Abstract:

[Purposes] This paper aims to explore the characteristics of the manuscript review process and the implementation of the three-review system by investigating the current situation of the manuscript review process of scientific journals in China, so as to provide a basis for improving the manuscript review process of scientific journals. [Methods] From August to September 2022, by using a questionnaire survey and analysis method, 131 scientific journals supervised or sponsored by various institutions in Shandong Province were selected as journal samples, and editors from scientific journals in China were selected as editor samples. The network questionnaires were distributed to investigate the basic information of each journal, the manuscript review process, and the composition of review panels. [Findings] A total of 127 questionnaires from scientific journals in Shandong Province and 161 questionnaires from editors of scientific journals in China are collected. At the provincial and national levels, the majority of journals (61.42% and 52.80%) adopts a four-step manuscript review process of "preliminary review-peer review-re-review-final review", and only 6.30% and 4.35% of the journals follow a three-step process of "preliminary review-re-review-final review". In terms of preliminary reviewers, the editors with intermediate professional titles constitute the largest proportion of scientific journals in Shandong Province and nationwide (59.06% and 56.52%, respectively). In terms of the re-review process, editors with senior professional titles or above account for the highest proportion at the provincial level (68.50%), while peer review experts are predominant at the national level (59.01%). In terms of final review, chief editors of scientific journals at the provincial level hold the highest proportion (90.55%), while editorial directors/executive chief editors of scientific journals hold the highest proportion (47.20%) at the national level. Furthermore, 96.06% of scientific journals in Shandong Province and 96.27% of nationwide scientific journals include peer review process in the review process, with double-blind review being the most common method. [Conclusions] The review process and reviewer composition of scientific journals are diversified based on the three-review system. Peer review is widely integrated into the review process of scientific journals, but there is a noticeable lack of coherence between peer review and the three-review system.

Key words: Scientific journal, Review, Three-review system, Peer review

摘要：

【目的】 通过调研我国科技期刊审稿流程设置的现状,探讨科技期刊审稿流程特点和三审制实施情况,为完善科技期刊审稿流程设置提供依据。【方法】 2022年8—9月,采用问卷调查分析方法,选取由山东省各类机构主管或主办的全部131种科技期刊作为期刊样本,并选取全国范围的科技期刊编辑作为编辑样本,发放问卷进行调研,调研各期刊的期刊基本情况、审稿流程设置情况、审稿人员设置情况等。【结果】 共收集来自127种山东省科技期刊的问卷和161份全国科技期刊编辑问卷。在山东省、全国层面,实行“初审—同行评议—复审—终审”流程的期刊数量最多(分别占61.42%、52.80%),实行“初审—复审—终审”流程的期刊分别仅占6.30%、4.35%。初审人员方面,在山东省、全国层面的科技期刊中,中级职称编辑占比最高(分别占59.06%、56.52%)。复审人员方面,在山东省层面,副高级及以上职称编辑占比最高(68.50%);在全国层面,同行评议专家占比最高(59.01%)。终审人员方面,在山东省层面,主编占比最高(90.55%);在全国层面,编辑部主任/执行主编占比最高(47.20%)。96.06%的山东省科技期刊、96.27%的全国科技期刊在审稿流程中设置同行评议环节,双盲审稿居多。【结论】 在三审制基础上,科技期刊审稿流程和人员设置均呈现多元化趋势,同行评议被普遍融入科技期刊的审稿流程,但同行评议与三审制的衔接存在较明显的无序性。

关键词: 科技期刊, 审稿, 三审制, 同行评议