同行评议质量控制方法研究进展

被引：35

作者：

盛怡瑾 ^{[1
]}

初景利 ^{[2
]}

机构：

[1] 中国科学院文献情报中心

[2] 中国科学院大学经济与管理学院

来源：

出版科学 | 2018年 / 26卷 / 05期

关键词：

同行评议; 质量; 控制方法;

D O I：

10.13363/j.publishingjournal.2018.05.056

中图分类号：

G232 [编辑工作];

学科分类号：

050302 ;

摘要：

为了解同行评议质量控制方法的研究现状,本文定义了同行评议质量,并对质量问题进行分类,同时使用文献调研法和网站调研法梳理并归纳相关研究。结果表明,虽然研究者对提高准确性、增强公平性、保持一致性、控制时间、增强评价和关注成本的方法进行了一定探索,但目前对方法的研究还处于探讨阶段,仍存在一些空白和问题。同时可以看到,控制方法正逐渐从定性转向定量,在同行评议中设置质量控制点,提前选取正确方法并在实施中加以监督可有效提升整个流程的可控性。

引用

页码：46 / 53

页数：8

共 67 条

[61]

Does Paying Referees Expedite Reviews?: Results of a Natural Experiment[J] . Gary D. Thompson,Satheesh V. Aradhyula,George Frisvold,Russell Tronstad.Southern Economic Journal . 2010 (3)

[62]

Peer review in scholarly journals: Perspective of the scholarly community – Results from an international study[J] . Arnoud de Kemp,Mark Ware.Information Services and Use . 2008 (2)

[63]

Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors[J] . Amber E. Budden,Tom Tregenza,Lonnie W. Aarssen,Julia Koricheva,Roosa Leimu,Christopher J. Lortie.Trends in Ecology & Evolution . 2007 (1)

[64]

Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial[J] . Sara Schroter,Nick Black,Stephen Evans,James Carpenter,Fiona Godlee,Richard Smith.BMJ: British Medical Journal . 2004 (7441)

[65]

Impartial Judgment by the “Gatekeepers” of Science: Fallibility and Accountability in the Peer Review Process[J] . Mohammadreza Hojat,Joseph S. Gonnella,Addeane S. Caelleigh.Advances in Health Sciences Education . 2003 (1)

[66] Development of the Review Quality Instrument (RQI) for assessing peer reviews of manuscripts [J].

van Rooyen, S ;

Black, N ;

Godlee, F .

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1999, 52 (07) :625-629

[67]

Effect on the Quality of Peer Review of Blinding Reviewers and Asking Them to Sign Their Reports: A Randomized Controlled Trial[J] . Fiona Godlee,Catharine R. Gale,Christopher N. Martyn.JAMA . 1998 (3)

← 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 →