共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 171 毫秒
1.
医学科技期刊广泛存在外审专家审稿时滞长、审稿意见质量低、专家敷衍审稿、审稿队伍不足等现象.《中华胃肠外科杂志》为了提升专家的审稿质量和工作效率,经过系统总结和探索后,提出在审稿过程中关注"审稿专家(expert)、编辑行为(editor)以及实践过程(experiment)"3方面全方位管理的审稿策略,并定义为3E策略... 相似文献
2.
同行评议时间控制应贯穿学术期刊专家审稿前、中、后全过程,而“审稿中”的时间控制是同行评议全程管理中易忽视的薄弱环节。对于该阶段的进度控制,编辑部可通过扩充专家邀请数量、提前设置增审、压缩增审周期来影响审稿进度。本文将围绕这3种方法调研其实施现状,以反映审稿进度控制现状并发现问题。结果显示,大多数期刊首次邀请专家人数仅等于要求回收意见的份数,审稿异常稿件需消耗1个审稿周期后才会被设置增审,审稿周期较长期刊的增审周期也未适当缩短,这些反映编辑部对处在“审稿中”稿件的时间管理处于近乎“虚空”的低干预状态。本文基于调研结果提出,期刊首次邀请专家人数宜大于要求回收意见份数但不是越多越好;分类确定提前增审对象及时间点;增审周期可控制在≤21 d;挖掘采编系统智能化辅助功能,减轻人力负担。多措并举,优化审稿进度控制效果,提升审稿运行效率,助力我国世界一流学术期刊建设。 相似文献
3.
针对当前同行评议效率低的情况,将微信群或QQ群引入审稿中,提出—种专家主动审稿的模式——群审稿,并阐述了该模式的审稿过程.结合工作实践,指出了构建审稿群要考虑的要素:期刊建群数量、每个编辑能管好群的数量、审稿群的人数,以及群审稿专家遴选原则.详细介绍了编辑和审稿专家在群审稿过程中的主要工作.分析了群审稿模式的优势:能做到精准送审、及时审回;审稿信息的传达安全、快捷;对于防止学术不端行为有一定的效果;专家之间、专家与编辑之间能即时互动;容易附加增值服务. 相似文献
4.
为了更好地防范替审行为给科技期刊带来的隐患,通过案例分析,认为替审行为主要是因为审稿专家缺乏审稿伦理:保密原则、信任关系、公正责任,并分析其危害.从出版的角度提出应对措施:事前联系沟通、邀请函明示并允许退审、提升选择准确性、事后评价以及向审稿人问责. 相似文献
5.
网络资源在科技学术期刊审稿中的作用探讨 总被引：15，自引：4，他引：15
结合编辑实践,对网络技术在科技学术期刊审稿中的作用进行总结.网络资源在稿件的初审、遴选审稿专家和充实审稿专家数据库以及进行网上审稿中都有着十分重要的作用. 相似文献
6.
科技期刊网上审稿过程中责任编辑的职责 总被引：8，自引：3，他引：5
网上审稿是我国科技期刊专家审稿制度发展的必然趋势.专家网上审稿前责任编辑的职责主要是初审稿件,协助作者对稿件的电子文本做规范化处理和选择恰当的审稿人;专家审稿后责任编辑的职责主要是拟定具体的修改意见并回复作者,确保原稿以及审稿人和审稿单信息入库等. 相似文献
7.
8.
9.
由同行专家以“第三方”身份对稿件质量进行评价,是学术期刊对稿件取舍的重要参考,也是保障学术期刊质量的重要支撑。文章探讨了外审专家的遴选途径,指出专家外审应有较为明确的规范和制度加以保障,期刊编辑部对外审专家库应定期评估、及时优化,实现动态管理。对外审工作的优化管理包含审稿流程的合理性、审稿单设计的科学性和外审意见使用的选择性等要素。同时指出期刊编辑部应与外审专家有效联动,在精准送审、有效送审的同时,做好日常管理与编审往来工作,并对专家的外审活动予以科学评估,提高外审环节的审稿效率和审稿质量。 相似文献
10.
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
11.
科技期刊专家审稿质量的影响因素 总被引：6，自引：2，他引：4
从审稿方式及审稿人的选择、审稿专家队伍的建立和管理、审稿行为的管理等方面对影响科技期刊审稿质量的因素进行分析。认为编辑应当认真把握审稿过程中的各个环节,以确保审稿工作的实效。 相似文献
12.
《Journal of Informetrics》2019,13(2):708-716
Peer review is not only a quality screening mechanism for scholarly journals. It also connects authors and referees either directly or indirectly. This means that their positions in the network structure of the community could influence the process, while peer review could in turn influence subsequent networking and collaboration. This paper aims to map these complex network implications by looking at 2232 author/referee couples in an interdisciplinary journal that uses double blind peer review. By reconstructing temporal co-authorship networks, we found that referees tended to recommend more positively submissions by authors who were within three steps in their collaboration network. We also found that co-authorship network positions changed after peer review, with the distances between network neighbours decreasing more rapidly than could have been expected had the changes been random. This suggests that peer review could not only reflect but also create and accelerate scientific collaboration. 相似文献
13.
科技论文的两类退修信 总被引：1，自引：1，他引：0
科技论文的退修信可分为2类:第1类退修信指初审后反馈给作者的修改意见,内容相对固定,可采用格式化的方式;第2类退修信指编委或同行专家提出的学术方面的修改意见,以修改稿件的学术内容为主,可采用格式化与非格式化相结合的方式. 相似文献
14.
15.
Web‐based peer‐review systems are ubiquitous within scholarly publishing today, providing valuable efficiencies for authors, editors, and referees. These systems are the result of a general evolution from paper‐based workflows to electronic processes that began in the 1970s. DOS‐based systems paved the way for Windows desktop systems and, in the mid‐1990s, Web‐based peer review. Governmental, academic, and commercial stakeholders all participated in advancing the state of peer review by experimenting with different technologies, workflows, and features. These experiments have coalesced into a new steady state in which Web‐based peer‐review systems are the norm, and in which continued evolution tends to focus on incremental improvements to traditional workflow. 相似文献
16.
国外期刊论文同行评议创新态势述评 总被引：2，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.
Ola P. Hole Finn O. Winther Henrik R. Cederkvist Sigurd Nitter‐Hauge 《Health information and libraries journal》2013,30(2):149-154
Purpose: Bibliometric analysis of publications was used to investigate the research output relating to the development of drugs in Norway and to evaluate the impact of Norwegian involvement in this research. Material and methods: One hundred and nine articles published between 2002 and 2008 were analysed. Bibliometric methods used were as follows: information on peer review, impact factor (IF), the Science Citation Index (SCI) and the representation of Norwegians in the list of authors. Results: All publications were in journals with peer review or in publications with corresponding evaluation. Industrial support, international research cooperation and drug development in phases I, II and III seem to promote publication in journals with high IF and a high SCI. In 63% of the international project articles, the Norwegian contributors were not represented in the list of authors. Conclusion: In addition to a scientific standard secured by referees, three probably independent factors – industrial support, international cooperation and early phases of the research (phases I, II and III) – seem to promote publications in journals with high IF and a high SCI. A more active Norwegian contribution to the research should be encouraged. 相似文献
19.
Lawrence SOUDER 《Learned Publishing》2011,24(1):55-72
This review summarizes the literature of a subset of the published research and commentary on peer review – the ethics of peer review. It attempts to track the various ethical issues that arise among the key participants in peer‐review systems: authors, editors, referees, and readers. These issues include: bias, courtesy, conflict of interest, redundant publication, honesty, transparency, and training. It concludes that debates over such issues as open vs. blind reviews continue unresolved but that new technologies offer some prospects for resolving old issues while they also may create new challenges. 相似文献
20.
Mark Ware 《Learned Publishing》2005,18(4):245-250
We report on a research study commissioned by ALPSP into the current status of online submission and peer‐review systems, the perceptions of these by authors, referees and editors, and the impact of their introduction on journals. 相似文献