| 万长清,李文涛,张营营,蒋红晨,马梦遥,曾钰婵,彭颋,蓝英侨,刘世忠,陈作.中文科技期刊保密审查现状及路径研究.编辑学报,2025,37(5):490-495 |
| 中文科技期刊保密审查现状及路径研究 |
| Confidentiality review in Chinese sci-tech journals:current status and development pathways |
| |
| DOI：10.16811/j.cnki.1001-4314.2025.05.004 |
| 中文关键词: 中文科技期刊 保密审查 审查路径 证据链 |
| 英文关键词: Chinese sci-tech journals confidentiality review review framework chain of evidence |
| 基金项目:*中国科学院自然科学期刊编辑研究会课题(YJH202408)；重庆市科学技术期刊编辑学会2024年度科研项目(CQKJQKXH2024013) |
| 作者 | 单位 | | 万长清 | 西南技术工程研究所期刊社,400039,重庆 | | 李文涛 | 西南技术工程研究所期刊社,400039,重庆 | | 张营营 | 西南技术工程研究所期刊社,400039,重庆 | | 蒋红晨 | 西南技术工程研究所期刊社,400039,重庆 | | 马梦遥 | 西南技术工程研究所期刊社,400039,重庆 | | 曾钰婵 | 西南技术工程研究所期刊社,400039,重庆 | | 彭颋 | 西南技术工程研究所期刊社,400039,重庆 | | 蓝英侨 | 西南技术工程研究所期刊社,400039,重庆 | | 刘世忠 | 西南技术工程研究所期刊社,400039,重庆 | | 陈作 | 西南技术工程研究所期刊社,400039,重庆 |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 987 |
| 全文下载次数: 606 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 本研究采用统计调查和问卷调查方法,分析中文科技期刊保密审查现状及存在的问题,探索有效的保密审查路径,为我国科技期刊保密审查工作提供参考。研究发现,中文科技期刊开展保密审查的比例较高,但保密审查制度和保密审查意识仍然较为薄弱,且缺乏证据链意识,与国家要求相比存在较大差距。编辑部开展保密审查主要集中在初审阶段,且对形式的审查多于对文章内容的审查,在同行评议阶段对稿件内容进行保密审查的期刊较少。此外,近1/3的期刊将保密审查完全交由作者及其单位负责,但在无外部干预的情况下,不是所有的作者及其单位会对拟公开发表的稿件进行保密审查,此举存在较大泄密风险。调研发现,编辑和专家均高度关注保密审查制度的规范性和可操作性,结合保密审查工作实践和思考,本文建议从8个方面构建完整的保密审查证据链,以筑牢科技安全基石。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Through statistical surveys and questionnaire analysis, this study examines the current status and challenges of confidentiality review in Chinese sci-tech journals, explores effective review pathways, and provides references for enhancing this practice in China. The findings reveal that while a high proportion of Chinese sci-tech journals conduct confidentiality reviews, their review systems and awareness remain relatively weak. There is a notable lack of emphasis on establishing a documentation trail (evidence chain), resulting in a significant gap compared to national requirements. Editorial boards primarily conduct confidentiality reviews during the initial manuscript screening stage, with procedural checks outweighing substantive content reviews. Few journals perform confidentiality reviews on manuscript content during the peer review stage. Furthermore, nearly one-third of journals delegate the entire responsibility for confidentiality review to authors and their affiliated institutions. However, without external oversight, not all authors/institutions conduct reviews on manuscripts intended for public dissemination, posing substantial risks of information leakage. Both editors and peer reviewers express high concern regarding the standardization and practicality of confidentiality review systems. Based on practical experience and critical reflection, this study proposes eight key aspects for constructing a comprehensive documentation trail (evidence chain) for confidentiality reviews, thereby strengthening the foundation of sci-tech security. |
|
查看全文
查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |
|
|
|
|
|
