【目的】 分析医学科技期刊稿件的专家外审结论与定稿会结论的一致性并探讨其产生差异的原因。【方法】 对比分析2016年11月至2017年4月《中华神经科杂志》6次定稿会讨论稿件的专家外审结论与定稿会结论之间的异同。【结果】 各类稿件的专家外审结论与定稿会结论的退稿一致性均较高,而录用一致性均欠佳,专家通过定稿会集体讨论得出的审稿意见比外审意见更为严格、科学和全面。【结论】 在稿源充足的条件下,若稿件的外审意见不佳可直接考虑退稿,缩短审稿周期,提高稿件的处理效率;而有必要将外审意见良好的稿件提交定稿会进行再次讨论,为稿件的学术质量进一步把关。通过对比外审结论与定稿会结论的一致性,也可甄别审稿专家的审稿专业程度。
[Purposes] This study aims to discuss the consistency on conclusions of peer review and peer-reviewer meeting for medical scientific journals. [Methods] The author compared the conclusion differences between peer review and peer-reviewer meeting on each type of articles which were discussed on Chinese Journal of Neurology peer-reviewer meeting from November 2016 to April 2017. [Findings] Good identity had been reached with comparison of the rejected opinions for conclusions between peer review and peer-reviewer meeting, but the consistency of accepted opinions is poor. The comments of peer-reviewer meeting might be more rigorous, scientific and comprehensive. [Conclusions] If the article sources are sufficient, we could reject the articles promptly to shorten the refereeing period and improve work efficiency when peer review comments are bad; if the article peer review comments are good, we still need to discuss them again in peer-reviewer meeting in order to maintain and enhance the academic quality. Meanwhile, it could be an effective indicator to identify reviewers' professionalism.
Consistency of reviewer comments,
Medical scientific journal