中国科技期刊研究 ›› 2021, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (8): 990-997.doi: 10.11946/cjstp.202105270438

• 质量建设 • 上一篇    下一篇

学术期刊同行评议的问题及效率与质量提升策略

朱琳峰(), 李楠, 张婷婷   

  1. 中国农业科学院农业信息研究所,北京市海淀区中关村南大街12号 100081
  • 收稿日期:2021-05-27 修回日期:2021-06-04 出版日期:2021-08-15 发布日期:2021-08-15
  • 作者简介:朱琳峰(ORCID:0000-0001-9918-2710),硕士,编辑,E-mail: zhulinfeng@caas.cn|李 楠,博士,副编审|张婷婷,博士,编辑
  • 基金资助:
    中国科技期刊卓越行动计划项目(卓越计划-C-094);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(2020ZZ111091)

Issues in peer review of academic journals and strategies for improving the efficiency and quality

ZHU Linfeng(), LI Nan, ZHANG Tingting   

  1. Agricultural Information Institute of Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, 12 Zhongguancun South Street, Haidian District, Beijing 100081, China
  • Received:2021-05-27 Revised:2021-06-04 Published:2021-08-15 Online:2021-08-15

摘要:

【目的】 调研期刊同行评议现状,分析评议专家审稿行为的影响因素,为提高我国科技期刊同行评议的效率与质量提供借鉴。【方法】 基于传统同行评议模式,以审稿专家为研究对象,对专家同行评议培训的需求、愿意参与期刊同行评议的原因、拒绝审稿的原因及认可的同行评议激励机制4个方面进行问卷调查。【结果】 目前我国科学家参与同行评议培训的程度低而专家的同行评议培训需求却较高,参与调研的88.03%的专家认为参加期刊同行评议是科学家的职责,专家拒绝审稿主要是因为研究领域不符、文章质量不高及没有时间等,专家认可的激励方式主要包括加入期刊候选编委团队、为他们搭建学术交流平台及优秀审稿人认证及表彰。【结论】 期刊编辑部可以从丰富同行评议培训方式、细分专家研究领域、多途径扩大审稿专家库、规范同行评议流程、健全同行评议激励机制及提高编辑学术社交能力6个方面来提升同行评议的效率及质量。

关键词: 同行评议, 审稿专家, 同行评议培训, 拒绝审稿原因, 激励机制, 有效措施

Abstract:

[Purposes] This paper investigates the current situation of journal peer review and analyzes the factors affecting the reviewers' behavior, which is expected to serve as a reference for improving the efficiency and quality of peer review of scientific journals in China. [Methods] On the basis of conventional peer review mode, we designed a questionnaire to investigate the training needs of reviewers, reasons for the participation in peer review, reasons for the refusal, and expected incentive mechanism. [Findings] A small proportion of the respondents have participated in the training on peer review despite of the high demand. A total of 88.03% of them believed that it was the responsibility of scientists to participate in peer review. Experts refused to review manuscripts mainly due to the inconsistency in research field, poor quality of articles, or lack of time. The main incentive methods recognized by experts were including them into the journal editorial team, building an academic exchange platform for them, and providing relevant certifications. [Conclusions] We recommend six measures to improve the efficiency and quality of peer review: providing diversified peer review training methods, classifying research fields of experts in detail, expanding reviewer database, establishing standard peer review process, building sound peer review incentive mechanism, and enhancing editors' academic levels and social skills.

Key words: Peer review, Peer reviewer, Peer review training, Reason for refusing to review manuscripts, Incentive mechanism, Effective measure