出版科学 ›› 2023, Vol. 31 ›› Issue (4): 44-.

• 编辑学 编辑工作 • 上一篇    下一篇

提高农业科技期刊审稿时效的对策探讨
—基于对审稿专家的调查

  

  1. 天津农学院科技处（学报编辑部），天津，300392
  • 出版日期:2023-07-15 发布日期:2023-08-05
  • 作者简介:张爱婷，天津农学院科技处（学报编辑部）编辑。
  • 基金资助:
    本文系天津市教委科研计划项目（2020SK147）研究成果。

Strategies to Increase Efficiency of Peer Review in Agricultural Scientific Journals ：
Based on a Questionnaire Survey among Peer Reviewers

  1. Editorial Department of Journal, Department of Science and Technology, Tianjin Agricultural
    University, Tianjin, 300392
  • Online:2023-07-15 Published:2023-08-05

PDF

86

摘要：

为了解农业科技期刊专家审稿时效的影响因素，探索提高审稿时效的对策，通过自行
设计问卷对 268 位审稿专家进行邮件或现场问卷调查。结果发现 ：43.6% 的审稿人年龄为 41—
50 岁 ；89.9% 的审稿人会因送审稿件与本人研究方向不一致而拒审，其中 82.6% 会同时推荐更
为合适的审稿人；81.3% 的审稿人会根据自身研究方向改变而及时更新在审稿系统中的相关信息；
多数审稿人为多种期刊审稿 ；七成审稿人月均能接受审稿篇数为 1—2 篇 ；78.0% 的审稿人认为
审稿周期为 2 周合适 ；35.4% 的审稿人希望每周收到一次编辑部的审稿提醒 ；63.1% 的审稿人认
可编辑部通过电子邮件方式与他们联系 ；27.6% 的审稿人认为国庆等法定节假日不适合审稿 ；四
成审稿人对审稿费不是十分在意。建议通过采取多种措施遴选合适审稿人、做好稿件送审及提醒
工作、优化审稿报酬及奖励制度等措施来提高审稿时效。

关键词:

Abstract:

This paper is to explore the strategies for increasing the effificiency of peer review in
agricultural scientifific journals by understanding the factors. 268 peer reviewers were investigated
by self-designed questionnaires. Of these responders，43.6% are aged between 41 and 50;
89.9% will refuse to review an article when it is inconsistent with their own research direction;
81.3% will timely update the information in the reviewing system according to the changes of their
research direction; most of them review articles from various journals; 70% of peer reviewers
can accept one or two articles every month; 78.0% of the responders consider that 2 weeks is an
appropriate peer review cycle; of these responders，35.4% would like to receive a reminder once
a week; E-mail is accepted by 63.1% of the responders; 27.6% will refuse to review an article in
legal holiday; 40% of the responders don’t pay much attention to the peer review fee. Searching
the reviewers in more ways，improving the quality of invitation and reminder，increasing the peer
review fee and establishing a reasonable incentive mechanism are recommended for increasing
the effificiency of peer review.

Key words:

中图分类号: 

版权所有 © 2019 《出版科学》     鄂ICP备05003330号-1
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发