[1] |
Peer review quality in the era of COVID-19[EB/OL]. [2021-04-10].https://www.wiley.com/network/archive/peer-review-quality-in-the-era-of-covid-19 .
URL
|
[2] |
李晶, 张嵘, 相艳. “编委送审制”初探及与“编辑送审制”比较: 以《北京航空航天大学学报》为例[J]. 编辑学报, 2016, 28(2):153-155.
|
[3] |
韩丽, 王敏, 武文. 编委送审制在国内学术期刊中的应用[J]. 编辑学报, 2012, 24(4):361-363.
|
[4] |
安梅, 于世美, 汤梅, 等. 同行评议过程中审稿人的不同选择方式及审稿结果比较[J]. 编辑学报, 2011, 23(S1):33-35.
|
[5] |
孟美任, 彭希珺. 基于VSM和余弦相似度的稿件精准送审方法[J]. 中国科技期刊研究, 2018, 29(10):982-986.
|
[6] |
盛怡瑾. 用户画像技术在学术期刊审稿人遴选中的应用[J]. 出版发行研究, 2018(8):54-58.
|
[7] |
于红艳. 可视化思维导图在遴选“小同行”审稿人中的辅助应用[J]. 科技与出版, 2018(7):85-89.
|
[8] |
张娅彭, 王紫霞. 优化送审流程,构建科学、公正、高效的审稿机制:以《高等学校化学学报》为例[J]. 编辑学报, 2020, 32(6):652-654,658.
|
[9] |
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.
|
[10] |
于红艳. 关于同行评议中审稿人知识隐藏行为的实证研究[J]. 编辑学报, 2020, 32(4):380-384.
|
[11] |
Kowalczuk M K, Dudbridge F, Nanda S, et al. Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models[J]. BMJ Open, 2015, 5(9): e008707.
|
[12] |
Shopovski J, Bolek C, Bolek M. Characteristics of peer review reports:Editor-suggested versus author-suggested reviewers[J]. Science and Engineering Ethics, 2020, 26(2):709-726.
doi: 10.1007/s11948-019-00118-y
pmid: 31209769
|
[13] |
Moore J L, Neilson E G, Siegel V, et al. Effect of recommendations from reviewers suggested or excluded by authors[J]. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, 2011, 22(9):1598-1602.
doi: 10.1681/ASN.2011070643
URL
|
[14] |
Rennie D, Flanagin A. Three decades of peer review congresses[J]. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 2018, 319(4):350-353.
doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.20606
URL
|
[15] |
Albert A Y K, Gow J L, Cobra A, et al. Is it becoming harder to secure reviewers for peer review? A test with data from five ecology journals[J]. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 2016, 1:14.
doi: 10.1186/s41073-016-0022-7
URL
|
[16] |
Vines T, Rieseberg L, Smith H. No crisis in supply of peer reviewers[J]. Nature, 2010, 468(7327):1041.
|
[17] |
Bakker T C M, Traniello J F A. Peer-review reciprocity and commitment to manuscript evaluation[J]. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 2020, 7:38.
|
[18] |
Seeber M. How do journals of different rank instruct peer reviewers? Reviewer guidelines in the field of management[J]. Scientometrics, 2020, 122(3):1387-1405.
doi: 10.1007/s11192-019-03343-1
URL
|
[19] |
Who are the reviewers of journal articles,and how often do they review?[EB/OL].(2017-03-27)[2021-03-25]. https://www.elsevier.com/connect/archive/who-are-the-reviewers-of-journal-articles-and-how-often-do-they-review https://www.elsevier.com/connect/archive/who-are-the-reviewers-of-journal-articles-and-how-often-do-they-review.
|
[20] |
徐晓, 孔琪颖, 蔡斐. 科技期刊编辑如何快速有效地邀请国际审稿专家[J]. 编辑学报, 2011, 23(S1):61-63.
|
[21] |
Henderson S, Berk M, Boyce P, et al. Finding reviewers:A crisis for journals and their authors[J]. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 2020, 54(10):957-959.
doi: 10.1177/0004867420958077
pmid: 33000644
|
[22] |
Sposato L A, Ovbiagele B, Johnston S C, et al. A peek behind the curtain:Peer review and editorial decision making at Stroke[J]. Annals of Neurology, 2014, 76(2):151-158.
doi: 10.1002/ana.24218
URL
|
[23] |
熊英, 欧阳贱华. 专家拒绝或延迟审稿原因分析及对策[J]. 编辑学报, 2012, 24(2):147-149.
|
[24] |
林松, 张婉博, 张维维. 同行评议中审稿人不当行为的探讨与防范[J]. 编辑学报, 2020, 32(4):439-442.
|
[25] |
Manchikanti L, Kaye A D, Boswell M V, et al. Medical journal peer review:Process and bias[J]. Pain Physician, 2015, 18(1):E1-E14.
|
[26] |
Davidoff F. Sponsorship,authorship,and accountability[J]. The New England Journal of Medicine, 2001, 345(11):825-827.
doi: 10.1056/NEJMed010093
URL
|
[27] |
Resnik D B, Elmore S A. Conflict of interest in journal peer review[J]. Toxicologic Pathology, 2018, 46(2):112-114.
doi: 10.1177/0192623318754792
pmid: 29382273
|
[28] |
Squazzoni F, Bravo G, Farjam M, et al. Peer review and gender bias:A study on 145 scholarly journals[J]. Science Advances, 2021, 7(2):eabd0299.
|
[29] |
Lerback J, Hanson B. Journals invite too few women to referee[J]. Nature, 2017, 541(7638):455-457.
doi: 10.1038/541455a
URL
|
[30] |
Helmer M, Schottdorf M, Neef A, et al. Gender bias in scholarly peer review[J]. eLife, 2017, 6:e21718.
|
[31] |
Hadi M A. Fake peer-review in research publication:Revisiting research purpose and academic integrity[J]. International Journal of Pharmacy Practice, 2016, 24(5):309-310.
doi: 10.1111/ijpp.12307
URL
|
[32] |
Kornhaber R, Visentin D, Watson R, et al. Asking authors to nominate reviewers[J]. Nurse Author & Editor, 2020, 30(1):1-8.
|
[33] |
Rees M. COPE statement on inappropriate manipulation of peer review processes[J]. Maturitas, 2015, 80(4):339.
doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2015.01.005
URL
|
[34] |
Fake peer-reviewing[EB/OL]. [2021-03-28].https://embassy.science/wiki/Theme:Fb1a2e2a-aa2a-4eb4-ac9c-c9567c2b401b .
URL
|
[35] |
Peer review[EB/OL].(2013-04-30)[2021-03-30]. https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/about/how-it-works
URL
|
[36] |
Fisher D, Parisis N. Social influence and peer review:Why traditional peer review is no longer adapted,and how it should evolve[J]. EMBO Reports, 2015, 16(12):1588-1591.
doi: 10.15252/embr.201541256
URL
|
[37] |
学术期刊尝试众包同行评审,初期成效显著[EB/OL].(2017-06-13)[2021-03-13]. http:www.sohu.com/a/148504964_354973
URL
|
[38] |
List B. Crowd-based peer review can be good and fast[J]. Nature, 2017, 546(7656):9.
doi: 10.1038/546009a
URL
|
[39] |
郭伟. 群审稿:一种专家主动审稿模式的探索[J]. 编辑学报, 2018, 30(3):222-226.
|
[40] |
AME bond between editors and reviewers (ABER)[EB/OL].(2018-07-10)[2021-04-10]. https://www.theaber.com/home
URL
|
[41] |
Horbach Serge P J M. Pandemic publishing:Medical journals strongly speed up their publication process for COVID-19[J]. Quantitative Science Studies, 2020, 1(3):1056-1067.
doi: 10.1162/qss_a_00076
URL
|
[42] |
程利冬, 吕雪梅, 魏希柱, 等. 建立编辑部和审稿专家间的良性关系:评优秀审稿专家有感[J]. 编辑学报, 2013, 25(6):558-559.
|
[43] |
Finding and supporting reviewers[EB/OL]. [2021-04-10].https://www.elsevier.com/editors/supporting-reviewers .
URL
|
[44] |
Disclosure of financial and non-financial relationships and activities,and conflicts of interest[EB/OL]. [2021-03-15].https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/author-responsibilities--conflicts-of-interest.html .
URL
|
[45] |
Best practices for peer reviewer selection and contact to prevent peer review manipulation by authors[EB/OL]. [2021-04-10].https://wame.org/best-practices-for-peer-reviewer-selection-and-contact-to-prevent-peer-review-manipulation-by-authors .
URL
|
[46] |
Ferris L E, Fletcher R H. Conflict of interest in peer-reviewed medical journals:The World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) position on a challenging problem[J]. Cardiovascular Diagnosis and Therapy, 2012, 2(3):188-191.
|
[47] |
Bruce R, Chauvin A, Trinquart L, et al. Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals:A systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. BMC Medicine, 2016, 14(1):1-16.
doi: 10.1186/s12916-015-0545-7
URL
|
[48] |
Gregory A T, Denniss A R. Everything you need to know about peer review:The good,the bad and the ugly[J]. Heart,Lung and Circulation, 2019, 28(8):1148-1153.
|
[49] |
Best practices for peer reviewer selection and contact to prevent peer review manipulation by authors[EB/OL]. (2016-06-24)[2021-04-10]. https://www.springer.com/gp/authors-editors/editors/how-to-find-reviewers/32890
URL
|
[50] |
Schroter S, Price A, Flemyng E, et al. Perspectives on involvement in the peer-review process:Surveys of patient and public reviewers at two journals[J]. BMJ Open, 2018, 8(9):e023357.
|
[51] |
How to recognise potential manipulation of the peer review process[EB/OL]. (2019-02-15)[2021-03-25]. https://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts/how-spot-potential-manipulation-peer-review-process
URL
|
[52] |
Editorial ethics:Fraudulent arbitration[EB/OL]. (2015-02-20)[2021-03-25]. https://blog.scielo.org/en/2015/02/20/editorial-ethics-fraudulent-arbitration/
URL
|
[53] |
Vercellini P, Buggio L, Viganò P, et al. Peer review in medical journals:Beyond quality of reports towards transparency and public scrutiny of the process[J]. European Journal of Internal Medicine, 2016, 31:15-19.
doi: 10.1016/j.ejim.2016.04.014
pmid: 27129625
|
[54] |
New functionality Friday-Auto update your ORCID record manipulating the peer review process:Why it happens and how it might be prevented[EB/OL]. (2014-11-21)[2021-04-10]. https://info.orcid.org/new-functionality-friday-auto-update-your-orcid-record/
URL
|
[55] |
Manipulating the peer review process:Why it happens and how it might be prevented[EB/OL]. (2016-12-13)[2021-04-10]. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2016/12/13/manipulating-the-peer-review-process-why-it-happens-and-how-it-might-be-prevented/
URL
|
[56] |
A helping hand with finding reviewers:Introducing the Elsevier reviewer recommender[EB/OL].(2018-06-15)[2021-08-20]. https://www.elsevier.com/connect/editors-update/a-helping-hand-with-finding-reviewers-introducing-the-elsevier-revie wer-recommender
URL
|
[57] |
UNSILO reviewer finder FAQ[EB/OL]. [2021-08-21].https://unsilo.ai/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Reviewer-Finder-FAQ .
URL
|
[58] |
Responsibilities in the submission and peer-review process[EB/OL].(2015-03-23)[2021-04-10]. https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/responsibiliti es-in-the-submission-and-peer-peview-process.html
URL
|