论文部分内容阅读
【目的】了解《预防医学》杂志同行评议专家审稿行为,为学术期刊提高同行评议管控能力提供依据。【方法】通过《预防医学》杂志稿件远程处理系统导出实际完成时间为2015年1月1日—12月31日的同行评议记录,对审稿数量、审稿时间、超时审回和拒绝审稿数量等资料进行分析;并采用多因素Logistic回归模型分析评审专家超时审稿的影响因素。【结果】2015年送审稿件1000篇,涉及评审专家137人,评审专家审稿最少1篇,最多48篇,中位数5篇。审稿数量不同的评审专家审稿时间比较,差异无统计学意义(H=1.444,P>0.05);不同稿件质量的审稿时间比较,差异有统计学意义(H=18.713,P<0.05)。多因素Logistic回归分析结果显示,审稿超时与审稿数量、稿件质量存在统计关联(P<0.05)。【结论】学术期刊应保持一定数量的评审专家人数,控制好稿件送审数量和节奏;编辑部应加强初审把关、及时更新评审专家信息。
【Objective】 To understand peer reviewers’ peer review behavior in Preventive Medicine and provide basis for academic journals to improve the ability of peer review and control. 【Method】 The records of peer review from January 1 to December 31, 2015, which was actually completed from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015, were derived from the telemedicine system of manuscripts in Preventive Medicine. The reviewers reviewed the manuscripts, reviewers’ time, Quantity and other data for analysis; and using multivariate Logistic regression model to analyze the influencing factors of reviewers’ overtime review. 【Results】 There were 1000 manuscripts for review and approval in 2015, involving 137 reviewers, at least 1 reviewer, 48 up to a maximum of 5 articles. There was no significant difference (P> 0.05) between the manuscript review time of different manuscripts and the manuscript review time of different manuscript reviewers (H = 1.444, P> 0.05) . Multivariate Logistic regression analysis showed that there was a statistical correlation between the number of manuscript reviewers and manuscript quality (P <0.05). 【Conclusion】 Academic journals should maintain a certain number of experts to control the number and pace of manuscripts submitted for trial. The editorial department should strengthen the preliminary examination and timely update the information of reviewing experts.