英文科技期刊学术影响力与审稿人学术及审稿表现关系研究与启示——Publons医学领域期刊实证分析

Association between impacts of English scientific journals and reviewers’ academic and reviewing performance: A Publons-based empirical study of medical journals

【目的】探讨英文医学期刊学术影响力与审稿人学术及审稿表现的关系,为我国英文科技期刊编辑通过网络遴选国际审稿人提供实证参考。【方法】采集Publons医学领域1000种官方合作期刊及其审稿人数据,包括总被引频次、篇均被引频次、h指数、发文量、在SCI期刊的发文量、经验证审稿次数、所在地等。期刊按影响因子平均百分位(Average Journal Impact Factor Percentile,AIFP)分组,利用统计软件分析各层次期刊审稿人的被引频次、论文产出和审稿表现是否存在明显差异。【结果】总体而言,期刊AIFP越大、排名越靠前,其审稿人被引频次越多、h指数越高、发文量越多且质量更优、总审稿次数也越多。非SCI期刊审稿人的被引频次、h指数、发文量及总审稿次数比排名靠前的SCI期刊审稿人差,但与排名靠后的SCI期刊审稿人相比,多项指标差异并无统计学意义。【结论】医学领域期刊学术影响力与审稿人学术水平及审稿表现呈正相关。期刊学术影响力越大,其审稿人的发文量、被引频次等计量学指标越高,审稿表现越好,编辑应利用网络检索工具在全球广泛寻找适合期刊水平的审稿人。

[Purposes]This paper aims to analyze the association between impacts of English medical journals and reviewers’ academic and reviewing performance,which is expected to serve as an empirical reference for editors of English scientific journals to select international reviewers based on online searching tools. [Methods]We retrieved the data of 1000 official medical journal partners with Publons. Total cites of published papers,average cites per paper,h-index,number of published papers,number of papers published on SCI-indexed journals,verified reviews,nationality,and other metrics for the reviewers were summarized. The journals were grouped based on average journal impact factor percentile( AIFP) and then whether there was significant difference in cited frequency of papers,number of published papers,and reviewing performance among reviewers for journals of different groups was analyzed with statistical software.[Findings]Overall,top journals with high AIFP have high cited frequency of papers,high h-indexes,large number of published papers and high-quality papers,and myriad verified reviews from their reviewers. The cited frequency of papers,h-indexes,published papers,and total verified reviews of reviewers for non-SCI-indexed journals are lower( or fewer) than those for top SCI-indexed journals,although most of them are insignificantly different from those of reviewers for lower-ranking SCI-indexed journals.[Conclusions]Impacts of medical journals are positively correlated with reviewers’ academic and reviewing performance. Reviewers for journals with higher impacts have published more and higher-quality papers and finished more reviews than those for journals with lower impacts. Thus,editors of English medical journals should take advantage of webbased searching tools to select reviewers commensurate with the journal levels worldwide.