|
| 公开“推荐-审核”：学术期刊审稿新模式探索 |
| Public “recommendation--review”: exploring a new mode of review in academic journals |
| 投稿时间：2023-11-27 修订日期：2024-03-24 |
| DOI： |
| 中文关键词: 公开“推荐-审核”审稿 学术期刊 三审制 学术交流 学术创新 |
| 英文关键词: Public “recommendation--review” Academic Journals Tri-review system Academic Communication Academic Innovation |
| 基金项目:中国农业期刊网研究基金项目(项目编号:CAJW2023-048) |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 23 |
| 全文下载次数: 0 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 学术期刊是开展学术研究交流的重要平台，为保证了期刊的学术质量，国内外编辑同仁对学术期刊审稿模式进行了不断改进和优化，但发表时滞长、作者和审稿专家无法就稿件的修改进行有效沟通等问题却一直无法得到有效解决。公开“推荐-审核”审稿作为一种新的审稿模式，在审稿过程中依然执行三审制，只是与传统三审制审稿流程不同。其与传统审稿最大的不同有三：一是将专家审稿的二审环节提前，变为一审，并且由作者自行选择审稿专家；二是将编辑的审核变为二审，除编辑审核外，增加了栏目主持人、评稿团队对专家意见的多重审核；三是增加了对录用稿件、审稿人和审稿意见的公示环节。这一审稿制度最大程度尊重了作者的审稿意愿，营造了和谐融洽的科研成果发表氛围，利于学术的交流和创新。学术论文的发表过程由作者、审稿专家、编辑、栏目主持人、评稿团队共同把关，通过制度的完善和程序的公开，保证审稿结果的公平公正。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Academic journals are important platforms for academic research and communication. In order to guarantee the academic quality of journals, editors have been exploring the review mode of academic journals for a long time. However, problems such as publication delay and lack of full communication between authors and reviewers about the revision of manuscripts have not been effectively solved. As a new review mode of academic journals, the public “recommendation-review” system still implements the tri-review system, but it is different from the traditional review process from the following three perspectives. The first difference is that the previous second expert review becomes the first review and the authors can select the review experts by themselves. The second one is to change the review of editors into the second review. In addition to the editorial review, the column hosts and review teams have been added to check the review opinions of experts. The third one is to add the publicity period of accepted manuscript, reviewers and review opinions. This review system shows respect to the author’s review intention to the greatest extent, creates a harmonious atmosphere for the publication of scientific research, and is also conducive to academic communication and innovation. The publishing process of academic papers is checked jointly by the authors, review experts, editors, column hosts and review teams. By improving the review system and opening the review process, the justice and equity of the review results can be better guaranteed. |
|
View Fulltext
查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |
