From the editors: external peer review at HSR.
From the editors: external peer review at HSR.
复制标题
来自编辑：HSR 的外部同行评审。
DOI：
10.1111/j.1475-6773.2004.00287.x
复制
发表时间：
2004
影响因子：
3.4
通讯作者：
A. Flood
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
A. Flood
2003年，我们发起了一系列题为“来自编辑”的社论，旨在使我们的政策和程序尽可能透明。到目前为止，我们已经写了我们的特别问题和特别部分，我们向电子同行评审过程的转变，以及做出不同类型编辑决定的速度和时间迄今为止，我们对同行评审过程的看法强调了对作者最重要的信息。在这篇社论中，我们从审稿人的角度审视了我们的审稿过程，并从四个方面进行了探讨：(1)高铁选择外部审稿人的过程，(2)编辑想从审稿人那里知道什么，(3)高铁在我们新的基于互联网的系统中使用审稿的经验，以及(4)审稿如何影响手稿内容的例子。
In 2003, we initiated a series of editorials entitled “From the Editors” that were designed to make our policies and procedures as transparent as possible. To date, we have written about our special issues and special sections, our transformation to an electronic peer review process, and the rates of and time-to-make different types of editorial decisions.1 The perspective on our peer review process taken to date has emphasized information most important to our authors. In this editorial we examine our process from the perspective of the reviewer and address four areas: (1) the HSR process for selecting external reviewers, (2) what editors want to know from reviewers, (3) HSR's experience in using reviews in our new internet-based system, and (4) examples of how reviews can impact the content of manuscripts.
External peer review is integral to the process of evaluating the scientific design and evidence-base and of ensuring the integrity of our field. It helps ensure that published manuscripts have undergone careful and open examination of the theoretical background and models used; that the methods and data sources and findings have withstood critical scrutiny; that the conclusions and implications have been evaluated regarding their importance and validity; and that the manuscript has been judged for its overall worthiness of publication. Key to this effort is a small army of potential reviewers (HSR has about 2500 in its database) and members of the Editorial Board who agree to bear an unusually large load as well as other duties. The official payments for reviewing consist of an annual “thank you” and “thanks to anonymous reviewers” from some grateful authors. The principal reward, however, is simply knowing they have contributed to the process to ensure quality of research. Other incentives include advising some colleagues [although anonymously], the potential to see cutting-edge work before its publication, and receiving feedback from the review process itself. We are indebted to all our reviewers for their time and effort, and this editorial is dedicated to them. And, while we hope that experienced reviewers will find this editorial edifying, it is particularly designed for young investigators and scientists-in-training. We invite you all to join our army.2