CrossCheck检测平台及信息核实在学术不端防治中的作用     

段为杰  于洋  吴立航  张淑敏  段桂花 《编辑学报》2018,30(1):64-65

采用CrossCheck检测平台(http://www.ithenticate.com/)对英文科技论文进行比对,通过分析查重比对结果可初步判断该论文是否涉嫌学术不端,进而判断该论文的新颖性和研究热门程度.查重比对可为编辑处理稿件提供有力的支持,为审者审稿提供必要的参考,以便给出公正的审理意见.另外,讨论了审者信息及作者信息的核实对干预学术不端行为的作用.  相似文献   

期刊编辑防范学术不端能力培养的必要性与策略   总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1  

肖骏 《编辑学报》2018,30(1):86-88

期刊编辑的初审工作是阻止学术不端稿件传播极为重要的环节,培养和加强编辑的防范意识与能力,有利于维护科研诚信和出版秩序.从学术不端行为不会消失、学术不端检测系统不是万能、学术不端行为日益隐蔽和期刊编辑囿于日常工作4个角度,分析培养和加强编辑防范意识与能力的必要性,提出了入职培训、定期宣传、积累传承经验和制订问责机制4条策略.  相似文献   

公共图书馆转型背景下的噪音问题——基于微博的调查     

李斯 《图书馆论坛》2018,(1):100-106

文章以用户在微博上发表的对公共图书馆噪音的看法为数据来源,使用内容分析和情感分析方法研究用户对噪音的认知,分析噪音的来源。研究发现:用户对公共图书馆的噪音问题表示关注和不满;大城市公共图书馆被用户提及最多;用户认为安静才是公共图书馆的应有之义;在用户认为的噪音来源中,用户因素远高于其他因素,最主要的噪音源是少年儿童吵闹。对策包括:转变用户对公共图书馆严肃安静的刻板印象;依据用户需求合理规划空间;改进馆内管理工作。  相似文献   

同行评审的新趋势     

王凤产 《编辑学报》2018,30(5):547-550

为避免传统同行评审形式出现的诸多弊端,学术出版界不断探索新的同行评议方法,出现了诸多的创新。本文主要对当前正在尝试的新兴同行评审方法进行调查,并介绍相关经验。这些创新方法包括开放性同行评审、非选择性同行评审、开放预审稿件的公众评审、便携式同行评审、反弹式同行评审、背书式同行评审。调查结果显示,同行评审实践发生了巨大的变化,与互联网革命和开放获取出版紧密相关,科学出版商为作者提供了更多的选择,新的同行评议形式为学术交流注入了新的活力。  相似文献   

Spaces of emergent memory: Detroit’s 8 Mile wall and public memories of civil rights injustice     

Scott A. Mitchell 《传播与批判/文化研究》2018,15(3):197-212

This article introduces emergent memory, a conceptual extension to rhetorics of public memory, to describe memory’s genesis in sites built without commemorative commitments. Examining Detroit’s “8 Mile Wall,” a site built to reinforce segregated housing, this project argues the rhetorical tenets of emergent memory present in this space. As a relic of segregated history, the wall symbolically recalls the city’s controversial past, but has recently been the subject of a local mural project to redefine the wall’s purpose. Some consider this a step toward reclamation, as it visually repositions the disturbing remnant. For others, the murals simply cannot overwrite troubling memories of the city’s discriminatory history. This essay uses emergent memory to describe how the wall’s complicated mnemonic legacy simultaneously harkens to a difficult history and how the mural additions use that same legacy to convey an optimistic future for Detroit and those marked by this urban space.  相似文献   

On the same page: Improving the connection between public services units in academic libraries     

Elizabeth Marcus  Malti Turnbull 《College & Undergraduate Libraries》2018,25(2):101-109

Communication quality between public service units in academic libraries can make the difference between mediocre and exceptional service. If units do not communicate well, patrons may receive inaccurate information and experience short-term frustration, leading to long-term damage to the library's reputation. Poor communication creates adverse effects on employees through decreased productivity, negative work culture, and low morale. This article explores the importance of quality communication through a review of the literature and a case study at one academic library. The authors share practical communication improvement strategies for libraries of every size and fiscal ability.  相似文献   

Librarians and Open Government Data: Opening Possibilities     

Suzanne R. Townsdin 《Public Services Quarterly》2018,14(1):65-74

  相似文献   

美国科技博物馆展览开发中公众参与的研究及启示          下载免费PDF全文

郭佳雯 《自然科学博物馆研究》2018,(1):93-100

展览开发是博物馆展览的基础问题,随着公众参与逐渐被提上研究议程,也促使我们去思考展览开发过程中如何引入公众参与。美国的科技博物馆展览开发已经建立了较为完善的公众参与体系:明确的参与者角色、系统的参与理念和阶段式的参与行为,已经获得了普遍的应用。借鉴美国博物馆的经验,我国博物馆展览的开发,应在构建展览评估体系的基础上,进一步了解和认识公众,拓展公众参与的方式,并不断寻求公众的声音。  相似文献   

科学博物馆与科学中心——发展历史及其根源①          下载免费PDF全文

伯纳德·希尔著高秋芳 《自然科学博物馆研究》2018,(1):84-92

本文以科学博物馆和科学中心的发展阶段为线索,综述了几个世纪以来科学传播的历史发展,阐述了科学实践如何嵌入到博物馆的展览实践之中并从中发展起来,以及关于科学在社会中的地位的观念变化如何在科学博物馆和科学中心得到反映,还展现了日益受到关注的科学传播如何在科学博物馆和科学中心层面体现出以公众需求为本。  相似文献   

Accounting for quality: arts evaluation,public value and the case of “Culture counts”     

Abigail Gilmore  Hilary Glow  Katya Johanson 《Cultural Trends》2017,26(4):282-294

Arts policy has a longstanding relationship with the concept of “quality” and the ways in which organisations measure, evaluate and account for it. Culture Counts, an evaluation system and digital platform, compiles data from standardised evaluation surveys of different stakeholder groups – organisations, audiences, critics, funders and peers – and provides the means to compare and triangulate data in an accessible format. As a result, it claims to provide a more effective, democratic tool for quality measurement of art, which demonstrates the public value of funding [Department of Culture and the Arts, & Knell, J. (2014). Public value measurement framework: Measuring the quality of the arts. Perth: Department of Culture and the Arts.]. Through qualitative research with two consortia of organisations involved in Culture Counts pilot projects in Manchester, England and Victoria, Australia, we explore these claims, comparing the reception and promotion of the system in both countries and considering its potential incorporation into policy assessment frameworks and adoption within arts organisations’ existing evaluation capacities.  相似文献