80种医药期刊统计学符号编排规范审读分析

Proof-reading analysis of layout standards of statistical symbols in 80 medical periodicals published in China

目的：了解医药期刊统计学符号编排规范,指导期刊统计学符号的编排.方法：把医药期刊分为4类,每类审读20种,共80种,按国家标准GB3358-82（统计学名词及符号＞书写规定进行审读分析.结果：符号使用错误最多的是（x）,s,X2,分别有6,6,5种期刊,而n,F,P未发现符号错误 正斜体错误最多的是X2,r,s,α和t,分别有29,11,8,8和7种期刊.非中文核心期刊符号错误和正斜体错误率最高,分别为75%（15种）和80%（16）种.中华医学系列杂志符号错误率最低,仅占10%（2种）,大学学报较低,占20%（4种）,大学学报的正斜体错误率最低,为20%（4种）.结论：中华医学系列杂志的统计学符号编排最为规范,大学学报次之,非中文核心期刊不规范者较多.

Objective： To understand the layout standards of statistical symbols in medical periodicals published in China to guide the layout of statistical symbols in journals. Methods： The respondent medical periodicals were classified into four groups, with twenty periodicals in each group; and then the medical periodicals in each group were proofread and analyzed according to Chinese national standard GB3358-82 Statistical Terms and Symbols. Results： The symbols that were used wrongly the most were x, s, and2, which were used wrongly in 6, 6, and 5 respondent periodicals respectively; while no mistake for the symbols n, F, and P was found; The symbols with the most mistakes in upright or italic styles included x2 , r, s, α and t, which appeared in 29, 11, 8, 8 and 7 respondent periodicals respectively. The error rates of symbol layout and italic layout in the respondent periodicals not belonging to Chinese core periodicals are the highest, 75% （found in 15 respondent journals） and 80% （found in 16 respondent periodicals） respectively; the error rates of symbol layout in the respondent periodicals that were published by Chinese Medical Association （CMA） were the lowest, only 10% （found in 2 respondent periodicals）, and the error rates of symbol layout in university journals were also lower, with 20% （ found in 4 respondent university journals）. The error rate of upright and italic style in the respondent university journals were the lowest, 20% （found in 4 respondent university journals）. Conclusion： Statistical symbol layouts in the respondent periodicals published by Chinese Medical Association （CMA） were the most normal, followed by the respondent university journals, and non-standard statistical symbol layouts in the respondent periodicals not belonging to Chinese core periodicals were higher.