科技期刊区分处理学术存疑论文的策略

为了科学严谨地处理科技期刊编辑出版过程中的学术不端、诚实错误和学术争议等问题,提出区分处理学术存疑论文的策略.根据论文存疑性质的不同,在分类界定的基础上,提出区分处理的基本原则和具体方法,并结合实际案例进行阐述,提供可供科技期刊编辑参考的处理策略.客观公正地处理学术存疑论文,有助于净化学术环境,实现学术共同体的内部良性循环.     

Should editors influence journal impact factors?

The journal impact factor is widely used as a performance indicator for single authors (despite its unsuitably in this respect). Hence, authors are increasingly exercised if there is any sign that impact factors are being manipulated. Editors who ask authors to cite relevant papers from their own journal are accused of acting unethically. This is surprising because, besides publishers, authors are the primary beneficiaries of an increased impact factor of the journal in which they publish, and because the citation process is biased anyway. There is growing evidence that quality and relevance are not always the reasons for choosing references. Authors' biases and personal environments as well as strategic considerations are major factors. As long as an editor does not force authors to cite irrelevant papers from their own journal, I consider it as a matter of caretaking for the journal and its authors if an editor brings recent papers to the authors' attention. It would be unfair to authors and disloyal to the publisher if an editor did not try to increase the impact of his/her own journal.     

Handheld Serials

ABSTRACT

As computing becomes more portable, an ever-increasing number of people are dependent upon smartphones, personal digital assistants, webpads, and other wireless devices. This paper addresses the effect, if any, of these current and future wireless technologies on electronic journal publishing. Have these technologies impacted e-journal publishing to this point? What are the expectations and strategies of journal publishers in dealing with the changing technology? What special issues do these devices present regardimng licensing?     

Are there really new directions and innovations in archival education?

This essay comments on the various papers presented at the 2004 SAA conference on archival education. The author, after reading most of the papers, asked the conference organizer to change the name of the closing essay from a generic “commentary” to one playing on the announced theme of the meeting, “Are There Really New Directions and Innovations in Archival Education?” The author did not read, and or hear much, about new directions or innovations, and he uses this essay to explain his concerns. This essay considers the challenges of differing cultures in archival repositories and the university where graduate programs reside, the problems of the lack of a critical mass of graduate educators and the creating of the next generation of educators, and the continuing weak performance in research and publishing by the current corps of educators. All in all, graduate archival educators need to be bring creativity and greater dedication to building a solid foundation for such professional education.     

快速审稿 赢得作者——《稀有金属材料与工程》作者服务体系建设

作者资源是办好科技期刊的基础。本研究探索以作者为中心,围绕投稿前指导、便捷投稿、快速审稿、及时退修、数字化出版、快速推送、引用反馈等7方面创新调整传统的编辑出版流程,建设科技期刊作者服务体系。从作者服务体系建设层面,推动科技期刊质量控制与规范化建设。同时从作者服务体系建设层面,培育优秀作者群,吸引优秀论文回归。本文重点介绍其中快速审稿环节的建设成果,通过快速送审、快速审稿、快速退修、免收审理费、短信即时通知来实现快速审稿。通过流程再造,已经实现数分钟内送审、退修,初审周期1d,复审周期10d,终审周期5d。     

科技期刊主编应如何提高科技论文的写作质量

为了全面提高科技期刊质量,主编应该在重视刊文学术质量的同时,注意从作者、审稿专家和编辑3方面入手来提高刊文的写作质量,即:通过在刊物和网站上开办"论文写作"专栏,对比较集中的作者群举办论文写作知识讲座等方法帮助作者全面了解科技论文的写作要求;通过在审稿单中全面提问的方式请审稿专家在审查稿件学术质量的同时一并指出稿件中的写作问题;通过集中培训和在加工稿件的过程中培训并督促运用等措施敦促编辑切实掌握科技论文的写作要求与加工技巧.     

探索英文科技期刊的国际约稿策略——以《Frontiers of Chemical Science and Engineering》为例

以探索国际约稿实施策略,为科技期刊工作者提供参考为目标,从《Frontiers of Chemical Science and Engineering》实际经验出发,总结国际约稿行之有效的方法及实施过程中的注意事项。认为依靠主编和编委,开发期刊所属科研单位学术资源,参加或组织国际学术会议,同国际组织、学会开展合作,维护已有国际专家资源是进行国际约稿的主要方法。在约稿过程中,应平衡国内外稿件量,关注约稿对象情况,加强稿件质量控制,做好服务工作,注重宣传推广。向欧美等发达国家约稿有助于期刊国际化和影响力的提升,科技期刊工作者应合理利用学术资源,灵活运用约稿方法,提高国际约稿成功率。     

大数据时代个人信息保护研究综述

[目的/意义]通过梳理大数据时代个人信息保护的研究文献，为未来研究个人信息保护提供借鉴。[方法/过程]利用CNKI数据库，系统收集关于大数据时代个人信息保护的国内核心期刊论文，对文献的内容进行分析，归纳研究主题，并进行论述。[结果/结论]将现有的研究成果按主题分为5类：国内外实践经验研究、基本理论问题研究、个人信息保护机制探索、个人信息安全风险与应对、相关法律法规研究，评述现有研究的不足之处并对未来的研究方向提出展望。     

引文国际化对论文被引的影响研究

[目的/意义]在学术交流日趋国际化的背景下,本文拟探索引文国际化与被引量之间的关系,力图回答良好的国际视野是否有助于提升论文的学术影响力这一学界普遍关注的问题。[研究设计/方法]以社会科学为研究对象,选取管理学、图书情报学和新闻传播学的181,406篇CSSCI论文为研究样本,采用相关分析、非参数检验与回归分析的方法研究引用外文期刊论文的数量、学术质量、学科领域、时效性对论文被引量的影响。[结论/发现]在控制了文献类型、期刊声誉等若干可能影响论文被引量的因素后,发现样本论文的引文国际化水平对其被引量具有显著的正向影响。具体而言,引用外文期刊论文的数量越多、平均学术质量越高、学科专属度越高、平均时效性越强的论文具有更高的被引量。[创新/价值]证实了国际视野有助于提升中文社科论文的学术影响力,并提出了有针对性的建议。     

Access to the Working Papers of State Supreme Court Justices

SUMMARY

Two former Texas Supreme Court justices recently offered to donate their personal court files to the Tarlton Law Library, University of Texas at Austin. These offers forced the Law Library, the Texas Supreme Court, and the State Archives to confront several issues. Should such files ever be made public? If so, what would be an appropriate waiting period? What research value, if any, do such papers have? These working files would be valued not only by legal historians, but also by litigants, voters, and political opponents, raising some sticky access issues.     

"图书情报专家学者论坛专辑"的特点及其学术影响分析

从第一作者论文、作者合作论文、省内外作者比例、基金论文、论文被《复印报刊资料》全文收录、论文被引频次等方面对2003-2005年“图书情报专家学者论坛专辑”——《图书馆论坛》第6期与1-5期进行比较分析，总结专辑的特点，还分析了《大学图书馆学报》读者沙龙上所有网友对《图书馆论坛》及专辑的评论意见，探讨专辑的学术影响．剖析存在的问题，以期对该刊的可持续发展有所启示。     

科技论文引言部分的人称口气及其表达

在陈述研究背景、研究理论依据时,如果不用引自参考文献中的作者姓名、不用泛指他人如"已有作者"等词语做主语、定语、状语成分,引言部分是采用第一人称的写法(即口气)来写作的.在简要陈述研究目的、研究方案时,在汉语、英语科技论文中均可用"我们"作主语来表达第一人称的口气;在较多的汉语科技论文中,常常用"作者"或合理人格化的词语"本研究"、"本工作"、"本实验"等作主语来表达第一人称写作口气.     

热点论文分布特征与影响因素分析——兼评时间窗口与学科间差异

[目的/意义]近年来，热点论文逐渐受到学术界重视，为数不多的研究成果已开始探索热点论文自身的特征，但在影响因素等规律方面的研究工作尚不充分。[方法/过程]本研究利用TF-IDF算法和负二项回归模型，试图探究热点论文的分布特征、影响因素、时间窗口差异和学科类型差异。[结果/结论]研究结果表明，热点论文的分布特征侧重于发达国家、知名研究机构、交叉学科和权威期刊；并且受到精炼的标题、国家间合作、研究型产出、开放获取、高影响因子期刊等因素影响；热点论文存在时间窗口效应，甚至改变了标题、摘要、开放获取等因素影响热点论文的具体轨迹；学科间差异对热点论文具有影响，在标题、摘要、科研合作、文献类型、开放获取、期刊影响因子方面均存在差异。     

Nineteenth-Century Journalism Online—The Market Versus Academia?

In a climate of fear about funding for libraries and the arts, the preservation of many periodicals and newspapers is under threat. Digitisation is therefore justifiable as a conservation directive however what of those volumes that are not chosen? Are we creating an alternative version of Victorian culture through so selective a gaze? Indeed, who is choosing these titles? There is a question of access, both of what material is available to digitise and also what it is perceived ‘the audience’ want. However, a further question is raised—who are ‘the audience’? What are these archives going to be used for? This article will examine the different forms of nineteenth-century periodical and newspaper archives that are available, how they are organised and who their perceived audience is, before going on to consider the pedagogical utility of such sites. How can we enhance students' understanding of nineteenth-century culture by using these archives in our lecture theatres? And if we do, what are the implications for research in the future?     

国际化视野下医学论文亮点挖掘和展示策略探析

近年来我国科技期刊发文量不断上升,但学术影响力与发达国家相比仍有较大差距。本文借鉴国外著名医学期刊的成功经验和做法,对医学论文亮点的挖掘和展示策略进行梳理和总结。在编辑过程中,编辑可帮助作者在题名、摘要、图表、正文等各个方面将体现文章创新性、重要性、前沿性的地方充分挖掘和展示出来。而在论文编辑完成之后,则可以通过期刊本身、官方网站、社交媒体、邮件推送、会议专辑或宣传页以及新闻媒体等多种途径和渠道来全方位展示论文的亮点,以提高科技成果的传播效果和期刊的核心竞争力。     

论学术期刊编辑的独立人格精神

认为学术期刊编辑的独立人格精神的主要表现是编辑对刊物的选题策划有独到见解，对刊物进行准确的市场定位，以及在期刊生产和管理过程中坚持自主性等。培养编辑的独立人格精神，要强调提高编辑的专业学术不水平和工作能力，并拓宽知识面。指出树立独立人格精神在编辑实践中有重要的现实意义。     

优化电子期刊展示与标识的PIE-J规程解析

[目的/意义]通过对PIE-J的系统解析,使PIE-J在中国获得更多的关注与了解,以期电子期刊供应链上的各方合作优化电子期刊元数据,解决电子期刊难以搜寻这个长期困扰各方的问题。[方法/过程]通过归纳、实例分析等方法对PIE-J的制定背景、意义、主要内容、应用情况及其对中国电子期刊展示与标识的启示进行分析。[结果/结论]PIE-J通过简明的语言和形象的例子对电子期刊元数据的标识进行详细指引,可提高开放链接质量,提高使用者对期刊文章的查找效率和准确率,进一步完善与发展电子期刊。在我国目前尚未出台电子期刊标识标准的情况下,中国电子期刊出版商或供应商如能参照PIE-J优化电子期刊元数据,对于提高自身产品的竞争力,促进国内及海外市场的开拓将大有裨益。     

医学期刊编辑审稿方法与高影响力论文的策划

医学期刊学术质量的提高有赖于刊登稿件的学术水平和影响力,因此,编辑审稿时应筛选高质量的论文并主动进行高影响力论文的策划.医学期刊编辑审稿时要了解稿件的一般情况,并对论文选题属性、选题质量和选题的影响力及传播力进行判断,大力提高编辑审稿质量.高影响力论文策划时要掌握高影响力论文的选择方法,以及基于数据库的高影响力论文主题分析方法,从而提高期刊的学术质量.     

RUBRIQ: tools,services, and software to improve peer review

Rubriq is on a mission to put lost time back into research. We estimate that 15 million hours are lost each year to redundant peer review as papers get rejected and flow down the journal prestige pyramid. Rubriq uses an author‐pays model to facilitate fast, independent, and standardized peer review performed by three academic peers who are financially compensated for their efforts. Authors receive the reviews as well as a detailed journal recommendation report in 1–2 weeks. This service is designed to improve journal selection, supplement editorial reviews, and make peer review more portable between journals. The creation of the standardized scorecard is just the first phase of Rubriq's plans to improve the scholarly communication workflow. Through lessons learned over the past year, the Rubriq approach is evolving into a broader set of tools, software, and services designed to speed and improve the scholarly communication process.