...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Nature immunology >Support for peer review.
【24h】

Support for peer review.

机译：支持同行评审。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

How fair is peer review? Is it merely a means for scientists to block the presentation of competitors' research results to the community? Should peer review be more transparent? These are recurrent questions the scientific community and publishing industry face. Several large surveys over the past 5 years have assessed the attitudes of authors and referees across a broad range of scientific disciplines to the peer review process. The results, published in the 2007 Peer review in scholarly journals: Perspective of the scholarly community-an international study (http://www.publishingresearch.net/documents/ PeerReviewFullPRCReport-final.pdf) and Peer Review Survey 2009 (http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/29/), suggest that peer review does indeed serve an essential role in scholarly communication. In these surveys, which garnered over 3,000 and 4,000 responses, respectively, over 90% of the authors stated their published work had been improved by the peer review process. The length of the review period drew more dissatisfaction from authors: the longer a paper was out to review, the more negative authors tended to be about the review process.
机译：同行评审的公平性如何？仅仅是科学家阻止竞争对手向社会展示研究成果的一种手段吗？同行评审应该更透明吗？这些是科学界和出版业面临的经常性问题。过去5年中进行的几项大型调查评估了广泛的科学学科中的作者和裁判对同行评审过程的态度。结果发表在2007年学术期刊上的同行评审：学术界的观点-国际研究（http://www.publishingresearch.net/documents/ PeerReviewFullPRCReport-final.pdf）和2009年同行评审调查（http：// /www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/29/），建议同行评审确实在学术交流中起着至关重要的作用。在这些调查中，分别获得了3,000和4,000份答复，超过90％的作者表示，他们的发表的工作已经通过同行评审过程得到了改善。审稿期的长短引起了作者的不满：一篇论文要审稿的时间越长，作者对审稿过程的否定就越多。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号