期刊文献+

医学期刊外送审稿的研究 被引量:4

Research of peer review of medical journals
下载PDF
导出
摘要 为调查单盲法与双盲法审稿对审稿结果的影响 ,了解审稿人年龄、职称和学历与审稿结果的关系 ,随机抽取 6家医学期刊编辑部 10 0份文稿 ,按单盲、双盲方式分别送给 2位审稿人审阅 ,把审稿单中论文质量评分表的评分结果进行统计学处理。结果表明 ,单盲法与双盲法审稿结果比较差异无显著性(P >0 .0 5 ) ,不同职称、学历及年龄审稿人审稿结果比较差异无显著性 (P >0 .0 5 ) ,年龄与评分结果无相关关系 (r =0 .0 64 ,P =0 .3 65 )。结论是 ,该研究的审稿评分结果与审稿人的年龄、职称、学历及审稿方式无关。 The effects of single and double blind peer review methods were investigated and the relationships between the reviewers' age, position, educational background and peer review results were analyzed. One hundred papers were selec ted randomly from six editorial departments of medical journals,and sent to two reviewers according to single and double blind methods respectively.The resu lts showed that there was no significant difference between the single blind a nd double blind methods( P > 0.05 ),and there was no significant difference between age,position,educational background and the reviewing results ( P > 0.05 ).There was no relation between age and evaluation scores ( r = 0.0 64, P =0.365). The authors conclude that the peer review results have no relationships with the reviewer' age, position and educational background and the reviewing methods.
机构地区 广东医学编辑部
出处 《编辑学报》 CSSCI 北大核心 2003年第2期138-139,共2页 Acta Editologica
基金 广东省医学科研立项课题 (A2 0 0 0 1 2 4 )
关键词 医学期刊 审稿 审稿人 审稿结果 单盲法 双盲法 年龄 职称 学历 审稿方式 medical journal peer review double blind method single blind method
  • 相关文献

参考文献7

二级参考文献10

共引文献77

同被引文献33

引证文献4

二级引证文献52

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