中国科技期刊研究 ›› 2021, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (7): 844-850. doi: 10.11946/cjstp.202012221040

• 质量建设 • 上一篇    下一篇

学术期刊专家审稿工作评价的实施现状与推进策略

占莉娟1)(), 刘锦宏1),*(), 胡小洋2), 霍振响3,4)   

  1. 1)武汉理工大学法学与人文社会学院新闻传播系,湖北省武汉市洪山区珞狮路122号 430070
    2)湖北大学学报编辑部,湖北省武汉市武昌区友谊大道368号 430062
    3)《西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版)》编辑部,陕西省杨凌示范区西农路22号 712100
    4)西安交通大学马克思主义学院,陕西省西安市碑林区咸宁西路28号 710049
  • 收稿日期:2020-12-22 修回日期:2021-04-06 出版日期:2021-07-15 发布日期:2021-07-15
  • 通讯作者: 刘锦宏 E-mail:zhanlj@whut.edu.cn;267288887@qq.com
  • 作者简介:占莉娟(ORCID:0000-0001-7207-1487),博士,讲师,E-mail: zhanlj@whut.edu.cn|胡小洋,博士,副编审|霍振响,博士研究生,副编审
  • 基金资助:
    教育部人文社会科学研究项目“高校出版单位供给侧改革与需求侧管理协同的机理、模型与效应研究”(19YJA860019)

Evaluation of peer review by academic journals: Status quo and strategies

ZHAN Lijuan1)(), LIU Jinhong1),*(), HU Xiaoyang2), HUO Zhenxiang3,4)   

  1. 1) Department of Journalism and Communication, School of Law, Humanities and Sociology, Wuhan University of Technology, 122 Luoshi Road, Hongshan District, Wuhan 430070, China
    2) Editorial Department of Journal of Hubei University, 368 Youyi Road, Wuchang District, Wuhan 430062, China
    3) Editorial Office of Journal of Northwest Sci Tech University of Agriculture and Forestry(Natural Science Edition), 22 Xinong Road, Yangling Demonstration Zone 712100, China
    4) School of Marxism, Xi'an Jiaotong University, 28 West Xianning Road, Beilin District, Xi'an 710049, China
  • Received:2020-12-22 Revised:2021-04-06 Online:2021-07-15 Published:2021-07-15
  • Contact: LIU Jinhong E-mail:zhanlj@whut.edu.cn;267288887@qq.com

摘要:

【目的】 调研学术期刊对专家审稿工作评价的实施现状,发现问题的症结所在,促使专家审稿评价工作得以普遍、规范地实施,以优化学术期刊同行评议运行效率。【方法】 基于文献调研、问卷调查及访谈法,揭示我国学术期刊专家审稿工作评价实施现状并分析存在问题的原因。【结果】 超过一半的调研对象(编辑)几乎不对专家审稿工作进行评价;已开展的评价,其科学性、规范性不尽如人意,表现为评价方法主要依靠主观印象,对评价结果的利用较单一。编辑无暇顾及专家审稿工作评价,“可做可不做”认知导向,评价标准模糊、评价指标和结果粗略是上述问题的主要成因。【结论】 专家审稿工作评价要得以普遍且规范地实施,需要编辑认可其作用,且设置具体细化的评价指标,明确易行的评价流程,清晰一致的评分标准,细粒度地利用评价结果,切实发挥专家审稿工作评价对同行评议运行效率的优化作用,助力学术期刊的高质量发展。

关键词: 同行评议, 审稿评价, 评价指标和流程, 学术编辑, 科技期刊

Abstract:

[Purposes] The paper surveys the evaluation of peer review by academic journals, analyzes the problems, and proposes corresponding strategies, which is expected to promote and standardize the evaluation. [Methods] With the methods of literature research, questionnaire survey, and interview, this paper explored the status of peer review evaluation by academic journals and revealed the reasons. [Findings] Over half of respondents (editors) fail to implement the evaluation, and the evaluation by the remainders is subjective rather than scientific and standard, with limited uses of the results. The reasons are as follows: insufficient editors, editors' negligence on the evaluation, and a lack of evaluation standards, indexes, and detailed evaluation results. [Conclusions] We put forward the following suggestions for prompting the evaluation of peer review: underscoring the importance of the evaluation, establishing detailed evaluation indexes, simple evaluation process, and consistent evaluation standards, and making full use of the evaluation results. These strategies will improve the efficiency of peer review management and promote high-quality development of journals.

Key words: Peer review, Evaluation of peer review, Evaluation index and process, Academic editor, Scientific journal