科技期刊编辑在学术生态圈构建中的作用与作为     

邢爱敏 《编辑学报》2020,32(5):586-590

当前学术生态现状堪忧,由此引起了大众对科技期刊学术质量、学术操守的普遍质疑。而科技期刊编辑在学术传播中的主体性质决定了其在学术生态圈构建中具有不可推卸的责任。同时,基于严谨的治学态度、慧眼识珠的才能、良好的沟通交流能力以及资源意识的自我培养,科技期刊编辑在构建学术生态圈方面的潜能也被充分激发,“问题前置化”策略防范学术不端、保持终身学习态度以提高自身学术素养、组建优质专家库以打造学术共同体这3项措施则体现了科技期刊编辑在构建学术生态圈中的担当和作为。  相似文献   

Keeping plagiarism at bay—A salutary tale     

Ben R. Martin  other Editors of Research Policy 《Research Policy》2007,36(7):905-911

This editorial examines the question of whether plagiarism may be on the increase in the social sciences and, if so, what needs to be done to keep the problem in check. It was prompted by the discovery of an alert reader in June 2007 that a 1993 paper in Research Policy appeared to have plagiarised a 1980 article in the Journal of Business. The allegation was investigated, and it was agreed by the Editors that the 1993 paper constituted a clear and serious case of plagiarism. However, the author concerned has published over 100 articles and books. Already, two other publications have been judged by the editors of the journals concerned to have plagiarised previous publications. Two more are under investigation, but the great majority of the remainder still remain to be checked. The fact that academic misconduct on this scale has gone unchecked over such a prolonged period raises serious issues about the efficacy of the processes used to police the conduct of researchers. Furthermore, the unexpected discovery that a paper by the author under investigation appears itself to have been plagiarised poses a fundamental question as to whether plagiarism may be far more common than previously assumed. The editorial concludes that a measured degree of vigilance and a greater willingness to pursue any well-founded suspicions of research misconduct are required by editors, referees, publishers and the wider academic community if the scourge of plagiarism is to be kept at bay.  相似文献   

研究生学术不端行为防范体系的构建——基于学术共同体视域     

陈玉国 《中国科技期刊研究》2016,27(11):1133-1138

【目的】通过分析研究生学术论文中多发的学术不端现象,探究此种现象对学术环境、学术生态和学术出版的侵蚀和伤害。【方法】 概括分析了研究生学术论文中存在的学术不端行为的表现形式、表现特征及成因。【结果】 提出基于学术共同体的视域,从制度、规范、技术层面构建研究生学术不端行为的防范体系。【结论】 科技期刊应发挥学术共同体的作用,营造良好的学术出版环境,促进期刊的创新和发展。  相似文献   

学术不端行为的模型化研究   总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1  

张立  王华平 《科学学研究》2007,25(1):32-37

在对学术不端行为作出基本界定后,运用社会学视角的越轨理论模型和哲学视角的竞争模型建构出两种认识论,前者偏重社会控制,后者则强调文化控制。两种模型的对比研究有助于加深对学术不端行为的理解,同时也为寻找可能的解决方法提供有益的启示。  相似文献   

学术期刊编辑的学术不当与不端行为辨析及防范     

陆宜新 《编辑学报》2023,(1):82-85

近年来学术不端问题时有发生,这也是学术界一直在热议和讨论的问题。学术不端不仅发生在作者身上,在编辑身上也存在。本文在分析编辑的学术不当与不端行为的基础上,提出通过加强编辑的质量意识及职业道德建设、制定严格的管理和监督制度、建立诚信档案等约束编辑行为的措施,使编辑真正成为学术质量的守门人。  相似文献   

科技期刊编辑对学术不端论文的识别——以《护理学报》为例     

吴艳妮  周春兰 《编辑学报》2015,27(4):361-362

以《护理学报》为例,总结科技期刊编辑审稿过程中对学术不端论文的识别.对于“枪手”论文,可从与作者电话沟通中识别,从审稿费汇款信息识别,从网站投稿注册信息识别,以及从作者所在科室与论文研究方向吻合度识别;对于篡改或伪造数据论文,可通过仔细审查文章数据,分析数据与所得统计结果之间是否存在漏洞或矛盾之处,若有质疑则要求作者提供数据输入统计软件的原始表格及统计软件所导出的原始分析结果;对于抄袭中文论文者,可通过多个学术不端文献检测软件结合Baidu、Google等网络平台进行多重检测;对抄袭外文论文者,可通过论文的语言表达、与作者交流等途径识别.  相似文献   

学生科学道德和学术规范教育的必要性和措施     

宝月 《湖北函授大学学报》2015,(10):62-63

近年来随着大学生学术不端行为的不断曝光,人们对于大学生的科学道德和学术规范教育情况也越来越关注。本文主要在了解此类问题的现状、探究问题产生的原因、论证开展科学道德和学术规范教育必要性的基础上,提出相应的措施。希望可以为解决大学生学术不端行为提供借鉴。  相似文献   

刻意规避学术不端软件检测论文的再审查     

朱银周 《编辑学报》2015,27(3):249-251

由于多种原因,学术不端行为检测软件存在自身的不足,只能作为纯文字复制检测工具,对纯文字复制行为做出分析界定,不能从根本上遏制所有学术不端行为.与学术期刊相关的主体人员不能过度依赖学术不端行为检测软件,还应通过多种人工方式判别深度的学术不端行为,才能最大限度杜绝学术不端行为的隐式泛滥.深度学术不端行为已成为近来的一种发展趋势,应该成为预防的重点.  相似文献   

遏制科技期刊论文不端行为的策略研究     

郭德政 《中国科技资源导刊 (中国信息导报)》2015,(3):106-110

在对科技期刊论文发表过程中常见的抄袭剽窃、伪造、一稿多发、署名争议等不端行为及其新的表现形式进行梳理的基础上,分析国内外科技期刊近年来在遏制论文发表相关不端行为方面的做法与面临的问题,进而提出  相似文献   

Analysis of single comments left for bioRxiv preprints till September 2019     

Mario Mali ki  Joseph Costello  Juan Pablo Alperin  Lauren A. Maggio 《Biochemia medica : ?asopis Hrvatskoga dru?tva medicinskih biokemi?ara / HDMB》2021,31(2)

IntroductionWhile early commenting on studies is seen as one of the advantages of preprints, the type of such comments, and the people who post them, have not been systematically explored.Materials and methodsWe analysed comments posted between 21 May 2015 and 9 September 2019 for 1983 bioRxiv preprints that received only one comment on the bioRxiv website. The comment types were classified by three coders independently, with all differences resolved by consensus.ResultsOur analysis showed that 69% of comments were posted by non-authors (N = 1366), and 31% by the preprints’ authors themselves (N = 617). Twelve percent of non-author comments (N = 168) were full review reports traditionally found during journal review, while the rest most commonly contained praises (N = 577, 42%), suggestions (N = 399, 29%), or criticisms (N = 226, 17%). Authors’ comments most commonly contained publication status updates (N = 354, 57%), additional study information (N = 158, 26%), or solicited feedback for the preprints (N = 65, 11%).ConclusionsOur results indicate that comments posted for bioRxiv preprints may have potential benefits for both the public and the scholarly community. Further research is needed to measure the direct impact of these comments on comments made by journal peer reviewers, subsequent preprint versions or journal publications.  相似文献