学术期刊审稿人公开的利弊分析:以地球科学类期刊为例

目前有些地球科学类国际期刊在文章致谢段中公布审稿人姓名,或者直接将审稿意见以报告形式刊出.分析表明:公布审稿人可为研究人员把握科研动向、跟踪研究进展提供帮助,具有科学研究风向标的作用;同时,公开审稿人可以使其规范自己的行为,审稿公开透明,起到监督作用,读者也可以通过审稿人甄别问题稿件,对文章进行选择引用.但是,多数审稿人对公开姓名持有保留态度,只有少数领域内的杰出的学者支持公开审稿人身份.本文作者认为:在获得审稿人同意的前提下,可以考虑公开杰出学者审稿人和绿色通道录用稿件的审稿人.由此可以获得读者认可,促进文章引用.     

学术期刊审稿专家学术不端行为认知情况调查

对《浙江预防医学》杂志91位审稿专家现场问卷调查的结果显示:审稿专家对作者学术不端行为和审稿入学术不端行为的认知率较高,但还不够全面,对作者“不当署名”行为、审稿人“故意拖延审稿”“提交不客观的审稿意见”行为的认知率较低.根据调查结果,认为学术期刊编辑部应采取多种形式为审稿专家提供培训,以提高审稿专家对学术不端行为认知的水平和发现能力.     

科技期刊审稿专家的职责及实现保证——以《中国机械工程》为例

结合《中国机械工程》工作实践,阐述审稿专家负有判断内容是否达标、保障审稿流程快捷运行及协助编辑部做好相关工作的职责。介绍保障审稿专家队伍长期、健康地履行其职责的经验,如使审稿专家正确认识、理解其职责成为高素质的审稿人,提供友好的审稿平台,开展专家审稿培训,尊重专家的劳动,开展多种形式的沟通。     

“公评公正公开”式审稿机制的探索与实践

针对科技期刊审稿过程中,由于作者和专家信息不透明导致的审稿不公平以及审稿专家选择不合适导致许多稿件无法得到及时处理的问题,本文通过调查问卷和找代表座谈的方式研究了公开审稿的机制和实现方法,提出了一种“公评公正公开”式审稿机制(Public Peer Review System,PPRS),并设计了可与多数编辑部所用稿件采编系统相连通的软件实现系统。一段时间的正式使用结果显示,该系统可在较大程度上解决审稿过程中找专家难、意见返回难的问题。     

同行评议对科技期刊的宣传作用

阐明同行评议作为宣传方式的优势及其可以达到的效果,探讨怎样实现同行评议对期刊的宣传作用并达到最佳效果.     

Enhancing the student experience: A case study of a library peer mentor program

In the fall semester of 2010 the University of Saskatchewan Library piloted a Library Peer Mentor initiative as part of a larger Peer Assisted Learning (PAL) program offered by the University Learning Centre. As partners in the Learning Commons located in the Murray Library, it made sense that the program should expand to include library peer mentors. After four years, personal interviews were conducted with current and former library peer mentors to consider their experience in the program and what impact it has had on them. The case study highlights how academic libraries can collaborate and broaden their scope to incorporate peer learning strategies and provide new opportunities to enhance the student experience.     

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.     

Benchmarking local public libraries using non-parametric frontier methods: A case study of Flanders

Being faced with significant budget cuts and continual pressure to do more with less, issues of efficiency and effectiveness became a priority for local governments in most countries. In this context, benchmarking is widely acknowledged as a powerful tool for local performance management and for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of local service delivery. Performance benchmarking exercises are regularly carried out using ratio analysis, by comparing single indicators. Since this approach offers only limited assessments in absolute terms, it is difficult for decision-makers to track and improve overall performance. Therefore, the use of non-parametric frontier methods, namely free disposal hull (FDH) and data envelopment analysis (DEA) is presented as an alternative technique for benchmarking the performance of organizations in relative terms. The potential applications and strengths of these non-parametric frontier methods for benchmarking the efficiency of local public services are highlighted by applying FDH and DEA techniques to the local public libraries in Flanders. Incorporating all possible paths of expansion – both in space and in time – enables a focus on sustainability within efficiency benchmarking.     

利用综述文献选择科技论文审稿专家

在描述综述型论文特点的基础上,指出综述对于编辑学习学科专业知识、选择审稿专家的作用。认为:利用综述文献选择审稿专家,一是从参考文献中寻找合适的审稿专家,二是编辑利用综述学习专业知识,确定合适的审稿专家。具体讲述编辑如何利用综述学习学科专业知识并整理专业知识脉络的方法以及收集综述文献的方法。     

专家拒绝或延迟审稿原因分析及对策

专家审稿时间是期刊出版周期的一个重要部分;然而由于特定原因,个别专家拒绝或延迟审稿的现象时有发生,这常常会延长期刊的出版周期。该文对其原因进行调查和分析,并且有针对性地提出了解决问题的对策,主要包括选择合适的审稿专家、加强与审稿专家的联系以及加大期刊的宣传。     

英文学术期刊国际化同行评审的实践与思考——以《International Journal of Digital Earth》为例

国际化同行评审对提升期刊的学术质量和国际影响力具有重要的作用。以《国际数字地球学报》为例,介绍其在审稿要求、国际审稿专家选择、外审周期控制、审稿激励4个方面促成国际化同行评审的具体做法,以期为国内英文学术期刊提供些许借鉴。此外,还探讨了提供同行评审指南、提高期刊知名度、发挥编委作用和争取主办单位支持对期刊推进国际化同行评审的重要性。并建议期刊重视编辑的专业能力和业务素质的培养,将有利于加速期刊同行评审国际化进程。     

Early adopters of ORCID functionality enabling recognition of peer review: Two brief case studies

Key points

• Publishers increasingly acknowledge the need for better recognition of peer review activities and are experimenting with ways to achieve this.
• A recent community working group recommended a set of data exchange standards to support this recognition, and these have now been implemented by the Open Researcher and Contributor ID.
• The American Geophysical Union and F1000 are the first adopters of this new functionality.

     

In‐house peer supported literature search training: a public health perspective

Public Health England plays a vital role in ensuring the health of the nation. The Knowledge and Library Service (KLS) is a key part of the organisation's evidence supply chain. KLS staff handle over 200 requests for literature searches per annum, and this number is increasing exponentially year on year. Searches are often complex and require specialist public health knowledge to complete effectively. Library staff who are new to the area of public health require support and training. In this article, Anh Tran, Knowledge and Evidence Specialist for Public Health England, discusses a peer supported literature search training course that has been developed in‐house for the benefit of new library staff, and to increase the Knowledge and Library Service's literature searching capacity at Public Health England. H. S.     

专家审稿工作中的问题与对策

有感于审稿的重要性,编辑部及编辑对审稿人和审稿工作的影响,针对专家审稿工作中存在的问题,即审稿时间长、审稿意见简单、审稿意见相左等,提出了改进专家审稿工作的建议和对策.     

Editorial peer review: methodology and data collection

This study reports on the editorial peer review practices of two categories of U.S. medical journals indexed in Index Medicus. Journals in group 1 were included on each of three lists of recommended journals, had a circulation of 10,000, and were cited at least 5,000 times per year. Group 2 journals, also indexed in Index Medicus, met none of the criteria. After being pretested, data were collected through a series of interviews and questionnaires. A summary of the methodology and an analysis of the differences between data collected through questionnaires and interviews is reported. The study concluded that initial interviews are very helpful in designing a questionnaire; a high percentage of editors agreed to be interviewed (100% for sixteen group 1 editors and 93.8% for sixteen group 2 editors); a 69.4% response rate to the mailed questionnaire indicates either sufficient follow-up or a high rate of interest in the subject matter; no trends identified by the questionnaire were reversed by changes in answers given during the interviews; approximately 11% to 15% of the answers differed between the questionnaire and interview methodology; and for some sensitive issues, editors were more likely to give answers on the questionnaire according to what was perceived as the most appropriate answer, rather than the actual practices of the journal.     

"跨界融合子"审理对我们的启示:审稿案例分析

通过分析典型审稿案例,揭示审稿活动的科学本质.科学的可批评性使审稿成为可能和必要.审稿人应首先审核论文中结果的可重复性条件.划清科学实践与经验的界限是正确审稿的必要理论准备,论文结果的价值判断应以"材料和方法"的可靠性为前提.学术期刊编辑应充分重视审稿人的意见,防止"轰动效应"干扰自己的正常判断力.审稿活动中的"马太效应"可以成为推进科学进步的动力,使已有科学理论体系的"潜能"得到充分揭示,使真正具有生命力的科学新芽在脱颖而出时已扎根深土,格外茁壮.