中国科技期刊研究 ›› 2019, Vol. 30 ›› Issue (8): 832-838.doi: 10.11946/cjstp.201904290327

• 质量建设 • 上一篇    下一篇

提高医学期刊审稿时效和质量的对策探讨——基于审稿专家的调查

尚淑贤,周良佳,颜艳()   

  1. 中国医学科学院北京协和医学院皮肤病医院《中华皮肤科杂志》编辑部,江苏省南京市蒋王庙街12号 210042
  • 收稿日期:2019-04-29 修回日期:2019-06-25 出版日期:2019-08-15 发布日期:2019-08-30
  • 通讯作者: 颜艳 E-mail:zpbjb_yanyan@aliyun.com
  • 作者简介:尚淑贤(ORCID:0000-0003-3291-6972),博士,副编审,E-mail: shangshuxian78@aliyun.com|周良佳,硕士,编辑

Strategies to increase efficiency and quality of peer review in medical journals:Based on a questionnaire survey among peer reviewers

SHANG Shuxian,ZHOU Liangjia,YAN Yan()   

  1. Editorial Office of Chinese Journal of Dermatology, Hospital for Skin Diseases, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 12 Jiangwangmiao Street, Nanjing 210042, China
  • Received:2019-04-29 Revised:2019-06-25 Online:2019-08-15 Published:2019-08-30
  • Contact: YAN Yan E-mail:zpbjb_yanyan@aliyun.com

摘要:

【目的】通过深入了解审稿专家对审稿行为的认知态度,探讨提高审稿时效和质量的对策。【方法】自行设计问卷,问卷内容包括审稿人一般信息、审稿时间、审稿意见公开倾向、稿件评审指标以及对审稿利益冲突、学术不端的认知等,通过邮件向257位审稿专家发送调查通知,采用问卷星平台发布、收集问卷。【结果】共回收有效问卷215份,应答者中,44.2%年龄为4150岁, 70.7%是正高级职称,84.6%具有博士学历。审阅1篇研究性论文、综述论文和病例报告所需的中位时间分别为3、3、1.5 d;91.6%的审稿人认为审稿周期为2周是合适的。40.0%的审稿人接受在纸刊上公开审稿意见,44.6%接受在杂志微信/网站上公开审稿意见;82.3%的审稿人不能胜任统计学审稿。80.9%的审稿人认为有必要签署利益冲突声明;19.3%的审稿人在实践中曾遇到潜在的审稿利益冲突;当遇到审稿利益冲突时,86.0%会选择回避审稿。9.8%的审稿者认为不需要审核是否存在学术不端,13%和14%的审稿者分别认为无需审阅文字表达和图表质量。69.8%的审稿者希望接受审稿培训。【结论】建议通过加强与审稿专家的有效沟通提高审稿时效,通过优化审稿单、公开审稿意见、披露利益冲突和定期培训等提高审稿质量。

关键词: 医学期刊, 同行评议, 审稿专家, 利益冲突, 学术不端行为

Abstract:

[Purposes] This paper aims to explore the strategies for increasing efficiency and quality of peer review by understanding the attitudes of peer reviewers towards some issues on peer review. [Methods] A questionnaire was designed to assess the general information of peer reviewers, time for peer review, tendency to publish peer review reports, index of peer review, cognition to disclose conflict of interests, and opinions on academic misconduct. The survey was carried out among 257 peer reviewers of Chinese Journal of Dermatology, and the questionnaire was distributed on the Questionnaire Star platform. [Findings] A total of 215 (83.6%) valid questionnaires are retrieved. Of these responders, 44.2% are aged between 41 and 50, 70.7% have a high professional title, and 84.6% have obtained a doctoral degree. The median time for review a research article, a review article, and a case report is 3, 3, and 1.5 days, respectively; 91.6% (197) of the responders consider that 2 weeks is an appropriate peer review cycle. Of these responders, 40.0% and 44.6% would like to publish their review report on the printed version and WeChat/Website of the journal, respectively; 82.3% fail to do statistical review; 80.9% consider it to be important to disclose conflict of interest, 19.3% have experienced conflict of interest, and 86.0% will refuse to review an article when potential conflict of interests exists. Moreover, 9.8% consider that there is no requirement for the review of misconduct, and 13% and 14% regard that expressions and quality of figures and tables are not needed to review. Peer review training is accepted by 69.8% of the responders. [Conclusions] To enhance effective communication with peer reviewers is recommended for increasing the efficiency of peer review, and to optimize the review list, publish review report, disclose conflict of interest in peer review and perform training regularly are recommended for improving the quality of peer review.

Key words: Medical journal, Peer review, Peer reviewer, Conflict of interest, Academic misconduct