高质量的审稿意见与审稿人个体特征的关系——基于对Publons Top Reviewers的实证分析  

Relationship between high-quality peer reviews and individual characteristics of reviewers: An empirical study of Publons top reviewers

作　　者：徐英朔 程媛 宗乾进[1] 张燕霏[1] 杜娇 吴其达 黄颖 XU Yingshuo;CHENG Yuan;ZONG Qianjin;ZHANG Yanfei;DU Jiao;WU Qida;HUANG Ying(School of Economics and Management,South China Normal University,378 Waihuan Road,Guangzhou 510006,China;School of Law,South China Normal University,378 Waihuan Road,Guangzhou 510006,China;School of Computer Science and Cyber Engineering,Guangzhou University,230 Waihuan Road,Guangzhou 510006,China)

机构地区：[1]华南师范大学经济与管理学院,广东省广州市510006 [2]华南师范大学法学院,广东省广州市510006 [3]广州大学计算机科学与网络工程学院,广东省广州市510006

出　　处：《中国科技期刊研究》2021年第2期199-205,共7页Chinese Journal of Scientific and Technical Periodicals

基　　金：国家自然科学基金(71704057);广东省哲学社会科学规划项目(GD17YTS01)。

摘　　要：【目的】探讨高质量的审稿意见与审稿人个体特征的关系,为科技期刊选择合适的审稿人提供参考。【方法】以Publons平台中2018年和2019年Top Reviewers相关信息为数据源,采用标准负二项回归检验高质量审稿意见与审稿人个体特征间的关系。【结果】经认证的审稿数、编辑经历、出版后同行评议经历与高质量审稿意见的数量有着显著的、稳定的正相关关系。是否为高被引科学家、是否为Publons导师、论文发表数量、是否在任期刊编委会成员、是否曾任编委会成员、未经认证的审稿数与高质量的审稿意见没有稳定的或者没有显著的关系。【结论】科技期刊可以通过Publons等开放性的同行评议平台,邀请那些审稿数量多、有编辑经历,以及有过出版后同行评议经历的审稿人参与审稿,以提高审稿质量。[Purposes]This study aims to provide implications for scientific journals to select appropriate reviewers by analyzing the relationship between high-quality peer reviews and reviewers’ characteristics. [Methods]Based on the data sets of Publons top reviewers in 2018 and 2019,standard negative binomial regression was adopted to examine the relationship between high-quality peer reviews and individual characteristics of reviewers.[Findings]The results showed that the number of verified reviews,experience in journal editing,and experience in post-publication peer review were in stable and significant correlation with the number of highquality peer reviews,and the identity of highly cited researcher,Publons mentor,number of published papers,member of editorial board of journals,former member of editorial board of journals,and number of unverified reviews had insignificant or unstable correlation with the number of high-quality peer reviews.[Conclusions]To improve the quality of peer review,scientific journals can invite reviewers( via open peer review platforms such as Publons) with a large number of peer reviews,experience in journal editing,and experience in post-publication peer review for peer review.

关 键 词：审稿质量 Publons 审稿人特征 出版后同行评议 同行评议 科技期刊 

分 类 号：G237.5[文化科学]