中国科技期刊研究 ›› 2021, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (5): 693-698. doi: 10.11946/cjstp.202010300921

• 评论与分析 • 上一篇    下一篇

我国部分医学科技期刊稿约现状及投稿者需求分析

单政(), 赵瑞芹()   

  1. 中国医学科学院医学信息研究所《医学研究杂志》编辑部,北京市朝阳区雅宝路3号 100020
  • 收稿日期:2020-10-30 修回日期:2021-02-08 出版日期:2021-05-15 发布日期:2021-05-15
  • 通讯作者: 赵瑞芹 E-mail:zheng@imicams.ac.cn;ruiqin@imicams.ac.cn
  • 作者简介:单 政(ORCID:0000-0002-1782-8950),硕士,编辑,E-mail:shan. zheng@imicams.ac.cn

Current situation of instructions for authors and the needs of contributors of some medical journals in China

SHAN Zheng(), ZHAO Ruiqin()   

  1. Editorial Office of Journal of Medical Research, Institute of Medical Information, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, 3 Yabao Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing 100020, China
  • Received:2020-10-30 Revised:2021-02-08 Online:2021-05-15 Published:2021-05-15
  • Contact: ZHAO Ruiqin E-mail:zheng@imicams.ac.cn;ruiqin@imicams.ac.cn

摘要:

【目的】 了解投稿者对期刊稿约的评价和需求,结合期刊社稿约发布现状,探求供需之间存在的矛盾,并提出完善和改进建议。【方法】 通过对395名投稿者进行问卷调查及50种医学类科技期刊稿约的文献分析,设立研究框架,从期刊介绍、收稿情况、写作规范、刊发标准、工作流程、投稿方式、时效信息、费用标准、法律及权益、服务项目10个方面对作者投稿信息需求和稿约撰写情况进行调查。【结果】 大多数投稿者已将稿约视为投稿必要参考文件之一,且认同稿约的质量会影响其对期刊的评价和选择。目前稿约内容与投稿者需求存在一定偏差,不能完全满足作者投稿的信息需求,尤其在时效信息、刊发标准、工作流程和费用标准等方面存在作者需求率和稿约完成度不平衡的现象。【结论】 期刊社应重视作者投稿需求,提升服务意识,在深入了解投稿者心态的基础上,不断调整和完善稿约,以体现刊物特色,同时在稿约撰写中避免出现概括性定义,明确、细化时效及相关标准,公开工作流程,并注意保持及时更新。

关键词: 稿约, 医学科技期刊, 需求, 现状

Abstract:

[Purposes] This paper summarizes the content of instructions for authors of medical journals and investigates the accessibility to and requirements for instructions for authors from the perspective of contributors, thereby clarifying contradiction between supply and demand and putting forward suggestions for improvement. [Methods] A questionnaire survey of 395 contributors and a literature study of 50 medical journals were performed, in which the requirements for instructions for authors were solicited via the research framework established through literature research. Then the above research framework, which comprised journal introduction, information on expected papers, writing standard, publication standard, workflow of editorial office, submission method, publishing cycle, charging standard, rights and obligations, and services, was applied to the content analysis of instructions for authors. [Findings] Most contributors regarded the instructions for authors necessary and agreed on the great influence of the quality of them on the evaluation and selection of journals. There is certain deviation between the content of the instructions for authors and the needs of the contributors, particularly in publishing cycle, publication standard, editorial office's workflow, and charging standard. [Conclusions] To improve the instructions for authors, journals should emphasize the needs of contributors, enhance service awareness, expound journal characteristics, avoid general terms, clarify and detail the publishing cycle and related standards, make the workflow public, and ensure in-time updating.

Key words: Instruction for author, Medical journal, Need, Current situation