摘要
【目的】高校文科学报软科学的属性,使稿件质量难于评定。为治理此现象,提出优化双盲审稿制度的构想。【方法】将稿件预审和初审送审工作分离,助理编辑(或编务)接收来稿并按规程处理后,剔除作者信息,按专业方向交由栏目编辑,由栏目编辑完成初审和送审。同时,提出建立规范化的审稿模式,制定可量化的审稿标准,建立动态的匿名审稿专家库,创立文后审稿人署名制度,重视稿件终审,杜绝审稿漏洞。【结果】所提出的优化双盲评审制度可优化审稿模式,规范审稿程序,使双盲审稿落到实处,规避编辑部内部“灯下黑”的现象,降低学术腐败的风险。【结论】优化的双盲审稿模式可充分发挥期刊学术把关人的作用,提高高校文科学报的审稿质量。
[Purposes]It is difficult to evaluate the quality of manuscripts for liberal arts journals sponsored by universities because of the properties as soft science.This paper proposes an idea of optimizing the existing double-blind peer review system to control this phenomenon.[Methods]Different editors were responsible for the preliminary examination and the manuscript review assignment.The assistant editors(or editors)received the manuscripts and processed them according to the procedures,removed the author information,and assigned them to the column editors according to the professional direction,and the column editors completed the preliminary review and manuscript review assignment.At the same time,we established a standardized evaluation mode,formulated a quantifiable standard,established a dynamic anonymous expert database,created a signature rule for evaluation,attached importance to the final approval of manuscripts,and eliminated the review loopholes.[Findings]Once the mode of evaluating manuscripts is optimized,the process is standardized,and the double-blind peer review system is implemented,the phenomenon of black under the light is avoided,and the risk of academic corruption is reduced.[Conclusions]The optimized double-blind peer review mode can give full play to the role of the academic gatekeeper of journals and improve review quality for liberal arts journals sponsored by universities.
作者
王文福
路晓鸽
WANG Wenfu;LU Xiaoge(Department of Academic Theory of Heilongjiang Institute of Technology,999 Hongqi Road,Daowai District,Harbin 150050,China)
出处
《中国科技期刊研究》
CSSCI
北大核心
2020年第11期1317-1321,共5页
Chinese Journal of Scientific and Technical Periodicals
关键词
高校文科学报
双盲评审
审稿制度
分段送审
专家数据库
审稿署名制
Liberal arts journal sponsored by university
Double-blind peer review
Evaluation system
Section for review
Expert database
Signature rule for review
