我国科技期刊审稿流程设置的现状调查  

A survey of the current situation of review process of scientific journals in China

作　　者：韩磊[1] 徐学友 郎伟锋[3] 李庆德 卢鑫 田雪莹 史斌 HAN Lei;XU Xueyou;LANG Weifeng;LI Qingde;LU Xin;TIAN Xueying;SHI Bin(Editorial Office of Preventive Medicine Tribune,Shandong Center for Disease Control and Prevention,Jinan 250014,China;Editorial Office of Shandong Science,Information Research Institute of Qilu University of Technology(Shandong Academy of Sciences),Jinan 250014,China;Editorial Department of Academic Journals,Shandong Jiaotong University,Jinan 250357,China;Editorial Office of Technology and Economic Guide,Shandong Academy of Innovation Strategy,Jinan 250001,China;Publishing Management Division of the Publicity Department of the CPC Shandong Provincial Committee,Jinan 250001,China)

机构地区：[1]山东省疾病预防控制中心《预防医学论坛》编辑部,山东省济南市250014 [2]齐鲁工业大学(山东省科学院)情报研究所《山东科学》编辑部,山东省济南市250014 [3]山东交通学院学术期刊编辑部,山东省济南市250357 [4]山东省创新战略研究院《科技经济导刊》编辑部,山东省济南市250001 [5]中共山东省委宣传部出版管理处,山东省济南市250001

出　　处：《中国科技期刊研究》2023年第8期1000-1006,共7页Chinese Journal of Scientific and Technical Periodicals

摘　　要：【目的】通过调研我国科技期刊审稿流程设置的现状,探讨科技期刊审稿流程特点和三审制实施情况,为完善科技期刊审稿流程设置提供依据。【方法】2022年8—9月,采用问卷调查分析方法,选取由山东省各类机构主管或主办的全部131种科技期刊作为期刊样本,并选取全国范围的科技期刊编辑作为编辑样本,发放问卷进行调研,调研各期刊的期刊基本情况、审稿流程设置情况、审稿人员设置情况等。【结果】共收集来自127种山东省科技期刊的问卷和161份全国科技期刊编辑问卷。在山东省、全国层面,实行“初审—同行评议—复审—终审”流程的期刊数量最多(分别占61.42%、52.80%),实行“初审—复审—终审”流程的期刊分别仅占6.30%、4.35%。初审人员方面,在山东省、全国层面的科技期刊中,中级职称编辑占比最高(分别占59.06%、56.52%)。复审人员方面,在山东省层面,副高级及以上职称编辑占比最高(68.50%);在全国层面,同行评议专家占比最高(59.01%)。终审人员方面,在山东省层面,主编占比最高(90.55%);在全国层面,编辑部主任/执行主编占比最高(47.20%)。96.06%的山东省科技期刊、96.27%的全国科技期刊在审稿流程中设置同行评议环节,双盲审稿居多。【结论】在三审制基础上,科技期刊审稿流程和人员设置均呈现多元化趋势,同行评议被普遍融入科技期刊的审稿流程,但同行评议与三审制的衔接存在较明显的无序性。[Purposes]This paper aims to explore the characteristics of the manuscript review process and the implementation of the three-review system by investigating the current situation of the manuscript review process of scientific journals in China,so as to provide a basis for improving the manuscript review process of scientific journals.[Methods]From August to September 2022,by using a questionnaire survey and analysis method,131 scientific journals supervised or sponsored by various institutions in Shandong Province were selected as journal samples,and editors from scientific journals in China were selected as editor samples.The network questionnaires were distributed to investigate the basic information of each journal,the manuscript review process,and the composition of review panels.[Findings]A total of 127 questionnaires from scientific journals in Shandong Province and 161 questionnaires from editors of scientific journals in China are collected.At the provincial and national levels,the majority of journals(61.42%and 52.80%)adopts a four-step manuscript review process of"preliminary review-peer review-re-review-final review",and only 6.30%and 4.35%of the journals follow a three-step process of"preliminary review-re-review-final review".In terms of preliminary reviewers,the editors with intermediate professional titles constitute the largest proportion of scientific journals in Shandong Province and nationwide(59.06%and 56.52%,respectively).In terms of the re-review process,editors with senior professional titles or above account for the highest proportion at the provincial level(68.50%),while peer review experts are predominant at the national level(59.01%).In terms of final review,chief editors of scientific journals at the provincial level hold the highest proportion(90.55%),while editorial directors/executive chief editors of scientific journals hold the highest proportion(47.20%)at the national level.Furthermore,96.06%of scientific journals in Shandong Province and 96.27%of nationwide scientific journals i

关 键 词：科技期刊 审稿 三审制 同行评议 

分 类 号：G237.5[文化科学]