期刊文献+

Prospects for improving research communication and the incentive system in science 被引量:3

Prospects for improving research communication and the incentive system in science
原文传递
导出
摘要 Much concern has been expressed in recent years about the processes associated with publishing research in high-profile journals,particularly within the life sciences and biomedicine[1-4].Researchers are frequently subjected to substantial delays in communicating their work,overzealous reviewers make demands for extensive revision,and essential information and data are often relegated Much concern has been expressed in recent years about the processes associated with publishing research in high-profile journals,particularly within the life sciences and biomedicine.Researchers are frequently subjected to substantial delays in communicating their work,overzealous reviewers make demands for extensive revision,and essential information and data are often relegated to supplementary files with little functionality. More broadly, much of this work is not published open access, and the quality and reliability of the science that is being reported in top-ranking journals has been called into question.
出处 《中国科技期刊研究》 CSSCI 北大核心 2015年第1期3-7,共5页 Chinese Journal of Scientific and Technical Periodicals
关键词 科学期刊 发行工作 中国 行业管理 communicating reviewers incentive publishing revision figures editor publications initiative representing
  • 相关文献

参考文献33

  • 1Lawrence P. Lost in publication: how measurement harms science [ J ]. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 2008, 8, 9-11. doi:lO. 3354/esepO0079.
  • 2Pringle JR. An enduring enthusiasm for academic science, but with concerns [ J ]. Molecular Biology of the Cell, 2013,24 (21) , 3281-4. doi:10. 1091/mbc. E13-07-0393.
  • 3Raff M, Johnson A, Walter P. Painful publishing [ J ]. Science, 2008,321 (5885), 36. doi: 10. 1126/science. 321. 5885.36a.
  • 4Vosshall LB. The glacial pace of scientific publishing: why it hurts everyone and what we can do to fix it [ J]. FASEB Journal, 2012, 26 ( 9 ), 3589-93. doi: 10. 1096/ fj. 12-0901 ufm.
  • 5Brembs B, Button K, Munafb M. Deep impact consequences of journal rank [ J 1. Frontiers Neuroscience, 2013, 7, 291. doi fnhum. 2013.00291. unintended in Human 10. 3389/.
  • 6Collins F S, Tabak L. Policy: NIH plans to enhance reproducibility [ J]. Nature, 2014,505 (7485), 6124513. doi: 10. 1038/505612a.
  • 7SHERPA/JULIET website http://www, sherpa, ac. uk/juliet/ ( accessed Dec 9, 2014).
  • 8Schekman R,Watt F, Weigel D. The eLife approach to peer review [ J ]. eLife, 2013, 2, e00799, doi: 10.7554/ eLife. 00799.
  • 9P6schl U. Multi-stage open peer review: scientific evaluation integrating the strengths of traditional peer review with the virtues of transparency and self-regulation [ J ~. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 2012, 6, 33. doi: 10.3389/ fncom. 2012. 00033.
  • 10Groves T, Loder E. Prepublication histories and open peer review at The BMJ [ J ]. BMJ, 2014,349 (9), g5394, doi: 10. 1136/bmj. g5394.

同被引文献63

  • 1宋忠生.期刊出版时滞的计算方法[J].编辑学报,1996,8(2):104-106. 被引量:39
  • 2周庆辉,殷惠霞,凌昌全.英国Nature杂志的成功经验及其对我国科技期刊的启示[J].中国科技期刊研究,2006,17(6):1062-1065. 被引量:42
  • 3钟以璇.英语科技论文写作与发表[M].天津:天津大学出版社,2004:113.
  • 4赵蕴华.中文DOI应用现状及建设构想[J].情报理论与实践,2007,30(6):855-857. 被引量:12
  • 5Vogel G. Scientific publishing. Open access gains support; fees and journal quality deter submissionsl J. Science, 2011, 331 (6015) :273.
  • 6Enserink M. Scientific publishing. As open access explodes, how to tell the good from the bad and the ugly[J ]. Science, 2012, 338(6110) :1018.
  • 7Beall J. Predatory publishers are corrupting open access [J ] Nature, 2012, 489(7415) :179.
  • 8Van Noorden R. Open-access website gets tough I J 1. Nature, 2014, 512(7512) :17.
  • 9Ams M. Open access is tiring out peer reviewers [ J ]- Nature, 2014,515(7528) :467.
  • 10Schekman R, Patterson M, Watt F, et al. Launching eLife, Part 1 [J]. eLife, 2012, 1 :e00270.

引证文献3

二级引证文献26

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部