论文部分内容阅读
1993年9月9日～11日在美国芝加哥举行了由美国医学会主办的“第二届国际生物医学期刊审稿会议”就“审稿和质量控制”、“审稿的方法”、“统计学和审稿”、“科学处理失误和审稿”、“偏见和审稿”、“盲审”等专题进行了热烈讨论。有人研究发现,审稿和编辑修改提高了稿件的质量。有人研究了美国73家杂志审稿方法的差异,讨论了标准的审稿方法,并指出“盲审”(bland peer-review)效果较好。有学者研究了1975～1990年间发表在《柳叶刀》、《美国医学会杂志》和《新英格兰医学杂志》的102篇阴性随机对照试验研究论文,只有33篇报道了统计学方法。代表们强调了审稿人具有统计学知识的必要性。有学者提交了有关不负责任的编辑行为的研究论文。有的编辑和审稿人对作者不负责任、滥用职权,造成了极坏的社会影响。大会还就科学研究中的欺骗行为进行了讨论。有代表提供了支持盲审的资料。会上交流的摘要论题广泛,包括不同杂志的录用率和退稿率、参考文献的质量、剽窃、审稿延误时间等。
From September 9 to September 11, 1993, the second session of the International Biomedical Journals Review Conference sponsored by the American Medical Association was held in Chicago, USA. The review and quality control, Methods “,” Statistics and Reviewing Manuscripts “,” Scientific Processing Errors and Reviewing Manuscripts “,” Prejudice and Reviewership “,” Blind Trial “and other topics were heatedly discussed. Some studies found that reviewers and editors modified to improve the quality of manuscripts. Someone studied the differences in reviewing methods of 73 U.S. magazines, discussed the standard review methods, and pointed out that ”bland peer-review" works better. Some scholars have studied 102 negative RCT papers published in the Lancet, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and the New England Journal of Medicine between 1975 and 1990, and only 33 reported statistical methods. Delegates emphasized the need for reviewers to have statistical knowledge. Some scholars have submitted research papers on irresponsible editorial behavior. Some editors and reviewers are irresponsible to the authors and abuse their powers, resulting in extremely bad social effects. The congress also discussed fraud in scientific research. Representatives provided information to support the blind trial. The summary of the meeting exchanged a wide range of topics, including the recruitment and rejection rate of different magazines, reference quality, plagiarism, reviewing the delay time.