摘要：

【目的】 调研期刊同行评议现状,深入了解审稿人对审稿行为的认知和态度,以探讨提高审稿时效和质量的对策。【方法】 基于传统同行评议模式,以审稿人为研究对象,针对同行评议的重要性、审稿投入、接受或拒绝审稿原因、激励措施以及审稿专家遴选5个方面进行问卷调查,对获得的信息进行归纳与分析。【结果】 审稿人认为稿件的创新性和科学性最重要,且审稿意见能显著提升论文的结果和讨论部分的质量;审稿人的实际审稿时长通常在3天以内,审稿人认可14天的审稿时限,并认可具有高级职称或被编委推荐的学者成为审稿人。【结论】 期刊编辑部可以通过加强与审稿人的沟通来缩短审稿时间、提高审稿效率;通过适时遴选青年审稿人,补充、活跃审稿人队伍;通过积极建立多元化审稿工作回馈机制,建立稳定的高质高效的审稿人队伍。

关键词: 科技期刊, 同行评议, 审稿人, 激励机制, 审稿专家队伍建设

Abstract:

[Purposes] This paper aims to explore the strategies for increasing the efficiency and quality of reviewing by investigating the current situation of journal peer review and profoundly understanding the attitudes of reviewers towards review behavior. [Methods] Based on the conventional peer review mode, we designed a questionnaire for reviewers to investigate the importance of peer review, review input, reasons for acceptance or rejection, incentive mechanism, and reviewer selection, and then analyzed and summarized the collected information. [Findings] The reviewers believed that the innovation and scientificity of the manuscript were the most important, and the review comments could significantly improve the quality of results and discussion of the manuscript. The actual review time of the reviewers was usually less than 3 days, and the 14-day review time limit was most recognized. At the same time, experts with senior titles or recommended by the editorial board were recognized as reviewers. [Conclusions] Editorial department can shorten the review time and improve the review efficiency by strengthening the communication with the reviewers, supplement and activate reviewer teams by appropriately selecting young reviewers, and construct a high-quality and efficient reviewer team by establishing a diversified feedback mechanism for reviewing.

Key words: Scientific journal, Peer review, Reviewer, Incentive mechanism, Construction of reviewer team