中国科技期刊研究 ›› 2021, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (8): 1055-1059. doi: 10.11946/cjstp.202103100214

• 能力建设 • 上一篇    下一篇

科技期刊学术团队建设的现状与措施

李亚敏1)(), 王贵林1), 魏建晶1), 张莉1), 何燕2)   

  1. 1)《中国科学》杂志社有限责任公司,北京市东城区东黄城根北街16号 100717
    2)《地球物理学报》编辑部,北京市朝阳区北土城西路19号 100029
  • 收稿日期:2021-03-10 修回日期:2021-06-28 出版日期:2021-08-15 发布日期:2021-08-15
  • 作者简介:李亚敏(ORCID:0000-0002-4776-8127),博士,编辑,E-mail: liyamin@scichina.org|王贵林,博士,副编审|魏建晶,博士,副编审|张 莉,博士,副编审|何 燕,博士,高级工程师
  • 基金资助:
    中国科协学会服务中心科技期刊项目“我国科技期刊质量影响要素分析研究”(2020XFKJQK03);中国科技期刊卓越行动计划选育高水平办刊人才子项目—青年人才支持项目“促进中国地球科学类期刊影响力提升的策略研究”(2020ZZ110930)

Building high-level academic teams to improve the academic quality of scientific journals

LI Yamin1)(), WANG Guilin1), WEI Jianjing1), ZHANG Li1), HE Yan2)   

  1. 1)Science China Press, 16 Donghuangchenggen North Street, Dongcheng District, Beijing 100717, China
    2)Editorial Office of Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 19 Beitucheng West Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing 100029, China
  • Received:2021-03-10 Revised:2021-06-28 Online:2021-08-15 Published:2021-08-15

摘要:

【目的】 分析我国科技期刊学术团队的现状和问题,提出建设高水平学术团队的措施和方案,以期充分发挥人才队伍在期刊工作中的作用,助力中国科技期刊学术质量提升。【方法】 通过问卷调查和访问,了解不同期刊学术团队的运行方式和效果,梳理目前我国科技期刊学术团队的现状和问题,并有针对性地提出解决方案。【结果】 科技期刊学术团队目前发挥的效用还不够充分:部分编委兼职过多,对期刊工作的投入不足;同行评议满意度不高,期刊编辑、作者和评审人都有不同程度的抱怨;编辑力量薄弱,限制了服务质量的提升。【结论】 针对我国科技期刊学术团队的现状和问题,从团队遴选组建、质量控制和工作积极性调动等方面提出建设措施和具体执行方案。

关键词: 科技期刊, 学术团队, 学术质量, 团队建设

Abstract:

[Purposes] This paper analyzes the status quo of and challenges facing the academic teams of China's scientific journals and presents several measures and suggestions for building high-level academic teams, in hope of giving full play to the talents in improving the academic quality of scientific journals. [Methods] Via questionaire and survey, we investigated the operating modes and outcomes of different journal academic teams, carded their status quo and challenges, and gave some well-directed solutions. [Findings] These academic teams fail to work effiently as expected. Some associated editors hold too many posts at the same time, distracting from journal involvement. The peer-review satisfaction has been hovering at a low level, raising various complains from journal editors, authors, and reviewers. There is a lack of editors, thus obstructing the improvement of editing service quality. [Conclusions] To solve the aforementioned problems, we lay out a few constructive measures as welll as detailed plans in terms of team selection, quality control, and enthusiasm motivation.

Key words: Scientific journal, Academic team, Academic quality, Team building