生物医学期刊中最佳同行评审员与同行评审质量
Best peer reviewers and the quality of peer review in biomedical journals.
作者信息
Gasparyan Armen Yuri, Kitas George D
机构信息
Department of Rheumatology, Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust, Clinical Research Unit, Russell's Hall Hospital, Dudley, United Kingdom.
出版信息
Croat Med J. 2012 Aug;53(4):386-9. doi: 10.3325/cmj.2012.53.386.
Abstract
Current scholarly publications heavily rely on high quality peer review. Peer review, albeit imperfect, is aimed at improving science writing and editing. Evidence supporting peer review as a guarantor of the quality of biomedical publications is currently lacking. Its outcomes are largely dependent on the credentials of the reviewers. Several lines of evidence suggest that predictors of the best contributors to the process include affiliation to a good University and proper research training. Though the options to further improve peer review are currently limited, experts are in favor of formal education and courses on peer review for all contributors to this process. Long-term studies are warranted to assess the strengths and weaknesses of this approach.
摘要
当前的学术出版物严重依赖高质量的同行评审。同行评审尽管并不完美，但其目的是改进科学写作和编辑。目前缺乏支持同行评审作为生物医学出版物质量保证的证据。其结果在很大程度上取决于评审人员的资质。有几条证据表明，该过程中最佳贡献者的预测因素包括隶属于一所优秀大学和接受适当的研究培训。尽管目前进一步改进同行评审的选择有限，但专家们赞成对参与该过程的所有人员进行同行评审方面的正规教育和开设相关课程。有必要进行长期研究以评估这种方法的优缺点。
相似文献
1
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.
2
Peer review for biomedical publications: we can improve the system.生物医学出版物的同行评审：我们可以改进这个系统。
BMC Med. 2014 Sep 26;12:179. doi: 10.1186/s12916-014-0179-1.
3
A scoping review of competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals.生物医学期刊科学编辑能力的范围综述。
BMC Med. 2016 Feb 2;14:16. doi: 10.1186/s12916-016-0561-2.
4
Systematic review of the effectiveness of training programs in writing for scholarly publication, journal editing, and manuscript peer review (protocol).系统评价培训计划在学术出版物写作、期刊编辑和稿件同行评审方面的有效性（方案）。
Syst Rev. 2013 Jun 17;2:41. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-2-41.
5
Journal editors' perspectives on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in biomedical journals: a qualitative study.医学期刊编辑对生物医学期刊同行评审员角色和任务的看法：一项定性研究。
BMJ Open. 2019 Nov 24;9(11):e033421. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033421.
6
An overview of the peer review process in biomedical sciences.生物医学科学同行评审过程概述。
Australas Psychiatry. 2024 Jun;32(3):247-251. doi: 10.1177/10398562241231460. Epub 2024 Feb 8.
7
Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis.提高生物医学期刊同行评审质量干预措施的影响：一项系统评价与荟萃分析
BMC Med. 2016 Jun 10;14(1):85. doi: 10.1186/s12916-016-0631-5.
8
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.
9
Reviewers' Role in Research.评审人员在研究中的角色。
J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2017 Jul;27(7):456.
10
Editors' perspectives on the peer-review process in biomedical journals: protocol for a qualitative study.生物医学期刊同行评审过程的编辑观点：一项定性研究方案
BMJ Open. 2018 Oct 18;8(10):e020568. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020568.
引用本文的文献
1
Quality peer review is mandatory for scientific journals: ethical constraints, computers, and progress of communication with the reviewers of International Orthopaedics.高质量同行评审对科学期刊来说是必不可少的：道德约束、计算机以及与《国际骨科学杂志》审稿人的沟通进展。
Int Orthop. 2023 Mar;47(3):605-609. doi: 10.1007/s00264-023-05715-y.
2
Proper Scholarly Writing for Non-Native English-Speaking Authors: Choosing Active and Passive Voice, Rewording, and Refining Texts.非英语母语作者的恰当学术写作：选择主动语态和被动语态、重新措辞以及精炼文本。
J Korean Med Sci. 2022 Nov 14;37(44):e312. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2022.37.e312.
3
Modern Health Journalism and the Impact of Social Media.现代健康新闻业与社交媒体的影响。
J Korean Med Sci. 2021 Jun 7;36(22):e162. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2021.36.e162.
4
Top Central Asian Educational Institutions on Publons: Analysis of Researchers and Reviewers.Publons 上中亚顶尖教育机构：研究人员和审稿人的分析。
J Korean Med Sci. 2021 May 31;36(21):e144. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2021.36.e144.
5
Scientific Publishing in Biomedicine: How to Choose a Journal?生物医学领域的科学出版：如何选择期刊？
Int J Endocrinol Metab. 2020 Nov 25;19(1):e108417. doi: 10.5812/ijem.108417. eCollection 2021 Jan.
6
Peer review guidance: a primer for researchers.同行评审指南：研究人员入门指南
Reumatologia. 2021;59(1):3-8. doi: 10.5114/reum.2021.102709. Epub 2021 Feb 28.
7
Integrity of clinical research conduct, reporting, publishing, and post-publication promotion in rheumatology.风湿病学中临床研究行为、报告、出版和出版后推广的完整性。
Clin Rheumatol. 2020 Apr;39(4):1049-1060. doi: 10.1007/s10067-020-04965-0. Epub 2020 Feb 5.
8
Journal editors' perspectives on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in biomedical journals: a qualitative study.医学期刊编辑对生物医学期刊同行评审员角色和任务的看法：一项定性研究。
BMJ Open. 2019 Nov 24;9(11):e033421. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033421.
9
How do I peer-review a scientific article?-a personal perspective.我如何对一篇科学文章进行同行评审？——个人观点。
Ann Transl Med. 2018 Feb;6(3):68. doi: 10.21037/atm.2017.12.15.
10
Preserving the Integrity of Citations and References by All Stakeholders of Science Communication.科学传播的所有利益相关者维护引文和参考文献的完整性。
J Korean Med Sci. 2015 Nov;30(11):1545-52. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2015.30.11.1545. Epub 2015 Oct 16.
本文引用的文献
1
Diversity, value and limitations of the journal impact factor and alternative metrics.期刊影响因子和替代计量指标的多样性、价值和局限性。
Rheumatol Int. 2012 Jul;32(7):1861-7. doi: 10.1007/s00296-011-2276-1. Epub 2011 Dec 23.
2
Familiarizing with science editors' associations.熟悉科学编辑协会。
Croat Med J. 2011 Dec 15;52(6):735-9. doi: 10.3325/cmj.2011.52.735.
3
Effect of using reporting guidelines during peer review on quality of final manuscripts submitted to a biomedical journal: masked randomised trial.使用同行评审报告指南对向生物医学期刊提交的最终手稿质量的影响： 设盲随机试验。
BMJ. 2011 Nov 22;343:d6783. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d6783.
4
Medical journal editors lacked familiarity with scientific publication issues despite training and regular exposure.医学期刊编辑尽管经过培训且经常接触，但对科学出版问题并不熟悉。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2012 Mar;65(3):247-52. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.08.003. Epub 2011 Nov 8.
5
Multiple rejections: role of the writing process.多次被拒稿：写作过程的作用
Lancet. 2011 Oct 8;378(9799):1296. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61574-2.
6
UK Parliament comments on peer review.英国议会对同行评议的评论。
Nat Cell Biol. 2011 Oct 3;13(10):1153. doi: 10.1038/ncb2357b.
7
Effect of recommendations from reviewers suggested or excluded by authors.作者提出或排除的审稿人建议的效果。
J Am Soc Nephrol. 2011 Sep;22(9):1598-602. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2011070643. Epub 2011 Aug 18.
8
The validity of peer review in a general medicine journal.一般医学期刊同行评审的有效性。
PLoS One. 2011;6(7):e22475. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0022475. Epub 2011 Jul 25.
9
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.
10
Classical peer review: an empty gun.传统同行评审：一支空枪。
Breast Cancer Res. 2010 Dec 20;12 Suppl 4(Suppl 4):S13. doi: 10.1186/bcr2742.
Zotero 插件