| 李庆玲,谢文亮,周志红,龚紫钰.“小同行”审稿专家精准选择实践探索——以《华南农业大学学报》为例.编辑学报,2024,36(5):534-538 |
| “小同行”审稿专家精准选择实践探索——以《华南农业大学学报》为例 |
| Practical exploration of “small peer” reviewer accurate selection:taking Journal of South China Agricultural University as an example |
| |
| DOI：10.16811/j.cnki.1001-4314.2024.05.013 |
| 中文关键词: 审稿专家 同行评议 学科发展 小同行 |
| 英文关键词: reviewer peer review discipline development small peer |
| 基金项目:*广东省科技计划项目(2021B1212020018)；中国农业期刊网研究基金项目(CAJW2023-022)；广东省高校学报研究会项目(20220303) |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 25 |
| 全文下载次数: 133 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 总结近年来《华南农业大学学报》专家外审环节存在审稿意愿不强、审稿压力分布不均衡、专家库数据陈旧、专家来源区域多样化不足、年轻专家比例较低等问题,结合学科发展提出精准选择“小同行”送审的创新性突破策略,如:编辑要密切关注学科发展,提高自身学科素养,不断根据最新的研究进展更新专家库；同时充分挖掘各种线上线下学术资源,借重大事件和高水平作者拓展高水平审稿专家资源,通过前沿、交叉学科和时效性强稿件发动青年科学家资源,有效扩大审稿专家的遴选渠道。经过近2年241次集中送审实践发现,专家审稿意愿增强、审稿压力更加均衡,专家来源区域多样化、队伍年轻化,期刊与高水平专家的黏性增强,编辑学科素养提升、工作思路更加开阔。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| In the past 6 years, Journal of South China Agricultural University had some problems in the expert external review process, such as the review willingness of experts was not strong, the distribution of review pressure was unbalanced and the data of expert database was outdated, the source regions of experts were not diverse enough, and the proportion of young experts was low. Therefore, combining with the development of the disciplines, the editor proposes innovative breakthrough strategies for accurately selecting “small peer” reviewers. The editors shall pay attention to the development of disciplines, improve discipline literacy, and constantly update the expert database according to the latest research progress. Meanwhile, editors shall also make full use of various online and offline academic resources, expand high-level expert resources with the help of important events and high-level authors, engage young scientist reources through cutting-edge, interdisciplinary and timely manuscripts, thus effectively expanding the selection channels of reviewers. Through 241 times of concentrated review practice in the last two years, the review willingness of experts is enhanced, the distribution of review pressure is more balanced, the source regions of expert source diversified, the reviewer team is younger, the stickness between journals and high-level reviewers is enhanced, the discipline quality of editors is improved and the work ideas are more open. |
|
查看全文
查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |
|
|
|
