中国科技期刊研究 ›› 2019, Vol. 30 ›› Issue (4): 358-363.doi: 10.11946/cjstp.201811070981

• 质量建设 • 上一篇    下一篇

我国医学期刊编辑对医学研究报告规范的认知度

李娜1),李洁2),孙菲3),栾嘉4),刘洋1),李玉乐1),孙静1)   

  1. 1) 北京协和医院《协和医学杂志》编辑部,北京市东城区王府井帅府园1号 100730
    2)《中国医学科学杂志(英文版)》编辑部,北京市东单三条九号 100005
    3)《解放军医学院学报》编辑部,北京市海淀区复兴路28号 100853
    4)《第三军医大学学报》编辑部,重庆市沙坪坝区高滩岩正街30号 400038
  • 收稿日期:2018-11-07 修回日期:2019-01-09 出版日期:2019-04-28 发布日期:2019-04-15
  • 作者简介:李 娜(ORCID:0000-0001-6657-9770),硕士研究生,编辑,E-mail: 453339011@qq.com|李 洁,博士,副教授|孙 菲,博士,讲师|栾 嘉,硕士,副编审|刘 洋,学士,编辑|李玉乐,硕士,编辑。
  • 基金资助:
    中国高校科技期刊研究会青年基金资助(CUJS-QN-2018-001)

Cognition degree of guidelines on medical research reports for medical journal editors in China

LI Na1),LI Jie2),SUN Fei3),LUAN Jia4),LIU Yang1),LI Yule1),SUN Jing1)   

  1. 1) Editorial Office of Medical Journal of Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, 1 Shuaifuyuan, Wangfujing, Dongcheng District, Beijing 100730, China
    2) Editorial Office of Chinese Medical Sciences Journal (English Version), 9 Dongdan Santiao, Beijing 100005, China
    3) Editorial Office of Academic Journal of Chinese PLA Medical School, 28 Fuxing Road, Haidian District,Beijing 100853, China
    4) Editorial Office of Journal of Third Military Medical University, 30 Gaotanyan Main Street, Shapingba District, Chongqing 400038, China;
  • Received:2018-11-07 Revised:2019-01-09 Online:2019-04-28 Published:2019-04-15

摘要:

目的 了解我国医学期刊编辑对医学研究报告规范的整体认知情况及实践中存在的问题,探索解决对策。方法 2018年5—9月,采用问卷调查形式,通过微信、QQ等平台对国内医学期刊编辑发放网络问卷,分析医学期刊编辑对医学研究报告规范的认知差别。结果 288名参与调查的医学编辑中,全部知晓、均不知晓、虽然知晓但从未在工作中应用过5种国际医学研究报告规范的比例分别为4.5%、29.9%、32.7%;《生物医学期刊投稿统一要求》和CONSORT声明的知晓率、应用率、认可度均显著高于其他3种医学研究报告规范。88.1%的医学期刊编辑认为在“稿约”或“作者须知”中列出医学研究报告规范对提高医学论文质量具有帮助,99.0%的医学期刊编辑认为医学研究报告规范对本职工作非常或比较重要,且88.2%的医学期刊编辑表示非常或比较希望获得相关知识的系统培训。64.9%的医学期刊编辑将期刊协会或编辑学会等举办的专题讲座或培训课程作为系统学习的首要途径。结论 我国医学期刊编辑对国际医学研究报告规范的知晓率和应用率普遍偏低,但对系统培训需求较高,期刊管理部门、学会及社会团体均应重视医学期刊编辑的重要作用,通过开展与医学研究报告规范相关的教育培训活动,提高医学期刊编辑的认知度。

关键词: 医学期刊编辑, 认知度, 医学研究报告规范, 出版伦理

Abstract:

[Purposes] This paper aims to investigate the overall cognition degree of the guidelines on medical research reports for editors of Chinese medical journals and the problems in their editing practice, so as to explore the corresponding countermeasures. [Methods] From May to September in 2018, an online questionnaire was distributed to domestic medical journal editors through WeChat and QQ, and their cognitive differences were analyzed. [Findings] Among 288 medical journal editors who participated in the survey, 4.5% of them know all the five reporting guidelines, 29.9% of them do not know any of them, and 32.7% of them know about the reporting guidelines, but never apply any one in editing work. The awareness rate, application rate, and acceptance rate of the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals and the CONSORT statement are significantly higher than the other three reporting guidelines. 88.1% of the subjects believe that listing the guidelines on medical research report in the authors' instruction of the journal can help to improve the quality of medical research reports, 99.0% of them think the reporting guidelines are very important for their daily work, and 88.2% of them express great or comparative desire for systematic training on medical reporting guideline. 64.9% of them prefer the lectures or training courses held by schools, institutions, and associations as the primary form of receiving education compared to the other three options. [Conclusions] Chinese editors of medical journals are lack of knowledge in the guidelines on medical research reports with insufficient utilities in their practice. However, they have strong demands to learn them through systematic training programs. The journal management department, society, and social organization should value the role of medical editors. Training lessons about the reporting guidelines should be carried out for the purpose of facilitating their overall perception.

Key words: Medical journal editor, Cognition degree, Guideline on medical research report, Publication ethics