|
| 基于青年编委众筹审稿模式的学术期刊审稿流程探讨 |
| Process reengineering of academic journal peer review based on the crowdsourcing peer review model by youth editorial board members |
| 投稿时间：2026-03-29 修订日期：2026-08-16 |
| DOI： |
| 中文关键词: 学术期刊 审稿人匹配 列表众筹审稿 列表认领 青年编委 流程再造 |
| 英文关键词: academic journals reviewer selection crowdsourcing review list-based crowdsourced peer?review youth editorial board members process re-engineering |
| 基金项目:重庆市2025年期刊协会资助课题（重庆期刊AI技术应用现状调查与发展对策研究，编号2026006）；2025年度中国科技期刊卓越行动计划高水平办刊人才培育项目“科技期刊办刊人才主题荟活动—青编荟”。 |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 142 |
| 全文下载次数: 129 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 交叉学科稿件评审人选难找、审稿周期偏长，长期制约了综合类学报审稿效率。文章结合《重庆大学学报》首届青年编委队伍建设成果，运用流程再造理论反思传统点对点邀请审稿模式的弊端，提出了列表众筹审稿模式。该模式依托青年编委，编辑部以问卷星的形式在青年编委专属微信群定期发布待审的疑难稿件清单，由青年编委匿名自主承接评审任务，编辑完成核验后推送稿件全文，由此形成稿件发布—编委认领—编辑核验—开展评审的完整工作流程。实践表明，该举措把交叉学科专家匹配用时压缩至24 h以内，破解了优质审稿专家遴选困难的问题。采用匿名方式，编委不用碍于人情压力，结合自己的研究领域自主决定是否审稿；编辑持续更新审稿任务，进一步激发青年学者投身期刊建设的积极性。列表众筹审稿模式充分发挥了青年编委队伍优势，操作简便且适配性强，特别是对学科众多、编辑人员偏少的综合性学报具有参考价值，也为完善现有的同行评审制度提供实践经验。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| It is hard to find reviewers for interdisciplinary papers, and long review periods reduce the efficiency of comprehensive journals. Taking the first youth editorial?board of Journal of Chongqing University as the foundation, this paper adopts process?re?engineering theory to identify drawbacks of one?to?one reviewer assignment and proposes a list?based crowdsourcing review mode. Our editorial office posts lists of tough manuscripts via Wenjuanxing in a private WeChat group. Young board members sign?up for reviews anonymously. Editors deliver full?text papers after checks to finish the whole procedure: task release, member registration, editorial confirmation and paper review. Practical results show that reviewer matching for interdisciplinary papers can be completed within 24 hours. Since the process is anonymous, young board members are free from relationship-based pressure and decide whether to accept a review based on their own expertise. Regular posting of review tasks keeps them engaged in the journal''s development. This approach is easy to implement and makes good use of the young expert pool. It is particularly suitable for comprehensive journals that cover many disciplines but have limited editorial staff, and offers a useful reference for improving peer-review practices. |
|
View Fulltext
查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |
|
|
