Roick Christiane
Klinik und Poliklinik für Psychiatrie, Universität Leipzig, Johannisallee 20, 04317 Leipzig.
Psychiatr Prax. 2006 Sep;33(6):287-95. doi: 10.1055/s-2006-940031.
Do readers, who are themselves also authors of scientific publications, have different opinions regarding the conception of medical journals than pure readers?
A survey among readers of the journal "Psychiatrische Praxis" (PP) with 49 participants (22 themselves authors, 27 pure readers) was analysed.
Authors and pure readers have similar reading habits and agree on their evaluation of most criteria of a medical journal. However, authors care more about a journal's listing in international databases and pure readers more about its practical orientation. Case reports are highly appreciated by pure readers and little by authors. Authors favour the topics social psychiatry, health care provision, prevention/rehabilitation; and pure readers general psychiatry/psychiatry/basics, clinical psychiatry and psychotherapy. Authors evaluate the PP more positive than pure readers.
It is a challenge for journal editors and editorial staff to meet not only the authors' expectations, but also those of the pure readers.
那些本身也是科学出版物作者的读者，对于医学期刊的概念是否与单纯的读者有不同看法？
对《精神病学实践》（PP）杂志的49名读者（22名自身为作者，27名单纯读者）进行的一项调查进行了分析。
作者和单纯读者有相似的阅读习惯，并且在对医学期刊大多数标准的评价上达成一致。然而，作者更关心期刊在国际数据库中的收录情况，而单纯读者更关心其实际导向。病例报告受到单纯读者的高度赞赏，而作者则不太看重。作者青睐社会精神病学、医疗保健提供、预防/康复等主题；而单纯读者青睐普通精神病学/精神病学/基础、临床精神病学和心理治疗。作者对PP的评价比单纯读者更积极。
期刊编辑和编辑人员面临的一个挑战是，不仅要满足作者的期望，还要满足单纯读者的期望。
