• 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

[生物医学期刊中的“同行评审”过程:“精英”评审员的特征]

[The "peer-review" process in biomedical journals: characteristics of "Elite" reviewers].

作者信息

Alfonso F

出版信息

Neurologia. 2010 Nov-Dec;25(9):521-9. doi: 10.1016/j.nrl.2010.05.006. Epub 2010 Oct 28.

DOI:10.1016/j.nrl.2010.05.006
PMID:21093700
Abstract

The "peer-review" system is used to improve the quality of submitted scientific papers and provides invaluable help to the Editors in their decision-making process. The "peer-review" system remains the cornerstone of the scientific process and, therefore, its quality should be closely monitored. The profile of the "elite" reviewers has been described, but further studies are warranted to better identify their main characteristics. A major challenge, not only for Editors but also for medical scientific societies as a whole, is to continue to guarantee the excellence in the "peer-review" process and to ensure that it receives adequate academic recognition.

摘要

“同行评审”系统用于提高提交的科学论文质量,并在编辑的决策过程中提供宝贵帮助。“同行评审”系统仍然是科学过程的基石,因此,其质量应受到密切监测。“精英”评审员的概况已有描述,但仍需进一步研究以更好地确定他们的主要特征。一个重大挑战,不仅对编辑而言,对整个医学科学学会来说也是如此,即要继续保证“同行评审”过程的卓越性,并确保其获得足够的学术认可。

相似文献

1
[The "peer-review" process in biomedical journals: characteristics of "Elite" reviewers].[生物医学期刊中的“同行评审”过程:“精英”评审员的特征]
Neurologia. 2010 Nov-Dec;25(9):521-9. doi: 10.1016/j.nrl.2010.05.006. Epub 2010 Oct 28.
2
[A critical review of the "peer review" process].对“同行评审”过程的批判性审视
Arch Cardiol Mex. 2010 Oct-Dec;80(4):272-82.
3
[From the Cochrane Library: the use of peer review is still under discussion].[源自考克兰图书馆:同行评审的使用仍在讨论中]
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2008 Apr 19;152(16):934-7.
4
How do peer reviewers of journal articles perform? Evaluating the reviewers with a sham paper.期刊文章的同行评审员表现如何?用一篇虚假论文评估评审员。
J Assoc Physicians India. 1999 Feb;47(2):198-200.
5
[The reviewers' review].[审稿人的评审意见]
Harefuah. 2006 Aug;145(8):587-91, 630.
6
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.
7
[Improving the editing of medical journals and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME)].[改进医学期刊编辑工作与世界医学编辑协会(WAME)]
Rev Med Chil. 1997 Nov;125(11):1289-91.
8
[The profile of evaluators of a medical publication in relation to the response].[与回复相关的医学出版物评估者概况]
Neurologia. 2010 Nov-Dec;25(9):530-5. doi: 10.1016/j.nrl.2010.03.012. Epub 2010 Oct 18.
9
[The long pilgrimage of Spanish biomedical journals toward excellence. Who helps? Quality, impact and research merit].[西班牙生物医学期刊追求卓越的漫长征程。谁来助力?质量、影响力与研究价值]
Endocrinol Nutr. 2010 Mar;57(3):110-20. doi: 10.1016/j.endonu.2010.02.003. Epub 2010 Mar 27.
10
Editors' requests of peer reviewers: a study and a proposal.编辑对同行评审员的要求:一项研究与一项提议。
Prev Med. 1996 Mar-Apr;25(2):102-4. doi: 10.1006/pmed.1996.0035.