期刊文献+

智能集体评审的缘起和特征 被引量:6

Origin and feature of intelligent crowd review
原文传递
导出
摘要 【目的】探索智能集体评审的流程、特征及对我国同行评审的启示。【方法】介绍智能集体评审实验,概括智能集体评审的特征,分析其对我国学术期刊同行评审的启示。【结果】智能集体评审是一种限时的在线开放同行评审,采取专家匿名评审方式。评审过程中,评审人之间可进行学术交流。评审意见快速而全面,有利于提高论文的学术质量,是一种可行的同行评审方式。【结论】作为一种全新的同行评审方式,智能集体评审全面推行尚需时日,但其给当前同行评审以重要启示:一是加快信息技术的应用;二是为评审专家提供交流机会。 [Purposes] The purposes of this study are to explore the process and characteristics of intelligent crowd review and the enlightenment to peer review of Chinese scientific journals. [Methods] We introduced the experiment of intelligent crowd review from Prof. Benjamin List,the editor-in-chief of Synlett,summarized the characteristics of intelligent crowd review,and analyzed the enlightenment to improve the peer review of Chinese academic journals. [Findings] Intelligent crowd review is a time-limited online peer review,and it is a type of anonymous review. During the review process,the reviewers can communicate with each other about the academic questions and exchange opinions. The review comments are quick and comprehensive,which is conducive to improving the quality of academic papers,and it is also a feasible way of peer review. [Conclusions] As a new way of peer review,intelligent crowd review gives an important enlightenment to the current peer review,such as speeding up the application of information technology and providing reviewers with the opportunity to communicate with each other.
作者 周京艳 黄裕荣 刘如 张惠娜 ZHOU Jingyan, HUANG Yurong, LIU Ru, ZHANG Huina(Beijing Institute of Science and Technology Information, 140 Xiwai Street, Xicheng District, Beijing 100044, Chin)
出处 《中国科技期刊研究》 CSSCI 北大核心 2018年第3期231-236,共6页 Chinese Journal of Scientific and Technical Periodicals
关键词 智能集体评审 开放同行评审 匿名评审 Intelligent crowd review Open peer review Anonymous review
  • 相关文献

参考文献4

二级参考文献61

  • 1欧阳晓黎,赵蔚婷,牛燕平,赵存如.专家审稿实名制与匿名制之对比分析[J].编辑学报,2001,13(z1):37-38. 被引量:6
  • 2任胜利.科技论文的同行评议[J].中国有色金属学报,2004,14(11). 被引量:14
  • 3任胜利,王久丽.同行评议中审稿人遴选方式对审稿结果的影响——以《自然科学进展》为例[J].中国科技期刊研究,2006,17(5):722-725. 被引量:37
  • 4Alison McCook. Is Peer Review Broken?. The Scientist, 2006,20 (2) :26.
  • 5Peter M. Rothwell, Christopher N review in clinical neuroscience: Is greater than would be expected by (9) : 1964 - 1969 Martyn. Reproducibility of peer agreement between reviewers any chance alone?. Brain, 2000,123.
  • 6Rowland, Fytton. The Peer-Review Process. Learned Publishing, 2002,15(4) : 247 -258.
  • 7张蕾.呼唤挑战性的科技创新成果——访中国地球物理学会天灾预测专业委员会顾问陈一文.光明日报,2004:08-27.
  • 8Tamara Sumner, Simon Buckingham Shum. Open Peer Review & Argumentation: Loosening the Paper Chains on Journals [ EB/OL ]. [ 2011-11-13 ]. http ://www. ariadne, ac. uk/issueS/jime/.
  • 9Erik Sandewall. Systems: Opening up the process [ EB/OL ]. [ 20l 1-11-13 ]. http ://blogs. nature, corn/peer-to-peer/2006/06/ systems_opening_up_the_process, html.
  • 10Richard Smith. Opening up BMJ peer review [ EB/OL]. [ 2011-11- 13 ]. http ://www. bmj. com/content/318/7175/4.

共引文献94

同被引文献78

引证文献6

二级引证文献45

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