• 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

相似文献

1
Reviewing manuscripts for biomedical journals.审阅生物医学期刊的稿件。
Perm J. 2010 Spring;14(1):32-40. doi: 10.7812/TPP/09-088.
2
Rules to be adopted for publishing a scientific paper.发表科学论文应采用的规则。
Ann Ital Chir. 2016;87:1-3.
3
The role of the manuscript reviewer in the peer review process.稿件评审人在同行评审过程中的作用。
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995 Sep;165(3):685-8. doi: 10.2214/ajr.165.3.7645496.
4
Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. PEER Investigators.屏蔽作者身份能否提高同行评审质量?一项随机对照试验。同行评审研究调查员。
JAMA. 1998 Jul 15;280(3):240-2. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.3.240.
5
Peer review of the biomedical literature.生物医学文献的同行评审。
Am J Emerg Med. 1990 Jul;8(4):356-8. doi: 10.1016/0735-6757(90)90096-i.
6
What feedback do reviewers give when reviewing qualitative manuscripts? A focused mapping review and synthesis.审稿人在评审定性手稿时会给出什么反馈?一项聚焦的映射式综述与综合。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020 May 18;20(1):122. doi: 10.1186/s12874-020-01005-y.
7
Is Biomedical Research Protected from Predatory Reviewers?生物医学研究是否免受掠夺性审稿人影响?
Sci Eng Ethics. 2019 Feb;25(1):293-321. doi: 10.1007/s11948-017-9964-5. Epub 2017 Sep 13.
8
A scoping review on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals.在生物医学期刊的稿件评审过程中,同行评审员的角色和任务:范围综述。
BMC Med. 2019 Jun 20;17(1):118. doi: 10.1186/s12916-019-1347-0.
9
Do author-suggested reviewers rate submissions more favorably than editor-suggested reviewers? A study on atmospheric chemistry and physics.作者推荐的审稿人是否比编辑推荐的审稿人对投稿评价更高?一项关于大气化学和物理学的研究。
PLoS One. 2010 Oct 14;5(10):e13345. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0013345.
10
Surviving peer review.通过同行评审。
J Clin Apher. 2020 Sep;35(5):469-476. doi: 10.1002/jca.21822. Epub 2020 Aug 7.

引用本文的文献

1
Peer Review: Publication's Gold Standard.同行评审:出版物的黄金标准。
J Adv Pract Oncol. 2012 Mar;3(2):117-22.
2
Best peer reviewers and the quality of peer review in biomedical journals.生物医学期刊中最佳同行评审员与同行评审质量
Croat Med J. 2012 Aug;53(4):386-9. doi: 10.3325/cmj.2012.53.386.
3
Are peer reviewers encouraged to use reporting guidelines? A survey of 116 health research journals.是否鼓励同行评审员使用报告指南?对 116 种健康研究期刊的调查。
PLoS One. 2012;7(4):e35621. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035621. Epub 2012 Apr 27.
4
A proton nuclear magnetic resonance-based metabonomics study of metabolic profiling in immunoglobulin a nephropathy.基于质子磁共振的代谢组学研究在免疫球蛋白 A 肾病中的代谢谱分析。
Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2012;67(4):363-73. doi: 10.6061/clinics/2012(04)10.
5
Biomedical journal editing: elements of success.生物医学期刊编辑:成功要素
Croat Med J. 2011 Jun;52(3):423-8. doi: 10.3325/cmj.2011.52.423.

本文引用的文献

1
How to write a manuscript.如何撰写一篇手稿。
J Emerg Med. 2009 Jan;36(1):89-93. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2007.09.056. Epub 2008 Jul 2.
2
Content and communication: how can peer review provide helpful feedback about the writing?内容与交流:同行评审如何能就写作提供有益的反馈?
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008 Jan 31;8:3. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-8-3.
3
Beyond objective and balanced: Writing constructive manuscript reviews.超越客观与平衡:撰写建设性的稿件评审意见。
Res Nurs Health. 2006 Apr;29(2):71-3. doi: 10.1002/nur.20119.
4
A systematic guide to reviewing a manuscript.审阅稿件的系统指南。
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005 Oct;185(4):848-54. doi: 10.2214/AJR.05.0782.
5
Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial.培训对同行评审质量的影响:随机对照试验
BMJ. 2004 Mar 20;328(7441):673. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38023.700775.AE. Epub 2004 Mar 2.
6
Peer review: integral to Science and indispensable to Annals.
Ann Intern Med. 2003 Dec 16;139(12):1038-40. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-139-12-200312160-00015.
7
How to review a paper.如何审阅一篇论文。
Adv Physiol Educ. 2003 Dec;27(1-4):47-52. doi: 10.1152/advan.00057.2002.
8
Judging the judges: the role of journal editors.评判评审人员:期刊编辑的角色
QJM. 2002 Dec;95(12):769-74. doi: 10.1093/qjmed/95.12.769.
9
Identifying manuscript reviewers: randomized comparison of asking first or just sending.确定稿件评审人:先询问还是直接发送的随机比较
JAMA. 2002 Jun 5;287(21):2795-6. doi: 10.1001/jama.287.21.2795.
10
Effect of written feedback by editors on quality of reviews: two randomized trials.编辑书面反馈对评审质量的影响:两项随机试验
JAMA. 2002 Jun 5;287(21):2781-3. doi: 10.1001/jama.287.21.2781.

审阅生物医学期刊的稿件。

Reviewing manuscripts for biomedical journals.

作者信息

Garmel Gus M

机构信息

Emergency Medicine Physician, Santa Clara Medical Center; Stanford/Kaiser Emergency Medicine Residency Program, Emergency Medicine (Surgery), Stanford University.

出版信息

Perm J. 2010 Spring;14(1):32-40. doi: 10.7812/TPP/09-088.

DOI:10.7812/TPP/09-088
PMID:20740129
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2912703/
Abstract

Writing for publication is a complex task. For many professionals, producing a well-executed manuscript conveying one's research, ideas, or educational wisdom is challenging. Authors have varying emotions related to the process of writing for scientific publication. Although not studied, a relationship between an author's enjoyment of the writing process and the product's outcome is highly likely. As with any skill, practice generally results in improvements. Literature focused on preparing manuscripts for publication and the art of reviewing submissions exists. Most journals guard their reviewers' anonymity with respect to the manuscript review process. This is meant to protect them from direct or indirect author demands, which may occur during the review process or in the future. It is generally accepted that author identities are masked in the peer-review process. However, the concept of anonymity for reviewers has been debated recently; many editors consider it problematic that reviewers are not held accountable to the public for their decisions. The review process is often arduous and underappreciated, one reason why biomedical journals acknowledge editors and frequently recognize reviewers who donate their time and expertise in the name of science. This article describes essential elements of a submitted manuscript, with the hopes of improving scientific writing. It also discusses the review process within the biomedical literature, the importance of reviewers to the scientific process, responsibilities of reviewers, and qualities of a good review and reviewer. In addition, it includes useful insights to individuals who read and interpret the medical literature.

摘要

撰写发表文章是一项复杂的任务。对于许多专业人士来说,写出一篇能出色传达自己的研究、想法或教育智慧的稿件颇具挑战性。作者在为科学发表而写作的过程中有着不同的情绪。尽管尚未进行研究,但作者对写作过程的喜爱与文章成果之间很可能存在某种关联。与任何技能一样,练习通常会带来进步。有一些文献聚焦于为发表准备稿件以及评审投稿的技巧。大多数期刊在稿件评审过程中会保护审稿人的匿名性。这是为了保护他们免受作者在评审过程中或未来可能提出的直接或间接要求的影响。在同行评审过程中,作者身份通常是被隐匿的,这一点已被普遍接受。然而,审稿人的匿名概念最近受到了争议;许多编辑认为审稿人不对公众负责其评审决定是个问题。评审过程往往艰巨且不被重视,这也是生物医学期刊表彰编辑并经常认可那些以科学之名贡献时间和专业知识的审稿人的原因之一。本文描述了投稿稿件的基本要素,希望能改进科学写作。它还讨论了生物医学文献中的评审过程、审稿人对科学进程的重要性、审稿人的职责以及优秀评审和审稿人的品质。此外,它还为阅读和解读医学文献的个人提供了有用的见解。