科技期刊专家审稿结论特性分析

发布时间：2018-05-15 02:10

本文选题：科技期刊审稿 + 审稿结论分析　；参考：《编辑学报》2017年06期

【摘要】：为了研究科技期刊专家审稿中存在的一些规律和特性,对《哈尔滨工业大学学报》20位核心审稿专家的485个审稿结论进行统计分析。界定"共识率"和"命中率"2项指标,对审稿结论分布、"共识率"和"命中率"进行比较分析。结果表明:审稿结论的总体分布比较合理和均衡,但是个体之间审稿结论分布差异明显;"非共识"结论在专家审稿中经常发生,甚至略高于"共识"结论出现的概率;"命中率"受"录用率"影响,如果"录用率"低,则给出更多否定性审稿结论的专家"命中率"高;"共识率"和"命中率"都有局限性,很难准确评估专家的审稿质量。建议编辑部通过发挥编辑主观能动性、优化审稿流程、广泛应用信息技术手段等方式来减少专家审稿的偏差,保证科技期刊的学术质量。
[Abstract]:In order to study some rules and characteristics existing in the review of manuscripts by experts of sci-tech periodicals, 485 conclusions of the 20 core reviewers of Journal of Harbin University of Technology were statistically analyzed. This paper defines the two indexes of "consensus rate" and "hit rate", and makes a comparative analysis of the distribution of the conclusion, the "consensus rate" and the "hit rate" of the draft review. The results show that the overall distribution of the draft review conclusions is reasonable and balanced, but the distribution of the draft review conclusions among individuals is obviously different, and the "non-consensus" conclusions often occur in the expert review of manuscripts. It is even slightly higher than the probability of "consensus" conclusion; "hit rate" is influenced by "employment rate"; if "employment rate" is low, experts who give more conclusions of negative review "hit rate" are high; "consensus rate" and "hit rate" have limitations. It is difficult to accurately assess the quality of the expert's review of manuscripts. It is suggested that the editorial department should reduce the deviation of expert manuscripts and guarantee the academic quality of sci-tech periodicals by giving full play to the subjective initiative of editors optimizing the process of reviewing manuscripts and using information technology widely.
【作者单位】：《哈尔滨工业大学学报》编辑部;《西安交通大学学报(医学版)》编辑部;
【分类号】：G232

【相似文献】