科技期刊同行评议现状调查与分析——基于国内药学领域审稿专家群和作者群
|
摘要
【目的】基于国内药学领域审稿专家群和作者群,调研科技期刊同行评议的现状,以探寻同行评议的优化策略。【方法】发放针对审稿专家和作者的调查问卷,问卷主要包括同行评议流程、审稿意愿、同行评议形式、审稿意见反馈等内容。【结果】对同行评议形式、稿件评价标准、审稿意见反馈等方面的调研结果进行分析与总结。对审稿专家群和作者群的同行评议观点的一致性和差异性进行阐述与剖析。【结论】根据调研结果,提出加强初审筛选力度,有的放矢地送审稿件,优化稿件评价表,加强审稿意见反馈等措施,以此进行同行评议机制建设,优化整体流程。
[Purposes]This paper aims to explore the optimization strategies of peer review by investigating the current situation of peer review of scientific journals based on the questionnaire survey of the reviewers and authors in Chinese pharmaceutical field.[Methods] Questionnaires concerning peer review process,peer review intention,peer review form,and feedback of review opinions were distributed to reviewers and authors. [Findings]We analyze and summarize the research results of peer review form,evaluation criteria,and feedback of review opinions,and further describe and analyze the consistency and difference of peer review opinions between reviewer group and author group. [Conclusions] In order to establish peer review mechanism and optimize the overall process,certain measures including enhancing the preliminary review and screening,submitting manuscripts to targeted reviewer,optimizing manuscript evaluation forms,and improving feedback of review opinions are proposed according to the results of investigation.
[Purposes]This paper aims to explore the optimization strategies of peer review by investigating the current situation of peer review of scientific journals based on the questionnaire survey of the reviewers and authors in Chinese pharmaceutical field.[Methods] Questionnaires concerning peer review process,peer review intention,peer review form,and feedback of review opinions were distributed to reviewers and authors. [Findings]We analyze and summarize the research results of peer review form,evaluation criteria,and feedback of review opinions,and further describe and analyze the consistency and difference of peer review opinions between reviewer group and author group. [Conclusions] In order to establish peer review mechanism and optimize the overall process,certain measures including enhancing the preliminary review and screening,submitting manuscripts to targeted reviewer,optimizing manuscript evaluation forms,and improving feedback of review opinions are proposed according to the results of investigation.
引文
[1]常唯,曹会聪,曹金,等.国际科技期刊同行评议的实践与特点[J].中国科技期刊研究,2016,27(1):10-17.
[2]龚旭.同行评议公正性的影响因素分析[J].科学学研究,2004,22(6):613-618.
[3]陈培颖,陈倩,李娜,等.国内学术期刊同行评议现状的调研———基于国内自动化领域作者群和评审专家群[J].中国科技期刊研究,2016,27(1):3-9.
[4]刘菲,李奎,高雪莲,等.向审稿人反馈他审和终审意见的必要性和意义[J].中国科技期刊研究,2016,27(2):148-151.
[5] Martin Enserink. Few authors choose anonymous peer review,massive study of Nature journals shows[EB/OL].[2017-09-22]. https:∥www. sciencemag. org/news/2017/09/few-authorschoose-anonymous-peer-review-massive-study-nature-journalsshows.
[6]巢乃鹏,胡菲.学术期刊的同行评议:基于审稿专家和作者的比较研究[J].中国科技期刊研究,2012,23(4):597-600.
[7] Publons. 2018 global state of peer review[EB/OL].[2018-09-07]. https:∥publons. com/static/Publons-Global-State-Of-PeerReview-2018.pdf.
[8]钟琳,高超民.科技期刊外审专家激励措施扎根研究[J].中国科技期刊研究,2016,27(3):278-282.
[9]刘岭.科技期刊为审稿专家减负的4种策略[J].编辑学报,2014,26(5):459-461.
[10]李鹏,魏杰,闫娟.医学科技期刊几种同行评议模式的利弊分析[J].出版与印刷,2012(4):9-12.
[11]袁鹤,王晴,骆筱秋.对同行评议形式的思考———以《国际口腔科学杂志(英文版)》为例[J].科技与出版,2018(10):157-161.
[12]李金珍,庄景春,邱炳武.《心理学报》开放性同行评审方式探索及初步成效[J].中国科技期刊研究,2015,26(2):139-142.
[13]杜杏叶,李贺,王玲,等.中国学者对学术论文公开同行评议的接受度研究[J].图书情报工作,2018,62(2):73-81.
[14] Mark Ware Consulting. Publishing research consortium in scholarly journals[EB/OL].[2011-07-05]. http:∥www.Publishing Research.net/Peer Review.
[15]王凤产.科技期刊开放性同行评议案例研究[J].中国科技期刊研究,2018,29(3):242-247.
[16] PLoS ONE. PLoS ONE's Guidelines for notes,comments,and corrections[EB/OL].[2018-08-24].http:∥www.plosone.org/static/commentGuidelines.
[17]彭琳,杜杏叶.科技期刊实施开放式同行评议策略研究[J].中国科技期刊研究,2018,29(11):1114-1121.
[18] Stigbrand T. Retraction note to multiple articles in Tumor Biology[J]. Tumor Biology,2017,38(4):1-6.
[19]央视网.国际权威期刊撤销大量造假论文:“同行评审”造假107篇论文被撤[EB/OL].(2017-04-30)[2018-05-25].http:∥news. sina. com. cn/c/2017-04-30/doc-ifyetstt3992537.shtml.
[20]甘晓.基金委通报国际“撤稿”事件调查结果:重点调查与科学基金相关28篇论文,呼吁捍卫科研诚信[EB/OL].(2016-12-14)[2018-08-02]. http:∥www. nsfc. gov. cn/publish/portal0/tab88/info53449.htm.
[21]田瑞强,姚长青,刘洢颖,等.学术不端治理政策及案例计量研究[J].中国科技期刊研究,2018,29(4):355-361.
[22]高峻.学术不端文献的文责自负与编辑把关———从《Tumor Biology》宣布撤回107篇造假论文谈起[J].编辑学报,2017,29(S1):S47-S49.
[23]占莉娟.科技期刊审稿人的审稿动因分析[J].中国科技期刊研究,2015,26(4):363-369.
[2]龚旭.同行评议公正性的影响因素分析[J].科学学研究,2004,22(6):613-618.
[3]陈培颖,陈倩,李娜,等.国内学术期刊同行评议现状的调研———基于国内自动化领域作者群和评审专家群[J].中国科技期刊研究,2016,27(1):3-9.
[4]刘菲,李奎,高雪莲,等.向审稿人反馈他审和终审意见的必要性和意义[J].中国科技期刊研究,2016,27(2):148-151.
[5] Martin Enserink. Few authors choose anonymous peer review,massive study of Nature journals shows[EB/OL].[2017-09-22]. https:∥www. sciencemag. org/news/2017/09/few-authorschoose-anonymous-peer-review-massive-study-nature-journalsshows.
[6]巢乃鹏,胡菲.学术期刊的同行评议:基于审稿专家和作者的比较研究[J].中国科技期刊研究,2012,23(4):597-600.
[7] Publons. 2018 global state of peer review[EB/OL].[2018-09-07]. https:∥publons. com/static/Publons-Global-State-Of-PeerReview-2018.pdf.
[8]钟琳,高超民.科技期刊外审专家激励措施扎根研究[J].中国科技期刊研究,2016,27(3):278-282.
[9]刘岭.科技期刊为审稿专家减负的4种策略[J].编辑学报,2014,26(5):459-461.
[10]李鹏,魏杰,闫娟.医学科技期刊几种同行评议模式的利弊分析[J].出版与印刷,2012(4):9-12.
[11]袁鹤,王晴,骆筱秋.对同行评议形式的思考———以《国际口腔科学杂志(英文版)》为例[J].科技与出版,2018(10):157-161.
[12]李金珍,庄景春,邱炳武.《心理学报》开放性同行评审方式探索及初步成效[J].中国科技期刊研究,2015,26(2):139-142.
[13]杜杏叶,李贺,王玲,等.中国学者对学术论文公开同行评议的接受度研究[J].图书情报工作,2018,62(2):73-81.
[14] Mark Ware Consulting. Publishing research consortium in scholarly journals[EB/OL].[2011-07-05]. http:∥www.Publishing Research.net/Peer Review.
[15]王凤产.科技期刊开放性同行评议案例研究[J].中国科技期刊研究,2018,29(3):242-247.
[16] PLoS ONE. PLoS ONE's Guidelines for notes,comments,and corrections[EB/OL].[2018-08-24].http:∥www.plosone.org/static/commentGuidelines.
[17]彭琳,杜杏叶.科技期刊实施开放式同行评议策略研究[J].中国科技期刊研究,2018,29(11):1114-1121.
[18] Stigbrand T. Retraction note to multiple articles in Tumor Biology[J]. Tumor Biology,2017,38(4):1-6.
[19]央视网.国际权威期刊撤销大量造假论文:“同行评审”造假107篇论文被撤[EB/OL].(2017-04-30)[2018-05-25].http:∥news. sina. com. cn/c/2017-04-30/doc-ifyetstt3992537.shtml.
[20]甘晓.基金委通报国际“撤稿”事件调查结果:重点调查与科学基金相关28篇论文,呼吁捍卫科研诚信[EB/OL].(2016-12-14)[2018-08-02]. http:∥www. nsfc. gov. cn/publish/portal0/tab88/info53449.htm.
[21]田瑞强,姚长青,刘洢颖,等.学术不端治理政策及案例计量研究[J].中国科技期刊研究,2018,29(4):355-361.
[22]高峻.学术不端文献的文责自负与编辑把关———从《Tumor Biology》宣布撤回107篇造假论文谈起[J].编辑学报,2017,29(S1):S47-S49.
[23]占莉娟.科技期刊审稿人的审稿动因分析[J].中国科技期刊研究,2015,26(4):363-369.