学术期刊正交试验类稿件的审读方法  

Reviewing methods for manuscripts about orthogonal tests in academic journals

作　　者：程红[1] 李莉[2] 

机构地区：[1]<东北林业大学学报>编辑部,哈尔滨150040 [2]<广西植物>编辑部,广西桂林541006

出　　处：《编辑学报》2012年第5期450-452,共3页Acta Editologica

摘　　要：以农林类A+和A类期刊题名或关键词含有"正交试验"或"正交实验"的论文为研究对象,依据正交试验原理,对各论文进行审读和统计分析。结果表明:正交表记号错误的占调查论文总数的20.29%,k值错误的占28.77%,R值错误的占27.97%,因素主次排列错误的占17.01%,最佳组合错误的占26.80%;经验证,有31.86%的论文方差分析各因素水平间均不显著。由于各种错误最终导致63.13%的论文得出了错误结论或试验设计失败。可见,正交试验类论文的编辑工作应予高度重视。作者从编辑的视角给出了识别、修正这些错误的方法。Academic papers focusing on orthogonal tests（experiments） in agriculture and forestry are surveyed and analyzed statistically based on the orthogonal test（experiment） theory.The results show that the papers with wrong expression of orthogonal marks account for 20.29% of the total surveyed papers,wrong k values for 28.77%,wrong R values for 27.97%,wrong arrangements in a primary order for 17.01%,and wrong combinations for 26.80%.The variance analysis among factors is confirmed to be insignificant in 31.86% papers.All these mistakes finally result in 63.13% papers with wrong conclusions or failed test design,suggesting that the academic quality of papers regarding orthogonal tests is worrying.Some proofreading methods for recognizing and revising these mistakes are provided from the editor＇s perspective.Meanwhile,journal publishing departments should strengthen the preliminary review of such kind of papers.

关 键 词：科技论文 正交试验 稿件审读 

分 类 号：G232.2[文化科学]