| 王静,汪挺.审稿专家、编辑行为及实践过程全方位管理的医学科技期刊审稿策略.编辑学报,2022,(2):193-197 |
| 审稿专家、编辑行为及实践过程全方位管理的医学科技期刊审稿策略 |
| Reviewing strategies of medical journals based on all-round management of experts, editors and experiments |
| |
| DOI：10.16811/j.cnki.1001-4314.2022.02.016 |
| 中文关键词: 审稿时滞 审稿质量 审稿专家 编辑行为 实践过程 |
| 英文关键词: review time review quality reviewer editorial behavior experience |
| 基金项目: |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 280 |
| 全文下载次数: 464 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 医学科技期刊广泛存在外审专家审稿时滞长、审稿意见质量低、专家敷衍审稿、审稿队伍不足等现象。《中华胃肠外科杂志》为了提升专家的审稿质量和工作效率,经过系统总结和探索后,提出在审稿过程中关注“审稿专家(expert)、编辑行为(editor)以及实践过程(experiment)”3方面全方位管理的审稿策略,并定义为3E策略,系统性构建适合期刊可持续发展的审稿管理策略,为期刊从源头上把控稿件质量奠定基础。重点举措包括提升编辑稿件初筛的重视度(1~2 d完成编辑初筛、送审),审稿专家年轻化(邀请优秀的中青年专家审稿),审稿要求格式化(制定格式化审稿单),审稿过程流程化(在实践中不断优化),定稿时间固定化(每个月的固定时间),定稿形式多样化(组建中青年定稿专家组、召开线上定稿会等),以保障审稿工作高效优质完成。这一举措应用到《中华胃肠外科杂志》新一届审稿专家中,专家们的审稿时间更短(中位数:7.0 d比9.0 d),超期审回稿件的比例更低[10.0%(23/231)比22.3%(33/148)],参考性、指导性不强的审稿意见比例下降[0.9%(2/231)比5.4%(8/148)],说明此方法对于提升审稿效果具有明显作用。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| There are many unsatisfied aspects in medical journals, such as long delay of peer review, low quality of peer review opinions, perfunctory review by experts and insufficient reviewers. In order to optimize the quality and efficiency of peer review, the Chinese Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery has made great efforts and forwarded the “Triple-E Principle”, which stands for “expert”, “editor” and “experiment”. Based on this principle, a management strategy on manuscript review was systemically formed for sustainable development of our journal, so as to lay a sound foundation on objective judgment for the manuscript quality from the beginning. The key measures of this principle include increasing the importance of preliminary screening by editors (finished within one to two days before sending out for experts peer review), involving younger reviewers (inviting excellent middle-aged and younger experts to review manuscripts), specifying review requirements (formulating review list for reviewers), rationalizing review process (continuously being optimized through practice), fixing the time for finalization (define a fixed date every month),and allowing various forms of finalization (establishing young experts finalization meeting or online finalization meeting, etc.). After applying the above measures to the new Editorial Committee of our journal, the median review time became shorter (7.0 days vs. 9.0 days), the proportion of overdue reviews was lower[10.0%(23/231)vs. 22.3%(33/148)], and the percentage of review opinions with little significance decreased[0.9%(2/231)vs. 5.4%(8/148)], which shows an remarkable effect on improving the quality of peer review. |
|
查看全文
查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |
|
|
|
