科普期刊也应重视外审工作

一般认为,由于知识结构问题,学术性期刊专职编辑人员不可能胜任全部的审稿工作,所以应该重视稿件外审工作。其实,做好稿件的外审工作,同样是科普期刊编辑不可忽视的。     

"以问题为中心"的审稿模式

科学研究的实质是提出问题、分析问题、解决问题.科技论文是对创新性科研成果的表述,因此,对科技论文稿件的鉴审应以"问题"为中心."以问题为中心"的审稿模式,就是按照科学论文从提出问题、分析问题到解决问题的逻辑结构,对其创新性、科学性和价值进行综合分析和判断的一种基本的审稿方式,"问题"在此成为审稿人或编辑关注的"中心";评审要点包括:论文提出了什么问题、如何分析问题、是否解决了问题.     

科技稿件退修研究的回顾与评析

以中国知网和万方数据库收录科技稿件退修研究的论文为研究对象,采用统计分析法、要点描述法和主客观结合评价法,概括出退修研究论文的分布规律和发展脉络,并用列表方式作了简要评析。     

多学科交叉稿件送审流程的优化

多学科交叉稿件的出现对科技期刊编辑遴选“小同行”审稿人提出新的挑战,仅依据一级学科选择审稿专家将难以满足精准审稿的需求。本文以图像处理这一多学科交叉研究方向为例,从专家与稿件研究方向匹配度的角度出发,通过详细阐述稿件送审实例,总结归纳多学科交叉稿件的送审技巧,包括:查作者信息、查参考文献、通读来稿全文内容、借助送审工作总结库、间接途径匹配专家、多送2个多学科专家,并提出送审前的准备工作,如梳理学科框架、及时做好已送审稿件的归纳总结、要求作者标出所涉及细分学科方向等,以供同行参考。     

编辑审稿的思维方法探讨

本文运用系统论、信息论、控制论的原理,探讨科技编辑在审稿中的思维方法问题,提出了前瞻性的逻辑设问式审稿法,认为应将论文置于该研究领域的系统框图中,根据论文及多方面提供的有关信息进行逻辑设问,通过综合的总体评价,对拟刊用的论文实行目标质量控制。     

Peer review and the h-index: Two studies

Research was undertaken that examined what, if any, correlation there was between the h-index and rankings by peer assessment, and what correlation there was between the 2008 UK RAE rankings and the collective h-index of submitting departments. About 100 international scholars in Library and Information Science were ranked by their peers on the quality of their work. These rankings were correlated with the h and g scores the scholars had achieved. The results showed that there was a correlation between their median rankings and the indexes. The 2008 RAE grade point averages (GPA) achieved by departments from three UoAs – Anthropology, Library and Information Management and Pharmacy were compared with each of their collective h and g index scores. Results were mixed, with a strong correlation between pharmacy departments and index scores, followed by library and information management to anthropology where negative and non-significant results were found. Taken together, the findings from the research indicate that individual ranking by peer assessment and their h-index or variants was generally good. Results for the RAE 2008 gave correlations between GPA and successive versions of the h-index which varied in strength, except for anthropology where, it is suggested detailed cited reference searches must be undertaken to maximise citation counts.     

建立科技期刊稿件评审管理机构的设想

为保证科技期刊稿件的评审质量，提出了建立审稿专门管理机构的设想，并结合审稿工作的性质，论述成立该机构的必要性、优越性和可行性。     

医学期刊编辑在审稿中的能动作用

探讨医学期刊编辑对医学文稿进行完善审稿的作用,包括以下内容:认真做好初审、准确选好审稿人、严格遵守审稿制度以利于慎重妥善地处理审稿意见分歧以及精心写好退修意见.     

如何有效利用专家审稿意见处理稿件

经济原则的核心思想是"如无必要,勿增实体",在科学活动中,它是一种科学观和方法论.在科技期刊编辑活动中,科技期刊编辑的经济原则是一种必要性思维方法、一种概括性思维方法和一种简易性思维方法.文章论述这一原则在选稿、审稿,优化论文结构、内容表达方面的应用价值,其中重点论述在引用、图表和数学语言方面如何应用经济原则.     

加强系统综述/meta分析类论文来稿的编辑审查

根据国外Cochrane手册、PRISMA声明、PRISMA-P声明等指南,结合实际工作经验,提出医学编辑在审查中应当注意的事项。探讨在系统综述/meta分析类论文来稿量大增的背景下,如何加强编辑审查。对于系统综述/meta分析类论文来稿,编辑应当加强对文献检索、文献筛选、文献的纳入和排除、文献质量、潜在的利益冲突和报告中干预措施的伤害性等方面的审查。不要认为专家外审通过的来稿,便一定是可以发表的合格稿件。目前,系统综述/meta分析类论文泛滥,加强对该类论文的编辑审查刻不容缓。     

编辑部集体分层初审的实施细则及优势

在稿件的审编流程中,《中国普外基础与临床杂志》编辑部(以下简称“编辑部”)一贯秉持高质、高效的工作准则。在不断总结并优化工作流程的过程中,为了进一步提高工作效率和质量,从2017年7月起,编辑部就稿件的初审环节进一步进行了改变,实行了定期的编辑部集体分层初审制。实施1年有余,收效显著,明显缩短了稿件的初审周期,提高了送外审稿件的质量,同时也提高了后期同行评议以及稿件编修处理的效率,节约了人力和物力成本。     

科技期刊编辑"走心"做好审稿工作

"审稿走心"是指科技期刊编辑不流于表面,用心分析稿件.短则在数分钟内充分调动记忆力与科学的思维,可发现内容前后不一致、细节描述错误、框架内容不符合逻辑等写作问题,甚至是实验设计相关问题;长则数天将稿件放在心上,在潜意识里进行思索.     

初审中稿件学术质量的比对维度研究

针对初审中对稿件学术质量的判断,基于科学研究的前后继承性,归纳了3种比对维度,即收稿记录比对、参考文献比对、网络资源比对,以研究间联系和关联为视角考察稿件学术创新程度,以期发挥科技编辑信息记录、整理、检索、逻辑分析等方面的优势,弥补专业知识的不足,准确、高效地判断稿件的送审价值。     

Peer review: still king in the digital age

The article presents one of the main findings of an international study of 4,000 academic researchers that examined how trustworthiness is determined in the digital environment when it comes to scholarly reading, citing, and publishing. The study shows that peer review is still the most trustworthy characteristic of all. There is, though, a common perception that open access journals are not peer reviewed or do not have proper peer‐review systems. Researchers appear to have moved inexorably from a print‐based system to a digital system, but it has not significantly changed the way they decide what to trust. They do not trust social media. Only a minority – although significantly mostly young and early career researchers – thought that social media are anything other than more appropriate to personal interactions and peripheral to their professional/academic lives. There are other significant differences, according to the age of the researcher. Thus, in regard to choosing an outlet for publication of their work, young researchers are much less concerned with the fact that it is peer reviewed.     

科技学术期刊青年编辑初审工作要做到“1234”

初审工作是一项细致而烦琐的工作,也是编辑工作的一个重要环节。青年编辑初审学术稿件时要坚持“1个中心”,把握“2个基本点”,做好“3个判断”,检查“4个一致”,即要做到“1234”。     

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.