F1000的文献评价功能浅议

F1000是一个新的科研文献在线评估系统,它提供了一种系统的结构化的专家评议机制.通过与ISI Web Of Science中由被引次数所确定的影响力较高的文献对比,F1000 的专家评议机制能够及时准确的对优秀文献做出推荐,并给出推荐的评语和文献重要程度等级,对文献质量的评定具有极高的参考性,也对科研工作者快速选择相...     

国际生物医学领域学术评估新利器——Faculty of 1000

论文围绕一种全新的文献在线评估系统———F1000,分析其对学术论文的评价原理和衡量机制。与传统的学术科研评价体系比较,F1000的专家评议机制能够及时准确的对优秀文献做出推荐,对生物医学领域青年人才学术水平的评估具有极高的参考性。     

Validity of altmetrics data for measuring societal impact: A study using data from Altmetric and F1000Prime

Can altmetric data be validly used for the measurement of societal impact? The current study seeks to answer this question with a comprehensive dataset (about 100,000 records) from very disparate sources (F1000, Altmetric, and an in-house database based on Web of Science). In the F1000 peer review system, experts attach particular tags to scientific papers which indicate whether a paper could be of interest for science or rather for other segments of society. The results show that papers with the tag “good for teaching” do achieve higher altmetric counts than papers without this tag – if the quality of the papers is controlled. At the same time, a higher citation count is shown especially by papers with a tag that is specifically scientifically oriented (“new finding”). The findings indicate that papers tailored for a readership outside the area of research should lead to societal impact.If altmetric data is to be used for the measurement of societal impact, the question arises of its normalization. In bibliometrics, citations are normalized for the papers’ subject area and publication year. This study has taken a second analytic step involving a possible normalization of altmetric data. As the results show there are particular scientific topics which are of especial interest for a wide audience. Since these more or less interesting topics are not completely reflected in Thomson Reuters’ journal sets, a normalization of altmetric data should not be based on the level of subject categories, but on the level of topics.     

Beyond online preprints: formalization of open initiatives in China

A growing number of online journals and academic platforms are adopting light peer review or ‘publish then filter’ models of scholarly communication. These approaches have the advantage of enabling instant exchanges of knowledge between academics and are part of a wider search for alternatives to traditional peer review and certification processes in scholarly publishing. However, establishing credibility and identifying the correct balance between communication and scholarly rigour remains an important challenge for digital communication platforms targeting academic communities. This paper looks at a highly influential, government‐backed, open publishing platform in China: Science Paper Online, which is using transparent post‐publication peer‐review processes to encourage innovation and address systemic problems in China's traditional academic publishing system. There can be little doubt that the Chinese academic publishing landscape differs in important ways from counterparts in the United States and Western Europe. However, this article suggests that developments in China also provide important lessons about the potential of digital technology and government policy to facilitate a large‐scale shift towards more open and networked models of scholarly communication.     

Peer review: The current landscape and future trends

This paper is based on research commissioned by the Wellcome Trust in 2015 and catalogues current initiatives and trends in the systems and processes surrounding peer review. It considers issues such as open and interactive reviews, post‐publication comments and ratings, and the platforms provided by both publishers and other organisations to support such activity; third‐party peer review platforms; and measures from publishers and others to provide more recognition and rewards for peer reviewers. It also speculates on likely key trends in peer review for the future.     

网络学术期刊运作模式研究

在界定网络学术期刊的基础上，从国际化水平、稿件接收与评审、出版形式、读者服务、经费与版权问题、平行载体等方面探讨网络学术期刊的运作模式，指出其对构建新的学术交流体系和形成新的学术出版格局的意义。     

退稿转投推荐的研究与实现

退稿转投时带来的发表延误和同行评审重负是一个受到各界重视但未能得到有效解决的问题。结合文献和国际著名期刊网站的调研与分析表明,便携式同行评审与稿件转投服务为解决这一问题提供了方向。退稿及其同行评审的转投推荐能提高转投稿件处理效率、缓解同行评审压力,也是提升作者科学素养的现实途径,对我国科技期刊改善同行评审和期刊合作、缩短稿件出版周期具有借鉴价值。     

An international peer‐review system for a Chinese scientific journal

The characteristics and requirements of a world‐class journal were considered in establishing a rigid peer‐review system for scientific papers submitted for publication in the English‐language Journal of Zhejiang University SCIENCE [JZU(S)] from 2002 onward. Four hundred and thirty‐five contributions were received between January and December 2002, and these were sent for pre‐publication review to appropriate leading scientists in the USA, the UK, Ireland, France, Canada, Australia, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Finland, Poland, Portugal, Italy, Israel, Spain, Greece, Belgium, Sweden, Switzerland, Japan, Singapore, Slovakia, India, Greece, the Czech Republic, Mexico, Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan. Our experience showed that such an international peer‐review system plays an important part in ensuring the high quality of a journal's contents and in helping it achieve an international reputation.     

医学期刊存稿量调控方法

医学期刊的存稿量适当,可以将发表时滞控制在合理的范围内。本文根据医学期刊的刊期和审稿制度的特征,总结出控制存稿量的方法:根据来稿量和刊期确定时间单位,在单位时间内根据稿件审理阶段来调整存稿量,其中审稿阶段根据往年的录用率进行整体调控,定稿阶段根据每期发文量进行精细调控。这样,既可保证发文量,又可控制发表时滞不致过长,还可以选择到学术质量相对较高的稿件,从而提高期刊质量。     

国外科技期刊开放式同行评议中参与者积极性研究

开放式同行评议作为一种新的期刊审稿方式,因其控制投稿质量、加速学术交流、为有争议的科学发现存档等优点而吸引了许多学术期刊进行尝试.考察了几家有代表性的开放式同行评议期刊后发现,这些期刊中的大部分文章在评议阶段获得的评论,无论是数量还是质量都不尽如人意.认为造成这一现象的主要原因是功利主义、文化障碍和学科差异.     

基于学科规范引文影响力与同行评议相关性的科学评价实证研究

[目的/意义]分析学科规范引文影响力在科学评价中的可行性及其与同行评议的相关性,为负责任计量及以其为支撑的同行评议提供借鉴。[方法/过程]选取F1000以及InCites平台,将29 850篇细胞生物学文献、30 326篇生物技术文献的CNCI （学科规范化引文影响力）与被引频次进行相关分析,对其中956篇细胞生物学论文的CNCI与F1000分值进行斯皮尔曼相关系数检验。[结果/结论]研究结果表明,从统计学视角看CNCI与被引频次呈高度正相关,与F1000分值呈显著正相关,同时亦存在二者相悖的情形。因此,CNCI在一定程度上能够反映同行评议结果、能代偿实施学术影响力归誉的功能,并适用于跨学科比较;但同行评议或CNCI单独作为科学评价标准都会有失偏颇,以CNCI为代表的新一代负责任计量指标为支撑的同行评议将成为未来科学评价的主流。     

2001—2010年国内关于期刊编辑工作主题研究的高被引论文分析

在中国知网引文数据库中检索2001—2010年关于期刊编辑工作方面的被引文献1万2 852篇。其中:被引1次者5 494篇,占42.4%;被引5次以上者2 499篇,占19.4%。基本符合"二八定律"。前50篇高被引论文有38篇发表在《编辑学报》上,占76%。高被引论文所研究的主题主要有论文参考文献、编辑素质、影响因子、审稿、期刊评价、期刊国际化、开放存取(OA)、被引分析、期刊品牌打造和发表时滞等。     

Shortcomings of peer review in biomedical journals

Peer review is well established across most academic disciplines, and publishers, editors, and researchers devote considerable resources to it. This paper uses examples from biomedical journals to examine its shortcomings. Although mainly anecdotal, the evidence suggests that peer review is sometimes ineffective at identifying important research and even less effective at detecting fraud. Most reviewers identify only the minority of a paper's defects and they may be biased. Peer review plus other editorial processes are associated with improvements in papers between submission and publication, but published papers remain hard to read and a significant proportion contain errors or omissions. While it is hard to quantify the costs, peer review does not seem an efficient use of resources. Research into the outcomes of peer review, the establishment of sound methods for measuring the quality of the process and its outcomes, and comparisons with alternative methods are needed.     

开放同行评议期刊论文的引文与社会关注度优势研究

[目的/意义] 探讨开放同行评议（OPR）对期刊论文的引文及社会关注度的影响。[方法/过程] 采用描述性统计及配对样本非参数检验方法，比较OPR与非OPR期刊在期刊年龄、SCI年龄、国别、出版周期、开放存取、评审透明度级别、论文引文及社会关注度指标上的差异，探索期刊一般特征对OPR期刊论文引文及社会关注度指标的影响，检验OPR期刊论文引文与社会关注度指标间的相关关系。[结果/结论] OPR期刊论文有显著的引文与社会关注度优势。国别对引文指标有显著影响，出版周期对引文及社会关注度均有显著影响。OPR期刊论文的引文指标与社会关注度指标显著正相关。     

Real-Time Peer Review: An Innovative Feature to an Evidence-Based Practice Conference

Many health sciences librarians as well as other professionals attend conferences on a regular basis. This study sought to link an innovative peer review process of presented research papers to long-term conference outcomes in the peer-reviewed professional journal literature. An evidence-based conference included a proof-of-concept study to gauge the long-term outcomes from research papers presented during the program. Real-time peer review recommendations from the conference were linked to final versions of articles published in the peer-reviewed literature. The real-time peer review feedback served as the basis for further mentoring to guide prospective authors toward publishing their research results. These efforts resulted in the publication of two of the four research papers in the peer-viewed literature. A third presented paper appeared in a blog because the authors wanted to disseminate their findings more quickly than through the journal literature. The presenters of the fourth paper never published their study. Real-time peer review from this study can be adapted to other professional conferences that include presented research papers.     

The ethics of scholarly peer review: a review of the literature

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.     

Why do researchers decide to publish in questionable journals? A review of the literature

Peer review is a cornerstone of scientific publication, and consequently, predatory journals are feared to be a threat to the credibility of science as they perform no or low‐quality peer review. The question of why researchers decide to publish in a questionable journal remains relatively unexplored. This paper provides an overview of the existing literature on why researchers decide to publish papers in questionable journals, specifically whether or not they search for a low‐barrier way to getting published while being aware that the chosen journal probably does not adhere to acceptable academic standards. The choice of a publication outlet can be seen as a submission tree that consists of various incentives, and explaining why authors publish in deceptive journals may thus consist of a combination of awareness and motivational factors. Awareness and motivation of diligent authors is very different from that of unethical authors. Unethical authors may use a lack of awareness to excuse their actions, but they may actively search for a low‐barrier way to getting published. As there are different types of authors who publish in deceptive journals, we need different approaches to solve the problem.