利用同行评议指标规划科学版编辑部的工作(以生物学期刊为例)

G. Morgunova, A. Khokhlov
{"title":"利用同行评议指标规划科学版编辑部的工作(以生物学期刊为例)","authors":"G. Morgunova, A. Khokhlov","doi":"10.24069/sep-22-17","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The peer review process is an extremely important and time-consuming step in preparing a manuscript for publication. It often takes longer than all other stages of article processing. Due to the complexity of peer reviewing, it becomes necessary to analyze it and determine the key points that you should pay attention to when planning the work of the editorial office. In this study, the authors used data obtained in the process of work with reviewers of the journals “Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta. Seriya 16. Biologiya” and “Moscow University Biological Sciences Bulletin” in 2017–2021, as well as information on articles received by the editorial office in the same period time. The sample of peer reviewers consisted of 319 specialists from various fields of biology and related disciplines. The results of the analysis showed that the average time spent on the primary review was about 11 days, and the average time during which experts respond to the invitation was about 2 days. Reviews received by the editors over five years, on average, contain a little less than 3 000 characters, the volume of reviews does not correlate with the timing of the reviews and their quality. In recent years, the editorial office has managed to reduce the proportion of formal uninformative reviews to 6 %. Both women and men, employees of both universities and research institutes, scientists with candidate and doctoral degrees are equally involved in the work on articles. The important role of reviewers in improving the article and at the same time insufficient encouragement of this important work are emphasized. The results obtained can be useful to the editors of scientific journals when they plan the stages of reviewing articles.","PeriodicalId":256387,"journal":{"name":"Science Editor and Publisher","volume":"75 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Use of peer reviewing indicators for planning the work of the editorial office of a scientific edition (on the example of a biological journal)\",\"authors\":\"G. Morgunova, A. Khokhlov\",\"doi\":\"10.24069/sep-22-17\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The peer review process is an extremely important and time-consuming step in preparing a manuscript for publication. It often takes longer than all other stages of article processing. Due to the complexity of peer reviewing, it becomes necessary to analyze it and determine the key points that you should pay attention to when planning the work of the editorial office. In this study, the authors used data obtained in the process of work with reviewers of the journals “Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta. Seriya 16. Biologiya” and “Moscow University Biological Sciences Bulletin” in 2017–2021, as well as information on articles received by the editorial office in the same period time. The sample of peer reviewers consisted of 319 specialists from various fields of biology and related disciplines. The results of the analysis showed that the average time spent on the primary review was about 11 days, and the average time during which experts respond to the invitation was about 2 days. Reviews received by the editors over five years, on average, contain a little less than 3 000 characters, the volume of reviews does not correlate with the timing of the reviews and their quality. In recent years, the editorial office has managed to reduce the proportion of formal uninformative reviews to 6 %. Both women and men, employees of both universities and research institutes, scientists with candidate and doctoral degrees are equally involved in the work on articles. The important role of reviewers in improving the article and at the same time insufficient encouragement of this important work are emphasized. The results obtained can be useful to the editors of scientific journals when they plan the stages of reviewing articles.\",\"PeriodicalId\":256387,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Science Editor and Publisher\",\"volume\":\"75 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Science Editor and Publisher\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.24069/sep-22-17\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science Editor and Publisher","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24069/sep-22-17","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

同行评议过程是准备发表稿件的一个极其重要和耗时的步骤。它通常比文章处理的所有其他阶段都要长。由于同行评议的复杂性,有必要对其进行分析,确定在规划编辑部工作时应注意的重点。在本研究中,作者使用了与Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta期刊审稿人合作过程中获得的数据。Seriya 16。“Biologiya”和“Moscow University Biological Sciences Bulletin”(2017-2021年),以及同期编辑部收到的文章信息。同行评审的样本包括来自生物学和相关学科各个领域的319名专家。分析结果表明,初审的平均时间约为11天,专家回复邀请的平均时间约为2天。五年来,编辑收到的评论平均少于3000字,评论的数量与评论的时间和质量无关。近年来,编辑部已设法将正式的非信息性评论的比例降低到6%。女性和男性,大学和研究机构的雇员,具有候选人和博士学位的科学家都平等地参与文章的工作。强调了审稿人在文章改进中的重要作用,同时也强调了对这一重要工作的鼓励不足。所得结果可为科学期刊编辑在规划文章审稿阶段时提供参考。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Use of peer reviewing indicators for planning the work of the editorial office of a scientific edition (on the example of a biological journal)
The peer review process is an extremely important and time-consuming step in preparing a manuscript for publication. It often takes longer than all other stages of article processing. Due to the complexity of peer reviewing, it becomes necessary to analyze it and determine the key points that you should pay attention to when planning the work of the editorial office. In this study, the authors used data obtained in the process of work with reviewers of the journals “Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta. Seriya 16. Biologiya” and “Moscow University Biological Sciences Bulletin” in 2017–2021, as well as information on articles received by the editorial office in the same period time. The sample of peer reviewers consisted of 319 specialists from various fields of biology and related disciplines. The results of the analysis showed that the average time spent on the primary review was about 11 days, and the average time during which experts respond to the invitation was about 2 days. Reviews received by the editors over five years, on average, contain a little less than 3 000 characters, the volume of reviews does not correlate with the timing of the reviews and their quality. In recent years, the editorial office has managed to reduce the proportion of formal uninformative reviews to 6 %. Both women and men, employees of both universities and research institutes, scientists with candidate and doctoral degrees are equally involved in the work on articles. The important role of reviewers in improving the article and at the same time insufficient encouragement of this important work are emphasized. The results obtained can be useful to the editors of scientific journals when they plan the stages of reviewing articles.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Geopolitics and publication strategy. Is there a dependance? Metadata of articles in the field of agriculture: complications in translating from Russian into English Research Data Publishing Ethics Working Group flowchart: Authorship & Contributorship – Pre-publication Research Data Publishing Ethics Working Group flowchart: Scientific rigor – Unpublished data What do our trade journals publish?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1