摘要：

目的 了解《预防医学》杂志同行评议专家审稿情况,为学术期刊提高同行评议流程管理提供依据 方法 以《预防医学》杂志为例,通过稿件远程处理系统,导出实际完成时间为2015年1月1日—2015年12月31日的所有同行评议记录,分析评审专家的审稿数量、审稿时间、超时审回以及拒绝审稿数量等;采用多因素Logistic回归模型分析评审专家超时审稿的影响因素。 结果 《预防医学》杂志2015年同行评议稿件1000篇,涉及评审专家137人,占评审专家总数的68.16%。评审专家审稿最少1篇,最多48篇,中位数5篇。单篇审稿时间最短的当天审回,最长99 d,中位数为8 d。审稿数量不同的评审专家的审稿时间差异无统计学意义;不同稿件质量的审稿时间差异有统计学意义。多因素Logistic回归分析结果显示,审稿超时与审稿数量和稿件质量存在有统计学意义的关联。结论 年审稿数量不会影响单篇审稿时间,但稿件质量较差或者审稿数太少会导致评审专家超时审稿。建议学术期刊保持适当规模的同行评议专家,控制好稿件送审数量和送审节奏;编辑部应加强稿件初审,及时更新评审专家信息,加强同行评议流程管理。

关键词: 同行评议, 超时审稿, 审稿数量, 稿件质量, 定量分析

Abstract:

[Purposes] The paper aims to study on peer review of the Journal of Preventive Medicine and provide a reference for improvement of peer review process management.[Methods] All peer review records between January 1 ^st and December 31 ^st in 2015 were derived from manuscript remote processing system of Journal of Preventive Medicine. Descriptive analysis was conducted on the number of manuscripts submitted to peer reviewer, time spent on per manuscript, overtime review and refusals. Logistic regression model was used to analyze the influencing factors of overtime review.[Findings] One thousand manuscripts in 2015 from the Journal of Preventive Medicine are peer reviewed by 137 reviewers who are accounted for 68.16% of total reviewers. The number of manuscripts submitted to reviewers ranges from 1 to 48, with a median of 5 manuscripts. Review time ranges from less than one day to 99 days, with a median of 8 days. Statistical difference is not significant in review time of reviewers by different annual quantities of manuscripts; while statistical difference is significant in review time of manuscripts with various quality. Logistic regression analysis suggests that quantity and quality of manuscripts reviewed are associated with overtime review.[Conclusions] Review time for each essay is not associated with annual quantities of manuscripts. However, poor quality and review time may lead to overtime review. Academic journal managers should maintain a proper size of reviewer group and control the quantity and pace of review invitation. Editorial department should strengthen the management of first review, reviewer information update and review process.

Key words: Peer review, Overtime review, Quantity of manuscripts, Manuscript quality, Quantitative analysis