中国科技期刊研究 ›› 2016, Vol. 27 ›› Issue (8): 857-862.doi: 10.11946/cjstp.201603210227

• 论 坛 • 上一篇    下一篇

科技期刊审稿专家的评价和改进措施

刘凤华, 陈立敏, 李启明   

  1. 刘凤华 - 北京生物制品研究所《中华微生物学和免疫学杂志》编辑部,北京市经济技术开发区经海二路38号 101111
    陈立敏 - 中华医学会《中华医学杂志(英文版)》编辑部,北京市东四西大街42号 100710
    李启明 - 北京生物制品研究所《中华微生物学和免疫学杂志》编辑部,北京市经济技术开发区经海二路38号 101111
  • 收稿日期:2016-03-21 修回日期:2016-06-02 出版日期:2016-08-15 发布日期:2016-08-15

Measurements of the evaluation and optimization about peer reviewers of scientific journals

LIU Fenghua, CHEN Limin, LI Qiming   

  1. LIU Fenghua - Editorial Board of Chinese Journal of Microbiology and Immunology, National Vaccine and Serum Institute, 38 Jinghaierlu, Beijing Economic-Technological Development Area, Beijing 101111, China
    CHEN Limin - Editorial Board of Chinese Medical Journal, 42 Dongsi Xidajie, 100710 Beijing, China
    LI Qiming - Editorial Board of Chinese Journal of Microbiology and Immunology, National Va
  • Received:2016-03-21 Revised:2016-06-02 Online:2016-08-15 Published:2016-08-15

摘要: 【目的】通过对审稿专家的评价进而提出优化审稿专家的措施。【方法】 选取《中华微生物学和免疫学杂志》2011—2015年267位审稿专家7756条审稿记录,统计267位专家的审稿数量、审稿时滞及审稿结论。【结果】 通过统计和分析,5年间审稿篇次>31篇的66位专家是期刊的核心审稿专家,其中,审稿时滞在3周以内的专家占92.5%;审稿时滞上,就所有专家而言,74.2%的能在3周内审回稿件;审稿结论上,拒审占5.0%,无具体审稿意见或审稿意见过简无针对性的占10.5%。【结论】 要保证期刊的核心专家队伍,必须从专家和编辑两个层面进行改进。对专家适当取舍,保证核心审稿专家的数量;同时编辑应做好服务工作,重视专家的知识回报。

Abstract: [Purposes] This paper aims to optimize the peer reviewers by evaluating them. [Methods] 267 peer reviewers of Chinese Journal of Microbiology and Immunology and 7756 reviewing records from 2011 to 2015 were chosen to analyze their review number, review time and review results. [Findings] Those who review manuscripts over 31 during 5 years were the core of the peer reviewers. 92.5% of the core reviewers and 74.2% of all reviewers could finish their tasks during 3 weeks. Review rejection was 5.0%, and nonsense review opinions were 10.5% .[Conclusions] If editors want to guarantee the journal core reviewer team, peer reviewers must be optimized by good service and knowledge returns.