Publons审稿人特征给我国英文医学期刊国际化审稿的启示

doi:10.11946/cjstp.202002190082

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【目的】 分析Publons医学领域最活跃的审稿人特征及其审稿特征,为英文医学期刊编辑利用网络遴选审稿人提供实证参考。【方法】 采用SPSS 21.0统计软件分析Publons医学领域审稿次数最多的250位审稿人的专业和地理分布,审稿、发文、被引计量学指标和审稿期刊的水平。【结果】 审稿人及审稿数量全球分布不平衡;审稿人学术阶段有多样性;部分审稿人只为WoS来源期刊审稿。审稿人发表论文数量、以第一作者发表论文数量、被引频次、h指数与经验证审稿总次数、过去12个月经验证审稿次数均为正相关;经验证审稿总次数和过去12个月审稿次数正相关。【结论】 英文医学期刊编辑应增加审稿人多样性,重视论文数据和方法审核,合理安排单篇论文审稿人的专业构成;同时加强初审,选择适合期刊水平和近期发文、审稿较活跃的审稿人。

关键词: 国际审稿专家, 同行评议, 英文医学期刊, 计量学指标, Publons

Abstract:

[Purposes] This paper analyzes the characteristics of active reviewers in the medical field of Publons and their review characteristics, aiming to provide empirical references for editors of English medical journals to select reviewers based on online searching tools. [Methods] The SPSS 21.0 statistical software was used to analyze the professional and geographic distribution of the top 250 reviewers in the medical field of Publons, metrology indicators of the reviewers including reviews, publications, and citations, and the level of review journals. [Findings] The global distribution of reviewers and the number of verified reviews in medicine journals are inappropriate. The academic stage of reviewers is diverse, and some reviewers only review papers from Web of Science indexed journals. Positive correlations are found among the number of papers published by a reviewer both as a group member author and as the first author, citation frequencies, and h index and the number of verified reviews and the number of verified reviews during the past 12 months. Total verified reviews are positively correlated with reviews during the past 12 months. [Conclusions] Editors of medical journals should increase the diversity of reviewers, and invite reviewers with different academic backgrounds to review, in order to ensure high standards of data processing, statistical analysis, and results interpretation of the published papers. Meanwhile, only good quality papers should be sent for peer review after editorial review, and the reviewer who is suitable for the journal's level and is active in publications and reviews is selected as journal reviewer.

Key words: International reviewer, Peer review, English medical journal, Metrological index, Publons

雷燕. Publons审稿人特征给我国英文医学期刊国际化审稿的启示[J]. 中国科技期刊研究, 2020, 31(9): 1009-1016.

LEI Yan. Enlightenments of Publons reviewer characteristics to the international peer review of China's English medical journals[J]. Chinese Journal of Scientific and Technical Periodicals, 2020, 31(9): 1009-1016.

https://www.cjstp.cn/CN/Y2020/V31/I9/1009

图/表 7

参考文献 44

[1]	Publons global state of peer review 2018[EB/OL]. (2019-01-15)[2020-01-09]. https://publons.com/static/Publons-Global-State-Of-Peer-Review-2018.pdf URL
[2]	葛剑平, 徐晓, 蔡斐. 英文版期刊激发国际审稿专家积极性[J]. 编辑学报, 2013,25(2):174-176.
[3]	于洋, 段桂花, 张维维, 等. 科技期刊国内外审稿人的选择与合作[J]. 编辑学报, 2016,28(4):362-365.
[4]	葛建平, 徐晓, 张丽辉, 等. 国际审稿专家库的拓展与维护给期刊发展的启示——以《中国航空学报(英文版)》为例[J]. 编辑学报, 2015,27(5):485-487.
[5]	张丹. 论英文科技期刊优秀审稿人队伍的培养[J]. 编辑学报, 2019,31(5):582-585.
[6]	王丹. 科技期刊做好外审工作的思考[J]. 编辑学报, 2019,31(4):415-417.
[7]	霍振响, 屈李纯. 高校科技期刊审稿人审稿数量的分布规律及思考[J]. 中国科技期刊研究, 2018,29(11):1136-1140.
[8]	尚淑贤, 周良佳, 颜艳. 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[J]. 中国科技期刊研究, 2019,30(8):832-838.
[9]	江睿, 艾红, 丁彦文, 等. 科技期刊在同行评议环节存在的问题及对策[J]. 中国科技期刊研究, 2019,30(11):1171-1176. doi: 10.11946/cjstp.201906170434 URL
[10]	王凤产. 期刊评审人危机的化解机制:认证、认定与激励[J]. 中国科技期刊研究, 2020,31(4):395-400.
[11]	王景周. 同行评议中审稿人的知识隐藏行为及其控制策略[J]. 中国科技期刊研究, 2019,30(12):1289-1295.
[12]	陈晓峰, 蔡敬羽, 刘永坚. 科技期刊同行评议中审稿人激励措施研究[J]. 中国科技期刊研究, 2019,30(11):1157-1163.
[13]	常唯, 曹会聪, 曹金, 等. 国际科技期刊同行评议的实践与特点[J]. 中国科技期刊研究, 2016,27(1):10-17.
[14]	常唯, 曹金, 刘团结, 等. 科技期刊同行评议可检验规范最佳实践[J]. 中国科技期刊研究, 2016,27(1):25-32.
[15]	曾群. Publons对传统审稿模式的改变[J]. 科技与出版, 2018(5):60-64.
[16]	刘丽萍, 刘春丽. Publons管理模式对我国同行评审制度的启示[J]. 中国科技期刊研究, 2018,29(7):685-690.
[17]	孟美任, 张晓林. 中国科技期刊引入开放同行评议机制的思考与建议[J]. 中国科技期刊研究, 2019,30(2):149-155. doi: 10.11946/cjstp.201811120995 URL
[18]	于淼, 赵金环. 出版后同行评议及其对国内学术出版的启示[J]. 中国科技期刊研究, 2020,31(1):45-50.
[19]	Publons注册用户突破200万,500万条审稿记录获得认可[EB/OL]. (2020-07-03). https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/Yx6vbaL0V7i22UpWXAMnpg. URL
[20]	Raoult V. How many papers should scientists be reviewing? An analysis using verified peer review reports[J]. Publications, 2020,8(1):4.
[21]	Pomponi F, Damico B, Rye T. Who is (likely) peer-reviewing your papers? A partial insight into the world's top reviewers[J]. Publications, 2019,7(1):15.
[22]	黄颖, 吴其达, 宗乾进, 等. 审稿人工作量的影响因素研究——基于对Publons Top Reviewers个体特征的实证分析[J]. 中国科技期刊研究, 2019,30(9):956-961.
[23]	刘丽萍, 刘春丽. 基于Publons平台的审稿人贡献认可与评价研究[J]. 中国科技期刊研究, 2020,31(1):99-107.
[24]	Methodology and eligibility[EB/OL]. [2020-07-09]. https://publons.com/community/awards/awards-categories-2018/. URL
[25]	How do I add my publications to Publons?[EB/OL]. [2019-12-29]. https://publons.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/articles/12000062048-how-do-i-add-my-publications-to-publons-. URL
[26]	h-index on Publons[EB/OL]. [2019-12-29]. https://publons.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/articles/120000520 51-h-index-on-publons. URL
[27]	What are the citation counts Publons associates with my publications?[EB/OL]. [2019-12-29]. https://publons.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/articles/12000062049-what-are-the-citation-counts-publons-associates-with-my-publications-. URL
[28]	What are my research fields and how do I update them[EB/OL]. [2020-07-05]. https://publons.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/articles/12000023854-what-are-my-research-fields-and-how-do-i-update-them-. URL
[29]	How do you compare to reviewers in your field?[EB/OL]. [2020-07-05]. https://publons.com/blog/primary-research-fields/. URL
[30]	All science journal classification[EB/OL]. [2020-07-05]. https://pg.edu.pl/documents/611754/75313317/asjc. URL
[31]	O'Brien A, Graf C, McKellar K. How publishers and editors can help early career researchers:Recommendations from a roundtable discussion[J]. Learned Publishing, 2019,32(4):383-393.
[32]	Gaston T, Smart P. What influences the regional diversity of reviewers:A study of medical and agricultural/biological sciences journals[J]. Learned Publishing, 2018,31(3):189-197.
[33]	Zhang X Y. Effect of reviewer's origin on peer review:China vs. non-China[J]. Learned Publishing, 2012,25(4):265-270. doi: 10.1087/20120405 URL
[34]	Hanson B, Lerback J. Diversifying the reviewer pool[EB/OL]. [2020-02-08].https://www.nature.com/news/journals-invite-too-few-women-to-referee-1.21337. URL
[35]	Gaston T. Addressing the regional diversity of reviewers[EB/OL]. [2020-02-12].https://hub.wiley.com/community/exchanges/discover/blog/2018/09. URL
[36]	The importance of diversity in peer review[EB/OL]. [2020-02-13]https://www.elsevier.com/connect/reviewers-update/the-importance-of-diversity-in-peer-review. URL
[37]	McCurry D. Why this year's peer review week is focusing on diversity and inclusion[EB/OL].[2020-02-12].https://www.exordo.com/blog/diversity-and-peer-review-week/. URL
[38]	What a new Publons report on peer review says about diversity,and more[EB/OL].[2020-01-10].https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2018/09/12/guest-post-what-a-new- publons-report-on-peer-review-says-about-diversity-and-more/. URL
[39]	Jamali H R, Nicholas D, Watkinson A, et al. Early career researchers and their authorship and peer review beliefs and practices:An international study[J]. Learned Publishing, 2020,33(2):142-152.
[40]	Rodríguez-Bravo B, Nicholas D, Herman E, et al. Peer review:The experience and views of early career researchers[J]. Learned Publishing, 2017,30(4):269-277.
[41]	Warne V. Rewarding reviewers-sense or sensibility? A Wiley study explained[J]. Learned Publishing, 2016,29(1):41-50.
[42]	Difficulty in finding reviewers taints editorial decisions[EB/OL].[2019-12-29].https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/10/16/difficulty-finding-reviewers-taints-editorial-decisions/ URL
[43]	McGlinchey N, Hunter T, Bromley J, et al Do journal administrators solve the reviewer assignment problem as well as editors? Consideration of reviewer rigour and timeliness[J]. Learned Publishing, 2019,32(1):37-46.
[44]	Glonti K, Boutron I, Moher D,et al. Journal editors' perspectives on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in biomedical journals:A qualitative study[J]. BMJ Open, 2019,9(11):e033421. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033421 URL pmid: 31767597

指标	数值范围	中位数	第一四分位数	第三四分位数	众数	第90百分位数
经验证审稿次数^*	5~1974	24	10	79.75	6	198.30
经验证编辑次数^*	0~220	0	0	0	0	23.50
过去12个月经验证审稿次数^*	0~334	7	2	19.25	0	48.90
发表论文数量^#	1~532	37	17	83	15	153.2
在WoS来源期刊发表论文数量^#	0~480	18	2.5	53	0	116.6
以第一作者发表论文数量^#	0~399	27	10.5	53	10	116
总被引频次^#	0~9904	133	13	646	0	1963.8
h指数^#	0~55	6	1	13.5	0	22.40

指标	数值范围	中位数	第一四分位数	第三四分位数	众数	第90百分位数
经验证审稿次数^*	5~1974	24	10	79.75	6	198.30
经验证编辑次数^*	0~220	0	0	0	0	23.50
过去12个月经验证审稿次数^*	0~334	7	2	19.25	0	48.90
发表论文数量^#	1~532	37	17	83	15	153.2
在WoS来源期刊发表论文数量^#	0~480	18	2.5	53	0	116.6
以第一作者发表论文数量^#	0~399	27	10.5	53	10	116
总被引频次^#	0~9904	133	13	646	0	1963.8
h指数^#	0~55	6	1	13.5	0	22.40

指标	指标中位数(第一四分位数,第三四分位数)		Z值	P值
指标	组1(n₁=105)	组2(n₂=55)	Z值	P值
发表论文数量	45(21,94)	29(12,66)	-2.294	0.022
WoS来源期刊发表论文数量	18(0.5,63.5)	18(7,49)	-0.150	0.881
第一作者发表论文数量	35(13,63.5)	18(8,39)	-2.531	0.011
经验证审稿次数	68(25.5,190)	16(9,41)	-5.343	<0.001
经验证编辑次数	0(0,14.5)	0(0,0)	-4.305	<0.001
被引频次	130(8,718)	166(25,624)	-0.599	0.549
过去12个月发表论文数量	2(0,7.5)	1(0,4)	-1.274	0.203
过去12个月在WoS来源期刊发表论文数量	1(0,6)	0(0,4)	-1.154	0.249
过去12个月以第一作者发表论文数量	1(0,3)	0(0,2)	-1.437	0.151
过去12个月以第一作者在WoS来源期刊发表论文数量	0(0,3)	0(0,2)	-1.133	0.257
过去12个月经验证审稿次数	18(5,42.5)	5(2,10)	-4.290	<0.001
h指数	6 (0, 14.5)	6(2, 11)	-0.184	0.854

指标	指标中位数(第一四分位数,第三四分位数)		Z值	P值
指标	组1(n₁=105)	组2(n₂=55)	Z值	P值
发表论文数量	45(21,94)	29(12,66)	-2.294	0.022
WoS来源期刊发表论文数量	18(0.5,63.5)	18(7,49)	-0.150	0.881
第一作者发表论文数量	35(13,63.5)	18(8,39)	-2.531	0.011
经验证审稿次数	68(25.5,190)	16(9,41)	-5.343	<0.001
经验证编辑次数	0(0,14.5)	0(0,0)	-4.305	<0.001
被引频次	130(8,718)	166(25,624)	-0.599	0.549
过去12个月发表论文数量	2(0,7.5)	1(0,4)	-1.274	0.203
过去12个月在WoS来源期刊发表论文数量	1(0,6)	0(0,4)	-1.154	0.249
过去12个月以第一作者发表论文数量	1(0,3)	0(0,2)	-1.437	0.151
过去12个月以第一作者在WoS来源期刊发表论文数量	0(0,3)	0(0,2)	-1.133	0.257
过去12个月经验证审稿次数	18(5,42.5)	5(2,10)	-4.290	<0.001
h指数	6 (0, 14.5)	6(2, 11)	-0.184	0.854

变量	发表论文数量	WoS来源期刊发表论文数量	以第一作者发表论文数量	编辑次数	总被引频次	过去12个月审稿次数	h指数
P	0.000	0.002	0.000	0.000	0.004	0.000	0.001
R	0.478	0.234	0.464	0.644	0.225	0.768	0.246

选择文件类型/文献管理软件名称

选择包含的内容