摘要：

【目的】 统计中文科技期刊出版伦理规范建设现状,为提升中文科技期刊出版伦理规范质量提供参考。【方法】 统计中国科学引文数据库(CSCD)核心库(2023—2024年)收录的中英文科技期刊出版伦理规范,基于“职责划分—规范要素—规范内容”三级理论分析框架对中英文期刊出版伦理规范进行比较研究。【结果】 中文科技期刊出版伦理规范建设取得一定成绩,但存在问题也较为突出。在规范建设方面,体现为总体发布率低。在规范内容方面,体现为:作者规范,存在一稿多投与重复发表规范缺乏具体的操作细则、作者利益冲突声明规范效力较弱、对于科技伦理的关注度不足、数据存储和可重复性规范缺乏应用载体问题;审稿人规范,仍有丰富空间;编辑规范,存在新型学术不端治理规范相对不足、投诉上诉与更正撤稿规范和流程不够具体问题;期刊出版商规范,在期刊管理上与国际水平存在差异。【结论】 在规范建设方面,提高出版伦理规范的发布率;在规范内容方面,明确各项作者规范的细节,借鉴国际权威出版组织和知名出版商审稿人规范的先进经验,促进编辑规范与国际接轨,保障期刊管理规定的权利义务得到正当行使。

关键词: 科技期刊, 出版伦理, 作者规范, 审稿人规范, 编辑规范, 出版商规范

Abstract:

[Purposes] Statistics on the current situation of Chinese scientific and technical journals in the construction of publication ethics in order to enhance the quality of publication ethics of Chinese scientific and technical journals. [Methods] A comparative study was conducted on the publication ethics of Chinese and English scientific and technical journals included in the core library of the Chinese Science Citation Index (CSCD) (2023—2024). Based on the three-level theoretical analysis framework of “division of responsibilities - normative elements - actual content of ethical norms”, we conducted a comparative study on the ethical norms for publishing journals in Chinese and English. [Findings] Chinese scientific and technical journals have made certain achievements in the construction of ethical norms for publication, but there were problems that are more prominent. In the construction of norms was reflected in the overall publication rate was weak; In the content of the norms was reflected in: the norms for authors were characterized by a lack of specific operational rules for multiple submissions and duplicate publications, and the norms for authors’ conflict of interest declarations were weaker, insufficient attention to scientific research ethics, and a lack of application vectors for data storage and reproducibility norms. There was still room for enriching the content of reviewer’s standard; the editorial standard was relatively insufficient in the new academic misconduct management standard, and the complaint appeal and correction withdrawal standard and process were not specific enough; there was a difference between the journal publisher’s standard and the international level in journal management. [Conclusions] It was recommended to increase the rate of publication ethics in terms of norm construction. Clarify the details of various author norms, and draw on the advanced experience of reviewer norms of international authoritative organizations and well-known publishers, and guarantee that rights and obligations stipulated in the management of journals are duly exercised in terms of norm content.

Key words: Scientific journal, Publication ethics, Author responsibilities, Reviewer responsibilities, Editor responsibilities, Journal responsibilities