共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 15 毫秒
1.
2.
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
3.
- Peer review is used to evaluate research, including publications, scientific awards, and grant proposals, and there is a continuum of at least six approaches to review from completely closed, double‐blind review to fully‐open and citable peer review.
- It is getting harder to find suitable experts to serve as reviewers so publishers and others are experimenting with methods to incentivize researcher participation, with a growing interest in enabling citation of peer‐review activity as a component.
- A Working Group on Peer Review Service, facilitated by CASRAI, was created to develop a data model and citation standard for peer‐review activity that can be used to support both existing and new review models.
- Standardized citation structures for reviews can enable the inclusion of peer‐review activity in personal recognition and evaluation, as well the ability to refer to reviews as part of the scholarly literature.
4.
5.
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
6.
目前有些地球科学类国际期刊在文章致谢段中公布审稿人姓名,或者直接将审稿意见以报告形式刊出.分析表明:公布审稿人可为研究人员把握科研动向、跟踪研究进展提供帮助,具有科学研究风向标的作用;同时,公开审稿人可以使其规范自己的行为,审稿公开透明,起到监督作用,读者也可以通过审稿人甄别问题稿件,对文章进行选择引用.但是,多数审稿人对公开姓名持有保留态度,只有少数领域内的杰出的学者支持公开审稿人身份.本文作者认为:在获得审稿人同意的前提下,可以考虑公开杰出学者审稿人和绿色通道录用稿件的审稿人.由此可以获得读者认可,促进文章引用. 相似文献
7.
8.
9.
对于请多位外审专家进行审稿的学术期刊,让专家的审稿意见和编辑的意见在该稿件的评审专家之间共享及择优将审稿意见及作者的答复在刊物或刊物网站上公开发表,称为审稿意见的深度利用。认为审稿意见的深度利用可促进学术交流、树立期刊形象、提高专家的审稿积极性和审稿水平,并有助于提高编辑的初审能力。列举了审稿意见深度利用时的注意事项。 相似文献
10.
专家审稿工作中的问题与对策 总被引：18，自引：3，他引：15
有感于审稿的重要性,编辑部及编辑对审稿人和审稿工作的影响,针对专家审稿工作中存在的问题,即审稿时间长、审稿意见简单、审稿意见相左等,提出了改进专家审稿工作的建议和对策. 相似文献
11.
12.
13.
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
14.
What influences the regional diversity of reviewers: A study of medical and agricultural/biological sciences journals 下载免费PDF全文
下载免费PDF全文 There is evidence of a geographical imbalance of reviewers, leading to concerns about the sustainability of peer review to ensure high‐quality, timely publications. This research evaluated articles submitted during 2016 to 149 Wiley‐owned journals in two disciplines: medicine (112 journals), and agricultural and biological sciences (37). We compared the reviewer location with the location of the author and the Editor‐in‐Chief, the size and rank of the journal, and whether the journal had difficulty in obtaining reviews. We found that reviewers mostly came from the USA, but there was a correlation between the reviewer location and the country and region of the Editor‐in‐Chief and that of the corresponding author. Reviewers were also more likely to accept invitations to review articles when the corresponding author was from their region and were more likely to be positive about such articles. We found no difference between journals of different disciplines and of different rank or size or difficulty in obtaining reviews. 相似文献
15.
结合《中国机械工程》工作实践,阐述审稿专家负有判断内容是否达标、保障审稿流程快捷运行及协助编辑部做好相关工作的职责。介绍保障审稿专家队伍长期、健康地履行其职责的经验,如使审稿专家正确认识、理解其职责成为高素质的审稿人,提供友好的审稿平台,开展专家审稿培训,尊重专家的劳动,开展多种形式的沟通。 相似文献
16.
17.
18.
分析在外审过程中使用作者推荐审稿人的优点及存在的弊端。结合编辑部工作实际,阐述选用作者推荐审稿人的经验体会。建议期刊应从规范指导,以详细的标准及规范引导作者推荐合适的审稿人;强化审核,多种渠道严格审核推荐审稿人信息;合理使用,最大效能发挥推荐审稿人的作用等方面入手,科学选用推荐的审稿人。同时,有效利用同行评议确保公正评审,以高质高效保障期刊的外审工作。 相似文献
19.
Jennifer K. Stitt M.A. Cheri J. Simonds Ph.D. Stephen K. Hunt Ph.D. 《Communication Studies》2013,64(3):341-353
The purpose of this study was to further investigate the effectiveness of speech evaluation procedures and measures. Specifically, this study examines the relationship between rater training and evaluation fidelity— a concept which focuses on the shared understanding of meaning between speech raters and students in terms of what is expected and what is performed. To do so, two studies were conducted. Study one hypothesized that evaluation fidelity would be associated with rater training such that inter‐rater (instructor‐instructor) reliability would be higher after training. The findings suggest that participants in Study one increased their evaluation fidelity in terms of total scores. The variance and frequency reports confirmed that the range of scores decreased (higher evaluation fidelity) after training. Study two hypothesized that instructors who provided their students with training in using the “Criteria for Evaluating Speeches” form would achieve higher evaluation fidelity than those instructors who do not. Results support this hypothesis and reveal higher evaluation fidelity between instructors and students in the group where students received a copy and explanation of the criterion‐based assessment tool. 相似文献