| 陈 钢,夏庆民,姜 申.基于《学术出版规范 期刊学术不端行为界定》的外审专家认知调查[J].中国肿瘤,2020,29(12):985-988. |
| 基于《学术出版规范 期刊学术不端行为界定》的外审专家认知调查 |
| Survey on the Awareness of Peer Reviewers Based on the Academic Publishing Specification—Definition of Academic Misconduct for Journals |
| 中文关键词 修订日期：2020-09-27 |
| DOI：10.11735/j.issn.1004-0242.2020.12.A016 |
|
 |
| 中文关键词: 外审专家 学术不端 学术出版 科学诚信 出版伦理 |
| 英文关键词:peer reviewers academic misconduct academic publishing scientific integrity publishing ethics |
| 基金项目: |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 1048 |
| 全文下载次数: 185 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 摘 要：［目的］ 了解外审专家对CY/T 174—2019《学术出版规范 期刊学术不端行为界定》中审稿专家和作者学术不端行为的认知情况，完善学术期刊同行评议机制。［方法］ 以《预防医学》杂志外审专家为调查对象，基于CY/T 174—2019《学术出版规范 期刊学术不端行为界定》设计调查问卷，通过电子邮件推送和回收问卷，调查6类及其中常见的6种审稿专家学术不端行为、7类及其中常见的7种作者学术不端行为的认知情况。［结果］ 调查外审专家共225人，回收问卷185份，有效问卷182份，问卷有效率为98.38%。其中男性129人，女性53人；年龄以30~60岁为主，占96.63%；以高级专业技术职称为主，其中正高93人，占51.10%；副高75人，占41.21%；以硕士学历为主，73人，占40.11%；从事疾病预防控制工作110人，占60.44%；5年内人均发表论文9篇，最多发表30篇；最近1年审稿少于6篇96人，占52.75%，6～11篇46人，占25.27%，12篇及以上40人，占21.98%。6类审稿专家学术不端行为的认知率平均为93.68%，6种常见学术不端行为的认知率平均为83.61%；7类作者学术不端行为的认知率平均为92.31%，7种常见学术不端行为的认知率平均为86.73%。［结论］ 外审专家对于CY/T 174—2019《学术出版规范 期刊学术不端行为界定》的审稿专家和作者学术不端行为类型的认知率较高，但对于具体学术不端行为的辨识能力尚需提高；编辑部应采取多种形式提高外审专家辨识学术不端行为的能力，完善同行评议机制。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Abstract：［Purpose］ To survey the awareness of peer reviewers on academic misconduct of reviewers and authors introduced in Academic publishing specification--Definition of academic misconduct for journals(CY/T 174—2019). ［Methods］ A questionnaire survey was conducted among the reviewers of Preventive Medicine on December 2019. The questionnaire，designed based on CY/T 174—2019，contained the awareness on 6 types and common behaviors of peer reviewers’ academic misconduct and 7 types and common behaviors of author’s academic misconduct. ［Results］ A total of 225 questionnaires were sent to reviewers by email and 182 valid questionnaires were collected with a response rate of 82.22%. Among 182 responders，129 were males and 53 were females；most of them were aged of 30 to 60 years old(96.63%)，93 owned senior professional titles(51.10%) and 75 owned associate senior titles(41.21%)；73 had master or above degrees(40.11%)；110 were engaged in diseases prevention and control(60.44%). Average 9 papers were published per capita within 5 years，with the maximum of 30 papers. In the latest year，96 reviewed less than 6 papers，accounting for 52.75%；46 reviewed 6-11 papers，accounting for 25.27%；40 reviewed more than 12 papers，accounting for 21.98%. The average awareness rates of 6 types and common behaviors of peer reviewers’ academic misconduct were 93.68% and 83.61%；the average awareness rates of 7 types and common behaviors of authors’ academic misconduct were 92.31% and 86.73%，respectively. ［Conclusion］ The peer reviewers have good awareness of the types of reviewers’ and authors’ academic misconduct from CY/T 174—2019；however，the ability to identify specific academic misconduct behaviors needs to be improved. The editorial department of academic journals should take various measures to help reviewers to improve the peer review mechanism. |
|
在线阅读
查看全文 查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |