| 程林,莫愚,谢秋红,贾津津,牟乾静,付佑梅,王珅,龙景,王旭.医学期刊编委会专家审稿组稿撰稿情况分析 ——以《中华烧伤杂志》为例.编辑学报,2018,30(5):496-498 |
| 医学期刊编委会专家审稿组稿撰稿情况分析 ——以《中华烧伤杂志》为例 |
| Analysis on manuscript review and contribution of medical journal’s editorial board members |
| |
| DOI：10.16811/j.cnki.1001-4314.2018.05.016 |
| 中文关键词: 医学期刊 编委会 审稿 组稿 撰稿 |
| 英文关键词: medical journal editorial committee review acquisition contribution |
| 基金项目: |
| 作者 | 单位 | | 程林 | 《中华烧伤杂志》编辑部,400038,重庆〖FL | | 莫愚 | 《中华烧伤杂志》编辑部,400038,重庆〖FL | | 谢秋红 | 《中华烧伤杂志》编辑部,400038,重庆〖FL | | 贾津津 | 《中华烧伤杂志》编辑部,400038,重庆〖FL | | 牟乾静 | 《中华烧伤杂志》编辑部,400038,重庆〖FL | | 付佑梅 | 《中华烧伤杂志》编辑部,400038,重庆〖FL | | 王珅 | 《中华烧伤杂志》编辑部,400038,重庆〖FL | | 龙景 | 《中华烧伤杂志》编辑部,400038,重庆〖FL | | 王旭 | 《中华烧伤杂志》编辑部,400038,重庆〖FL |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 1300 |
| 全文下载次数: 974 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 分析医学期刊编委会专家审稿组稿撰稿情况,为了解编委会专家职能发挥情况,加强编委会建设提供参考。依托中华医学会《中华烧伤杂志》稿件处理系统中的“专家审稿情况”模块,统计2013年7月1日—2017年6月30日第4届编委会任期内专家审稿篇数＞70的审稿专家情况,包括出生年、学历、职称、工作单位、本刊职务等,并统计其审稿周期,在“稿件查询”模块里查询上述专家刊稿情况,通过每期责任编辑统计4年间上述专家组稿篇数。4年间审稿篇数＞70的编委共20人,其中常务编委和普通编委均为10人,分别占41.7%(10/24)和14.3%(10/70)。编委多为60后,3/4的编委具有博士学历,所在单位大多为烧伤学科发展良好的知名院校附属综合性三甲医院。常务编委审稿数1133篇,平均审稿周期4.8d；普通编委审稿数946篇,平均审稿周期6.2d。常务编委和普通编委审稿情况差异不明显。常务编委组稿数101篇,刊稿数49篇；普通编委组稿数25篇,刊稿数27篇。编委在期刊审稿中发挥了重要作用,常务编委在期刊的组稿、刊稿方面,优于普通编委,但总体形势不容乐观,今后应加强编委在组稿和撰稿方面的职能。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| In order to provide reference for strengthening the construction of editorial board committee, we analyzed the review, manuscript contribution of medical journal editorial board members. Our method is based on the general condition of specialist modules of manuscript processing system of Chinese Journal of Burns, including birth year, education background, positional titles, work unit, and position in journal, whose number of review articles above 70 during the term of the fourth editorial committee from 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2017. The peer review cycle of specialists was also counted. Published articles of the specialists were inquired in the module of manuscript query. The number of solicit articles of specialists during the four years were calculated through editor in charge of each issue. There were a total of twenty editorial board members with number of review articles above 70. The numbers of standing editorial board members and editorial board members were both 10, taking for 41.7%(10/24) and 14.3%(10/70), respectively. Most of editorial board members were born later than 1960, while 3/4 editorial board members had doctoral degree, and most of their units were famous comprehensive 3-A-class hospitals affiliated to colleges with well development of discipline of burns. The number of review articles of standing editorial board members was 1 133, with the peer review cycle 4.8 d. The number of review articles of editorial board members was 946, with the peer review cycle 6.2 d. There was no significant difference in review articles between standing editorial board members and editorial board members. The numbers of solicit articles and published articles of standing editorial board members were 101 and 49, respectively. The numbers of solicit articles and published articles of editorial board members were 25 and 27, respectively. Editorial board members played an important role in review, and standing editorial board members were better than editorial board members in solicit articles and published articles. However, the overall situation was not optimistic, and we should strengthen the acquisition and contribution of specialist of medical journal editorial committee in future. |
|
查看全文
查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |
|
|
|
