• 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

同行评审的关键作用:挑战与未来举措。

The critical role of peer reviewers: Challenges and future steps.

作者信息

El-Guebaly Nady, Foster John, Bahji Anees, Hellman Matilda

机构信息

University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.

University of Greenwich, London, UK.

出版信息

Nordisk Alkohol Nark. 2023 Feb;40(1):14-21. doi: 10.1177/14550725221092862. Epub 2022 Sep 1.

DOI:10.1177/14550725221092862
PMID:36793486
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9893124/
Abstract

The critical role of peer reviewers in the publishing process is examined. Examples of typical challenges are provided, including the relative lack of rewards for this important task. Particular attention is paid to the need to consider the diversity of the peer reviewers recruited and impediments to the selection beyond Areas of Competence, often due to the small available pool. Finally, recommendations for improvement are suggested.

摘要

本文探讨了同行评审员在出版过程中的关键作用。文中提供了一些典型挑战的例子,包括这项重要任务相对缺乏奖励。特别关注了需要考虑所招募同行评审员的多样性,以及由于可用人才库较小,在选择过程中超出能力范围的障碍。最后,提出了改进建议。

相似文献

1
The critical role of peer reviewers: Challenges and future steps.同行评审的关键作用:挑战与未来举措。
Nordisk Alkohol Nark. 2023 Feb;40(1):14-21. doi: 10.1177/14550725221092862. Epub 2022 Sep 1.
2
[The recognition of peer reviewers activity: the potential promotion of a virtuous circle.].[同行评审员活动的认可:对良性循环的潜在促进。]
Recenti Prog Med. 2017 Sep;108(9):355-359. doi: 10.1701/2745.27985.
3
Why are peer reviewers thinning out, and are there ways to enrich the peer pool?为什么同行评审员越来越少了,有没有办法丰富同行评审员队伍?
J Sci Med Sport. 2023 Jul;26(7):336-337. doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2023.06.006.
4
identifies gender disparities in scientific peer review.确定科学同行评审中的性别差距。
Elife. 2023 Nov 3;12:RP90230. doi: 10.7554/eLife.90230.
5
How to review a scientific paper.如何评论一篇科学论文。
Asian J Psychiatr. 2014 Oct;11:124-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajp.2014.08.007. Epub 2014 Aug 27.
6
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.考克兰新生儿协作网的未来。
Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.
7
Evaluating, Improving, and Appreciating Peer Review at .评估、改进并重视同行评审于……(此处原英文内容不完整,缺少具体地点等信息)
Int J Ther Massage Bodywork. 2021 Mar 1;14(1):1-3. eCollection 2021 Mar.
8
Peer review to ensure quality in forensic mental health publication.同行评审以确保法医精神卫生出版物的质量。
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2014;42(3):305-14.
9
Editorial peer reviewers' recommendations at a general medical journal: are they reliable and do editors care?医学期刊编辑同行评议人的推荐:可靠吗?编辑会在意吗?
PLoS One. 2010 Apr 8;5(4):e10072. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010072.
10
Publishing peer review materials.发表同行评审材料。
F1000Res. 2018 Oct 17;7:1655. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.16460.1. eCollection 2018.

引用本文的文献

1
Fishing reviewing: A threat to research integrity and credibility.钓鱼式评审:对研究诚信和可信度的一种威胁。
World J Methodol. 2025 Sep 20;15(3):98795. doi: 10.5662/wjm.v15.i3.98795.
2
The value of joint peer review between early career researchers and supervisors.早期职业研究人员与导师之间联合同行评审的价值。
Trends Cell Biol. 2025 May;35(5):353-356. doi: 10.1016/j.tcb.2025.03.002. Epub 2025 Apr 3.
3
Better nanoscience through open, collaborative, and critical discussions.通过开放、协作和批判性讨论实现更优的纳米科学。
Mater Horiz. 2024 Jul 1;11(13):3005-3010. doi: 10.1039/d3mh01781h.
4
Of editorial processes, AI models, and medical literature: the Magnetic Resonance Audiometry experiment.论编辑流程、人工智能模型和医学文献:磁共振测听实验。
Eur Radiol. 2024 Sep;34(9):5868-5872. doi: 10.1007/s00330-024-10668-w. Epub 2024 Mar 7.
5
The importance of debunking constructions.揭穿虚假构造的重要性。
Nordisk Alkohol Nark. 2023 Feb;40(1):3-5. doi: 10.1177/14550725221150346. Epub 2023 Jan 25.

本文引用的文献

1
Reviewer training for improving grant and journal peer review.为改进基金和期刊同行评审而进行的审稿人培训。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Nov 28;11(11):MR000056. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000056.pub2.
2
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.
3
Perspectives on involvement in the peer-review process: surveys of patient and public reviewers at two journals.参与同行评审过程的观点:对两家期刊的患者和公众评审员的调查
BMJ Open. 2018 Sep 5;8(9):e023357. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023357.
4
Recognition for Reviewers: PUBLONS!审稿人认可:PUBLONS!
J Transcult Nurs. 2018 May;29(3):221. doi: 10.1177/1043659618764157. Epub 2018 Mar 14.
5
[The recognition of peer reviewers activity: the potential promotion of a virtuous circle.].[同行评审员活动的认可:对良性循环的潜在促进。]
Recenti Prog Med. 2017 Sep;108(9):355-359. doi: 10.1701/2745.27985.
6
Peer review: acknowledging its value and recognising the reviewers.同行评审:认可其价值并感谢评审人员。
Br J Gen Pract. 2016 Dec;66(653):629-630. doi: 10.3399/bjgp16X688285.
7
Emerging trends in peer review-a survey.同行评审的新趋势——一项调查
Front Neurosci. 2015 May 27;9:169. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2015.00169. eCollection 2015.
8
Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial.公开同行评审对评审质量及评审者建议的影响:一项随机试验
BMJ. 1999 Jan 2;318(7175):23-7. doi: 10.1136/bmj.318.7175.23.
9
What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal?对于一本普通医学期刊而言,怎样才算是一名优秀的审稿人以及一篇优秀的综述呢?
JAMA. 1998 Jul 15;280(3):231-3. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.3.231.