• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

[Developmental direction for review system of the journal of korean academy of nursing].

作者信息

Kim Hae Won, Chung Myungsill, Park Jeong Sook, Suh Yeon Ok, Suk Min Hyun, Shin Hyunsook, Yang Jin Hyang, Jang Hee Jung, Jung Myun Sook

机构信息

Department of Nursing, College of Medicine, Kwandong University, Korea.

出版信息

Taehan Kanho Hakhoe Chi. 2007 Apr;37(3):422-30. doi: 10.4040/jkan.2007.37.3.422.

DOI:10.4040/jkan.2007.37.3.422
PMID:17615463
Abstract

PURPOSE

This study was performed to identify current characteristics of the Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing and to explore a way to elevate it to an international level and to critique the overall review process so as to delineate the advanced, objective paper appraisal in this journal.

METHODS

Data was collected using self administered questionnaires to 75 journal reviewers belonging to the Korean academy of nursing and its division academy of nursing from August 15th to September 30th, 2006.

RESULTS

The majority of reviewers pointed out a lack of discrimination between the Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing and other journals. Among the main answers of reviewers, Creativeness(52.3%) and excellence of nursing(38%) will be critical factors to develop in order to elevate to an the journal to an international level. In specific evaluation areas, reviewers preferred a subjective critique method(60%), and the condition of the decision making process regarding paper acceptance as a combination of checklist and subjective evaluation(84%). Subjective evaluation opinions with major categories will occur in the next revised evaluation format. 76% of reviewers agreed with the current objective evaluation form.

CONCLUSIONS

The journal review process should be evaluated on a regular basis to elevate the journal level and a mutual agreement of the journal's scope, range, and purpose will be necessary. As a recommendation, an attempt at various approaches in journal reviews and reviewer training should be made.

摘要

相似文献

1
[Developmental direction for review system of the journal of korean academy of nursing].
Taehan Kanho Hakhoe Chi. 2007 Apr;37(3):422-30. doi: 10.4040/jkan.2007.37.3.422.
2
From the History of the Croatian Dermatovenereological Society - The Croatian Medical Association and an Overview of Important Information Regarding the Journal Acta Dermatovenerologica Croatica.克罗地亚皮肤性病学会史——克罗地亚医学协会及《克罗地亚皮肤性病学学报》重要信息概述
Acta Dermatovenerol Croat. 2018 Dec;26(4):344-348.
3
Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals.同行评审中的盲审:护理期刊审稿人的偏好
J Adv Nurs. 2008 Oct;64(2):131-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04816.x. Epub 2008 Sep 1.
4
[Analysis of review contents of the submitted papers in Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing--focus: the submitted papers in 2003].
Taehan Kanho Hakhoe Chi. 2006 Feb;36(1):197-205. doi: 10.4040/jkan.2006.36.1.197.
5
Peer-review and editorial process of the Ethiopian Medical Journal: ten years assessment of the status of submitted manuscripts.《埃塞俄比亚医学杂志》的同行评审与编辑流程:对投稿稿件状态的十年评估
Ethiop Med J. 2013 Apr;51(2):95-103.
6
Predatory Journals: What Nurse Educators Need to Know.掠夺性期刊:护理教育工作者需要了解的内容。
Nurs Educ Perspect. 2015 Jan/Feb;36(1):7.
7
Reviewing manuscripts for peer-review journals: a primer for novice and seasoned reviewers.审阅同行评议期刊的稿件:新手和经验丰富的审稿人的入门指南。
Ann Behav Med. 2011 Aug;42(1):1-13. doi: 10.1007/s12160-011-9269-x.
8
Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey.同行评审员为何拒绝评审?一项调查。
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2007 Jan;61(1):9-12. doi: 10.1136/jech.2006.049817.
9
Characteristics of peer reviewed clinical medicine journals.同行评审临床医学期刊的特点。
Med Ref Serv Q. 1999 Summer;18(2):13-26. doi: 10.1300/J115v18n02_02.
10
Reviewing the reviewers: comparison of review quality and reviewer characteristics at the American Journal of Roentgenology.审视同行评审人员:《美国放射学杂志》评审质量与评审人员特征比较
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005 Jun;184(6):1731-5. doi: 10.2214/ajr.184.6.01841731.