reviewers; (2) what they felt the benefits were and what suggestions they had for improvement; (3) what they thought of open peer review (OPR); and (4) who they felt should organize peer review. Data were obtained from 116 science and social science ECRs, most of whom had published and were subject to in‐depth interviews conducted face‐to‐face, via Skype, or over the telephone. An extensive literature review was also conducted to provide a context and supplementary data for the findings. The main findings were that: (1) most ECRS are well informed about peer review and generally like the experience, largely because of the learning experiences obtained; (2) they like blind double‐peer review, but would like some improvements, especially with regards to reviewer quality; (3) most are uncomfortable with the idea of OPR; and (4) most would like publishers to continue organizing peer review because of their perceived independence. 相似文献
5.
退稿转投时带来的发表延误和同行评审重负是一个受到各界重视但未能得到有效解决的问题。结合文献和国际著名期刊网站的调研与分析表明,便携式同行评审与稿件转投服务为解决这一问题提供了方向。退稿及其同行评审的转投推荐能提高转投稿件处理效率、缓解同行评审压力,也是提升作者科学素养的现实途径,对我国科技期刊改善同行评审和期刊合作、缩短稿件出版周期具有借鉴价值。 相似文献
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Firefighters are routinely exposed to situations involving contact with deceased or injured children, burned and seriously injured bodies, and high-uncertainty calls. Thus, many firefighters suffer debilitating consequences including depression, dysfunctional drinking, and posttraumatic stress disorder. Using an identity tensions framework, we sought to understand the challenges firefighters encounter as they cope with exposure to traumatic events. We interviewed 27 members of a rural fire department and used a constant comparative method to analyze their responses. We found trauma was induced when occupational identity intersected futile situations and those involving children; tensions emerged between traditional and newer, emergent firefighting cultures; and firefighters experience tensions in negotiating how and when to express emotion. Based on these findings, we offer a number of practical implications centering on an occupational identity tensions framework to encourage reflexivity in firefighters and moving beyond older, enduring stereotypes of what it means to be a firefighter. 相似文献
11.
12.
选择合适审稿人提高刊物学术质量--《武汉理工大学学报-材料科学版》(英文版)遴选审稿人的体会 总被引：17，自引：7，他引：10
根据<武汉理工大学学报-材料科学版>(英文版)的审稿程序及专家审稿过程中存在的问题,提出了提高审稿费,加大刊物宣传力度,多渠道选择审稿人并对他们进行动态调整,利用现代化通信工具送审,必要时请作者推荐相关审稿人等措施来解决这些问题.通过这些方法,编辑能找到合适的审稿人,保证审稿的质量与时效性,为提高刊物的学术质量打下了坚实基础. 相似文献
13.
14.
15.
16.
国外期刊论文同行评议创新态势述评 总被引：1，自引：1，他引：1
[目的/意义]综述国外期刊论文同行评议的创新实践,以期为国内学术出版提供参考。[方法/过程]通过对国外期刊论文同行评议的创新实践加以述评,分析其优势和挑战,总结创新实践的整体趋势。[结果/结论]预印本和发表后同行评议反映了人们对同行评议更快捷的期待,非选择性同行评议和注册报告反映了人们对同行评议更客观的期待,开放同行评议和协作同行评议反映了人们对同行评议更公平的期待,而这些创新实践具有各自的优势及挑战。国外期刊论文同行评议的创新实践总体上呈现出加快发表速度、拓宽发文范围、弱化以刊评文、促进科学民主和认证审稿贡献的趋势。 相似文献
17.
18.
Heidi Allen Alexandra Cury Thomas Gaston Chris Graf Hannah Wakley Michael Willis 《Learned Publishing》2019,32(2):163-175
We conducted a literature review of best practice in peer review. Following this research, we identified five principles for better peer review: Content Integrity, Content Ethics, Fairness, Usefulness, and Timeliness. For each of these principles, we have developed a set of recommendations to improve peer review standards. In this article, we describe the role of peer review and how our five principles support that goal. This article is intended to continue the conversation about improving peer review standards and provide guidance to journal teams looking to improve their standards. It is accompanied by a detailed checklist, which could be used by journal teams to assess their current peer review standards. 相似文献
19.
Hamid R. Jamali David Nicholas Anthony Watkinson Abdullah Abrizah Blanca Rodríguez‐Bravo Cherifa Boukacem‐Zeghmouri Jie Xu Tatiana Polezhaeva Eti Herman Marzena
wigon 《Learned Publishing》2020,33(2):142-152
This article reports on the findings of an international online survey of early career researchers (ECRs) with regard to their authorship and peer review, attitudes, and practices, which sought to discover how the new wave of researchers were utilizing these key aspects of the scholarly communications system. A questionnaire was developed on the back of a 3‐year longitudinal, qualitative study and was distributed through publisher lists, social media networks, university networks, and specialist ECR membership organizations. Identical English, Polish, Russian, Chinese, Spanish, and French versions of the questionnaire were used. Results from 1,600 respondents demonstrated that 82.7% had co‐authored a paper, and most had performed a variety of authorship tasks. Almost half the respondents reported being subject to various authorship policies, although a quarter said they were not aware of any such policies. Almost all Chinese ECRs reported being subject to authorship policies, but only a third of UK ECRs reported the same. Three‐quarters of ECRs had experience in responding to peer review, and half had been peer reviewers. Half the respondents had a good experience of review and viewed it as a valuable way to improve their authorship skills. However, there was some criticism of some shortcoming such as lengthy peer review and superficial or uninformed comments by reviewers. Double‐blind review was the preferred methodology, and there were few suggestions for how to improve the review process. 相似文献
20.
[目的/意义] 探讨开放同行评议（OPR）对期刊论文的引文及社会关注度的影响。[方法/过程] 采用描述性统计及配对样本非参数检验方法，比较OPR与非OPR期刊在期刊年龄、SCI年龄、国别、出版周期、开放存取、评审透明度级别、论文引文及社会关注度指标上的差异，探索期刊一般特征对OPR期刊论文引文及社会关注度指标的影响，检验OPR期刊论文引文与社会关注度指标间的相关关系。[结果/结论] OPR期刊论文有显著的引文与社会关注度优势。国别对引文指标有显著影响，出版周期对引文及社会关注度均有显著影响。OPR期刊论文的引文指标与社会关注度指标显著正相关。 相似文献