| 基于Publons平台的审稿人贡献认可与评价研究 |
| |
| 引用本文： | 刘丽萍,刘春丽. 基于Publons平台的审稿人贡献认可与评价研究[J]. 浙江预防医学, 2020, 31(1): 99-111. DOI: 10.11946/cjstp.201909250663 |
| |
| 作者姓名： | 刘丽萍 刘春丽 |
| |
| 作者单位： | 中国医科大学图书馆,辽宁省沈阳市沈北新区蒲河路77号 110122 |
| |
| 摘 要： | 【目的】 分析Publons平台审稿人贡献的认可方式及评价标准,以提高我国对审稿人贡献的认可度。【方法】 在分析认可审稿人贡献的必要性和国内外审稿人贡献认可方式的基础上,调研Publons平台优秀审稿人评选标准,并采集优秀审稿人数据,分析优秀审稿人在学科领域分布、国家分布、机构分布以及我国获奖审稿人机构分布情况,提出Publons审稿人贡献认可制度对我国的启示。【结果】 认可审稿人工作在国际上越来越受到重视,尤其是发达国家有较多的优秀审稿人,我国审稿人数量虽然在国家分布上排在第5位,但总人数不多,且审稿人分布相对分散。【结论】 Publons的审稿人贡献认可与评价可为我国相关领域的发展提供重要的借鉴和启示:学术界应制定审稿人贡献激励机制;期刊同行评审模式应由封闭式向开放式转变;科研管理部门需将审稿人贡献纳入科研评价系统;学术共同体内部要加强对审稿人的招募与培训等。
|
| 关 键 词： | 同行评审 审稿人贡献 认可机制 |
| 收稿时间： | 2019-09-25 |
Recognition and evaluation of reviewers' contributions based on Publons |
| |
| LIU Liping,LIU Chunli. Recognition and evaluation of reviewers' contributions based on Publons[J]. Zhejiang Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2020, 31(1): 99-111. DOI: 10.11946/cjstp.201909250663 |
| |
| Authors: | LIU Liping LIU Chunli |
| |
| Affiliation: | Library of China Medical University, 77 Puhe Road, Shenbei District, Shenyang 110122, China |
| |
| Abstract: | [Purposes] This paper aims to analyze the recognition methods and evaluation standards of reviewers' contributions on Publons platform, so as to improve the recognition of reviewers' contribution in China. [Methods] On the basis of analyzing the necessity of recognizing the contributions of reviewers and the ways of recognizing contributions of reviewers at home and abroad, we investigated the selection criteria of excellent reviewers on Publons platform, and collected the data of excellent reviewers to analyze the distribution of excellent reviewers in discipline fields, countries, and institutions, as well as the distribution of excellent reviewers in China. [Findings] The recognition of reviewers' contribution is taken seriously in the world, especially in the developed countries. Although the number of reviewers in China ranks the fifth in the country distribution, the total number of reviewers is not high, and the reviewers are relatively scattered. [Conclusions] The recognition and evaluation of reviewer contribution on Publons platform has also brought important references and inspirations to the future development of related fields in China. For example, the academic community should formulate the reviewer contribution incentive mechanisms; journal peer review models should be changed from closed to open; the scientific research management department needs to incorporate the reviewer's contribution into the scientific research evaluation system; and the academic community must strengthen the recruitment and training of reviewers. |
| |
| Keywords: | Peer review Contribution of reviewer Recognition mechanism |
|
| 点击此处可从《浙江预防医学》浏览原始摘要信息 |
|
点击此处可从《浙江预防医学》下载全文 |
|
